An appeals court in Oregon recently issued a ruling regarding President Donald Trump’s command of the Oregon National Guard. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to temporarily block a lower court’s decision that had prevented Trump from taking command of 200 troops. However, the court simultaneously upheld a ban on deploying these troops.
Court Ruling Details
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had previously placed two temporary restraining orders. The first restricted Trump’s ability to call up the National Guard, while the second barred any deployment of troops to Oregon. Both orders were issued after the president attempted to bypass the first by deploying California troops instead.
- Judge: Karin Immergut
- Appeals Court: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- President: Donald Trump
- Troops Affected: 200 Oregon National Guard members
Legal Implications and Reactions
The Justice Department has appealed Judge Immergut’s first order. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court indicated Trump was likely to prevail in asserting his authority over the National Guard based on his determination that enforcement of laws required military support.
Despite the court’s decision on the first restraining order, it maintained the second order, preventing any troop deployment for now. The Justice Department has urged the court to lift this ban, claiming it is unconstitutional for courts to challenge presidential decisions on troop deployment.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield opposed this shift of authority. He stated that allowing Trump to deploy troops would enable significant unilateral power over state actions with little justification. He has indicated plans to seek a review from a larger panel of judges on the appeals court.
Ongoing Challenges in Deployment
President Trump has faced multiple legal challenges regarding the deployment of National Guard troops in cities led by Democratic mayors. Recently, a California judge ruled his actions there violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement. On another front, the administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to approve troop deployments in Chicago.
In Portland, protests have persisted since June, primarily outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. While these protests have generally been small and non-disruptive, federal agents have resorted to using tear gas to manage crowds at times.
Conclusion
The legal and political implications of the 9th Circuit’s ruling raise important questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities. As the situation unfolds, the potential for deployment of National Guard troops in Oregon remains constrained, highlighting the ongoing tensions regarding law enforcement and military engagement in civilian matters.
