Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - On October 4, 2025, US District Court Judge Karin Immergut, stopped President Trump from deploying the Oregon National Guard to protect war ravaged Portland from Antifa and other far right radicals who were burning Portland to the ground. Trump said that federalization was necessary because the local and state authorities could not or would not stop the violent insurrection. See State of Oregon v Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM
Judge Immergut’s Outdated Legal Process
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away courts followed a now antiquated process, where the judge would ascertain the facts and then assess whether the facts met the legal requirements to grant the Plaintiffs’ request that the court stop the President’s action. President Trump said that Portland was under radical attacks to the extent that the federal government could not perform its duties. Judge Immergut spent pages discussing the facts and to put it mildly, Trump’s allegations were not tethered to reality. To the extent, that there were sporadic acts of violence, Portland police were handling those criminal acts. Trump’s claims that Portland was war ravaged and burning to the ground lacked an iota of truth. About five years ago, Portland did have massive, violent civil disobedience including arson. Since those days were long gone and there no such behavior today, Judge Immergut found that the facts did not support the President’s federalizing the Oregon National Guard.
It is dumbfounding that Judge Immergut thinks that facts, logic, or law still play any role in judicial decisions. The current rules are: (1) To the extent that some judges think that facts play a role, their role is to ignore facts and invent better facts. After a judicial modification of reality, their decisions look reasonable. (2) The more efficient approach is for the judge to accept whatever the President says are the facts. If Trump claims that Portland is burning to the ground, only an activist judge would look for independent verification of his allegations.
As we saw in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission 588 U.S. 50 (2010), because corporations are persons who were created with inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, corporations have free speech rights. Because money is a form of free speech, corporate contribution may not be curtailed. Both the poor and the wealthy may donate a million dollars or more to a President’s campaign.
Why Does Judge Immergut Hold to Outdated Processes
Judge Immergut’s obstinance in insisting that cases must be based on facts shows that she had made a deliberate decision to follow the US Constitution. In so doing, she does not honor the Unitary President Theory. Powerful persons such as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Senate Majority Leader Senator John Thune, among others have decided that the Republic, which the US Constitution established, needs to be replaced with the Unitary Executive. Because the US Constitution places myriad checks and balances on the President’s power those checks and balances must be nullified so that all power rests with the Unitary Executive to implement whatever policies he desires. For more background on the Unitary Executive see Unitary Presidency = Military Dictatorship and Here Comes the Military Dictatorship
In order to establish the Unitary Executive, the courts must always give total deference to the President. If the courts could restrain the President because his actions were contrary to statutes or the Constitution, that would allow the Courts to have a say in how the President runs the country. Any interference by the Courts would violate US Constitution Article II, which gives the President total power to run the government. According to Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), all agencies which Congress established are to assist the President in carrying out his policies and Congress may not grant the agencies the power to do anything other than the President desires. If the President does not want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to restrain big business from cheating the public, the President may fire the agency head and appoint a new Director who will stop investigations of the President’s friends and repeal any consumer regulations which displease the president and/or his financial contributors. Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, (2020)
Under the Unitary Theory, the President may engage in criminal behavior including murder and assassination of political opponents if he declares that the action was to advance his “core duties.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). If the President has full immunity for such criminal behavior, he clearly has the power to ignore civil laws. Under his direction ICE may break into people’s homes to apprehend possible undocumented residents. ICE may arrest citizens on the grounds that they interfered with ICE agents and then file false charges against the citizen claiming that he attacked the ICE agents.
Trump claimed that he would only go after the worst of the worst of criminals, but ICE focused on Mexicans. When Los Angeles sued ICE (Department of Homeland Security) that its criteria were illegal, the district court in Los Angeles agreed, but the appeals court overruled the local judge. How did focusing on Mexicans looking for work at Home Depot signify that they were the worst of the worst of criminals? How does singling out of Mexicans and ignoring White, Asian and Black illegals help find criminals? Why does Trump believe that a young mother who drives her children to school must be a dangerous illegal criminal? Anyone who thinks that such questions are relevant shows that he does not understand the Unitary Theory. The rule is “Whatever Trumpy Wants Trumpy Gets.” After Trump v. United States, (603 U.S. 593) gave the President immunity to violate criminal laws, the courts certainly may not interfere with the President. As Trump’s own Joseph Goebbels (Stephen Miller) asserted, Judge Immergut is engaged in “Legal Insurrection.”
(Richard Lee Abrams is a former Los Angeles-based attorney, author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government. You may email him at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of citywatchla.com.)
