Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, said in a statement he would seek to have the full 9th Circuit weigh in on the case in hopes it would overturn the three-judge panel.
“Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification. We are on a dangerous path in America,” he said.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson lauded the ruling.
“As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address. This ruling reaffirms that the lower court’s ruling was unlawful and incorrect,” Jackson said in a statement.
Immergut, the lower court judge, had found that while some protests turned violent in June, federal and state law enforcement agencies now seem to have the situation well in hand[1].
“On September 26, the eve of the President’s directive, law enforcement ‘observed approximately 8-15 people at any given time out front of ICE. Mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around. Energy was low, minimal activity,’” her order said.
At a hearing before the 9th Circuit this month, Eric McArthur, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued the mobilization was necessary. He said that federal officials were repeatedly forced to call in backup to combat chaos outside the immigration processing facility and that protesters blocked cars, spit on authorities and in one instance lit a fire outside the facility.
“These are violent people,” McArthur told the panel.
The Trump-appointed judges indicated during the hearing that they believed the state and the lower court judge were not showing enough deference to the president’s decision-making.
“It just seems a little counterintuitive to me that the City of Portland can come in and say no, you need to do it differently,” Nelson said then.
The 9th Circuit blocked a similar restraining order this year involving National Guard troops in Los Angeles[2], finding that the president’s judgment about whether troops are needed should get “a great level of deference.”
Immergut referred to the California decision in her ruling but added that “’a great level of deference’ is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground.”
The appeals court ruling gives the green light only to Oregon National Guard troops’ being deployed. Immergut had issued a separate restraining order barring National Guard troops from other states from being sent into Portland, which the Trump administration has yet to appeal.
The majority decision Monday said that order would meet the same fate because Immergut used the same legal reasoning.
A federal judge in Chicago this month issued a temporary restraining order[3] barring National Guard troops from being deployed there. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed that order to temporarily remain in effect while the administration’s appeal proceeds.
The administration appealed that ruling[4] Friday to the Supreme Court.
Gabe Gutierrez contributed.
References
- ^ well in hand (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ National Guard troops in Los Angeles (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ temporary restraining order (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ appealed that ruling (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ Dareh Gregorian (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ Gary Grumbach (www.nbcnews.com)