{"id":44996,"date":"2025-11-08T14:09:10","date_gmt":"2025-11-08T22:09:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=44996"},"modified":"2025-11-08T14:09:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-08T22:09:12","slug":"federal-judge-permanently-blocks-trump-from-deploying-national-guard-to-portland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2025\/11\/08\/federal-judge-permanently-blocks-trump-from-deploying-national-guard-to-portland\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal judge permanently blocks Trump from deploying National Guard to Portland"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Conrad Wilson<\/a> (OPB) and Michelle Wiley<\/a> (OPB)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nov. 7, 2025 5:05 p.m.\u00a0Updated:<\/strong>\u00a0Nov. 8, 2025 (OPB.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut found President Trump \u201cdid not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

President Donald Trump was permanently blocked from sending the National Guard to Portland by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, who delivered her final order in the case Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case has centered around whether ongoing protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city warrant a National Guard deployment. In her ruling, she acknowledged \u201cviolent protests did occur,\u201d but law enforcement was able to address them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince 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, largely between protesters and counter-protesters,\u201d the judge wrote in her 106-page order<\/a>, \u201cthis Court concludes that even giving great deference to the President\u2019s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The permanent injunction went into effect immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision is a setback in the Trump administration\u2019s effort to send National Guard members to the city, and marks the fourth time the judge has blocked the deployment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The city of Portland and the states of Oregon and California sued in late September after President Trump announced on social media he would \u201cprovide all necessary Troops\u201d to protect the city he described as \u201cWar ravaged\u201d and \u201cunder siege.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal law allows the president to federalize the National Guard under certain situations, such as a rebellion or threat of one, or an inability to execute laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Camp
Camp Withycombe on Sunday, Oct. 5, 2025. The camp serves as headquarters for several Oregon Army National Guard military units.Saskia Hatvany \/ OPB<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

After temporarily blocking the president from deploying guard troops twice, Immergut held a trial on the underlying lawsuit last week. Over the course of three days<\/a>, the city and states argued the executive branch exceeded its constitutional authority and violated state sovereignty. They\u2019ve also said the conditions on the ground in Portland do not warrant the deployment and can be handled by local law enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice disagreed, pointing to the arrest of several protesters throughout the summer and disruptions to federal immigration operations. They\u2019ve maintained the president has sweeping authority to deploy the National Guard to protect federal functions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPresident Trump\u2019s federalization decision is consistent with law,\u201d Eric Hamilton, with the Justice Department, argued during the trial. \u201cThe president\u2019s judgment is not subject to judicial review.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson repeated a previous statement in response to Friday\u2019s ruling, saying \u201cPresident Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets\u201d and they \u201cexpect to be vindicated by a higher court.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A previous lawsuit in California, after guard members and U.S. Marines were sent there in June, primarily challenged the activities the guard members were performing, such as police work. Oregon\u2019s case is the first since Trump took office to go to trial over the lawfulness of federalizing the National Guard in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTo be clear, today this Court does not rule that the President can never deploy the National Guard to Oregon, or to any other location, if conditions on the ground justify the Guard\u2019s intervention,\u201d Immergut noted in her ruling Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jeff Feldman, a law professor at the University of Washington, said Immergut\u2019s decision will likely be appealed and will go to a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cShe gets credit for putting it on a fast track and getting on this very quickly,\u201d Feldman said of Immergut\u2019s trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic political leaders involved in the case said the ruling marked an important moment as President Trump has pushed National Guard deployments in other places, such as Los Angeles and Chicago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the permanent injunction a check on presidential power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo president is above the law, all of us, in every city across this country, must follow the law,\u201d he said in a video message Friday night. \u201cThere\u2019s a reason we have laws in place. And there\u2019s a reason we don\u2019t normalize the use of the military in our cities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said the city would continue its fight in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero, and today\u2019s court ruling vindicates Portland\u2019s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community,\u201d the mayor said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like Wilson, California Attorney General Rob Bonta indicated he, too, was preparing for an appeal and said the legal fight was not over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOnce again, a court has firmly rejected the President\u2019s militarized vision for America\u2019s future,\u201d Bonta said in a statement Friday. \u201cWe must not become desensitized to the unprecedented and blatantly illegal nature of the President\u2019s actions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Become a Sponsor<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oct. 4 deployment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the six weeks since the lawsuit was filed, Oregonians have been subject to a ping-pong of court decisions and revelations. The most notable: National Guard troops were briefly deployed to the Portland ICE building in early October.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Oct. 3, for the first time, Immergut heard arguments for and against a temporary restraining order to block the president from federalizing 200 members of the Oregon National Guard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following morning, a small group of Oregon National Guard members was ordered to the ICE building, according to emails submitted as part of the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
