PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon has permanently blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to the streets of Portland amid protests against the president's immigration policies, ruling that the move lacked legal justification and amounted to an overreach of executive power.
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, issued the permanent injunction on Friday, concluding that there was no evidence of a rebellion or inability to enforce laws that would warrant such a deployment. "This Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion' nor was the President 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States' in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard," Immergut wrote in her decision.
The ruling stems from a legal battle that began in late September, when Trump directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to mobilize approximately 200 National Guard troops to Portland. The deployment was intended to address ongoing protests outside an immigration processing facility, which the administration described as escalating into violent confrontations. Oregon officials, however, argued that the situation was manageable with local and federal law enforcement and that the military presence was unnecessary and unlawful.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek hailed the decision as a rebuke of what she called a "gross abuse of power" by the Trump administration. In a statement released Friday, Kotek said, "Oregon National Guard members have been away from their jobs and families for 38 days. The California National Guard has been here for just over one month. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office joined the challenge against the deployment of his state's National Guard units, echoed Kotek's sentiments. Bonta described the ruling as "a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people." The involvement of California troops highlighted the interstate dimensions of the deployment, with Bonta's team arguing that it violated state authority over National Guard units unless properly federalized under specific conditions.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling, according to reports. The administration has the option to appeal the decision, which could escalate the case to higher courts.
Immergut's permanent injunction builds on her earlier actions in the case. On Oct. 4, she issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of Oregon's National Guard, followed a day later by a similar order for out-of-state units. In her rulings, Immergut criticized Trump's characterizations of the protests, noting that his claims appeared exaggerated. She pointed to statements where Trump described Portland as "war ravaged" with "ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa" and "crazy people" who "try to burn down buildings, including federal buildings" every night. "The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts," Immergut wrote.
The Justice Department, representing the administration, pushed back strongly against the judge's assessment. In court filings, DOJ attorneys argued that the deployment was justified by persistent threats to federal personnel and property. They detailed incidents including assaults on federal officers, damage to property, spray-painted violent threats, blockades of vehicle entrances to the Portland ICE facility, and online doxxing and death threats. "In the weeks and months preceding the President’s decision, agitators assaulted federal officers and damaged federal property in numerous ways," the DOJ stated, adding that federal law enforcement was "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."
The Justice Department further contended that Immergut's decision "improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief’s supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the field, and endangers federal personnel and property." They maintained that Trump's "determination was amply justified by the facts on the ground."
Oregon officials countered these claims, acknowledging some incidents of violence near the facility but describing them as small-scale and containable without military intervention. The state and city of Portland filed their lawsuit on Sept. 28, seeking to halt the deployment on grounds that it violated federal statutes requiring specific conditions for federalizing the National Guard, such as an actual rebellion or failure of regular forces.
The case has unfolded against a backdrop of heightened tensions over immigration enforcement in Portland, a city long known for its activist community and history of protests. Demonstrations outside the ICE facility intensified in recent months, with protesters decrying Trump's policies on border security and deportation. While some gatherings remained peaceful, reports of clashes with law enforcement have fueled debates over the appropriate response. The administration's decision to involve the National Guard marked a rare use of military forces in a domestic urban setting, drawing comparisons to past deployments during civil unrest.
The DOJ has already appealed Immergut's temporary orders to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the matter remains pending. This appeal process could determine whether the permanent injunction holds or if the administration gains leeway to proceed with similar actions elsewhere.
A parallel legal challenge is playing out in Chicago, where a federal judge last month issued a temporary restraining order against National Guard deployment in response to similar protests. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed that order to stand temporarily while the administration's appeal moves forward. The Trump team escalated that case to the Supreme Court last month, signaling a potential path for the Portland ruling as well.
The broader implications of Immergut's decision could resonate in ongoing debates about presidential authority over military deployments in domestic affairs. Legal experts note that the Insurrection Act, which Trump invoked implicitly through his actions, sets strict thresholds for such interventions. By ruling that no rebellion existed and that regular forces were sufficient, Immergut's opinion reinforces limits on executive power, potentially influencing future administrations.
As the legal battles continue, Portland residents and officials are calling for a return to normalcy. With troops from Oregon and California having been stationed in the city for over a month, the injunction offers immediate relief, though an appeal could prolong the uncertainty. For now, the ruling stands as a significant check on the administration's approach to handling protests, emphasizing judicial oversight in matters of national security and civil order.