Mayor Keith Wilson, right, and Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards leave the federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., on Friday, Oct. 3. The state of Oregon and the city of Portland appeared in court Friday morning for a hearing on their motion to block President Trump's deployment of the National Guard.
Saskia Hatvany / OPB
U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut heard arguments Friday over whether to issue a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s deployment of the Oregon National Guard in Portland.
During the hearing, Immergut noted she was aware she was required to give “great deference” to the president when it comes to federalizing troops.
Related: Dueling narratives on Portland protests head to court in National Guard case
She also questioned why the official order Trump used to federalize the Guard in California appeared to be the same one he used months later in Oregon, and she expressed skepticism when the Trump administration’s attorneys pointed to the president’s Truth Social post as evidence.
“Really? A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination that you can send the National Guard to cities? That’s really what I should be relying on?” Immergut said.
Attorneys on either side of the case presented Immergut with starkly different pictures of the protests near the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland.
Eric Hamilton, an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Division, argued that “the record does show a persistent threat.” He cited reports from the Portland Police Bureau showing that September protest crowds were “very energized” and included “over 50 to 60” clad in black bloc.
Attorneys for the city and state relied on the same police documents, which also showed several nights of much smaller and subdued protests leading up to Trump’s announcement to send in the Guard.
They cited an email from the night before Trump’s announcement in which the police observed 8-15 people at any given time: “Mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around,” Portland police wrote. “Energy was low, minimal activity.”
Hamilton pointed to a ruling last month by a federal judge in California that found Trump’s troop deployment there unlawful. Even though the administration disagreed with the ruling, Hamilton said the judge said “federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”
The Act, passed in the wake of the Civil War, prohibits the military from domestic law enforcement.
The protests in Los Angeles were different and arguably more dynamic at the time Trump called out the guard in that city than the situation currently playing out on one city block in Portland, attorneys with the Oregon Department of Justice and the city of Portland have argued.
Even if it’s legal for troops to guard federal property, the factors in Portland the president is required to meet in order to federalize the guard in the first place haven’t been met, according to legal experts OPB has interviewed.
Those include demonstrating an insurrection, an invasion by a foreign power or some other scenario in which federal law can’t be enforced.
Attorneys for the city and state also argued a troop deployment could inflame the situation on the ground, causing irreparable harm.
Immergut said she plans to issue her ruling late Friday or Saturday.
