Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
@sanjukta.bsky.social
5.9K followers
570 following
3.6K posts
Interested in the idea and practice and law of economic coordination. I work as a law professor at a public university.
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
![MOTION'
The State of Oregon and the City of Portland, now joined by the State of California, move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"') and stay of the active deployment of federalized members of the National Guard of California in the State of Oregon. In the alternative, the State and the City move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) to modify this Court's October 4, 2025, TRO to prohibit the relocation or deployment of any National Guard under Defendants' command (i.e., Title 10 status) within the State of Oregon. The Plaintiffs request that the Court waive the requirement for security or
require only a nominal bond.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
Yesterday, this Court recognized that the legal principles at stake in this case "gol] to the
heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States." Opinion & Order Granting Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order ("Order"), ECF 56 at 2. Applying those principles, this Court concluded that Defendants likely lacked authority to federalize Oregon National Guard members and ordered Defendants to halt federalization for 14 days. Defendants filed a notice of appeal last night (Ntc. of Appeal, ECF 57), and they have now asked the Ninth Circuit to stay the effect of this Court's decision.
Not content with this Court's or the Ninth Circuit's judgment, Defendants are now in the
process of circumventing this Court's Order. After this Court ruled that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 could not justify federalizing the Oregon National Guard to deploy them to Portland, Defendants have deployed members of the California National Guard to Portland-servicemembers who were federalized under that very same Title 10 authority for deployment in Los Angeles. That redeployment is illegal: Setting aside whether the underlying federalization order from August violated Section 12406, the federalization order clearly did not contemplate the use of California](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreibh3ofpmdkhdezhoux7cktijny4oyltmnk5gzsvfj4ssmixpm5mjq@jpeg)
![troops for completely unrelated activity in Oregon. "[T]he President's determination was simply untethered to the facts." Order at 23. And, as this Court has already recognized, a National Guard deployment from any state would work irreparable harm on the State and City, and the public interest tips sharply toward temporarily restraining any such deployment. In fact, the harms and public interest considerations here have only become more acute since yesterday, as California, too, is irreparably harmed by Defendants' deployment of its National Guard to a City over 800
miles away from Los Angeles-where they were initially deployed four months ago based on facts not at issue in this case.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreigqu6gkvn74exz6j23edqtm33wqquqwpkucurx35gvhek6yhavlw4@jpeg)
![Defendants will surely argue that the Ninth Circuit has already concluded that the President likely acted within his authority in federalizing the California National Guard in June, see Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032, 1052 (9th Cir. 2025), and so they are now entitled to use those federalized National Guard members for any purpose, including to send them to Portland.
But the President's determination to federalize the California National Guard was made nearly four months ago, based on entirely different facts at a different location, and the Ninth Circuit's preliminary determination that § 12406 was met at that time was based only on the facts before it. Id. at 1054. Simply put: the facts have changed. And President Trump's June 7 memorandum is not the blank check Defendants pretend.
To the extent that Defendants no longer believe that those servicemembers are necessary
in California, they have no statutory basis to continue their federalization and deployment. 10 USC § 12406 requires the mission to match the basis for the federalization by its terms, that narrow congressional authorization allows the president to call up "such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws." Id. (emphasis added); see also Order at 21-22 ("but violence in a different state ... do[es] not provide a colorable basis to invoke Section 12406(3).... In other words, violence elsewhere cannot support troop deployments here[l'). Whatever the purpose for federalizing the California national guard in the first place, the present mission to Portland has nothing to do with it.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreicyspxokazoepifmz7pk5nfwkxascozqe4yknlzpqjbj33q5miypq@jpeg)
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
Reposted by Sanjukta Kwame Paul LT
