By Dietrich Knauth
Sat, October 4, 2025
REUTERS
Steel protective doors remain open at Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, U.S., October 3, 2025. REUTERS/John Rudof
(Reuters) -A federal judge on Saturday temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump from deploying 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the city of Portland while a lawsuit challenging the move plays out.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland is a setback for Trump, a Republican, as he seeks to dispatch the military to cities he describes as lawless over the objections of their Democratic leaders.
Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s office filed the lawsuit on September 28, a day after Trump said he would send troops to Portland to protect federal immigration facilities from “domestic terrorists.”
The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama. He recused himself after the Trump administration raised concerns about comments made by his wife, a congresswoman, criticizing the troop deployment. The case was reassigned to Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term in office.
Oregon asked the court to declare the deployment illegal and block it from going forward, saying Trump was exaggerating the threat of protests against his immigration policies to justify illegally seizing control of state National Guard units.
While Trump described the city as "War ravaged," Oregon said that Portland protests were "small and sedate," resulting in only 25 arrests in mid-June and no arrests in the three-and-a-half-months since June 19. Oregon's lawsuit said that Trump announced the troop deployment after Fox News showed video clips from "substantially larger and more turbulent protests" in Portland in 2020.
The stark divide in how the two sides described the situation on the ground in Portland was evident at a Friday court hearing before Immergut.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton said that "vicious and cruel radicals" had laid siege to the Portland headquarters of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The decision to send 200 troops - just 5% of the number recently sent to respond to Los Angeles protests - showed restraint, Hamilton said.
Caroline Turco, representing Portland, said that there had been no violence against ICE officers for months and that recent ICE protests were "sedate" in the week before Trump declared the city to be a war zone, sometimes featuring less than a dozen protesters.
"The president's perception of what is happening in Portland is not the reality on the ground," Turco said. "The president's perception is that it is World War Two out here. The reality is that this is a beautiful city with a sophisticated police force that can handle the situation."
Steel protective doors remain open at Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, U.S., October 3, 2025. REUTERS/John Rudof
(Reuters) -A federal judge on Saturday temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump from deploying 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the city of Portland while a lawsuit challenging the move plays out.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland is a setback for Trump, a Republican, as he seeks to dispatch the military to cities he describes as lawless over the objections of their Democratic leaders.
Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s office filed the lawsuit on September 28, a day after Trump said he would send troops to Portland to protect federal immigration facilities from “domestic terrorists.”
The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama. He recused himself after the Trump administration raised concerns about comments made by his wife, a congresswoman, criticizing the troop deployment. The case was reassigned to Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term in office.
Oregon asked the court to declare the deployment illegal and block it from going forward, saying Trump was exaggerating the threat of protests against his immigration policies to justify illegally seizing control of state National Guard units.
While Trump described the city as "War ravaged," Oregon said that Portland protests were "small and sedate," resulting in only 25 arrests in mid-June and no arrests in the three-and-a-half-months since June 19. Oregon's lawsuit said that Trump announced the troop deployment after Fox News showed video clips from "substantially larger and more turbulent protests" in Portland in 2020.
The stark divide in how the two sides described the situation on the ground in Portland was evident at a Friday court hearing before Immergut.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton said that "vicious and cruel radicals" had laid siege to the Portland headquarters of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The decision to send 200 troops - just 5% of the number recently sent to respond to Los Angeles protests - showed restraint, Hamilton said.
Caroline Turco, representing Portland, said that there had been no violence against ICE officers for months and that recent ICE protests were "sedate" in the week before Trump declared the city to be a war zone, sometimes featuring less than a dozen protesters.
"The president's perception of what is happening in Portland is not the reality on the ground," Turco said. "The president's perception is that it is World War Two out here. The reality is that this is a beautiful city with a sophisticated police force that can handle the situation."
Immergut asked attorneys how much deference she should give to Trump's description of Portland in social media posts, and seemed skeptical about treating those posts as an official legal determination.
"Really? A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination that you can send the National Guard to cities?" Immergut asked. "I mean, is that really what I should be relying on as his determination?"
Oregon's lawsuit argued that Trump's deployment violates several federal laws and the state's sovereign right to police its own citizens. Trump's decision to send troops only to "disfavored" Democratic cities like Portland also violates the state's rights under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to Trump's deployments of military forces to Democrat-led cities, including Los Angeles and Washington, which he says were overrun with crime and hostile to immigration enforcement.
