A federal judge has stepped in to prevent President Trump from deploying California's National Guard, or any other Guard troops, in Oregon. This bold move comes after California Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to take legal action against Trump's decision to send 300 of the state's National Guard troops to Oregon.
The judge's ruling is a significant victory for the rule of law and American democracy, as Newsom put it. Trump's attempt to use military force as a political tool has been firmly rejected.
But here's where it gets controversial...
The judge's decision on Sunday evening was not the first time Trump's administration faced legal challenges over the deployment of National Guard troops. Just a day earlier, the same judge had temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon's National Guard.
Oregon's Attorney General, Dan Rayfield, emphasized that the president's actions were not just unlawful, but a blatant attempt to work around the judge's order.
"What was unlawful yesterday is unlawful today," Rayfield said.
The original court order, sought by California and Oregon, named only the California National Guard. However, after a memo revealed that Texas National Guard personnel were also being activated for deployment to Oregon and possibly other states, the states requested the order be expanded to cover any Guard troops.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott authorized the use of his state's National Guard, stating that it was to ensure the safety of federal officials. He made it clear that if local authorities couldn't provide adequate protection, the Texas Guard would step in.
In her ruling, Judge Karin Immergut questioned the federal government's attorney, highlighting that the deployment of troops from California and Texas to Oregon appeared to be a direct circumvention of her previous order.
Constitutional law experts agreed, describing the move as an obvious attempt by the president to sidestep the judge's ruling.
"This is a blatant attempt to circumvent Judge Immergut's order," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, added that such an action is without precedent.
"I cannot think of a historic analog where we have the president sending federalized National Guard troops from one state to another against the will of local elected officials," she said.
Trump's use of the military in cities like Chicago and Washington has sparked outrage among Democratic officials, who argue that these interventions are unnecessary and lack legal justification.
Trump, however, maintains that these deployments are necessary to combat crime. Local leaders, including those in Portland, disagree, stating that the actions are unwarranted.
The federal jurist who issued the ruling in Oregon, Judge Immergut, was appointed by Trump during his first term. This adds an interesting layer to the controversy, as some may question whether political loyalties played a role in the decision-making process.
In June, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump's mobilization of the state's National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. This lawsuit is still ongoing, with Trump's administration appealing the ruling that his use of National Guard soldiers and Marines in L.A. was illegal.
The White House spokesperson, Abigail Jackson, defended Trump's actions, stating that he was exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.
Jackson also took a swipe at Newsom, referring to him by a crude nickname and suggesting he should stand with law-abiding citizens instead of violent criminals.
Portland has become a new focus for Trump's administration, with regular protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in recent weeks. However, these demonstrations have been relatively small and less disruptive compared to protests in the summer of 2020.
Judge Immergut's ruling on Saturday highlighted that the scale of recent demonstrations did not justify the use of federalized forces and that deploying them could infringe upon Oregon's sovereignty.
Goitein emphasized that the conditions outlined in the judge's order had not been met by the Trump administration, making their actions illegal under her opinion.
Trump appealed the judge's ruling late on Saturday, but the temporary restraining order issued on Sunday night has put a halt to his plans for the time being.
The tension between Trump and Newsom has been escalating in recent days. Newsom has been vocal in his criticism of Trump's higher education compact, which demands conservative policy shifts on campuses in exchange for priority federal funding.
"We are losing this country," Newsom said, emphasizing the need to pressure test the current state of U.S. history.
The battle between the executive and judicial branches of government continues, with the rule of law at the heart of the controversy. As the situation unfolds, one can't help but wonder: Where do you stand on this issue? Do you agree with Trump's use of military force in cities, or do you side with the judges and local leaders who argue for a more restrained approach? The floor is open for discussion.