A federal agent and protesters stand in front of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland, Ore., on Saturday, Oct. 25, 2025. A crowd of about 100 gathered in front of the building to protest that afternoon.Saskia Hatvany \/ OPB<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While troops were still at the facility, Immergut issued a 31-page decision blocking the Trump administration from federalizing the state\u2019s guard in the first place. The nine troops remained at the building until their shift concluded at midnight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During trial, attorneys for the Trump administration twice told Immergut various explanations, including that it took time to communicate the message to people on the ground that her temporary restraining order had gone into effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her Friday ruling, the judge questioned that explanation, stating she was \u201cdeeply troubled\u201d the Trump administration kept members of the Oregon National Guard at the Portland ICE facility \u201cin violation\u201d of the first temporary restraining order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immergut noted the Trump administration responded to her initial order by quickly sending 200 California National Guard members, who were already under the president\u2019s authority, to Oregon. After that, they called up hundreds of Texas National Guard troops.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn other words, Defendants had time to order and coordinate the transport of federalized California National Guardsmen from Los Angeles to Portland, but needed more time to communicate with the Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility,\u201d she wrote Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the evening of Oct. 5, Immergut held an emergency hearing and issued a second temporary restraining order. That one was broader and temporarily blocked any federalized members from any national guard from deploying to Oregon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rachel VanLandingham, a professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a retired lieutenant colonel who spent 20 years in the U.S. Air Force, called the Oct. 4 deployment alarming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt looks really bad,\u201d VanLandingham said. \u201cIf it was a screw up, it shows a concerning lack of command and control, which is scary when you\u2019re talking about military forces.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If it was intentional, she explained, that would demonstrate \u201cextreme disdain for our federal courts and for the role of a third co-equal branch of our government.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There wasn\u2019t an emergency on Oct. 4, she said, to justify deploying a small group of soldiers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is zero factual basis for refusing to wait for the judge to rule,\u201d VanLandingham said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Correcting the record<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As the case wound its way to trial, the Trump administration also found it had to correct the record, walking back a core assertion they used to justify the need to bring National Guard troops to Portland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Initially, Department of Homeland Security officials told the courts the agency sent 115 officers from the Federal Protective Service (FPS), an agency responsible for securing federal property, to the city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attorneys for the Trump administration initially claimed \u201cnearly a quarter of the agency\u2019s entire FPS capacity had to be redirected over a relatively short period to a single location in one medium-sized American city due to the unrest there.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That turned out to be wrong, according to court documents filed on the eve of trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe number of individual officers who deployed to Portland as of September 30, 2025, is approximately 86, not 115,\u201d Robert Cantu, a regional deputy director with the Federal Protective Service, stated in a corrected declaration with the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Protests
Protests at the U.S. Immigrations and Customs building in Portland, Ore., Oct. 18, 2025, where federal troops deployed tear gas, fired pepper balls and rubber bullets, along with flash-bangs.Conrad Wilson \/ OPB<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The city and states argued in their own court filings that the FPS \u201cmoved only a small fraction\u201d of the agency\u2019s more than 1,300 employees, \u201cto Portland to supplement the four officers assigned to the Portland ICE facility, and never more than 31 at a time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law enforcement officers from ICE and Customs and Border Protection were also sent to Portland to assist at the immigration facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn sum, the trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,\u201d Immergut wrote in her Friday ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Conrad Wilson (OPB) and Michelle Wiley (OPB) Nov. 7, 2025 5:05 p.m.\u00a0Updated:\u00a0Nov. 8, 2025 (OPB.org) In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut found President Trump \u201cdid not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.\u201d President Donald Trump was permanently blocked from sending the National Guard to Portland by U.S. District… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44996"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44996"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44996\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44997,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44996\/revisions\/44997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}