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.
Posted on 11/08/2025 1:49:58 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
A federal judge Friday issued a permanent injunction barring President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops from any state to Oregon, finding the president exceeded his authority.
“Even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard,” U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut ruled in a 106-page opinion.
Immergut’s injunction follows a three-day trial she held last week and a brief, preliminary order she issued on Monday.
Friday’s injunction offers a much more detailed examination of the law and conditions in Portland leading up to Trump’s Sept. 27 authorization of Guard members to protect the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the South Waterfront neighborhood amid nightly protests.
She found that Trump failed to meet the two criteria he used to invoke federal code to mobilize the National Guard: there was no danger of a rebellion against U.S. government authority, Immergut ruled, and officers have not been thwarted from executing federal law.
While violent protests did occur in June, they “quickly abated” due to the efforts of law enforcement officers and have remained predominantly peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of “relatively low-level” violence," largely between protesters and counter-protesters, the judge wrote.
She also found that general federal agency staffing problems are “minimally impeding” ICE’s enforcement of immigration law.
Immergut, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump during his first term and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in July 2019, made clear that her ruling does not mean the president can never deploy the National Guard to Oregon or any other location “if conditions on the ground justify the Guard’s intervention.”
She also said she expects a higher court...
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Another “Judge” suffering from Boasbergers Syndrome.
her
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.
Still ZERO impeached judges.
Guess Trump needs to deputize more” federal marshals” to secure federal facilities
Guessing the judge does not work in a facility besieged by lunatics
...to smash her like ze bug.
Zero SWAT raided judges shackled naked in the street in front of their home for the duration of morning rush hour. From the DemocRATs, it seems this is the new normal.
What part of “Commander in Chief” does this Dipwad not understand? Oh, right. The Constitution.
Rogue judges are destroying the country.
Let Portland collapse. That’s what the lefty maniacs want.
‘Exceeded his authority’: Judge issues injunction blocking Trump from sending National Guard to Oregon
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Here is the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 (1.8.15) which gives the federal government the specific power to deal with insurrection.
Article I, Section 8' Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia [all emphases added] to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Given Justice Joseph Story's understanding that 1.8.15 reasonably gives the president the power to use militia from another state to help stop insurrection-related violence, there are doubts about the judge's "insight" imo.
§ 1196. The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services to enforce the laws, and to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, is a natural incident to the duty of superintending the common defence, and preserving the internal peace of the nation. In short, every argument, which is urged, or can be urged against standing armies in time of peace, applies forcibly to the propriety of vesting this power in the national government. There is but one of two alternatives, which can be resorted to in cases of insurrection, invasion, or violent opposition to the laws; either to employ regular troops, or to employ the militia to suppress them. In ordinary cases, indeed, the resistance to the laws may be put down by the posse comitatus, or the assistance of the common magistracy. But cases may occur, in which such a resort would be utterly vain, and even mischievous; since it might encourage the factious to more rash measures, and prevent the application of a force, which would at once destroy the hopes, and crush the efforts of the disaffected. The general power of the government to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers, would doubtless authorize laws to call forth the posse comitatus, and employ the common magistracy, in cases, where such measures would suit the emergency. But if the militia could not be called in aid, it would be absolutely indispensable to the common safety to keep up a strong regular force in time of peace. The latter would certainly not be desirable, or economical; and therefore this power over the militia is highly salutary to the public repose, and at the same time an additional security to the public liberty. In times of insurrection or invasion, it would be natural and proper, that the militia of a neighbouring state should be marched into another to resist a common enemy, or guard the republic against the violence of a domestic faction or sedition [emphasis added]. But it is scarcely possible, that in the exercise of the power the militia should ever be called to march great distances, since it would be at once the most expensive and the most inconvenient force, which the government could employ for distant expeditions. The regulation of the whole subject is always to be in the power of congress; and it may from time to time be moulded so, as to escape from all dangerous abuses. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1195--97
Note that Story indicated that 1.8.15 not only justifies the action of using the militia of a neighboring state to protect the state having the alleged insurrection-related violence, but also justifies using neighboring state's militia to help stop such violence from spreading to other states.
If cities like Portland and Chicago want high crime rates, they should be allowed to enjoy high crime rates. They vote for the Democrats.
The difference between God and a judge, God doesn’t think he’s a judge!
The judges continue to destroy everything Pres. Trump tries to enact and Congre$$ continues to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
SCOTUS or the appellate court (Ninth Circuit, IIRC?) will very likely rule in Pres. Trump’s favor. But what’s going to happen when this District Judge or another one defies that ruling, which is also very likely? When does the nonsense get stopped? Not just for a week or two, but STOPPED?
Party at Bird-man’s place at that time!
Becoming inclined to agree - the locals are electing leadership to oppose efforts to clean up their cities and communities.
There are states with cities that would love to have the NG come in so perhaps the focus should be entirely shifted there.
This nonsense needs to stop. The President needs to be able to deploy troops without endless court actions.
I can hardly stand news any more. Insurrectionist judges are too much. Actually a non-functioning judicial system is one legitimate reason to invoke the Insurrection Act, let me check.
https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf
Insurrection Act
Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
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.
During the debates in the press leading up to the ratification of our Constitution a number of Authors worried that the judisuary through their decision would usurpt the powers of the legislature and executive and make themselves an unremovable dictitorial jaunta.
Now, here we are.
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.