9th Circuit rules that National Guard can deploy to Portland : NPR

A divided federal 9th ​​Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned the temporary restraining order. put in place by a federal judge in Portland, clearing a legal obstacle that prevented the Trump administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

“After reviewing the record at the preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” the majority wrote in its decision.

It is unclear what impact the decision will have on the ground. The 9th Circuit's decision applies to only one of two temporary restraining orders that U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued this month blocking the rollout.

“Right now, until the district court rules on the second TRO, National Guard members from Oregon or any other state cannot deploy,” Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said in a statement.

The decision comes after Trump's series of approvals for the deployment of National Guard troops in American cities, including Los Angeles, Washington (D.C.) and Chicago. President Trump stated that deployments required to protect the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and reduce crime.

October 16 Federal Court of Appeal supported an earlier district court decision in Illinois, temporary blocking federalization of the presidency and deployment of the National Guard there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court intervene.

Trump called the National Guard to Portland last month

Trump administration federalized 200 members Oregon National Guard on Sept. 28 after the president described Portland on social media as “devastated by war” and “under siege from attacks by Antifa and other domestic terrorists.”

This the characteristic is incorrectaccording to local and state officials, residents and journalists on the ground. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek told NPR Oct. 6 that the president's portrayal was “ridiculous.”

“Thousands of people took to the streets of Portland for the Portland Marathon,” she said. “The city is beautiful. The city is thriving.”

The federal government has argued in court papers that the National Guard is needed to protect the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, which has been the site of protests since June. They wrote that protesters attacked federal officers “with rocks, bricks, pepper spray and incendiary devices, causing bodily harm.”

In their court filings, attorneys for the city of Portland and the state of Oregon wrote that protests for months have been small and largely peaceful.

In a statement submitted to the court, Craig Dobson, assistant chief of the Portland Police Bureau (PPB), said the protests never got so out of control that local officers were unable to respond.

“In fact, on any given weekend,” he said, “nightlife in Portland’s entertainment district requires more resources from PPB than small nightly protests in front of the ICE building.”

However, the federal government claims that the situation has become calmer because 115 federal police officers They were sent to Portland this summer to help secure an ICE building. It says some of those federal officers have since been sent back. And while it's unclear how many remain, the federal government says housing them requires resources.

In response, Oregon attorneys said such deployments were a normal part of federal police duties.

A lower court blocked the placement

October 4 Immergut, US District Judge, provided to the city and state A temporary restraining order preventing the federal government from deploying the National Guard to Portland.

The President can federalize members of the National Guard in the event of foreign invasion, insurrection or danger thereof, or in the event of failure to carry out federal laws by “regular forces.”

Immergut wrote that the Trump administration had no legal basis to federalize the National Guard because protests in Portland since June had been “generally peaceful” and did not interfere with federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs.

She wrote that the Trump administration described only a few incidents of protesters clashing with federal officers in September before federalizing the National Guard. They involved people shining high-powered flashlights into drivers' eyes, “posting a photo of an unmarked combustion engine vehicle online,” and “setting up a makeshift guillotine to intimidate federal officials.”

“These incidents are inexcusable,” Immergut wrote, “but they are nowhere near the level of incidents that conventional law enforcement cannot handle.”

The next day, despite her decision, Trump sent 200 federal members of the California National Guard to Oregon. The Department of Defense memorandum also authorized up to 400 members of the Texas National Guard expand to Portland and Chicago.

Immergut then issued a second order prohibiting the Trump administration from sending any federal National Guard members to Oregon.

In his appeal to the 9th CircuitIn court papers, the Trump administration said the lower court judge “impermissibly questioned the commander in chief's military decisions.”

October 6 White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt said at a press briefing: “With all due respect to this judge, I believe that her opinion is not tied to either reality or the law.” She went on to say that the president was using his authority as commander in chief.

The appeals court sided with the president

The majority opinion for the 9th Circuit was written by Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, who were both appointed during Trump's first term.

They wrote that the District Court erred when it did not take into account “violent and destructive events that occurred in June, July and August” outside the ICE facility and focused “on only a few events in September,” the month Trump federalized the National Guard.

The law, they argued, places no such restrictions on the facts and circumstances that a president might consider in deciding whether to deploy the National Guard.

“The President can and must consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether he is unable, through the regular forces, to execute the laws of the United States,” they wrote.

“Rather than give greater deference to the President’s decision,” the panel wrote, “the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances.”

Appeals Court Judge Susan Graber, appointed by President Bill Clinton, dissented, writing that there was no justification for federalizing and deploying the Oregon National Guard.

“Given the known propensity of Portland protesters to wear chicken suits, inflatable frog suits, or say nothing at all when expressing their opposition to the methods used by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority decision that accepts the characterization of Portland as a war zone as simply absurd,” Graber wrote.

White House officials on Monday praised the court's decision, saying it confirmed the lower court's decision “was illegal and wrong.”

“As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his legal authority to protect federal property and personnel in the wake of violent unrest that local leaders refused to address,” White House press secretary Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield also responded to Monday's decision with a statement: “Today's decision, if upheld, will give the President the unilateral authority to put Oregon State Troopers on our streets with little to no justification,” he wrote. “We are on a dangerous path in America.”

Clarification: An earlier version of this story said the 9th Circuit's decision cleared a “legal hurdle” to Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, implying it was a one-off. Although the court suspended one temporary restraining order, a second order was still in effect at the time of publication, so the immediate impact of this decision is unclear.