A federal judge is deliberating whether to temporarily block President Donald Trump’s plan to federalize and deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops to Portland — a move that has sparked a legal and political showdown between state and federal authorities.
Judge Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court in Portland said she would issue a decision Friday evening or Saturday morning on the state and city’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the deployment. The decision follows a contentious two-hour hearing held Friday morning.
Immergut, appointed to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, took over the case late Thursday after Judge Michael Simon recused himself. Simon’s wife, Democratic Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, had publicly criticized the federal deployment, prompting the reassignment.
Also Read
If granted, the restraining order would immediately halt the plan announced last weekend by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to send National Guard troops to Portland for 60 days.
As of Friday evening, Immergut had not yet issued her ruling. In the meantime, Gov. Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield, both Democrats, called for calm as the legal process unfolds.
“I’m proud of the case we’ve presented alongside the Oregon Department of Justice,” Kotek said in a statement. “Now, as the judge deliberates, I ask that Oregonians express themselves peacefully and remember that unity will serve us better than anger.”
State Argues Federal Overreach Violates Constitution
During Friday’s hearing, Oregon’s legal team — led by Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy — described Trump’s order as “one of the most dramatic infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon’s history.” Kennedy was joined by Brian Marshall, also of the Oregon Department of Justice, and Caroline Turco, Senior Deputy City Attorney for Portland.
The state and city argue that the deployment violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves policing powers to the states. They also contend it breaches the Posse Comitatus Act, a post-Civil War law prohibiting the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
Kennedy argued the move would cause irreparable harm to Oregon — not only by undermining the state’s authority but by escalating protests and exposing Guard members to unpaid service due to the ongoing federal government shutdown.
“There is no active rebellion here,” Kennedy said. “The administration has stretched the meaning of ‘rebellion’ to include citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.”
Federal Lawyers Cite ‘Rebellion’ and Public Safety Concerns
Representing the federal government, attorney Eric Hamilton argued that federal law — specifically Title 10 of the U.S. Code — grants the president authority to deploy troops during acts of rebellion or when federal agencies cannot operate safely.
Hamilton described the protests outside Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing facility as “vicious and cruel,” claiming that ICE agents and federal police were exhausted and required assistance.
However, local reports contradict that narrative. Protests in recent months have typically drawn only a few dozen people and remained mostly peaceful. Following Trump’s social media announcement last weekend on TruthSocial, attendance briefly swelled to a few hundred, with only a handful of arrests for minor altercations.
When pressed by the court, Hamilton conceded there was “no emergency” but insisted the administration was acting proactively to prevent unrest.
Judge Questions Trump’s Social Media Rationale
Much of Friday’s hearing centered on the legal justification — or lack thereof — for the deployment. Oregon’s attorneys pointed out that the federal government’s primary evidence for needing troops was a June 7 memo from Trump authorizing the federalization of California’s Guard during protests there, not a directive specific to Oregon.
Kennedy argued that repurposing a months-old memo for an unrelated event “reduces constitutional process to improvisation.” He also criticized the Department of Justice for citing Trump’s TruthSocial post announcing the deployment as a core document of justification.
Immergut appeared skeptical. “Really?” she asked from the bench. “A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination that you can send the National Guard to cities? That’s really what I should be relying on?”
City of Portland Counters Federal Claims of Disorder
Turco, representing Portland, presented evidence that undercut claims of escalating violence near the ICE facility. She introduced transcripts of nightly communications between Portland Police and federal agents showing that most evenings were quiet, with federal officers often reporting “nothing happening.”
She further noted that when local police were called to the facility, it was usually to assist with medical emergencies, not crowd control.
“This narrative of chaos is a political invention,” Turco said. “The presence of federal troops will not restore order — it will invite more unrest.”
Economic and Political Stakes for Oregon
The proposed deployment would draw 200 National Guard members — roughly 3% of the state’s total force. Oregon’s lawyers emphasized that those being federalized represent 60% of the state’s emergency response unit, critical for wildfire and disaster response.
They also warned that, under the current government shutdown, federalized troops would go unpaid until Congress resolves the budget impasse, creating financial strain for those called into service.
Kennedy framed Trump’s decision as politically motivated. “Why federalize the Oregon Guard on September 28?” he asked. “The timing of this move was arbitrary — based not on need, but narrative.”
The lawsuit filed by Oregon and Portland names Trump, Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of constitutional and statutory limits on federal power and accuses the administration of targeting Portland for political retaliation.
Awaiting a Defining Ruling
As of late Friday, Guard members remained in training at Camp Rilea on the Oregon Coast, uncertain of their deployment orders.
The judge’s decision — expected within hours — could temporarily pause Trump’s plan or allow it to proceed, setting a major precedent in the ongoing debate over federal authority in state policing matters.
For now, Oregon waits.
In the words of one local observer outside the courthouse, “It’s not just about Portland — it’s about who gets to call the shots in our own backyard.”
Whatever Judge Immergut decides, her ruling will mark another defining moment in Oregon’s tug-of-war between local sovereignty and federal control — a test of balance between order and democracy in a deeply divided nation.
