https://www.profitableratecpm.com/f4ffsdxe?key=39b1ebce72f3758345b2155c98e6709c
A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Trump administration on Monday in its attempt to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
Graber, a Clinton appointee, had asked her 9th Circuit colleagues to abandon the majority opinion in a blistering dissent.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
In a footnote, the majority of the panel (who did not sign the opinion) acknowledged the recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked President Trump’s attempted deployment of the Guard to Chicago. The 9th Circuit judges argued that conditions are worse in Portland (where the district court found protests have been fairly limited and uneventful after a high point in early summer) and “different” from those in Chicago.
Graber, a Clinton appointee, had asked her 9th Circuit colleagues to abandon the majority opinion in a blistering dissent.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
A 9th Circuit judge called for a vote for a full rehearing of the case shortly after the decision was released.
In a footnote, the majority of the panel (who did not sign the opinion) acknowledged the recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked President Trump’s attempted deployment of the Guard to Chicago. The 9th Circuit judges argued that conditions are worse in Portland (where the district court found protests have been fairly limited and uneventful after a high point in early summer) and “different” from those in Chicago.
Graber, a Clinton appointee, had asked her 9th Circuit colleagues to abandon the majority opinion in a blistering dissent.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
The decision was split 2-1, with the two Trump appointees overturning the district court’s finding that conditions on the ground did not meet the legal requirements to deploy the Guard.
A 9th Circuit judge called for a vote for a full rehearing of the case shortly after the decision was released.
In a footnote, the majority of the panel (who did not sign the opinion) acknowledged the recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked President Trump’s attempted deployment of the Guard to Chicago. The 9th Circuit judges argued that conditions are worse in Portland (where the district court found protests have been fairly limited and uneventful after a high point in early summer) and “different” from those in Chicago.
Graber, a Clinton appointee, had asked her 9th Circuit colleagues to abandon the majority opinion in a blistering dissent.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
The Trump administration’s ability to execute this deployment depends on the status of the district court’s second temporary restraining order, which the administration has not appealed. The first TRO, which he appealed to, blocked the deployment of the Oregon National Guard; the second blocked any state’s Guard, and Justice Department lawyers in Washington, D.C., argued that the move would also dissolve the second TRO, but 9th Circuit Judge Susan Graber, in her dissent Monday, wrote that it would do no such thing.
The decision was split 2-1, with the two Trump appointees overturning the district court’s finding that conditions on the ground did not meet the legal requirements to deploy the Guard.
A 9th Circuit judge called for a vote for a full rehearing of the case shortly after the decision was released.
In a footnote, the majority of the panel (who did not sign the opinion) acknowledged the recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked President Trump’s attempted deployment of the Guard to Chicago. The 9th Circuit judges argued that conditions are worse in Portland (where the district court found protests have been fairly limited and uneventful after a high point in early summer) and “different” from those in Chicago.
Graber, a Clinton appointee, had asked her 9th Circuit colleagues to abandon the majority opinion in a blistering dissent.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
The Trump administration’s ability to execute this deployment depends on the status of the district court’s second temporary restraining order, which the administration has not appealed. The first TRO, which he appealed to, blocked the deployment of the Oregon National Guard; the second blocked any state’s Guard, and Justice Department lawyers in Washington, D.C., argued that the move would also dissolve the second TRO, but 9th Circuit Judge Susan Graber, in her dissent Monday, wrote that it would do no such thing.
The decision was split 2-1, with the two Trump appointees overturning the district court’s finding that conditions on the ground did not meet the legal requirements to deploy the Guard.
A 9th Circuit judge called for a vote for a full rehearing of the case shortly after the decision was released.
In a footnote, the majority of the panel (who did not sign the opinion) acknowledged the recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked President Trump’s attempted deployment of the Guard to Chicago. The 9th Circuit judges argued that conditions are worse in Portland (where the district court found protests have been fairly limited and uneventful after a high point in early summer) and “different” from those in Chicago.
Graber, a Clinton appointee, had asked her 9th Circuit colleagues to abandon the majority opinion in a blistering dissent.
“I urge my colleagues on this court to act quickly to overturn the majority’s order before
“Illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses may occur,” she wrote. “Above all, I ask those watching this matter unfold to maintain faith in our justice system for a little longer.”
Citing Portland protesters’ penchant for wearing inflatable frog costumes (or “nothing at all”), she wrote that the majority’s conclusions regarding violence and chaos in Portland could be considered “absurd.”
“But today’s decision is not only absurd. It erodes fundamental constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their state’s militias and the people’s First Amendment right to assemble and oppose the policies and actions of government,” she wrote.
She added that even at the height of the Portland protests, there was little evidence that ICE was incapable of doing its job. And even if that were the case, she argued, allowing a president to deploy troops so long after a disruption has occurred effectively gives him the right to do so at any time.
Judge Ryan Nelson — a Trump appointee who endorsed Trump’s arguments so exuberantly during oral argument that he suggested aspirations for higher courts — wrote a separate agreement to argue that federal courts should not review the president’s decision to federalize and deploy the Guard at all.
He also applauded Trump’s “proportionate response to the events in Portland,” arguing that simply sending a few hundred federalized troops to a state whose governor opposes their deployment gives the president an assumption of “good faith.”
Read the decision here:
Back to top button
