UPDATE: A federal judge has just ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully seized control of the Oregon National Guard to police protests in Portland. This urgent decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut on Friday evening, sharply limits the White House’s authority to deploy National Guard troops against a state’s wishes.
In a landmark 106-page opinion, Judge Immergut concluded that the deployment of nearly 200 Oregon National Guard members, as well as federalized troops from California and Texas to an ICE facility in Portland, exceeded presidential power and violated the Tenth Amendment. The judge emphasized that the evidence did not support claims of a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” in Portland, noting that unrest surrounding the ICE building had significantly subsided long before the Guard was called in.
The ruling comes after a three-day bench trial, where it was established that local and state police, along with augmented federal law enforcement, had been “sufficient” to maintain order without the involvement of the National Guard. Judge Immergut highlighted that these deployments were made without a request from federal officials responsible for the facility’s protection and were opposed by Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek.
Judge Immergut’s decision directly challenges Trump’s characterization of Portland as “war-ravaged.” She rejected this narrative as inconsistent with on-the-ground reports, stating that most protests were peaceful and often involved smaller crowds. “The evidence demonstrates that these deployments…exceeded the president’s authority,” she wrote.
The State of Oregon and the City of Portland initiated the legal action against Trump, arguing that his unilateral decision to federalize the National Guard for immigration-related protests was a gross abuse of power. The ruling reinforces the principle that the National Guard remains a state militia under the command of the governor, not a federal force at the president’s disposal.
This judge’s ruling also aligns with ongoing scrutiny from other states, including a similar challenge in Illinois questioning Trump’s deployment of Guard troops to ICE protest sites. Governor Kotek hailed the decision as a “validation of the facts on the ground,” while further affirming what she called a “gross abuse of power” by the White House.
As the implications of this ruling unfold, it remains critical to monitor potential responses from the Trump administration and other states considering similar federal actions. The outcome may not only affect military deployments in Oregon but could also reshape the legal landscape regarding federal and state authority over the National Guard.
Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as further legal and political repercussions are anticipated.
