Judge Says No to Trump’s Request for National Guard Deployment in Portland
Karin Immergut to rule Monday on lifting block against federalized troop patrols in Portland.
 |
Federal agents outside Portland’s ICE building, October 12, 2025. |
Portland Judge Delays Decision on Trump’s Request to Deploy Federalized Troops
A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Friday declined to immediately lift her own order preventing the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops in the city, saying she would issue a final decision by Monday.
The Portland hearing, along with another in Washington, D.C., capped a tumultuous week of overlapping lawsuits and conflicting rulings over Donald Trump’s effort to send military forces into Democratic-led cities — a campaign that has drawn intense pushback from local leaders. In Chicago, similar restrictions remain in place while the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to allow deployments there.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who presides in Portland, has twice barred federalized Guard troops from patrolling the city. Her initial temporary restraining order blocked Trump’s plan to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard members in response to what he described as “war-like unrest” around a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Immergut dismissed that claim as “simply untethered to the facts,” noting the demonstrations were small and peaceful.
When the administration then sought to send 200 troops from California’s Guard — and threatened an additional 400 from Texas — Immergut ruled that the move was an attempt to sidestep her order. She issued a second injunction, extending the prohibition to Guard units from any state.
Earlier this week, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted Immergut’s first order, though the lone Portland-based judge on the panel dissented. The second order, however, remains in place because the Justice Department never appealed it. That means troop deployments to Portland are still on hold until Immergut decides whether to amend or dissolve her ruling in light of the appellate decision.
During Friday’s virtual hearing, Immergut said she saw two reasons to wait before changing the injunction. First, the appellate ruling didn’t address her finding that the government tried to evade her original order. Second, the Ninth Circuit is now weighing whether to rehear the earlier appeal before an expanded panel of 11 judges.
Later in the day, the appeals court temporarily reinstated Immergut’s first order until next Tuesday evening to allow time for that review — effectively keeping the freeze on Trump’s deployment authority for at least four more days.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, heard arguments in a separate case filed by District Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who is seeking to remove more than 2,000 Guard members still stationed on city streets.
Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the capital in August, though Justice Department data shows violent crime there is at a 30-year low. Within weeks, over 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the District had been mobilized under the authority of the Army secretary, along with hundreds of federal agents.
Schwalb’s office argued the prolonged military presence is unconstitutional and warned that “our democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand.”
Government attorneys countered that the president has clear statutory authority over the D.C. National Guard, calling the lawsuit a “political stunt” that undermines what they described as a successful anti-crime initiative.
Although the emergency order formally expired in September, roughly 2,200 troops remain deployed. Several states have indicated they will withdraw their forces by November 30 unless new orders are issued.
Among those contributing personnel was West Virginia, whose governor, Patrick Morrisey, faces criticism from a local civic group that accuses him of overstepping his authority by sending 300 to 400 Guard members to the capital.
West Virginia Defends Guard Deployment as Chicago Court Extends Ban
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey has defended his decision to send National Guard troops to Washington, saying the state “is proud to stand with President Trump.” His office maintains that the deployment was lawful under federal authority.
State lawyers have urged Kanawha County Circuit Judge Richard D. Lindsay to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, arguing the organization suffered no direct harm and therefore lacks standing to challenge Morrisey’s actions.
Judge Lindsay heard initial arguments on Friday before pausing the hearing until November 3, giving the state additional time to address a central question: whether Morrisey had the legal authority to authorize the deployment.
“I want that issue addressed,” Lindsay said during the proceedings.
Meanwhile, in Illinois, District Judge April Perry on Wednesday extended her order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area. The freeze will remain in place until her court resolves the underlying case or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes.
Perry’s earlier temporary restraining order had halted the troop deployment for two weeks. Federal government attorneys said they would not oppose extending the order but confirmed they will continue to pursue an emergency Supreme Court ruling to authorize the deployments.
Attorneys for the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois have urged the high court to maintain the block, calling the proposed military presence a “dramatic step” that risks escalating tensions rather than restoring order.
> Gov. Andy Beshear Says a Presidential Run Is ‘Something We’ll Think About’
> Governor Andy Beshear on Why We Must Never Abandon Our Convictions
> Join Writers Bloc for a Live Discussion with Andy Beshear and Brian Tyler Cohen
0 Comments