Can President Trump Deploy The National Guard To Portland Or Chicago?

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. The issue of deployment will thus have to await a further order of the Seventh Circuit, 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.