Portland: A pivotal ruling is expected Friday as U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut considers whether former President Donald Trump acted outside federal law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, in response to protests at federal immigration facilities. The case could redefine the limits of presidential power to use military forces on domestic soil.
Currently, Trump’s deployment is blocked by a temporary court order. Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, will determine whether to extend the block indefinitely. The decision centers on whether the protests in Portland legally qualified as a “rebellion” warranting military intervention a rarely tested threshold under U.S. law.
During a three-day bench trial, the Department of Justice described the protests as a violent siege overwhelming federal personnel, echoing Trump’s depiction of Portland as “war-ravaged.” Attorney Eric Hamilton argued that federal employees faced sustained threats and attacks. In contrast, Portland’s lawyers, led by Caroline Turco, maintained that incidents of violence were rare, isolated, and effectively managed by local police. “This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Turco said.
Court records show that at least 32 individuals have faced federal charges related to the Portland protests since June, including 14 felonies for assaulting federal officers. Most charges resulted in probation, though some defendants face lengthy sentences for acts such as threatening officers with weapons. Evidence presented included minor injuries to law enforcement, as well as instances of spitting, shoving, and throwing objects.
Trump’s decision marks a sharp departure from established but seldom tested norms restricting the deployment of troops on U.S. soil. Critics, particularly Democrats, argue that his use of National Guard forces for protests stretches emergency powers intended only for armed rebellion or invasion. Preliminary rulings from the Ninth Circuit have supported the view that the president exceeded legal authority in his National Guard deployments.
Should Judge Immergut issue a permanent block, the decision may prompt appeals reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially setting a national precedent on the scope of executive military authority within the United States. Observers note that the case also raises fundamental questions about federal-state relations and civil liberties during domestic unrest.
The ruling is anticipated later today and will likely influence how future administrations may respond to domestic protests and civil disturbances.