“The Trump Administration’s flagrant disregard for the courts was on full display when it sought to circumvent Judge Immergut’s order blocking the federalization of the Oregon National Guard by redeploying troops from Los Angeles to Portland,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This disrespect for the rule of law cannot stand—and I’m glad the court agreed. The President’s move to deploy the National Guard of one state over the objections of a Governor to another state over the objections of a second is well outside of the norms or practices of any President in recent history. But this President is determined to take as much power as the courts will give him. This fight isn’t over, but today’s rebuke of the President’s illegal actions is a step in the right direction.”

Earlier today, Governor Newsom announced the state’s intention to sue the Trump Administration after the White House illegally sought to deploy 300 California National Guard personnel into Portland, Oregon, the day after a federal district court blocked the attempted federalization of Oregon’s National Guard. California joined Oregon’s suit in the Oregon federal court. See the amended complaint here, and the states’ joint motion for a temporary restraining order here. 

Trump illegally sends California troops to Oregon

Despite a federal court order finding no legal basis to deploy state National Guard troops to the streets of Portland and ordering that control of the Oregon National Guard be returned to state command, the Trump Administration tried to send 300 federally controlled members of the California National Guard to Portland to take their place. The troops had originally been federalized months ago in response to unfounded claims that unrest in Los Angeles — conditions that never necessitated their deployment in the first place, and have long since subsided anyway. 

Courts rebuke Trump’s lawlessness

In her ruling yesterday, the federal judge appointed by President Trump rejected the Trump Administration’s justification for deploying federalized troops, writing in her order: 

“This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

The court found that the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guard were not “conceived in good faith” and were “simply untethered to the facts.”