Catching Up: Federal Judge Permanently Blocks National Guard Deployment to Portland
The judge ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority and violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, finding no lawful basis for the deployment, such as a rebellion.
Photo: Jordan Gale for The New York Times
Overview
Date: November 7, 2025
Summary: A federal judge in Oregon, Karin J. Immergut, issued a permanent injunction on November 7, 2025, barring the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland in response to anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests. The judge ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority and violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, finding no lawful basis for the deployment, such as a rebellion or the inability of regular forces to enforce laws. The decision makes permanent previous temporary restraining orders. The Trump administration has indicated its intention to appeal the ruling to a higher court.
Sources
The Washington Post - Judge blocks Trump from deploying National Guard in Oregon
OPB - Federal judge permanently blocks Trump from deploying National Guard to Portland
BBC - US judge says Trump cannot deploy National Guard to Portland
Key Points
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued a permanent injunction blocking the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland.
The ruling asserted that President Trump overstepped his authority, violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, and lacked a lawful basis for federalizing the National Guard.
Judge Immergut concluded there was neither a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” nor an inability of “regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” in Oregon.
The decision makes permanent previous temporary restraining orders issued by Judge Immergut.
The Trump administration, through the Justice Department and White House spokespersons, has indicated it will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, expecting to be “vindicated by a higher court.”
The legal battle stems from anti-ICE protests in Portland, which the administration claimed warranted military intervention due to violence and disruption, while state and city officials argued they were largely peaceful and manageable by local law enforcement.
Similar legal challenges regarding National Guard deployments by the Trump administration are ongoing in other cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles.
Unique Highlights
The New York Times details Judge Immergut’s 106-page ruling, noting her rejection of government lawyers’ arguments that protests represented a rebellion or made immigration enforcement impossible. The article also highlights the judge’s “deeply troubled” discovery that a small squad of Oregon National Guard troops was deployed on October 4, after her temporary restraining order, while the administration simultaneously coordinated the transport of California National Guard troops.
NBC News includes Oregon Governor Tina Kotek’s renewed call for the Trump administration to “send all troops home now” following the ruling. It also mentions California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s statement calling the decision “a win for the rule of law.”
The Washington Post quotes White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stating President Trump “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets” and expects to be “vindicated by a higher court.” It also provides context on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially siding with the federal government (2-1) before a larger group of judges agreed to rehear the issue.
Fox News specifically mentions that the temporary order, which was made permanent, blocked the deployment of National Guard members from Oregon, Texas, and California into Portland.
Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) provides a detailed account of the events on October 4, including emails submitted as part of the trial indicating Guard members were deployed after the temporary restraining order. It quotes Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor, calling the deployment “alarming.” The article also reveals that the Department of Homeland Security corrected its initial claim about deploying 115 Federal Protective Service officers, stating the actual number was approximately 86. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson is quoted saying, “the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero.”
BBC notes that the Portland decision is the first time the Trump administration was permanently blocked from deploying troops to a city. It highlights Judge Immergut’s statement that she would leave it to a higher court to set a standard for when a president can “deploy the military in the streets of American cities.”
Contrasting Details
Characterization of Protests: Judge Immergut and local officials consistently described the protests as “predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence” (The New York Times, OPB, The Washington Post, BBC). In contrast, the Trump administration, through the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department, characterized Portland as “war-ravaged” with “violent riots” and “ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa” (The New York Times, NBC News, The Washington Post, BBC).
Legitimacy of Deployment: The judge’s ruling, supported by state and city officials, found “no lawful basis” for the deployment, citing a lack of rebellion or inability of local forces to maintain order (The New York Times, NBC News, The Washington Post, Fox News, OPB, BBC). The Trump administration, however, argued its “determination was amply justified by the facts on the ground,” asserting that federal law enforcement needed the National Guard’s help due to agitators assaulting federal officers and damaging federal property (NBC News, The Washington Post).
Adherence to Court Orders: Judge Immergut expressed being “deeply troubled” by the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops on October 4, after her temporary restraining order had been issued (The New York Times, OPB). The administration’s explanation was that it took time to communicate the order, which the judge found questionable given their swift action in federalizing California National Guard members (The New York Times, OPB).
The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.
This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).