State and local Democratic leaders have disputed those claims and accused Trump of violating longstanding U.S. laws and norms against using the military for domestic law enforcement.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from using the military to fight crime in California on September 2, but that ruling is on hold while the administration appeals.
Washington D.C.'s Democratic attorney general filed a lawsuit on September 4 to end Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in the nation's capital. A judge has yet to rule on the request.
(Reporting by Brendan O'Brien and Dietrich Knauth in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Lincoln Feast and Rosalba O'Brien)
Judge Blocks Trump Oregon Plan as Guards Ordered to Illinois
Madlin Mekelburg, Erik Larson and Zoe Tillman
Sun, October 5, 2025
BLOOMBERG
Federal agents clash with protesters outside an ICE facility in Portland on Oct. 4.
(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from sending military forces to Portland, Oregon, to quell protests against his immigration crackdown, even as 300 National Guard troops were ordered to Illinois over the objection of state officials.
US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, said in an order Saturday that the National Guard deployment to Portland did not appear to be justified due to the limited nature of the protests and the ability of local law enforcement to handle the situation.
“The president’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” the judge wrote. She said the temporary restraining order will apply for 14 days, blocking the federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland.
The Trump administration is appealing the judge’s ruling, according to a court filing.
“I wasn’t served well by the people that pick judges, I can tell you,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Sunday, adding the judge should be “ashamed” for her ruling.
Separately on Saturday, Trump authorized the Illinois deployment over the objections of Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, who called the move “un-American.”
The cases are the latest in a series of fights over Trump’s use of National Guard troops to quell protests against his administration’s policies, and to fight crime and help federal officials enforce immigration laws in Democratic-run cities.
State National Guard troops are under the control of individual governors, but the administration has argued that the president has the authority to federalize the troops in the event of a “rebellion” or “invasion.”
In the Oregon case, the judge said there were no facts to support Trump’s claims on social media that Portland was ravaged by war and that anarchists and professional agitators were trying to burn down federal property and other buildings.
The White House indicated it would likely pursue appeals.
Trump says American flag burners will be ‘immediately arrested’ under executive order
“President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
The judge agreed the legal precedent requires the courts to give great deference to the president in making such decisions, but she disagreed that Trump had made his determination about Portland in good faith and ruled that deference “is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground.”
An immediate temporary restraining order was justified, she added, because Oregon “will suffer an injury to its sovereignty” as soon as federal troops are deployed, while local law enforcement can continue to protect the ICE facility as they have been even with a TRO in place.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”
Chicago Tension
The Illinois fight heated up on Saturday as well. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have stepped up activity and tensions have flared between federal agents and protesters outside an immigration processing center in suburban Broadview, Illinois.
A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said federal officers on Saturday fired defensive shots at a woman who then drove herself to the hospital. Chicago police said they responded to the scene but weren’t involved in the incident or the investigation.
Federal prosecutors in Chicago charged three people related to the incident, saying they used their vehicles to impede the work of federal officers. Two of the three people allegedly used their cars to strike those being driven by federal agents, while the third person allegedly rear-ended a federal law enforcement vehicle, according to a statement by the US Attorney’s office.
“This morning, the Trump administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said earlier Saturday. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”
Broader Plan
Trump has deployed guard troops in Washington, DC, Memphis and Los Angeles. A federal judge in California said the deployment in Los Angeles violated federal laws limiting the authority of the US military to enforce civilian law, but the White House is appealing the ruling.
Oregon officials sued after the Trump administration ordered National Guard troops to respond to protests in Portland and protect immigration officials and federal property in the area.
When he mobilized the troops, Trump wrote that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.” The president said US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities are “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
At a hearing Friday, Oregon lawyer Scott Kennedy blasted Trump’s public statements about Portland on Truth Social, saying they are not based in reality. In a post earlier this week, the president called the city “a NEVER-ENDING DISASTER.”
Kennedy described the protests at the ICE facility Portland in the days leading up to Trump’s post as “dwindling, relatively sedate.” The biggest protest was in June and was handled without federal troops, he said.
“The defense has not identified any inability to enforce the laws,” Kennedy said.
Federal agents clash with protesters outside an ICE facility in Portland on Oct. 4.
(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from sending military forces to Portland, Oregon, to quell protests against his immigration crackdown, even as 300 National Guard troops were ordered to Illinois over the objection of state officials.
