Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Challenges to Portland deployment test limits of local and federal authority

Opinion

Federal police officer

A federal police officer stands in front of a federal courthouse in downtown Portland.

Kathryn Elsesser/Getty Images
Adams-Schoen is an assistant law professor at the University of Oregon.

President Trump says the Justice Department will send a "surge of federal law enforcement" into American cities run by "extreme politicians" who are on an "anti-police crusade" — including Chicago, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee.

Those places may soon see legal battles like the ones in Portland. Four notable federal lawsuits are already challenging actions of the federal agents purportedly sent to protect federal property on the July 4 weekend and remaining in Oregon's largest city four weeks later — with only a tentative, phased withdrawal agreement between the state and the Trump administration set to begin on Thursday.

A surge of hundreds of federal officers into American cities would represent an unprecedented expansion of the role of the federal government into local police matters.

Together, the Portland lawsuits ask the court to delineate, and enforce, constitutional limits on the federal government's ability to override state and local law enforcement and use police tactics that violate protesters' constitutional rights.

Since May 29, Portlanders have marched, sung, chanted and stood together to demand racial justice and condemn police violence against Black Americans.

Local officials and observers describe a fringe minority of protesters aiming laser pointers at officers, throwing cans, breaking windows, setting dumpsters on fire and shooting fireworks at the federal courthouse. One was arrested for allegedly attacking a federal officer with a hammer.

In response, the Department of Homeland Security has deployed paramilitary-style units. The president has characterized the operation as limited to protecting federal property and personnel and enforcing federal law – but also restoring public safety after liberal politicians "put the interests of criminals above the rights of law-abiding citizens."

State and local officials and observers say those federal agents are detaining and arresting innocent protesters. They also say federal officers have fired non-lethal rounds, pepper balls and tear-gas canisters at peaceful protesters, journalists, medics and legal-rights observers.

In a court filing, the city says the presence of heavily armed federal agents is not keeping order, but rather "escalating violence, inflaming tensions in our city and harming Portlanders." The city also says that "credible allegations have been made that the federal government has effectively kidnapped people off Portland streets, among other abuses of power."

The first lawsuit was filed by six journalists and legal observers seeking to stop Portland police from assaulting reporters, photographers and legal observers documenting the police's violent response to protests. After the arrival of federal agents, the suit expanded to include the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Last week, District Judge Michael Simon rejected the government's argument that the force used was one of the "'unintended consequences' of crowd control," and he told federal agents they could not arrest or use physical force on journalists or legal observers — or stop them from recording what they saw.

In the second lawsuit, state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is seeking to stop federal agents from detaining or arresting people without probable cause or a warrant, and to require federal agents to identify themselves and their reason for an arrest or detention.

Citizens rightly fear "being thrown into a van by anonymous agents," the suit says, which infringes on their First Amendment rights to protest. It also says citizens have Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights not to be snatched "off of the streets without probable cause" by unidentified officers in unmarked cars.

On Friday, District Judge Michael Mosman denied Oregon's request to immediately bar such behavior, saying there was not enough evidence to show a pattern of unlawful detentions and finding the state did not have standing to seek the temporary order.

As the parties prepare their next moves, governors throughout the country will be watching to see if the judge recognizes a state's interest in local police matters and its standing to sue federal agencies to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

The third case focuses on the 10th Amendment, which says that, except for the federal powers spelled out in the Constitution, all other powers are reserved to the states and its citizens.

The plaintiffs maintain federal agencies are infringing on Oregon's sovereign powers to police Oregon streets. They say the deployment of federal law enforcement officers infringes on the power of Oregon citizens to hold state and local police accountable.

The lawsuit also argues the federal response violates the First Amendment rights of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, whose religious practice includes activism and protest in the face of injustice.

While the federal government has a right to protect its property and personnel, the suit says, "defendants have far exceeded these constitutional limitations" in Portland.

What happens next depends in part on whether the plaintiffs ask for an immediate order requiring the federal agencies to leave local policing to state and local law enforcement.

In the fourth case, street medics who tended to protesters have sued both the city and federal agencies, saying their First and Fourth amendment rights were violated when "police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons and flash-bangs."

The medics want a court order to protect them from further harm. A ruling is likely in the coming week.

The theme of urban violence used by Trump plays on white fears of Black people and those living in extreme poverty.

Trump uses coded racist language to paint a picture of cities "plagued by violent crime," "heinous crimes" and "bloodshed." He claims that local leaders have abdicated their duty to protect citizens, requiring the federal government to step in.

The nation was founded on the principle that freedom is safeguarded by two governments — a federal government with specific and limited powers, and state governments with all other powers.

The Constitution reserves to the states an expansive power to police because that allows for law enforcement policies that reflect local circumstances and customs, and are responsive to the concerns of local citizens – which is exactly what Black Lives Matter and other protesters are now demanding in Portland and throughout the country.


This is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

Read More

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

Political Midterm Election Redistricting

Getty images

The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

“Gerrymander” was one of seven runners-up for Merriam-Webster’s 2025 word of the year, which was “slop,” although “gerrymandering” is often used. Both words are closely related and frequently used interchangeably, with the main difference being their function as nouns versus verbs or processes. Throughout 2025, as Republicans and Democrats used redistricting to boost their electoral advantages, “gerrymander” and “gerrymandering” surged in popularity as search terms, highlighting their ongoing relevance in current politics and public awareness. However, as an old Capitol Hill dog, I realized that 2025 made me less inclined to explain the definitions of these words to anyone who asked for more detail.

“Did the Democrats or Republicans Start the Gerrymandering Fight?” is the obvious question many people are asking: Who started it?

Keep ReadingShow less