President Donald Trump’s administration had announced plans to deploy National Guard troops from various states to Portland, Oregon, since September 27, amidst ongoing protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek initiated legal action against these deployments, contending that they represented an abuse of power.
On October 5, as Trump began sending California National Guard troops, Governor Gavin Newsom joined Kotek in filing a temporary restraining order to prevent the federal deployment.
A federal judge granted their motion later that day, prohibiting the Trump administration from mobilizing any state’s National Guard troops to Portland until October 19.
The legal basis for Trump’s federalization of the National Guard lies in the assertion of an invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute laws with regular forces, typically a situation requiring federal intervention.
In response to protests that have erupted around ICE’s operations in Portland, Trump directed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to mobilize “all necessary troops.”
While the White House confirmed the deployment, 101 members of the California National Guard arrived in Oregon unexpectedly on the night of October 4.
Kotek criticized the administration’s lack of communication and labeled the actions as a threat to democracy.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, overseeing the case in Oregon, supported the motion for a restraining order filed by Oregon and California.
In her ruling, Immergut halted the deployment of the California National Guard and blocked the Trump administration from mobilizing troops from any state for Portland, asserting that a pressing need for such troops did not exist.
According to the court filing, “There is no rebellion in Portland. There are no laws that defendants are unable to execute with regular forces in Portland.”
The temporary restraining order is set to remain in effect until at least 11:59 p.m. on October 18, reflecting Immergut’s decision that the use of military for domestic law enforcement requires careful scrutiny under the Constitution.
This ruling comes amidst a backdrop of ongoing contentious relations between state leaders and the Trump administration, particularly regarding federal authority over National Guard troops.
Following the ruling, Trump’s administration appealed the decision, seeking the intervention of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On October 9, a three-judge panel deliberated the implications of lifting Immergut’s restraining order, with indications from the court suggesting a potential favorable ruling for the Trump administration.
Legal experts note that the federalization of National Guard troops may be problematic based on the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states.
Immergut’s ruling, reflecting concerns over the encroachment of federal authority into state governance, emphasized, “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
The potential ramifications of the appellate court’s decision could significantly reshape the relationship between state and federal power over National Guard deployments in the context of civil unrest.
Since Trump’s administration first federalized California National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles in June 2025, legal confrontations between Newsom and the Trump administration have persisted.
In September, federal judge Charles Breyer ruled against Trump’s deployment related to Los Angeles protests, citing a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
The outcomes of these legal battles may establish important precedents regarding federal executive power concerning military and law enforcement actions.
Newsom criticized the administration’s motives, stating, “This isn’t about public safety; it’s about power.”
He argued that President Trump has been leveraging the military as a political tool rather than addressing genuine public safety concerns.
With the federal court’s temporary restraining order in place and ongoing legal challenges ahead, the situation in Portland has become a focal point of the broader national discussion concerning governance, military power, and civil rights.
image source from：ucsdguardian
