SF Appeals Court Appears Reluctant to Block Trump's National Guard Deployment to Portland | KQED

"For months, the ICE facility in Portland and the federal law enforcement officers who worked there have faced a steady stream of violence, threats of violence and harassment from violent agitators bent on impeding federal immigration enforcement,"

"no dictionary definition of the term rebellion requires that it be aimed at overthrowing [the] entire government."

""That's what's supposed to happen," she said. "That's how this process is supposed to work. It's not that there is a protest, and then you just send in the military. This is protected speech. And for the most part, it is calm and sedate.""

Federal officials asserted that protests outside an ICE facility in Portland met legal standards for National Guard mobilization because demonstrations sometimes resulted in violence and forced the facility to close for over three weeks. Federal filings described repeated violence, threats, and harassment directed at federal officers and maintained that rebellion need not aim to overthrow the entire government. State and city lawyers argued that local police and existing federal law enforcement were equipped to handle protests, that arrests were made when crimes occurred, and that most demonstrations remained protected speech and largely calm. The dispute centers on presidential authority to federalize National Guard troops and the timing and relevance of the June memo cited to justify a September mobilization.

Read at Kqed