By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to President Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a federal lawsuit on Sunday seeking to block the move. The lawsuit, filed in the name of the State of Oregon and City of Portland, argues that the deployment infringes on state and local sovereignty and violates federal law. The state and city maintain that the use of troops is unwarranted, especially given the limited size of recent protests, and they believe that the troops will escalate tensions and disrupt local law enforcement’s ability to manage the situation. The state will be seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent troop arrival.
Read the original article here
Oregon sues to block Trump from deploying troops to Portland. This situation really highlights the complexities and tensions surrounding the use of federal forces within the United States. The core issue, as I understand it, boils down to the legality of the President sending National Guard troops into a state without the Governor’s consent.
At the heart of the matter is the question: Is it legal for Trump to deploy the National Guard to Portland without the governor’s approval? There are legal nuances to consider. The standard rule, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the use of the federal military for domestic law enforcement. However, the Insurrection Act of 1807 offers a significant exception. This law grants the President unilateral power to deploy active-duty troops if a disturbance makes it “impracticable to enforce the laws.” This means the President could potentially invoke the Insurrection Act.
The key to understanding the legal debate is determining whether the situation in Portland meets the threshold required to invoke the Insurrection Act. This is where the legal battle will likely be focused, on determining whether the conditions justify the use of federal troops. The federal government would need to demonstrate that local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to uphold the law.
This is where things get a bit tricky. Some argue the administration’s actions are a power grab, aiming to provoke protests to justify invoking the Insurrection Act and broaden military use. It’s a concern among many. Also, there are questions about the extent of the National Guard’s involvement if deployed. While they are not supposed to perform law enforcement duties, the President could federalize them and deploy them with potentially limited authority. It is possible that the most they can do is protect federal buildings.
There are definitely legal precedents to consider. The use of the National Guard in Los Angeles, for example, was initially determined to be illegal by a district judge, although this decision has since been contested in an appellate court.
The situation raises broader concerns about the balance of power. The ability of a president to unilaterally deploy troops into a state, particularly when the governor objects, is a serious issue. It underscores the importance of checks and balances and the role of state governments in protecting their citizens. It is important to remember the standard rule forbidding using the federal military for domestic law enforcement. However, the Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the President the unilateral power to deploy active-duty troops if a disturbance makes it “impracticable to enforce the laws.”
The legal battle is not about the PCA but whether the situation meets the statutory threshold for invoking the Insurrection Act. This raises questions about whether this threshold has been met in Portland. Without any real facts, this seems unlikely to be true.
The Supreme Court’s potential role adds another layer of complexity. Some people are worried, given the current composition of the court. It is important to remember, however, that the Supreme Court isn’t always predictable. Their decisions can be influenced by various factors, not just political affiliations.
The case underscores the importance of active resistance to potentially illegal actions. Refusing and resisting actions, rather than merely allowing them to happen and then suing after the fact, is important. It is important to realize that the President doesn’t have the authority to use the National Guard against each state without proper consent. It’s a crucial principle to defend.