DOJ Moves Goalposts To Send Troops To Portland, Gets Shut Down By A Federal Court
from the martial-law-enthusiasts-all-over-the-place dept
It seems like years ago, but the Trump administration got itself sued earlier this very year by the state of California for commandeering California’s National Guard to shut down anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. Trump justified this by declaring the city to be under siege, even though (1) most violence was being committed by law enforcement, (2) most of the protest activity was limited to a few blocks in the downtown LA area, and (3) even Los Angeles law enforcement officials stated no help was needed because whatever imagined problem there was, they already had under control.
The law prevents the Executive Branch from commandeering the National Guard. It’s federalism, which is a concept the Trump administration likes when it’s triggering a bunch of state-level anti-abortion laws following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but doesn’t when it allows states to reject help they never asked for — especially when that “help” looks more like a martial law soft launch.
The law prevents the federal government from doing this for obvious reasons — reasons made much more obvious when Trump insisted on doing it anyway, for exactly the reasons legislators built in a safety valve that should prevent presidents from using the National Guard as a vehicle for revenge.
Well, Trump wants to do the same thing in Portland, Oregon. Given the chain of events, it appears Trump was convinced by Fox News programming (yeah, in the other sense of the word) that Portland — and especially the ICE depot — was under constant, flaming, violent attack by protesters. That’s because the Fox broadcasts decided (deliberately) to include footage of protests and riots in that city in response to a heinous murder committed by Minnesota police officer, Derek Chauvin.
Trump briefly reconsidered this move, suspecting people might be using his obvious stupidity and comprehensive malleability against him to “invade” Portland. This moment of clarity was brief, swiftly replaced by Trump’s overriding desire to inflict pain on any place that’s not loaded up with loyalists.
So, the administration (after Trump and Hegseth stroked each other off by calling military officials “fat” and stating that going to war with their fellow citizens was part of the master plan) said it was going to commandeer Oregon’s National Guard to shut down anti-ICE protests that have mostly been no more violent than the hip-thrusting of an inflatable frog, which somehow managed to force heavily armed federal officers to retreat.
(Oh, and there’s also footage of a federal officer deliberately spraying pepper spray into the frog’s air intake.)
Well, Trump and his DOJ already knew what to expect, given California’s response to the administration’s illegal use of National Guard troops. Oregon sued immediately, raising the same arguments, and raising the specter of an immediate injunction blocking the administration from violating the law yet again.
Things got truly stupid and scary during the government’s arguments in the emergency hearing prior to a federal judge’s second successive temporary restraining order [PDF].
The government wanted two things. First, it wanted no restraining order at all. Second, it wanted the almost-inevitable restraining order stayed while it appealed its case.
While the second thing is relatively normal, the tactics the government used to secure its preferred option would be hilarious if both versions of the Trump administration hadn’t made it clear it exists only to beat this country into submission while steamrolling every check or balance that stands in its way.
Joshua Friedman listened to the emergency hearing. His report — contained in a Bluesky thread you’ll definitely want to read all the way through — shows the government doing the sorts of things you wouldn’t normally expect a democratic republic to do.
And by that I mean acting like the worst, most disingenuous commenters in any heated comment thread.
I am not even kidding. Since the government knew it wasn’t allowed to take control of Oregon’s National Guard (something made clear by the restraining order it was hit with the day before), it decided to do this instead:
Judge: How could bringing in [National Guard] from CA not be in direct contravention of [temporary restraining order] I issued yesterday?
DOJ: TRO related only to Oregon NG
Judge: You are an officer of the court. Aren’t defendants clearly circumventing my order?
Yeah, that’s what this administration thinks it can use as an end-around: it’s going to send California National Guard members to Oregon because it believes the court can’t stop it from moving the goalposts. In its clouded mind, a restraining order forbidding the federalization of Oregon National Guard troops can easily be avoided by sending in troops from another state… which will apparently also free it of any restraints currently in place in California.
But that’s not all! Perhaps sensing reshuffling California National Guard troops might be a legal headache, especially while still engaged in a lawsuit filed by the state of California, the Trump administration prepared a back-up plan.
DOJ: If the court enters a second TRO, we move for a stay pending appeal. We respectfully request that the court note this in any order it issues.
Judge: Response, Mr. Kennedy?
Oregon: I want to note new info about impending transfer of [Texas National Guard] members. We received at 6:36 p.m., so apologies.
Pure psychopathy. It’s one thing to be so completely stupid that you think this might work. It’s another thing to represent the federal government and the Trump administration and engage in actions that strongly suggest you think federal court judges are even stupider than you are.
That’s how the government gets hit with two restraining orders in two days, without any stays granted for pending appeals:
Judge: Based on the conduct of the defendants and now seeing TX National Guard called up, I am going to grant alternative TRO requested. Let me ask plaintiffs—I’d prefer not to modify original TRO, but I am troubled to hear of CA and TX NG being sent to OR, in apparent violation of my order.
