"They are all lying," she told Trump. "And disingenuous and dishonest people."
In Oregon, the Justice Department told a three-judge panel that in Portland, there are “violent people” and that there is a significant risk of more violence "if at any point we let down our guard," Newsmax correspondent John Huddy posted on X.
Legal and political analysts and reporters watched the cases with digital shock.
Oregon state lawyer Stacy Chaffin argued that the examples of "violence" cited in the filing suggest the protests are waning, as there hasn't been any violence in months that local police can't handle themselves.
It didn't matter much, with conservative Judge Ryan Nelson, who skipped past discussing the DOJ's accusations of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government United States," observed appellate lawyer Gabriel Malor while live-posting about the hearing. Instead, Nelson went to a claim by the DOJ that the president has an "inability to execute the laws."
Marlor also pointed to a comment from Nelson saying, the determination is "not all driven by what we see on the streets," suggesting that there is behind-the-scenes information that the court doesn't have.
For Oregon, Chaffin said, "On this record, there was not evidence that sporadic violence was a rebellion to justify federalizing the National Guard."
Legal analyst Benjamin Kabak called it a "judicial disaster."
Supreme Court reporter Kate Riga noted that Nelson and fellow conservative, Judge Bridget Shelton Bade, were "really trying to outperform each other in their eagerness to give Trump the ability to deploy the Guard to unwilling states based on events that occurred months earlier. Lotttt of beating up on Oregon's Judge Immergut, who blocked deployments."
"Oh, Lord that Ninth Circuit hearing was bad. Let's console ourselves with this nice TRO out of Chicago blocking ICE from gassing peaceful protesters and journalists," said "Law and Chaos" writer and podcaster Liz Dye on Bluesky.
That same argument appeared in Illinois, where Judge April Perry asked whether the federal agents are unable to execute the law because of the feds' "own provocation, does that matter under the law?"
Federal courts reporter Jon Seidel captured the exchange between Perry and Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton, who claimed, "No, if that were true, the fact still remains that we are seeing sustained violence against federal personnel and property in Illinois."
Perry cited violence like the slashing of tires or a car being keyed. "Some of this frankly sounds like a Carrie Underwood song," said Perry.
It was a statement that triggered Hamilton, who claimed that there was an attack with an IED. Perry asked him what was in the IED, and Hamilton didn't know. There were no legitimate reports to confirm such a report, only a video from a Tucker Carlson staffer who posted a video that didn't confirm the claim.
At one point, law school Professor Carolyn Shapiro noticed Perry "echoing Judge Immergut’s conclusion that the President’s claims about conditions in Oregon are 'untethered to the facts.'"
Indeed, Seidel cited Perry asking whether the evidence being used wasn't real.
Hamilton also argued that the court need not have a definition for what "rebellion" means, but the judge wasn't having it.
Law school Professor Charlotte Garden cited an "ominous" exchange in which Perry questioned the Justice Department on the definition of "rebellion." She said that by the DOJ's definition, "literally all nonviolent protest” could be considered evidence of a rebellion. She questioned whether that was the DOJ's argument.
Hamilton responded that Trump is the one who has decided that there is "danger of a rebellion" and said Perry must defer to that finding.
"The most ominous answer I can imagine," said Garden.
