U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut said late Sunday she would continue to block the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Oregon until Friday, Nov. 7 at 5 p.m.
This order is the latest in a month-long legal battle over the president’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon.
Portland protests are “likely not a ‘rebellion’” Throughout the case, attorneys for the Justice Department argued the president followed the statute, which allows the executive branch to call up the National Guard if federal law can’t be carried out, or if there’s a rebellion.
Based on evidence heard during last week’s trial, Immergut indicated the situation in Portland had not met either of those conditions.
The Portland ICE building was closed for several weeks this summer after it was damaged and protesters frequently blocked the facility’s driveway.
U. S. Late Sunday, Judge Karin Immergut of the District Court declared that she would keep preventing the Trump administration from sending the National Guard to Oregon until Friday, November 4. 7 p.m. M.
The temporary restraining order that prevented any National Guard troops under the president’s command from deploying anywhere in Oregon was set to expire in a few hours, so the short-term preliminary injunction, which was issued late Sunday, came at a crucial time.
The judge wrote she’s still in the “process of diligently reviewing all the evidence,” which includes hundreds of exhibits and additional arguments following the three-day trial that ended Friday afternoon.
After Sunday night’s order, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued a statement saying, “This case has always been about ensuring that the facts—not the President’s political whims—guide how the law is applied.”.
Governor of Oregon. Tina Kotek said the state “stands united against this unwanted, unnecessary, unconstitutional military intervention” and referred to the ruling as “another affirmation of our democracy and the right to govern ourselves.”. “.”.
The U.S. and the White House. A. A request for comment was not immediately answered by the Department of Justice.
A month-long legal battle over the president’s plans to send National Guard troops to Oregon has culminated in this order. Trump declared on social media in late September that he would “provide all necessary Troops” to defend Portland, which he said was “under siege” by “domestic terrorists” and “ravaged by war.”. “”.
Although not yet final, Immergut’s decision on Sunday indicates that she is likely to support the states of Oregon and California, as well as the city of Portland, who claim that the president’s troop deployment efforts are illegal and a breach of state sovereignty.
In the trial last week, police officers expressed differing opinions about the risk of continuous demonstrations outside a U.S. S. . The city’s South Waterfront neighborhood is home to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. Portland Police Bureau officials stated in their testimony that after reaching a peak in June, the protests had largely subsided. Federal law enforcement, however, stated that they needed more assistance because they were outnumbered.
The president took control of the Oregon National Guard in the months prior, but Immergut said in her 16-page order that she had “no credible evidence” that protests outside the ICE building “grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel.”.
She also mentioned that a Federal Protective Service leader, who is responsible for protecting federal property, including the ICE building, stated during his trial that he was shocked to hear that the president was sending troops to the building even though he had not asked for it.
There is “probably not a’rebellion'” in Portland.
Throughout the case, Justice Department lawyers contended that the president complied with the statute, which permits the executive branch to summon the National Guard in the event of a rebellion or when federal law cannot be enforced.
According to the evidence presented at the trial last week, Immergut said that neither of those requirements had been fulfilled in Portland.
This summer, protesters regularly blocked the Portland ICE building’s driveway, causing damage that forced the building to close for several weeks.
Trump-appointed Immergut claimed that ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations “was able to temporarily relocate to another facility in Portland for administrative purposes until the building reopened” and that “the evidence also showed that federal law enforcement officers were able to clear the driveway” in spite of the closure. He also said that ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations kept “making arrests in the community.”. “.”.
Related: Despite the 22-day closure of Portland’s ICE facility this summer, immigration arrests and detentions barely decreased.
The judge further ruled that the demonstrations outside the ICE building in Portland did not qualify as a rebellion. Several dictionary definitions were cited by her, along with notable incidents from late 1700s American history, such as the Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, which both saw bloodshed soon after the country was founded.
“When those ideas are combined, a rebellion is defined as an organized group that uses armed conflict to overthrow a government agency through illegal or antidemocratic means,” Immergut wrote.
She stated that the protests in Portland during the time of the National Guard call outs “are likely not a’rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” according to “credible” testimony given by the Portland Police Bureau during the trial. “.”.
Immergut discovered that the majority of the violence outside the Portland ICE building was made up of “infrequent isolated incidents of violent behavior toward federal officers and property damage to a single building.”. “”.
Additionally, Immergut seemed to refute a key claim made by the Trump administration: that “antifa,” which the president recently referred to as a “domestic terrorism organization,” was responsible for the coordinated protests in Portland. “.”.
She went on to say that the Trump administration had not produced proof that “those episodes of violence were perpetrated by an organized group engaged in armed hostilities for the purpose of overtaking an instrumentality of government by unlawful or antidemocratic means.”. ”.
In the Sunday order, Immergut stated that she would render a final decision by Friday. Regardless of the result, an appeal is probably in order.