[…]
Judge: That’s what I’ll do. Prohibit federalization or deployment of any NG troops into Oregon. For all reasons in prior opinion. Deployment of federalized military is ultra vires and contrary to law, violating Title 10, section 12406. I also find it’s likely that defendants violate 10th Amendment.
The government will have to take its Calvinball elsewhere. Unfortunately, it’s still got home field advantage at the Supreme Court. But this is exactly the sort of dipshit fuckery that defines Trump and his administration. The problem is that doing it often enough occasionally allows it to rack up unearned wins. When the wins stop rolling in, then we’ll see what this administration is willing to do to impose its will on this country. Chances are, it’s going to be a whole lot more of what we’ve seen already, only without the friction we’ve long assumed would be more than enough to prevent this country from sliding downhill into outright authoritarianism.
Filed Under: california, doj, ice, los angeles, martial law, national guard, oregon, portland, protests, trump administration
Comments on “DOJ Moves Goalposts To Send Troops To Portland, Gets Shut Down By A Federal Court”
Every time someone mentions Derek Chauvin’s murder of an innocent civilian, I’m reminded of this tech dirt story: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/10/25/cop-substitute-teacher-reenacts-george-floyd-murder-with-black-student-says-police-brutality-isnt-real/
Just decided to send everyone else down the same memory lane too.
Dance, froggie, dance!!!
It was hilarious to see that many grown armored men retreating because a person in a frog costume danced in front of them.
Real question is why did they feel so threatened in the first place to have that many people protect the building.
Re: Paper tigers
It seems to be a thug/bully mentality, where those that like to throw their weight around and act all ‘big and tough’ are almost always the biggest cowards in any given room and will fold like wet cardboard upon facing any resistance or pushback.
Re:
Fox News headline/chyron (probably):
AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT ON FEDERAL OFFICERS BY ELITE CAMOUFLAGED ANTIFA FROGMEN
“Aren’t defendants clearly circumventing my order?”
Well yes, yes they are. But they are relying on you pretending they didn’t really MEAN to circumvent it & let them slip past you so they can get their photo ops.
Its not like you can or will do anything to them, they didn’t listen to this order, what do you think you can do about it?
Re:
It seems to me that they listened too closely, and noticed something that the judge didn’t ban. It’s the court that’s moving the goal posts. They prohibited the DOJ from deploying Oregon’s national guard, and so the DOJ didn’t do that.
The judge is acting like they meant to ban any national guard troops from being deployed—but it’s only now that they’re actually banning that. It’s literally a judge’s job to interpret and use language, clearly and precisely, to effect a certain result. If I was ordered to stop driving, and then I rode a bike, should I get in trouble for that? In general, there’s nothing wrong with circumventing the law; only contravening it is illegal. (Notably, that’s what separates tax avoidance from tax evasion, and there’s a long history of courts upholding that distinction.)
Of course, it’s never a good idea to piss off the judge, especially while still hoping for a favorable ruling from them.
Judge: Defendants are temporarily enjoined from deploying federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon.
DOJ: Only the National Guard of Oregon? Okay, we’ll send other NG.
Judge: Read again, harder this time.
I’d note that in an interview the frog guy said that the pepper spray into the air inlet didn’t really affect him that much. Made him cough a bit and the pepper smell was a bit intense but he’s had meals that were hotter than that. So not only do they look like fools who can’t even deal with a costumed mascot, but when they finally do something that might be effective they screw that up too. We need more of this. Bullies absolutely can’t handle being made fun of.
It’s a good thing the judge was smart enough to catch the ‘could you please delay applying the ruling until we get it appealed?’ last-ditch effort, as I’ve little doubt that had they not caught that the regime’s dogs would have been sent in within the day, after which the regime would have argued that as long as they’re already there they might as well ‘help out’ and it would be unreasonable to say they can’t enter a state they were already in.
Hopefully the judge is prepared for when, not if, the regime decides that this ruling is optional and orders troops moved in anyway.
Re:
Clearly the current problem with the executive capture of the highest court is that the low level judges are still applying the “Law As Written and Interpreted by Precedent” instead of the new mantra of “Trump Always Wins”
Therefore the next step is to normalize the arrest of judges who haven’t got the memo and punish them for being obedient to the Rule of Law
Some would argue that this has already started via the rants on social media, but it can get worse
It will get a lot worse; and it will continue getting worse until judges realize that their job is to now follow the ever changing whims of the executive
Or they can try to run their courts from their prison cells
Re:
I don’t know what you mean by “catch” it. It’s literally something the judge was asked to do, and right after the DOJ pissed them off by finding a “loophole” (maybe). A pissed-off judge isn’t likely to be on the side of one they view as exploiting a loophole, and will naturally read and write very carefully going forward. They’re likely to be “fired up” in terms of speed, too.
I think most judges would’ve reacted similarly.
Re: Re:
I think most judges would’ve reacted similarly.
You’d hope most judges would’ve reacted similarly, but I’ve seen a few too many articles on TD of judges being slapped around and still giving the benefit of the doubt to the government to not see this one catching on and refusing to do so as note- and praiseworthy