Courts Don’t Command Troops, Presidents Do:

Judge Immergut’s order is a constitutional coup. The President, as Commander in Chief, has clear constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard to execute U.S. laws, repel invasion, or suppress rebellion (Art. II, §2; 10 U.S.C. §12406). The unrest in Portland, months of violent attacks on federal facilities, fit squarely within that mandate.

Judge Immergut’s order, claiming that the violence wasn’t “severe enough,” is a rogue act of judicial fact-finding into military necessity, an area courts have no constitutional business deciding. Under the political-question doctrine, troop deployments and threat assessments are core executive functions, not subject to judicial micromanagement.

States like Oregon and California lack standing to veto federal deployments. Once federalized, the Guard becomes part of the U.S. Armed Forces, and under the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI), federal law prevails.  To allow state governors, or by extension, unelected federal judges, to veto lawful mobilization orders would invert the Supremacy Clause and nullify the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

By blocking out-of-state Guard deployments, the judge has effectively turned the Tenth Amendment into a weapon against lawful federal authority, allowing some states to paralyze the President’s duties, even other states like Texas have consented to the deployment.

This ruling is a constitutional overreach of the first order. If left standing, it would allow district judges to enjoin military orders based on their own sense of “necessity,” thereby crippling executive power and inviting disorder.

Judges are not generals nor superintendents of military affairs. The decision should be reversed immediately to restore the proper separation of powers and the President’s Article II command authority.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