The Trump administration briefly deployed Oregon National Guard soldiers to Portland earlier this month, hours after a Federal District Court judge had ordered any such deployment blocked, the government revealed, according to The new York Times.
The
District Court judge, Karin Immergut, raised the possibility that the
deployment, however brief, had put the administration in contempt of court as
she began a trial to determine whether to lift a temporary restraining order,
or T.R.O., on troop deployments or make it permanent.
“We’ll
discuss later whether that’s contempt and a direct violation of my T.R.O.,”
Judge Immergut told a Justice Department lawyer after learning of the
deployment.
President Trump wants to send National Guard troops to protect the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement building in Portland, which has been the site of daily
protests for more than four months. Oregon and the city of Portland have sued
to stop that deployment, and a trial in the case began Wednesday.
But Judge
Immergut imposed temporary restraining orders first on the use of Oregon
National Guard soldiers beginning at 3:40 p.m. on Oct. 4, then on all guard
troops the next day.
Before the
trial began Wednesday morning, a Justice Department lawyer, Jean Lin, told
Judge Immergut that Oregon soldiers under federal control were sent to Portland
between 11 p.m. on Oct. 4 and 2 a.m. on Oct. 5. Ms. Lin did not say how many
soldiers were sent or what they did at the ICE building.
A
spokeswoman for the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees the federalized
National Guard soldiers, said military officials were looking into news of the
brief deployment. Emails submitted as evidence in the case show a nine-person
advance team from the Oregon National Guard, part of 200 Guard troops
federalized by the Department of Defense, reported working at the ICE facility
after the temporary restraining order was filed.
The issue
marked the second time this week that the Justice Department had to come clean
before judges considering Mr. Trump’s planned deployment in Portland. Federal
lawyers have said the National Guard was needed in Portland because the federal
government had exhausted existing resources, even after moving Federal
Protective Service officers and other law enforcement agents with other federal
agencies to Portland from other parts of the country.
But in a
filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday, U.S.
attorneys acknowledged that they overstated the number of federal agents
reassigned to Oregon.
In a brief
filed before an Oct. 20 appeals court hearing, the government said that 115
Federal Protective Service officers from other parts of the country had been
surged as a group to the ICE building and stated that “it is undisputed that
nearly a quarter of the agency’s entire F.P.S. capacity had to be redirected
over a relatively short period to a single location in one medium-sized
American city due to the unrest there.”
But in a
letter to the appeals court on Monday, a federal lawyer said 86 F.P.S. officers
were actually sent to Portland over the summer, including some who were
deployed multiple times. The lawyer also noted that the reference to “nearly a
quarter” of the federal agency’s capacity being sent to Oregon was simply
incorrect.
What the
federal government meant to report, the lawyer wrote, was that 13 percent of
the agency’s inspectors — who are responsible for crisis response,
investigations and security assessments at federal buildings — had been
deployed to Portland over the course of the summer.
On
Wednesday, in the first day of what’s expected to be a three-day trial, lawyers
for the city of Portland and the state of Oregon argued that the federal
response to protests at the Portland ICE facility has been disorganized and
needlessly violent.
“The court
will hear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have staffing
challenges,” Scott Kennedy, a senior assistant attorney general for Oregon,
told the judge. “But that has nothing to do with Portland.”
To read more CLICK HERE
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Posts
Posts
 
 

No comments:
Post a Comment