A federal judge in Oregon has issued a temporary block on the deployment of the National Guard in Portland, a ruling that comes as a significant stance against federal military action in local protests.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, ruled on Saturday in response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Oregon and the city of Portland.
The judge determined that the recent protests in the city, which had been relatively small, did not warrant the justification for federalized forces.
In her ruling, Immergut stated that deploying the National Guard could undermine state sovereignty and emphasized that the nation is built on the principles of Constitutional law rather than martial law.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” she wrote.
The Trump administration responded swiftly by filing a notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following the ruling.
Oregon and Portland officials had initiated their lawsuit the day after President Trump announced a plan to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard troops to safeguard federal buildings, labeling Portland as “war-ravaged.”
Oregon officials criticized this portrayal as absurd, given that recent protests at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building had attracted only a couple dozen participants each night prior to the deployment announcement.
In her decision, Immergut noted, while the president typically enjoys significant latitude in federalizing National Guard troops during situations where local law enforcement cannot maintain peace, that was not the case in Portland.
She observed that the protests at the ICE facility, prior to the announcement of federal deployment, had not exhibited significant violence or disruption, classifying them as small and relatively uneventful.
“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she concluded in her ruling.
Following the decision, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended President Trump’s actions, asserting that he lawfully acted to protect federal assets and personnel amid violent riots and assaults on law enforcement.
“We expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” Jackson stated.
In a contrasting viewpoint, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a necessary check on presidential powers, reiterating the claim that Portland was not the ‘war-torn fantasy’ depicted by the president.
Rayfield added, “Our city is not ravaged, and there is no rebellion. Members of the Oregon National Guard are not a tool for him to use in his political theater.”
This situation is part of a broader trend, as President Trump has previously threatened to deploy federal troops in various U.S. cities, particularly those governed by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, and Memphis.
In recent remarks to military leaders in Virginia, the president suggested using urban areas as training grounds for the armed forces.
Additionally, a federal judge ruled last month that the deployment of approximately 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles by the Trump administration was illegal, while allowing 300 troops to remain on the condition they refrain from enforcing civilian laws.
The administration has appealed this ruling, and an appellate panel has temporarily lifted the block while the case proceeds.
The protests in Portland had remained confined to a one-block area in a sprawling city which encompasses around 145 square miles and serves a population of about 636,000 residents.
Interestingly, these protests grew slightly in size following the announcement of the National Guard’s deployment.
The Portland Police Bureau has maintained its stance of not engaging in immigration enforcement, intervening only in instances of vandalism or criminal behavior.
On the day leading up to Judge Immergut’s ruling, a peaceful march in downtown Portland managed to attract thousands, with no arrests reported by the police.
However, on that same day, approximately 400 individuals marched towards the ICE facility, comprising a diverse group of all ages, including families and senior citizens.
Federal agents responded with chemical crowd control measures—including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that released pepper balls—resulting in at least six arrests as protesters approached the ICE building.
Later that evening, federal agents deployed tear gas again on around 100 people gathered in the vicinity.
The contentious backdrop involves a history of federal officer deployments in Portland initiated by Trump during widespread protests ignited by the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.
During that period, the administration sent hundreds of federal agents to protect federal property, which led to intense confrontations and opposition from local leaders.
These actions incited nightly clashes, with federal officers deploying rubber bullets and teargas amidst growing unrest.
Viral videos from those events displayed federal officers apprehending individuals and transporting them in unmarked vehicles, prompting an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, which revealed inadequacies in training and equipment for the officers involved.
On a related note, the government agreed earlier this year to resolve an excessive force lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) by offering compensation to several affected individuals for their injuries.
image source from：pbs
