Federal court to review case relating to Trump’s authority to send National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon
A significant legal battle is set to unfold as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided to rehear a case concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. This decision follows a series of restraining orders issued by U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut, who blocked the deployment of California National Guard soldiers and any National Guard troops to the city. The government initially appealed the first restraining order, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit sided with Trump in a narrow 2-1 decision. However, the appeals court has now opted for an en banc review, which will involve a larger panel of 11 judges, effectively vacating the previous ruling.
The context of this case is deeply rooted in the ongoing tensions between federal authority and state sovereignty, particularly as it pertains to the use of military forces in civil affairs. Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, has previously expressed concerns that the deployment of federal troops could infringe upon Oregon’s state rights and exacerbate local tensions. In her filings, she emphasized the nation’s historical resistance to government overreach, stating, “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” As the trial is set to commence, both sides are preparing to present witnesses, including officials from federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Protective Service. This trial arises from a lawsuit filed by the city and state against the Trump administration, asserting that the deployment of troops is unwarranted and politically motivated.
Trump’s administration has a history of threatening or deploying federal troops in various cities, particularly those governed by Democrats, claiming a need to restore order amid civil unrest. The president recently described Portland as “burning down,” a characterization that Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield vehemently disputes. Rayfield argues that the situation in Portland does not warrant military intervention, stating, “Our city is not ravaged, and there is no rebellion.” As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome may have significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state authorities, especially regarding the use of military resources in domestic situations. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to rehear the case reflects the complex legal and political dynamics at play, as both sides prepare for a potentially contentious legal showdown.
Related articles:
– Link 1
– Link 2
A federal court will rehear a case relating to President
Donald Trump
’s authority to send National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.
The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit happened after U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut issued two back-to-back restraining orders blocking Trump from deploying
California National Guard soldiers
to Portland and blocking Trump from deploying any National Guard soldiers to Portland, respectively.
The government
appealed the first order
, and a Ninth Circuit panel decided last week in a 2-1 decision to side with Trump in that matter.
Then on Tuesday, the appeals court decided it would rehear the case over Trump’s authority with a larger panel of 11 judges and vacated the ruling from the three-judge panel that sided with the administration.
TRUMP TEAM URGES OREGON JUDGE TO END RESTRAINING ORDER BLOCKING NATIONAL GUARD
“Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c),” the court said in a short order issued Tuesday.
There is no immediate timetable when the “en banc” court – consisting of a random selection of 11 Ninth Circuit judges – will hear the case.
Immergut, a Trump appointee, will preside over the trial in Portland set to begin Wednesday stemming from a lawsuit filed by the city and state against the Trump administration in a bid to block the troop deployment.
During the trial, witnesses are expected to take the stand for both sides and face cross-examination. The federal defendants will call officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the War Department and the Federal Protective Service, the agency that provides security for federal buildings.
Immergut previously categorized protests in the city as relatively small and said such demonstrations did not justify the use of federalized forces and that the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote in one filing, adding, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
9TH CIRCUIT COURT RULES ON TRUMP’S NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT IN PORTLAND
Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Memphis, Tenn.
“I looked at Portland over the weekend, the place is burning down, just burning down,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last week.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has said, “Portland is not the president’s war-torn fantasy.”
“Our city is not ravaged, and there is no rebellion,” Rayfield also said. “Members of the Oregon National Guard are not a tool for him to use in his political theater.”
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver, Lee Ross and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Eric
Eric is a seasoned journalist covering US Politics news.
