The instruction of President Donald Trump to deliver the troops of the National Guard on the ground in many cities of the United States created a rapidly increasing situation that creates a new test for democracy and the division of powers.
The judge of the US district district Karin Immort, appointed by Trump, decided on Saturday that the Trump administration could not capture the Navigon National Guard to deploy them on Portland's streets. When the administration tried to get around this board a few hours later, calling the troops of the National Guard of California instead, Judge Immort quickly closed this, saying that this step was “in direct violation” of its earlier decision.
Events left the president and his team are apoplectic.
Why did we write this
Since President Donald Trump seeks to deploy the National Guard in the cities of democratic cities, the battle is aggravated for the use of troops to support the suppression of illegal immigration – checking the balance of forces between the executive and judicial branch.
The deputy chief of staff of the White House Stephen Miller blew up the first decision as a “legal uprising” and went even further after the second. “The judge of the district court is not able to limit the president and the commander in chief of the US military to be sent to protect federal life and property”, he declared on xCalling the decision “one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of the constitutional order that we saw when we saw.”
This is not the only battle that takes place on the streets – and the courtroom – a large American city. Illinois and Chicago filed their own lawsuit on Monday, trying to block the Trump administration from the deployment of the Texas and Illina troops of the National Guard in their state, calling the step “clearly illegal”. The federal judge refused to immediately block the deployment, but told the administration to “decisively think about a pause” until the hearing was scheduled for Thursday.
These courts of struggle, along with increasingly hot rhetoric, note the last escalation in the efforts of Mr. Trump to normalize the use of the US military in internal conditions, exerting pressure both to the judiciary and the resistive states headed by democrats.
The administration takes actions previously invisible in American cities, demanding an emergency in connection with unauthorized immigration and public safety, sending waves of federal agents and citing the need to protect them from local protesters. The movements caused confrontation with the courts.
Gerard Maglikoka, the historian of the Supreme Court and the constitutional scientist at the Law School of the University of Indiana, says that the current level of conflict between the president and the judicial power is “unprecedented in peacetime” in the history of the United States.
According to Professor Magliokka, the reason why many of the steps of the Trump administration were suspended by judges with a low court content, is that many of them have practically no historical or legal precedent. Judges want to suspend these actions, since they consider their legal advantages, he says.
Further escalation can be around the corner.
President Trump has falsely stated on Sunday that Portland was “burning on earth”, and that the “reducing agents” is a term that he has repeatedly used in recent days was behind it.
The Law on the 1807 uprising allows the President to federals of the National Guard and nationally deploy the American military, but only in specific circumstances, including an uprising and an armed uprising. Thus, this term “uprising” has a specific legal connotation. When he was asked on Monday, whether he plans to call a law on an uprising, President Trump said he would consider this.
“I would have done this if it were necessary. So far it was not necessary. But we have an act of uprising for reason, ”he said. “If people were killed, if the courts held us, or governors or mayors held us, of course, I would have done it.”
Democrats are worried that it was a plan all the time.
“This escalation of violence is purposeful, intentional and intentional. The Trump administration follows plays: to give chaos, create fear and confusion, make yourself seeming peaceful protesters – this is a crowd, launching gas pellets and cans of tear gases, ”said on Monday to a press conference. “Why? To create a pretext for calling a law on an uprising so that he can send military troops to our city. ”
The allies of Mr. Trump in the legal community say that judges with a low court have repeatedly overestimated their power to comply with the president. Temporary prohibitive orders are only their last disappointment.
“The problem is that the judges are issuing judgments,” says Josh Blackman, professor of the Law College of South Texas Houston and senior editor of the Heritage of the Heritage of the Constitution.
In Portland, “the court simply does not trust the Trump administration. The administration said they needed it [deployment] From the protests in the ice factory in Oregon, ”he says. “The protection of federal institutions should not need the permission of the judge.”
