A federal judge in Oregon has issued a temporary order blocking the Trump administration from deploying 200 National Guard troops in Portland. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Oregon’s state and city officials, who argue that the deployment violates the U.S. Constitution and federal laws restricting the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.
A Pause on Federal Deployment
Judge Immergut’s order, issued pending further hearings, prevents the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s plan to federalize Oregon’s National Guard. The judge emphasized that the case raises core constitutional questions about federal authority and state sovereignty.
“This case involves the intersection of three fundamental democratic principles,” Judge Immergut wrote. “The relationship between the federal government and the states, between the military and domestic law enforcement, and the balance of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.”
Also Read
She added that adhering to these constitutional boundaries “goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States.”
The Legal Argument
The lawsuit filed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield contends that the federal government’s move to deploy troops undercuts both state authority and federal law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits using the military to enforce domestic law without congressional authorization.
Judge Immergut acknowledged that the President has considerable discretion to federalize National Guard troops in extraordinary circumstances, such as when local law enforcement is unable to enforce federal law. However, she determined that those conditions were not met in Portland’s case.
“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote, noting that the demonstrations at the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility were mostly peaceful and “small and uneventful” in the days leading up to the deployment order.
Disputed Depiction of Portland
The Defense Department had announced plans to place 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to “protect federal property” in Portland and other areas where protests were occurring or likely to occur. President Trump justified the move by calling Portland “war-ravaged,” a characterization that Oregon officials flatly rejected as misleading.
In reality, local reports show that protests at the ICE facility typically involved a few dozen demonstrators, with occasional clashes limited to a single block in the city’s industrial district. Portland, a city of 636,000 people spread across 145 square miles, had seen sporadic protests over immigration policies and police conduct, but not the large-scale unrest described by the administration.
“The federal government’s portrayal of Portland is divorced from reality,” the Oregon Attorney General’s office stated. “There is no justification for military intervention in our communities.”
A Broader Federal Strategy
The attempt to deploy troops in Portland is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to send federal forces to major U.S. cities, particularly those led by Democrats. Over the past year, the President has either deployed or threatened to deploy National Guard troops to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Memphis.
During a recent address to military officials in Virginia, President Trump reportedly suggested that “urban deployments” could serve as “training opportunities” for the armed forces—a proposal that drew immediate backlash from both lawmakers and civil rights groups.
Last month, a separate federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of approximately 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines to Los Angeles earlier this year was illegal, though the remaining 300 troops were allowed to stay temporarily under strict conditions that barred them from enforcing civilian laws.
Local Leaders Push Back
Oregon’s leaders have consistently opposed federal intervention. Governor Tina Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said they were blindsided by the deployment order and reiterated that neither the state nor city requested federal troops.
Mayor Wilson said the deployment would only “escalate tensions” and undermine trust between residents and law enforcement. “We don’t need soldiers on our streets. We need solutions that address root causes — housing, healthcare, and safety for all,” he said.
A larger protest did occur on September 28, following the announcement of the National Guard deployment. While thousands peacefully marched through downtown Portland earlier that day, police reported no arrests. Later that night, two individuals were detained during a smaller, separate protest outside the ICE facility.
Historical Context: Portland’s 2020 Unrest
The current dispute recalls the Trump administration’s controversial 2020 deployment of federal officers to Portland amid nationwide racial justice protests following George Floyd’s killing. Hundreds of agents from federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, were sent to protect the federal courthouse and other properties.
That operation resulted in widespread criticism after officers used tear gas, rubber bullets, and unmarked vans to detain protesters. Viral videos of officers in camouflage pulling people into unmarked vehicles led to a federal investigation.
A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General later found that while the federal government technically had authority to deploy the officers, many lacked the proper training and equipment for such missions.
Earlier this year, the federal government agreed to settle an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit over excessive force used during the 2020 protests, compensating several demonstrators injured during those clashes.
What Happens Next
Judge Immergut’s temporary restraining order will remain in place for now, with additional hearings expected later this month to determine whether it should be extended or made permanent.
Legal experts say the case could set an important precedent regarding the limits of executive power in deploying domestic military forces.
“This ruling reaffirms the principle that even in times of unrest, the President cannot bypass the Constitution to impose federal military control over states,” said constitutional law professor Elaine Thompson of the University of Oregon. “It’s a critical reminder that our system depends on checks and balances, even when political tensions run high.”
For now, Portland remains without federal troops on its streets — and the court’s decision stands as a rebuke to Washington’s claims of chaos in the city. Whether the restraining order becomes permanent will depend on the outcome of further hearings, but the message from Oregon’s leaders is clear: they do not want federal soldiers enforcing laws in their state.
