Posted on 10/13/2025 4:54:38 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The first nine months of the second Trump administration have seen extraordinary litigation efforts by opponents of the government seeking to block its initiatives of every sort. This page at Lawfare Media tracks some 190 active cases challenging Trump administration actions; and I don’t think that that list of 190 is comprehensive. The cases cover subject matter areas ranging from spending reductions to employee terminations to migrant deportations to regulatory actions, among many others.
Those following these litigations, or some of them, have undoubtedly noticed a pattern whereby a District Court judge, usually in a blue state, enjoins the administration’s action, only to have that injunction stayed by a Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court within a few days or weeks. This pattern has been repeated multiple times in areas including spending reductions and migrant deportations. Although none of the cases has yet reached full merits review at the Supreme Court, nevertheless there is a growing sense of District Court judges going beyond their job of enforcing the law, and instead seeking to supplant legitimate executive authority with their own policy preferences.
The latest series of cases involves the efforts of President Trump to deploy units of the National Guard to Portland and Chicago to support the efforts of ICE in those cities to enforce the federal immigration laws. About two weeks ago, Trump called up units of the Oregon National Guard to be deployed to Portland, citing ongoing demonstrations at an ICE facility there, said to be interfering with the law enforcement actions. According to a report at NPR here, on Saturday (October 4) a federal judge in Oregon, Karen Immergut, issued a TRO blocking the deployment of the National Guard in Portland. Here, from the NPR piece, is an excerpt from Judge Immergut’s ruling:
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
Meanwhile, over in Chicago, a very similar story is playing out. In a suburb called Broadview, site of an ICE facility, protests in recent days have turned violent. A piece in the New York Post on Friday described the protests as “raging,” and the crowd as “unruly” and as “unleash[ing] chaos.” Here is one of several pictures from the Post piece:
President Trump also sought to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, and specifically to Broadview, to support ICE in its law enforcement efforts. On Thursday (October 9) a federal judge in Chicago, April Perry, in a case brought by the State of Illinois and City of Chicago, temporarily blocked that deployment. From the New York Times, October 9:
A federal judge in Illinois issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday evening blocking the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area, days after the president called up soldiers over the Democratic governor’s objection. The judge, April M. Perry, a Biden appointee, said in court that “I have seen no credible evidence that there is a danger of a rebellion in the state of Illinois,” rejecting one of the administration’s stated reasons for the deployment.
Here’s the problem for Judges Immergut and Perry: There is a statute called the Insurrection Act that would appear to explicitly permit Trump to do what he is doing. Here is some of the text of that Act, from 10 USC Section 252:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Note that the statutory text begins with the words “whenever the President considers . . .” — thus committing this determination to the President rather than to the courts. From what I can find, the argument that this determination is non-justiciable because of the statutory language was clearly made by the government’s lawyers to both the Oregon and Illinois judges, to no avail.
And so we are finding the usual pattern as these cases quickly get to the court of appeal on an emergency basis. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard an emergency application in the Oregon case on Thursday October 9. From Politico, October 9:
[A] three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers Oregon and other western states — signaled it was likely to rule in Trump’s favor on his deployment of the guard in Portland. Two members of the 9th Circuit panel — both appointed by Trump during his first term — expressed disagreement with an earlier ruling from a district judge in Oregon who had found Trump’s basis for federalizing 200 of the state’s guard troops to be illegal. Their comments suggested that the panel is likely to lift the earlier ruling while the case continues. The two Trump appointees on the appeals panel emphasized the extraordinary deference courts owe the president on matters related to the use of the military to protect federal property and personnel.
“I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of executing the laws is right or wrong,” one of the Trump appointees, Judge Ryan Nelson, said. Judge Bridget Bade, the other Trump appointee on the panel, also appeared to favor putting a hold on a decision issued Saturday by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut blocking Trump’s use of the Oregon National Guard. Immergut also is a Trump appointee.
Over in Illinois, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today (October 11) issued an unsigned emergency Order staying Judge Perry’s TRO to the extent of allowing Trump to federalize the National Guard, but denying a stay as to “deployment of the National Guard.” So deployment will have to await a further order of that court, or of the Supreme Court.
I frankly can’t see how the injunctions of Judges Immergut and Perry are not going to get completely reversed, whether by the respective Courts of Appeal or by the Supremes. I’m thinking of the Chinese invasion force landing on the beaches of California, and some federal district judge ordering that the President cannot deploy troops to defend the country until a trial is held to determine if the invasion is serious enough to allow him to do that.
