It's a port, and thus falls to some degree under federal jurisdiction.
According to Wiki, it's administered by the local government and a little more reading says security is by a private firm hired by said government. It's interesting though that you leap immediately to the federal layer of jurisdiction.
Who administers it, or provides security isn't the issue. No one was calling for Obama to send in the National Guard or anything (at least I don't think so). As a port, it's connected to international trade. Thus, it falls "to some degree" under federal jurisdiction. Meaning that the federal government has an interest in what happens there. At no point does this mean that federal troops guard the port, or that federal employees manage it, and I'm not sure why you'd think that other than to try to spin this off onto a strawman sidetrack.
Pretty good for an article I didn't fully read, huh? Presumably, they weren't arrested by federal marshals or the National Guard or the FBI. So, if the same order applies to this incident, I'm still not sure why we're jumping to a federal response.
How does one have anything to do with the other? There are no federal employees working at a local bank, nor are there national guard troops guarding it, but if you rob one, it's still a federal crime, right?
Or is this too difficult a concept for you to grasp?
Or is the statement here that Obama is supposed to get personally involved each time a federal court order is violated?
Nope. But in the context of the very recent Hoffa incident, there is certainly a legitimate political aspect to this, which Obama might just want to deal with in some way. For a guy who has no problem making a political connection between pro-gun conservatives and a shooting event, I'd think that you'd also see the similar connection here.