In a significant legal ruling late Sunday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order that prevents President Donald Trump from deploying or relocating any federalized members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon.
This decision marked Immergut’s second ruling in a mere 24 hours, following a wave of actions from California to join Oregon’s legal efforts aimed at halting the Trump administration’s plan to send hundreds of federalized California National Guard members to Portland.
The judge, appointed by President Trump, first ruled on Saturday to block the federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members, who were intended to provide protection for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland.
In an unexpected development, the U.S. Department of Defense announced on Sunday that up to 400 members of the Texas National Guard were summoned to Portland and Chicago. Immergut’s ruling would effectively halt this deployment.
“I am certainly troubled by now hearing that both California and Texas are being sent to Oregon, which does appear to be in direct contradiction of my order,” Immergut commented during a hearing.
The restraining order is set to remain active until October 19, as the state’s attorney general and governor released a statement alongside Portland’s mayor praising the ruling while acknowledging ongoing legal battles against the Trump administration’s National Guard deployments.
Governor Tina Kotek expressed concerns over the president’s actions, suggesting they signify an attempt to dominate cities and states that oppose his political stance. Kotek added, “I believe that we should expect him to continue to push the limits of his authority.”
During the hearing, a significant portion of the discussion revolved around the legal justifications required for the federalization of National Guards under specific circumstances such as foreign invasion, rebellion, or the failure to enforce federal laws.
In a tense exchange with Eric Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general from the U.S. Department of Justice, Immergut pressed for clarification on why the administration had failed to adhere to her prior restraining order.
“Is there any legal authority for what you’re doing?” Immergut demanded, highlighting the rarity of such presidential actions in history, and questioning Hamilton on the lack of precedents for their use.
Hamilton’s response centered on the assertion that the guard members dispatched from California were already under the president’s authority and did not involve new enlistments under Title 10, designed for federal service.
Yet, Immergut countered, insisting that the transfer of California troops to Oregon violated her prior ruling. She inquired, “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order… Why is this appropriate?”
Hamilton maintained that federalized guard members were not confined to the state experiencing the issues at hand.
Immergut expressed concern that the situation in Oregon did not warrant the necessity of federal military support to protect law enforcement or the federal building in question.
Just hours prior to the hearing, a press conference featuring Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson asserted that Oregon remains a home, not a military target.
Kotek responded to reports of Texas troops being summoned, denouncing it as an escalation of the president’s misuse of state National Guards and taxpayer dollars.
These developments raised alarms not just about troop movements across state lines, but about a Republican president potentially sending troops from a Republican-led state into a Democratic-controlled state against its leadership’s wishes.
Anticipating further actions from the Trump administration, Rayfield highlighted the need to remain vigilant against any threats to democracy. “We cannot be the frog in boiling water,” he stated.
A memo from the Department of War submitted before the Sunday hearing outlined a declaration by President Trump regarding the need for troop deployment due to violent incidents and threats looming in Illinois, Oregon, and elsewhere across the United States, specifically mentioning Portland and Chicago.
Kotek and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker called on Texas Governor Greg Abbott for support. Abbott, however, did not indicate he would heed their request, stating, “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it.”
President Trump continued to make incendiary remarks about Portland, depicting it as a city in chaos. “Portland is burning to the ground,” he stated. “Its insurrectionists are all over the place. It’s Antifa.”
State and city representatives have consistently refuted the president’s claims, asserting that there is no need for deploying guard members and warning that such a move could provoke more dissent among the dwindling group of protesters near the ICE facility.
The goal of these deployments is to bolster security at the ICE facility in Portland, located just a short distance from the city’s center, which has been the site of protests against the federal immigration policies.
Following Immergut’s ruling, Trump began deploying members of the California National Guard to Oregon, which had been discussed on the same day.
Brigadier General Alan Gronewold, the adjutant general of Oregon, revealed that approximately 100 federalized members from the California National Guard had arrived at the Portland Air National Guard base early Sunday. By the day’s end, an additional 99 federalized members were expected to arrive.
Gronewold stated that these troops had already undergone the necessary training for deployment. “I am therefore unaware of any impediment to these members of the California National Guard being deployed in Oregon for those purposes as early as today,” he noted.
The California guard members were directed to Camp Withycombe, located in Clackamas County, managed by the Oregon Military Department.
Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, publicly criticized Trump for what he termed a profound abuse of legal authority and power.
In her earlier ruling, Immergut found it significant that protests outside the ICE facility had remained relatively minor, typically averaging no more than 20 demonstrators since July. As such, she ruled that there was no justification for federal intervention.
However, on Saturday, protests escalated significantly, with demonstrations larger than those seen in recent months. Federal law enforcement treated protesters more aggressively, deploying tear gas, pepper spray, and pushing retreating crowds blocks away from the facility.
The exact reasons behind the dispersal orders remain unclear, though OPB reporters did not witness any indications of potential trespassing from demonstrators.
Mayor Wilson condemned federal actions, stating, “This is an aggressive approach trying to inflame the situation,” after incidents where federal officers were seen shoving veterans and elderly citizens.
The national debate about the necessity and appropriateness of federal troops in domestic situations intensified, particularly in light of President Trump’s persistent mischaracterizations of Portland’s state.
Kotek, addressing the president’s portrayal of the city, remarked that it was silly and misguided. She referenced the Portland Marathon being held on Sunday as proof that life in the city had proceeded peacefully, despite the protests near the ICE facility.
As legal battles progress and tensions build, the issue of federal deployment in Oregon raises vital questions about states’ rights, the limits of federal authority, and the implications of political discourse on public safety.
image source from：opb
