U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a Temporary Restraining Order on Saturday, halting the Trump administration’s directive to activate the National Guard and send federal troops to Portland.
This ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the State of Oregon and the City of Portland, challenging President Donald Trump’s order from September 27 to send “all necessary troops” to the city.
The order aimed to place 200 members of the Oregon National Guard under the command of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Local leaders including Mayor Keith Wilson, Portland city councilors, and Oregon Governor Tina Kotek expressed strong opposition to the federal deployment, urging citizens to maintain peace amid heightened tensions.
In her decision, Judge Immergut noted, “In this case, and unlike in Newsom II, Plaintiffs provide substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days—or even weeks—leading up to the President’s directive on September 27, 2025.”
She emphasized the foundational American tradition of resisting government overreach, highlighting the potential dangers of military involvement in civil affairs.
The courtroom was filled to capacity during a hearing held on Friday morning at the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse in downtown Portland, where arguments were presented by both sides.
The crux of the legal battle rested on the interpretation of Title 10, which grants the President the authority to deploy the National Guard in instances of invasion, rebellion, or when the government fails to execute the law.
Officials from Oregon and the City of Portland, the plaintiffs in the case, contended that the Trump administration’s order did not meet the extraordinary legal criteria required for activating the National Guard.
Mayor Keith Wilson celebrated the judge’s ruling, stating, “Today’s outcome is proof that Portlanders’ commitment to peaceful expression and civic unity truly matters. We have not met aggression with aggression. We’ve stood firm, calm, and grounded in our shared values, and that is why this decision went our way. Portland has shown that peace is power.”
Scott Kennedy, Senior Assistant Attorney General for Oregon, represented the plaintiffs and argued that the federal government failed to provide sufficient evidence of breakdown and lawlessness to justify such a drastic measure.
Kennedy described the justification used by the Trump administration as a “fictional narrative” that sought to support a blatant infringement on Oregon’s sovereignty.
He pointed out that the few sporadic incidents mentioned were promptly contained and did not warrant the sweeping deployment of troops.
In defense of the Trump administration’s order, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued that social media posts made by the President, which characterized Portland as descending into “lawless mayhem,” constituted adequate grounds for the activation.
Hamilton also referenced a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that stated courts must grant the executive branch considerable deference in determining whether certain conditions exist for military deployment.
According to him, a determination cannot be viewed as “beyond the range of honest judgment” or deemed “obviously absurd or made in bad faith.”
He highlighted the tragic shooting incident at the ICE facility in Dallas as a serious threat that underscored the need for military engagement in Portland.
In response, Kennedy countered that while the Dallas incident was unfortunate, it did not suffice to call up the National Guard in Portland. He further criticized the president’s social media rhetoric as “incendiary hyperbole,” lacking the legal basis for such actions.
Hamilton attempted to bolster his case by claiming there was a clear danger of rebellion in Portland, arguing that this potential threat justified the National Guard’s activation even without demonstrable rebellion occurring.
Kennedy reiterated that the protests within Portland represented protected free speech under the First Amendment, defending the action as civic expression rather than rebellion.
He warned that accepting the federal government’s definition of rebellion could lead to almost any protest being labeled as such, fundamentally undermining First Amendment rights.
image source from：portland