Aziz Hook, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and a member of the Board of the Illino Branch of the American Union of Civil Freedoms, do not agree. The law “requires conscientiousness” to prove that the conditions are fulfilled to declare an emergency, he says.
“Just claiming that something is so, when it is clear that this is not so [not] Significant compliance with the law, ”he says. Otherwise, “the White House or the Government could say:” Everything that, in our opinion, is an uprising is an uprising. ” “”.
While Mr. Trump repeatedly faced a rollback from the judges of the lower court, the US Supreme Court, in which the 6-3 conservative majority, including three judges that he appointed, was still more amenable to his approach.
The court did Numerous orders of the “shadow list” Over the past year, which have changed the solutions with a lower court. This allowed the wide deportation of the Trump administration to continue without hindrance, including the resolution of racial profiling at ice stops and the continuation of mass deportation in countries other than where the immigrants came from.
This allowed Mr. Trump to dismiss the results of federal employees, including in some parts of the executive branch, previously considered independent institutions, and canceled almost a centuries-old precedent that limits the presidential power. And he forbade judges with a lower court to release universal judicial prohibitions that previously blocked the presidents of both parties to take actions throughout the country until it was determined whether these actions were legal.
The Supreme Court began its new term on Monday, with significant topics, including attempts by the Trump administration to commit citizenship by law, a legal precedent that existed in the United States for more than a century.
Cases of Portland and Chicago can also find their way to the court on an emergency.
“These cases will invariably be fried in the Supreme Court, and they will be rubber blows, which the president does,” predicts Marjori Kon, an honorary professor at the School of Law Faculty of Thomas Jefferson in San Diego and the former president of the National Legal Guild.
Professor Kon says that the constitutional order is still valid, but he becomes weaker under the pressure of the Trump administration. “The division of forces is still used, although the line becomes weaker between the three branches,” she warns.
Democratic leaders of cities and states aimed at the Trump administration sound alarm.
The Governor of the state Oregon Tina Kotek called the actions of President Trump “an attempt to occupy and light cities and states that do not share his policy.” California governor Gavin News warned in Fasting on X This “America is on the verge of martial law.”
“Donald Trump uses our troops as political details and as pawns in their illegal efforts to militarize the cities of our country,” Governor Pritzker said on Monday during the day, when several hundred guards from Texas are ready to fly to Chicago, calling him “unconstitutional invading Illinois by the federal government”.
The deployment in Chicago follows the weeks of the presence of heavy ice and conflicting tactics throughout the city, including in the middle of the night on the raid of a residential building, in which the agents reportedly tied and detained dozens of US citizens, including children. The Ministry of Internal Security of the Christie Nuem Ministry of Internal Affairs later raised this raid With glossy videos The marked comment “Chicago, we are here for you.”
ICE agents have also repeatedly encountered protesters outside the object in the suburbs of Chicago Broadwal, with injuries reported by members of the clergy, politicians and journalists. At the weekend, federal agents said that they made “protective shots” who injured a woman after they were pulled out and sent to the supply of vehicles, According to DHSThe lawyer of the woman who was shot He said in court that these were federal agents who rammed it. On Monday, the coalition of journalists Judging Ice and DHS for using excessive power against them.
In Portland, recent confrontations between protesting and federal law enforcement agencies seem more oral than physical bodies. Since June, the demonstrations hesitated in size from the ice office in Portland, where the officers from time to time shot in the crowd with stimuli, such as balls with the scatter of pepper.
In the trial, the Ministry of Justice claimed that the protesters attacked federal law enforcement agencies with “cliffs, bricks, pepper spray and incendiary devices” at the facility and prevented the entry and exit to the vehicles. Portland police bureau claims what has done 36 arrests In this area “since the beginning of night protests” four months ago. The activity seems limited, more or less, for one city quarter.
Full -time writers Sarah Matusek in Portland, Oregon, and Simon Montlak in Boston contributed to this report.
