President Donald Trump and his administration were handed a new legal loss on Friday regarding National Guard troop deployments in Portland, Oregon, from a judge he appointed.
White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson to Newsweek via email on Friday night, in part, “President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
Why It Matters
The ongoing legal battle over President Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops underscores critical questions about executive authority, federalism, and the balance between federal and state control.
The dispute has drawn national attention as similar efforts by the Trump administration to deploy federalized military forces to cities with Democratic leadership have met resistance in courts across the country. The outcome could potentially have lasting ramifications for civil-military relations and the boundaries of presidential power under the Constitution, particularly during protest movements and domestic emergencies.
What To Know
Oregon Federal Judge Karin J. Immergut, an appointee of the president during his first term in office, issued and then extended a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland.
Initially, her order prevented the federalization of Oregon’s Guard, but Immergut later expanded the injunction to bar deployment from any state into Portland after the administration attempted to deploy California-based troops.
“However, with respect to the deployment of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, based on any of the above orders, THIS PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT,” Immergut concluded in the order.
Immergut’s rulings followed heated legal arguments regarding whether the situation in Portland met the statutory requirements—such as rebellion or incapacity of state authorities—to justify federalizing the Guard. In her documented opinion, Immergut stated: “The Court finds that there is no credible evidence that protest activities at the ICE facility created more than a minimal interference with Defendants’ ability to enforce Title 8 immigration laws in Portland.”
The order also noted that “Second, this Court finds that the trial evidence established that there was neither ‘a rebellion [n]or a danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ at the Portland ICE facility when the President federalized the National Guard.”
This legal tug-of-war has left troops from Oregon, California, and other states in limbo while legal proceedings continued.
What People Are Saying
White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson to Newsweek via email on Friday night: “The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
Joyce Alene, former federal prosecutor, on X on Friday: “Judge Immergut rules against the administration in the Portland Nat’l Guard case, granting a permanent injunction even after giving Trump’s decision ‘great deference.’”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, on X on Friday: “BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment! Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law.”
What Happens Next
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also considering related cases of National Guard deployments.