US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, said in an order Saturday that the National Guard deployment to Portland did not appear to be justified due to the limited nature of the protests and the ability of local law enforcement to handle the situation.
“The president’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” the judge wrote. She said the temporary restraining order will apply for 14 days, blocking the federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland.
The Trump administration is appealing the judge’s ruling, according to a court filing.
“I wasn’t served well by the people that pick judges, I can tell you,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Sunday, adding the judge should be “ashamed” for her ruling.
Separately on Saturday, Trump authorized the Illinois deployment over the objections of Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, who called the move “un-American.”
The cases are the latest in a series of fights over Trump’s use of National Guard troops to quell protests against his administration’s policies, and to fight crime and help federal officials enforce immigration laws in Democratic-run cities.
State National Guard troops are under the control of individual governors, but the administration has argued that the president has the authority to federalize the troops in the event of a “rebellion” or “invasion.”
In the Oregon case, the judge said there were no facts to support Trump’s claims on social media that Portland was ravaged by war and that anarchists and professional agitators were trying to burn down federal property and other buildings.
The White House indicated it would likely pursue appeals.
Trump says American flag burners will be ‘immediately arrested’ under executive order
“President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
The judge agreed the legal precedent requires the courts to give great deference to the president in making such decisions, but she disagreed that Trump had made his determination about Portland in good faith and ruled that deference “is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground.”
An immediate temporary restraining order was justified, she added, because Oregon “will suffer an injury to its sovereignty” as soon as federal troops are deployed, while local law enforcement can continue to protect the ICE facility as they have been even with a TRO in place.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”
Chicago Tension
The Illinois fight heated up on Saturday as well. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have stepped up activity and tensions have flared between federal agents and protesters outside an immigration processing center in suburban Broadview, Illinois.
A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said federal officers on Saturday fired defensive shots at a woman who then drove herself to the hospital. Chicago police said they responded to the scene but weren’t involved in the incident or the investigation.
Federal prosecutors in Chicago charged three people related to the incident, saying they used their vehicles to impede the work of federal officers. Two of the three people allegedly used their cars to strike those being driven by federal agents, while the third person allegedly rear-ended a federal law enforcement vehicle, according to a statement by the US Attorney’s office.
“This morning, the Trump administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said earlier Saturday. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”
Broader Plan
Trump has deployed guard troops in Washington, DC, Memphis and Los Angeles. A federal judge in California said the deployment in Los Angeles violated federal laws limiting the authority of the US military to enforce civilian law, but the White House is appealing the ruling.
Oregon officials sued after the Trump administration ordered National Guard troops to respond to protests in Portland and protect immigration officials and federal property in the area.
When he mobilized the troops, Trump wrote that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.” The president said US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities are “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
At a hearing Friday, Oregon lawyer Scott Kennedy blasted Trump’s public statements about Portland on Truth Social, saying they are not based in reality. In a post earlier this week, the president called the city “a NEVER-ENDING DISASTER.”
Kennedy described the protests at the ICE facility Portland in the days leading up to Trump’s post as “dwindling, relatively sedate.” The biggest protest was in June and was handled without federal troops, he said.
“The defense has not identified any inability to enforce the laws,” Kennedy said.
Federal law enforcement officers disperse protesters near an ICE facility in Portland on Oct. 4.Photographer: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Eric Hamilton, a Justice Department lawyer, said the 200 proposed troops were appropriate for the level of violence in Portland, which was less than that seen in Los Angeles earlier this year.
In court filings, law enforcement leaders in Oregon argued that federal forces would probably create more problems than they would solve.
In response, the Trump argued the state’s request for court intervention was premature “before any Guardsmen have begun the mission.” But Justice Department lawyers also claimed that federal immigration agents have faced physical violence and death threats from “cruel activists,” including by erecting a guillotine outside of the Portland ICE office.
On Thursday, the judge initially assigned to the case recused himself from handling it after government lawyers alleged he may have a conflict of interest because of comments made by his wife, Democratic Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, that were critical of the deployment.
US District Judge Michael Simon said in a written order he didn’t believe he was required under the circumstances to have the case re-assigned, but agreed to it because “it is necessary that the focus of this lawsuit remain on the critically important constitutional and statutory issues presented by the parties.”
The case is State of Oregon vs. Donald Trump, 3:25-cv-01756, US District Court, District of Oregon (Portland).
--With assistance from Anthony Aarons, Catherine Lucey, Miranda Davis and Kate Queram.
No comments:
Post a Comment