Incidentally, I should mention that Oregon Judge Immergut is herself a Trump appointee, although she clearly also got approval of Oregon’s Democratic Senators Merkley and Wyden. Judge Perry is a Biden appointee.
The Supreme Court already told these lower court judges to stop their foolishness. It seems some were not listening.
Manhattan Contrarian ping.
Your spot on with that...
Apparently, District Courts have discovered a bold new interpretation of Article III: “We do what we want.”
In the past, judges used to blush when the Supreme Court reversed them—especially when precedent was crystal clear. But hey, who needs precedent when you’ve got hubris? These days, leftist agitators dressed in judicial robes treat SCOTUS rulings like polite suggestions from a distant cousin. After all, what’s a little judicial embarrassment when you’re busy reinventing the law, especially when it subverts Trump?
I’ve heard some of the rationale for siding against Trump in this and it’s like they don’t know the difference between the Reserves and the National Guard.
In a case of “open rebellion” directed against the feral givernment, that rationale seems like a distinction without a difference. Just a delaying tactic.
JFK federalized (EO 11111) the Alabama National Guard in 1963 to enforce the desegregation of of Univ Alabama. In 1963, LBJ called up the Alabama National Guard because Wallace refused to use available guardsmen to preserve order in his state. Ask a leftist if JFK and LBJ had no authority?
In 1965, LBJ called up ....
If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
The radical left in Congress have clearly stated that they plan to use their power to punish their political enemies. Trump and allies should be acutely aware that retaliation by Dems will be much worse than the lawfare Trump and allies suffered under Biden if the Dems were to win the election and allowed to regain control over the government.
Hopefully , the Democrats threats of retaliation will motivate enough of the base and other to prevent Democrat victories in 26,28.
It would be foolish for Trump and allies to telegraph exactly what the would do if they lost in 28.
However, unlike 2020, if the GOP loses the presidency in 28, there has to be a contingency plan to block the Democrats from taking over. Because if they do, the Democrat opponents WILL be rounded up into camps or disappeared.
A republic if you can keep it, yes. But if that fails the only solution and chance for survival is an authoritarian conservative regime that confers some protection of individual rights.
A new Democrat regime would be intolerable. They’d be like Hamas and never give up power.
“Can President Trump Deploy The National Guard To Portland Or Chicago?”
Not until Congre$$ or the Supreme Clowns of the US get off their asses and finally puts low level judges back in their places and quit letting them usurp the power of the Executive Branch.
The style of the democrats never go unnoticed to the sane.
Stupid headline. “Can he…?”. Of course he can and there is no stopping him should he choose to do so. Should he? Is it constitutional? Will the courts rule against it? These are questions not actions.
> I’ve heard some of the rationale for siding against Trump in this and it’s like they don’t know the difference between the Reserves and the National Guard.<
Also, they argued that these injunctions should only apply to those who brought the case and not 330 million people.
To pile on top of that, applying to everyone one would require the administration to have to win every case while the plaintiffs only have to win one case.
They pointed to Article 3 section 2 to further state the district courts lack jurisdiction for universal injunctions.
“ Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of federal courts, establishing that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, states, and certain other disputes, while having appellate jurisdiction in most other federal cases. It also specifies that the trial of all federal crimes, except impeachments, must be by jury in the state where the crime was committed, as detailed in sections 2 and 3. ”
EC
Thanks. I’m not much for all the legalese but I’ll get there. I believe that you know what you’re talking about. Is it reasonable to assume that they’re not only making up the rules as they go along, they’re tailoring them to suit their agenda(s) whether or not they apply to any other cases?
“. I’m thinking of the Chinese invasion force landing on the beaches of California, and some federal district judge ordering that the President cannot deploy troops to defend the country until a trial is held to determine if the invasion is serious enough to allow him to do that “
I’ve been using this exact analogy on this forum for a long time. And let’s add to the absurdity: if the Chinese invaders are armed, but were not dressed in uniforms, would the “judge” then invoke “their second amendment rights” in denying the President his authority to impede such invasion?
We’ve gone a million miles past where the Judiciary’s power was supposed to end. It has now entered a place where the actual security and existence of the nation is threatened.
And it’s not just the Supremes who should be restraining them. The Congress creates these lower courts which are currently abusing power in a breath taking way. They can start impeaching or at minimum mapping out legally where the line is drawn, even though 10 USC 252 seems crystal clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.