Federal judges in Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C., on Friday examined legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard forces to U.S. cities.
The proceedings highlight growing scrutiny of Trump’s rare decision to use the military for domestic purposes and his push to expand such actions further.
In Portland, Justice Department lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut to lift the second of her two orders restricting Trump’s attempts to send troops to the city. This week, an appeals court ruled the president likely has the authority to do so.
In Washington, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb heard a challenge to Trump’s deployment of about 2,500 National Guard troops to the nation’s capital. The local government argues the Guard has improperly been serving as a “federally run police force.”
Troops Are Barred
Neither judge immediately issued a ruling, meaning the status quo remains intact in both cases: troops are barred from deploying to Portland, and remain on the ground in D.C. In Oregon, Immergut said she would decide by Monday.
Trump has sought to deploy National Guard troops to cities run by Democratic officials, saying they are needed to protect immigration enforcement operations, suppress protests, and fight crime over the objections of local elected leaders.
Troops are on the ground in Los Angeles as well as D.C., and Trump has announced plans to send them to other cities, including Chicago.
States and cities have filed lawsuits to block the deployments, arguing they are based on exaggerated descriptions of crime and chaos. Courts have yet to issue final rulings on whether the actions are lawful.
Immergut on October 4 blocked Trump from taking control of Oregon’s National Guard and sending troops to Portland.
The next day, after Trump attempted to circumvent that order by sending troops from California and Texas to Portland, the judge barred deployment of troops from any state, including Oregon.
‘Merits’ Of Troop Deployment
Both orders were preliminary and based on the judge’s initial assessment that there was no evidence that protests in Portland seriously interfered with federal law enforcement. Immergut has scheduled a trial next week on the merits of troop deployment.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week paused Immergut’s October 4 order while the court battle plays out. But troops have not yet deployed to Portland because the October 5 order remains in effect.
Jacob Roth, a Justice Department lawyer, asked Immergut to lift her October 5 order in light of the 9th Circuit panel’s ruling, despite the state’s request for a larger panel of appellate judges to review the case.
“The prospect of further review does not deprive them of their weight in the meantime,” Roth said.
If Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, agrees, the administration could move forward with the deployment.
Trump’s Action Violates Laws
State and local officials say Trump’s action violates several federal laws that govern the use of military forces as well as the states’ rights under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment.
Oregon has argued the three-judge 9th Circuit panel, which included two Trump-appointed judges, got it wrong. The state’s lawyer Scott Kennedy asked Immergut to maintain the status quo ahead of next week’s trial.
“There is at least good reason to pause and await finality,” Kennedy said.
The case before Cobb in Washington hinges in part on how to interpret the Home Rule Act, a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973 that gave Washington residents more control over the city’s affairs and the ability to elect a mayor and city council.
The president has more power over law enforcement in Washington than in the rest of the country, because of the city’s unique status as a federal district that is not part of any state. Trump said he was deploying the guard to fight crime, though city police say crime had been falling before the deployment.
A lawyer for the city said at Friday’s hearing that the deployment has made residents fearful of going about their daily lives or reporting crimes to police lest they encounter armed troops.
A Justice Department lawyer called the city’s lawsuit a “political stunt” and dismissed the District’s claims about declining public trust as speculative.
(With inputs from Reuters)
