Portland: In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, a federal judge has issued a temporary order halting the planned deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, stops the deployment at least until October 18, pending the outcome of a legal challenge brought by the state of Oregon.
The case centers on whether the federal government has overstepped its authority by sending troops into a state without its consent. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed the lawsuit, arguing that the deployment violates the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment, which protects states from federal encroachment on powers traditionally held by the state. The complaint asserts that President Trump’s administration relied on outdated footage from the 2020 protests to justify the move, painting a misleading picture of Portland’s current unrest.
Judge Immergut’s ruling emphasized that there was no substantial evidence that recent protests in Portland had escalated to a rebellion or significantly disrupted law enforcement. She noted that Oregon is likely to succeed with its claims, cautioning that allowing the deployment could undermine the fundamental separation between civil authority and military power. “The court must ensure that the balance of power between federal and state authorities is not eroded,” she stated.
The Trump administration has announced plans to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, Portland officials, along with Democratic leaders from other states, have condemned the proposed deployment, describing it as an unconstitutional use of federal authority and an exaggeration of the level of unrest in the city. Critics argue that the move appeared politically motivated rather than a response to any immediate threat to public safety.
The temporary ruling marks a high-profile example of the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority, raising broader questions about the limits of presidential power in deploying the military domestically. As the appeal process unfolds, the case is expected to draw national attention, highlighting ongoing debates over civil liberties, protest rights, and the appropriate use of the National Guard.