"Two judges appointed by President Donald Trump allowed him to deploy the National Guard into Portland, Oregon, on Monday, granting the executive branch sweeping authority to suppress peaceful protests based on false claims of widespread violence. The 2-1 decision from the 9 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rested on a credulous reading of the record: The majority largely accepted the administration's portrayal of Portland as a "war zone," dismissing the district court's extensive findings to the contrary."
"In Nelson's view, Trump enjoys absolute discretion to send troops into American cities for any reason he deems necessary, and no court may stand in his way. It may be tempting to dismiss this argument as Nelson's audition for a Supreme Court seat. But it must be taken seriously, because it is precisely what the Trump administration is now asking SCOTUS to embrace. And it is wrong from top to bottom: As a matter of constitutional principle, statutory text, precedent, and history, there is no remotely plausible argument that courts cannot review a president's domestic deployment of the National Guard. Indeed, the weight of evidence points in the opposite direction."
Two judges allowed deployment of the National Guard to Portland, granting the executive branch broad power to suppress protests based on asserted widespread violence. The appeals majority accepted an administration portrayal of Portland as a "war zone," overruling extensive contrary findings. A dissent described the deployment as resting on "false pretenses," "fabrication," and "propaganda." A concurrence argued that courts lack authority to review presidential domestic troop deployments, effectively claiming absolute presidential discretion. Constitutional principles, statutory text, precedent, and history support judicial review, and unchecked deployment power would enable governors' objections to be overridden and civil liberties to be suppressed.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]