Following a three-day trial concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to deploy National Guard members in Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump, indicated she would deliver a ruling by midnight on Sunday. On Friday, Judge Immergut requested both parties to submit written briefs by Sunday afternoon as she deliberates on the case. By Saturday afternoon, both briefs had been filed.
Attorneys representing the city and state are challenging Trump’s plans to send troops, arguing that there is no need for military intervention to enforce the laws and that the president should not use the military to address issues exacerbated by federal agents. The state’s brief highlighted the definition of insurrection and contended that federal law mandates the president to utilize regular troops under his command before resorting to federalizing the National Guard.
Oregon’s argument emphasized existing laws that generally prohibit the deployment of military forces domestically for the enforcement of federal law. They referenced statutes that indicate Congress did not intend for the president to bypass these restrictions by calling up state National Guards to supplement federal law enforcement, suggesting that such action should only occur when civil law has failed.
In response, the Trump administration’s post-trial brief argued for a high level of deference to the president’s judgment on what is necessary to protect federal property and personnel. They also provided a definition of rebellion, citing Black’s Law Dictionary, which states it includes “open resistance or opposition to an authority,” and argued that the plaintiffs’ definition is overly restrictive, asserting that historical precedents show that the National Guard can be called upon for less than civil war scenarios.
The administration further maintained that throughout U.S. history, the terms for regular troops have often encompassed militias and the National Guard. They contended that the State of Oregon lacks standing in this case, arguing that it is speculative to claim that federalizing 200 Oregon National Guardsmen would cause harm, asserting that there is no injury to Oregon or California in deploying already federalized troops to secure federal buildings.
