A federal judge determined on Friday that President Trump acted unlawfully by planning to send the Oregon National Guard to Portland. This ruling marks a significant setback for Trump’s intention to deploy troops to Democratic cities where protests have taken place around federal immigration facilities.
U.S. District Judge Karyn Immergut, appointed by Trump himself, issued a permanent injunction preventing the president from sending Oregon National Guard members to the city. She stated that Trump violated federal law and overstepped state sovereignty with this action.
It’s notable that this is the first ruling addressing the legal grounds of aggressively utilizing the National Guard, amidst ongoing legal challenges to Trump’s attempts in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
Immergut clarified in her ruling that the court isn’t saying Trump can’t deploy the National Guard when necessary, but emphasized that under the U.S. Constitution, the power to raise the National Guard lies with Congress, not the president. “Unless the President legally federalizes the National Guard,” she noted, they remain under the state governor’s command.
This decision came after a three-day trial that saw often intense testimony from local and federal law enforcement regarding the protests central to the case.
Trump had called up the Oregon National Guard in September, aiming to safeguard “war-torn” Portland and its ICE facilities. In response, local and state officials quickly initiated legal action to prevent his plans.
Initially, the president sought to federalize and deploy 200 troops from Oregon, but after Immergut issued a temporary block on that effort, a judge prevented any troop deployment altogether. The administration has since filed an appeal.
During the trial, DOJ attorneys contended that Trump had the legal right to federalize the National Guard under Title 10, which outlines specific circumstances for doing so, including invasion and insurrection.
They argued that the protests at the ICE facility amounted to insurrection since they disrupted federal agents’ operations. Additionally, they contended that the court should avoid second-guessing Trump’s decisions.
Two anonymous supervisors from the Federal Protective Service testified that the National Guard’s involvement could lower tensions, but both admitted they had not sought military help.
Immergut referenced this testimony in her decision, mentioning that even Maj. Gen. Timothy Rieger from the National Guard Bureau lacked detailed knowledge of the situation in Portland when he suggested military support.
Portland police presented additional evidence showing that the protests had been largely peaceful but escalated due to actions by a few federal agents. They pointed to previous riots in 2020 to illustrate how excessive police force could inflame situations.
Portland Police Commander Franz Schoening remarked on the differing circumstances of the protests from five years ago, emphasizing how they had morphed from peaceful demonstrations into long-lasting and at times violent protests.
Recently, a three-judge panel from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked one of Immergut’s rulings, but the appeals court later reversed that decision, indicating that the full court would review the case further.
Trump’s plans to deploy the National Guard in various cities have been mixed in their effectiveness. While troops remain in California and Washington, D.C., deployment to Illinois has been blocked, although that could change at any moment.
The Supreme Court is currently weighing an emergency request from the administration concerning the deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago region, though no decision has been made yet.
Immergut has suspended part of the final ruling for 14 days, allowing Trump to maintain command of the Oregon National Guard while potentially avoiding troop deployment during the appeals process.
