By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction blocking President Trump from deploying the National Guard to Portland. The decision, the fourth time Immergut has blocked the deployment, comes after a trial where the city and states argued the federal government exceeded its authority, despite acknowledging some violence during protests. Immergut concluded the President lacked a lawful basis for federalizing the Guard, noting that the protests had become predominately peaceful. The court also addressed the Trump administration’s misrepresentation of the number of federal officers deployed.
Read the original article here
Federal judge permanently blocks Trump from deploying National Guard to Portland, which is a headline that feels both significant and, well, maybe a little bit… futile? It’s hard to shake the feeling that “permanently” isn’t actually all that permanent in this political climate. We’re talking about a legal battle, a judge’s ruling, and the potential for a whole host of further actions.
The news is a real setback for the Trump administration’s efforts, marking the fourth time this specific judge has stepped in to block the deployment of the National Guard to Portland. That raises an interesting question: does the fourth time feel like the charm? Probably not. It’s a sad reality, but it feels like there’s a strong chance the administration will simply disregard the order, just like so many other rulings before. The pattern is painfully familiar: Judge makes a decision, Trump appeals, and then we wait to see what the Supreme Court decides.
The core issue here is the rule of law and how much it really matters when dealing with an administration that seems willing to test its boundaries. The question of sending the National Guard into a city, for almost any reason, raises concerns. There’s a real worry about using federal forces to police American citizens and the potential for escalating tensions. The fact that Trump wanted to do the opposite of what the National Guard did for LBJ is really telling. It’s not about protection; it’s about inciting violence and intimidation.
It is disheartening that these types of events continue to happen. How can a judge’s ruling “permanently” stop anything in this situation? The response to the ruling is essentially a well-trodden path. It is often the case that the decision is immediately appealed, and we’re left waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in. It’s almost an expectation that they will ignore the ruling of the lower court.
This isn’t just about one incident in Portland. It’s a symptom of a larger problem: an administration that seems to believe it’s above the law. It’s a situation where the guardrails of democracy are constantly being tested and sometimes, it feels like they’re being ignored altogether. It’s truly a disgrace that it has reached this point.
The concern over this situation is a constant in American society, that things will go this way forever. Even the DOJ has admitted that the NG was sent in the past despite previous orders. The judge can’t stand guard at the gates and prevent the violation of the order. What’s even more frustrating is the language surrounding this. “Permanently” is a strong word, and it’s hard to believe in the permanence of anything right now.
The question of whether this will actually stop Trump is, of course, a valid one. History gives us a pretty clear answer. The administration will likely continue to test the limits, and the legal battles will drag on. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of problems that many people are aware of. Ultimately, the judge’s ruling is one piece of the puzzle, but it doesn’t solve the bigger problem.