两个联邦法院就特朗普总统利用《反叛乱法》在波特兰和芝加哥部署联邦国民警卫队的问题进行辩论, Two federal courts debated President Trump’s use of the Insurrection Act to deploy federalized National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago, questioning the legality of basing deployments on past unrest.

2025年10月10日, 两家联邦法院听取了关于特朗普总统向波特兰和芝加哥部署联邦国民警卫队的论辩, Two federal courts heard arguments on October 10, 2025, over President Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago, raising key questions about presidential authority under the Insurrection Act. 在波特兰州,第9巡回审判小组审查了禁止部署数百名联邦化部队的禁令,俄勒冈州官员质疑政府关于持续威胁的说法,认为理由依据的是过去的事件而不是当前的情况。 In Portland, a 9th Circuit panel reviewed a ban on deploying hundreds of federalized troops, with Oregon officials challenging the administration’s claim of ongoing threats, arguing the justification relies on past events rather than current conditions. 在芝加哥,一名联邦法官认为有一项类似的禁令,因为有少数得克萨斯部队看守ICE设施,但没有进行大规模巡逻。 In Chicago, a federal judge considered a similar ban, as a small number of Texas troops guarded an ICE facility but no large-scale patrols occurred. 司法部主张总统拥有广泛的自由裁量权,而法官则对政府的主张表示怀疑。 The Justice Department asserted broad presidential discretion, while judges expressed skepticism about the government’s claims. 这些案件涉及行政权力、司法审查和公民自由,可能为军事部署确立重要先例,并可能导致上诉,预计在48小时内作出裁决。 The cases, which touch on executive power, judicial review, and civil liberties, may set major precedents on military deployment and could lead to appeals, with rulings expected within 48 hours.