Liza Goitein

Gov. Newsom says he will seek a court order blocking the use of CA National Guard troops in Portland. The courts should immediately put an end to this unlawful deployment and hold the administration to account for its flagrant attempt to circumvent Judge Immergut’s ruling. 16/16

In this case, though, NO Guard forces can lawfully be federalized and deployed in Portland. The conditions in Los Angeles, as Judge Immergut explicitly noted, provide no legal basis for deployment in Oregon. 15/16

But because the California Guard forces have been federalized, they can be sent anywhere in the country IF the deployment is otherwise lawful. There is no issue of one state invading another because it is the president, not the governor, who is deploying troops. 14/16

The reason why that would be unconstitutional is because states are sovereign entities with respect to one another under the Constitution. As long as Guard forces remain under state command and control, one state’s Guard cannot invade another state. 13/16

…for instance, if he had simply asked a willing governor to send his or her Guard forces into Oregon under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f), a law that allows governors to use their Guard forces for missions requested by the president or secretary of defense. 12/16

A quick note: the fact that Trump is sending California National Guard forces to Oregon without Oregon’s consent is not the primary legal issue here. Doing so would be clearly unconstitutional if he attempted this with unfederalized Guard forces… 11/16

Make no mistake: while Judge Immergut’s two-page order mentioned only the Oregon National Guard, her 31-page opinion leaves no doubt that the deployment of ANY federalized Guard troops in Portland under 10 USC § 12406 is illegal. 10/16

The judge’s order, however, bars Trump from federalizing the *Oregon* Guard and deploying them in Portland. So Trump is now reportedly sending 300 *California* Guard members—who have remained federalized since the June protests in Los Angeles—to Portland. 9/16

Indeed, recent protests at the ICE facility in Portland have been “small and sedate.” Judge Immergut thus concluded that Trump’s determination that he was “unable to execute the laws” in Portland without the Guard “was simply untethered to the facts.” 8/16

Judge Immergut contrasted the situation in Los Angeles with that in Portland. She noted that there had been no acts of violence by protesters in Portland for several weeks at the time Trump ordered federalization. 7/16

Applying a highly deferential standard of review, the Ninth Circuit had held that the federalization of CA National Guard forces was legal because a small percentage of protesters in Los Angeles engaged in violent acts in the days leading up to the federalization. 6/16

He cited 10 USC § 12406, a law that allows the president to federalize Guard forces when he is “unable . . . to execute the laws of the United States” otherwise. He had used the same law in June to federalize California National Guard forces and deploy them in Los Angeles. 5/16

Some more detail: Trump had sought to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard forces and deploy them in Portland, based on wholly unsubstantiated claims that Portland was “War ravaged” and that ICE facilities were “under siege.” 4/16

This is the legal equivalent of a child kicking a sibling after his mother says “violence is never acceptable, so I order you to stop hitting your brother.” If any other litigant pulled a stunt like this, they (and their lawyers) might well be facing sanctions. 3/16

The judge (Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee) had ruled that there is no legal basis for deployment in Portland because recent protests have not been violent. But her actual order only mentions the Oregon Guard, so Trump is trying to get around it by using the California Guard. 2/16

This morning, hours after a federal judge ruled that it would be illegal to federalize and deploy Oregon National Guard troops in Portland, Trump deployed federalized California National Guard troops in Portland. 1/16

The generals and admirals were stone-faced as Trump presented his vision. They know that this is not the role of the military. The moral and legal quandary Trump is placing them in is unforgiveable. 6/6

This doesn’t just represent contempt for the law, which does not allow the military to practice its skills at home. It represents contempt for the safety of Americans, civilians and soldiers alike, caught up in the president’s desire to play war in American cities. 5/6

Trump’s words make clear that he doesn’t see these deployments as providing backup to civilian authorities. He sees them as a chance to exercise *military* skills. The soldiers are being deployed against the American people in their role as fighters. 4/6

This isn’t an idle threat. Trump has already deployed troops in Los Angeles and DC, has ordered the deployment of troops in Portland and Chicago, and has asked the governor of Tennessee to deploy National Guard forces in Memphis. 3/6

Let that sink in. What the military is trained to do is to fight and destroy enemies of the United States. The president of the United States wants soldiers to practice this battle training in the streets of American cities. 2/6

This morning, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth spoke to 800 high-ranking generals and admirals who had been called away from their stations around the world. At the meeting, Trump said he’d told Hegseth he should use American cities as “training grounds” for the military. 1/6

But this isn’t just about the law. It’s about who we are as a country. In the land of the free, presidents don’t turn the military against Americans who protest their policies. No matter how frequent these abuses are becoming, we must not let them start to feel normal. 5/5

There is no legal or factual basis for federalizing the Oregon National Guard, as I noted in this thread from Saturday. And using them for security patrols or crowd control would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The courts should put an end to this overreach. 4/5 bsky.app/profile/liza...

Trump’s routinization of domestic military use is wildly out of step with American traditions and principles. For 250 years, it’s been understood that a soldier’s job is to fight and destroy enemies—not to police their fellow citizens. 3/5

In virtually every past deployment, local authorities were overwhelmed and the state asked for help, or the state was complicit in the violence/obstruction of law (e.g., during the civil rights era). Those conditions aren’t present in any of Trump’s deployments. 2/5

Before this administration, presidents had deployed the military to quell civil unrest or enforce the law only 30 times in the nation’s entire history. As of yesterday, President Trump has done so three times (with a fourth in the works) in just over eight months. 1/5

The U.S. military is the greatest fighting force in the world. Its soldiers are trained to fight and destroy enemies; they did not sign up to police their fellow citizens. It is a massive abuse of power to use them to intimate Americans who oppose the president’s policies. 12/12

The Danger of Trump’s Crackdown on Blue Cities "If we normalize what has happened in D.C. through acquiescence, we will have quietly conceded our democracy."

If Trump follows through on his post, this will be the third deployment of troops in blue cities. As I wrote in TIME magazine today (before Trump’s post!), we cannot allow this unprecedented militarization of American cities to become normalized. 11/12 time.com/7321064/dang...

Throwing out the term “domestic terrorists” doesn’t change matters. Acts of domestic terrorism are violations of criminal law; they can and should be prosecuted by civilian authorities (and so far, no protester in Portland has faced any such charge). 10/12