PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An appeals court on Monday put on hold a lower court ruling that kept President Donald Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. However, Trump is still barred from actually deploying those troops, at least for now.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month, one prohibiting Trump from calling up the troops to send them to Portland and another barring any National Guard member deployments to Oregon after Trump attempted to circumvent the first order by deploying California troops instead.
The Justice Department appealed the first order, and in a 2-1 ruling Monday, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the administration. The majority determined that the president is likely to succeed in his claim of authority to federalize troops based on his determination that he could not enforce laws without them.
Despite this, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, meaning immediate deployment of troops cannot proceed.
The administration indicated it will ask Immergut to dissolve her second order to allow for troop deployment in Portland, emphasizing that the courts should not intervene in matters of military deployment as determined by the president.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, criticized the court's ruling, stating it poses a risk of giving the president unilateral authority to place Oregon soldiers on the streets with minimal justification. He expressed intentions to seek a comprehensive review from a broader appeals panel.
Trump's prior efforts to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities have faced legal challenges. In California, a judge ruled against the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, citing the Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits military involvement in civilian policing. The administration also petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court regarding troop deployment in the Chicago area.
Currently, protests have been occurring in Portland, which the administration argues require federal troops to protect property. Critics, including Immergut, have previously dismissed claims of violence as unfounded.
As the legal battles continue, the full implications of troop deployment under the current administration's directives will be closely scrutinized.
