Trump Bid to Send Troops to Portland Ruled Unlawful by Judge

President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, to quell protests against his immigration crackdown was permanently blocked by a US judge, handing him a major loss in his bid to send troops to Democratic-led cities.

A judge who oversaw a trial last month agreed with city and state officials on Friday that the protests have been largely peaceful since a spate of violence in early June and didn’t require the intervention of troops. The suit was filed in September to block Trump’s planned deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops over the objection of the governor.

US District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump in his first term, said the troops can remain under federal control during the government’s likely appeal, but they cannot be deployed.

“While violent protests did occur in June, they quickly abated due to the efforts of civil law enforcement officers,” the judge said. “And since that brief span of a few days in June, the protests outside the Portland ICE facility have been predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence.”

The decision is the first time a judge has ruled directly on whether Trump properly invoked a rarely used federal law to bring state troops under federal control and deploy them to cities he claims are overrun by protesters and criminals. Similar suits are underway challenging Trump’s deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, DC.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson criticized the verdict in a statement Friday.

“Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets,” she said. “President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

The decision permanently blocks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from implementing Hegseth’s Sept. 28 deployment orders for 200 Oregon or his orders in October that could have been used to send troops to Portland from California and Texas.

Immergut found that Trump’s order violated the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects state sovereignty. She also found that the deployment was unlawful because it did not meet the circumstances required under US law for bringing state National Guard members under federal control. That law, Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, allows such deployments when there is a rebellion or a situation that has prevented the president from enforcing the laws with regular forces.

“The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws,” she wrote.

The ruling only applies to the National Guard deployment in Portland, but marks a significant development in the wide-ranging legal fight over the president’s use of military forces in response to civilian activity.

During the trial, Immergut heard testimony from a range of witnesses with knowledge of the protests, including high-ranking Portland police commanders and DHS officials, who gave conflicting views about the severity of violence at the rallies and the danger they posed to federal agents.

The administration claims the protests put federal property and personnel at risk, while often preventing immigration agents from performing their duties. Lawyers for the Justice Department stressed at trial that agitators at the scene were repeatedly targeting the ICE facility and its workers with intimidation and threats of violence.

But Immergut said none of that amounted to a rebellion.

The evidence at trial “does not support that the protesters acted with the common purpose of overtaking the Portland ICE facility by unlawful or antidemocratic means,” she said. “Nor did the trial evidence demonstrate that the protesters ever had the actual power to harm the government by waging armed warfare.”

Further, evidence at trial does not support that the protesters acted with the common purpose of overtaking the Portland ICE facility by unlawful or antidemocratic means. Nor did the trial evidence demonstrate that the protesters ever had the actual power to harm the government by waging armed warfare.

She cited testimony from federal officials on the ground in Portland who were surprised to hear that the Guard had been activated and didn’t know how they would use those forces. Evidence also showed that the federal government had untapped law enforcement capacity it could have used.

Lawyers for Portland and Oregon say Trump exaggerated the situation and that the combined force of federal agents and local law enforcement has been sufficient for responding. They said throughout the case that the deployment was based on a “manufactured crisis,” and that federal agents had inflamed tensions with protesters with their response tactics.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling a “huge victory” for the state.

“From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied,” he said in a statement. “Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said the city “will continue fighting in court and working with state and community partners to ensure public safety, protect civil rights, and stand up for our immigrant community.”

The case is State of Oregon vs. Donald Trump, 3:25-cv-01756, US District Court, District of Oregon (Portland).