Federal Judge Halts Deployment of California National Guard to Portland

In a significant legal decision, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut temporarily blocked the administration’s order to deploy California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. This move by President Trump sought to quell ongoing protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Portland, but it faced immediate judicial scrutiny.

Legal Standoff: Authority vs. Civil Rights

The directive from the Pentagon for 200 National Guard members from California, accompanied by additional forces from Texas, was seen as a direct challenge to Judge Immergut’s prior ruling that halted similar deployment from Oregon due to state opposition. The legal battle escalated as both states jointly appealed this decision.

Judge Immergut, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, emphasized the nation’s longstanding tradition against military overreach in civil matters, stating: “This country has a long-established and well-founded resistance to the abuse of power, particularly through military intervention in civilian affairs.” She further asserted that America is governed by constitutional law rather than a state of war.

Political Reactions

The decision sparked reactions across the political spectrum. Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior advisor, labeled the ruling as a “judicial insurrection,” contending that it undermines the authority of the U.S. military commander-in-chief to protect federal property. Meanwhile, President Trump criticized the judiciary for poor advisory on judicial appointments during his first term.

In contrast, Governor Gavin Newsom of California praised the court’s decision, describing attempts to use National Guard members as “tools of political will.” He expressed relief that constitutional governance prevailed over such executive ambitions.

Context and Continuation

This legal decision is part of broader actions where Trump has deployed National Guard troops across various cities amid nationwide protests. From Los Angeles, responding to immigration raids, to Washington D.C. and Memphis for crime control efforts, the use of military force in civil contexts has been a contentious issue.

In Portland, demonstrations have intensified over the past weeks, with more than a hundred people gathering daily at the ICE facility, occasionally clashing with federal officers who have used tear gas and flashbang grenades to disperse crowds. Protests often attract counter-demonstrators supporting Trump’s rhetoric.

As cities like Chicago witness partial troop withdrawals, questions linger about the future of civil-military relations in America. The judiciary’s stance reaffirms its role as a check against potential executive overreach, reflecting an ongoing struggle between authority and civil rights.

Broader Implications

This case highlights critical issues surrounding military deployment within domestic borders, sparking debates on the balance between national security and individual freedoms. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how these tensions will shape future governance and protest responses in the United States.

Original Article Source: Nowy Dziennik