Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order
A federal judge in Oregon, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, October 4, 2025, preventing the Trump administration from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard to Portland. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the State of Oregon and the City of Portland, which argued against the federalization of state troops. The temporary restraining order is set to expire on October 18, 2025, with a hearing scheduled to consider its extension.
Judge Cites Lack of Factual Basis and Constitutional Concerns
Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, found that the Trump administration's justification for the deployment was 'simply untethered to the facts.' She noted that demonstrations at the Portland immigration facility, which were the stated reason for the deployment, were 'not significantly violent or disruptive' and 'overall, the protests were small and uneventful' in the days leading up to the president's order. The judge concluded that the president 'did not have a 'colorable basis' to invoke § 12406(3)' of federal law, which permits federalization of the National Guard in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when federal laws cannot otherwise be executed.
The ruling emphasized fundamental democratic principles, stating that the deployment would violate the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment, which protects state sovereignty, and federal laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from domestic law enforcement. Judge Immergut wrote, 'This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,' and that Oregon would 'suffer an injury to its sovereignty' if the deployment proceeded.
Background and Reactions
President Donald Trump had announced his intention to deploy troops to Portland on September 27, 2025, via social media, describing the city as 'war-ravaged' and threatening 'Full Force, if necessary.' The Defense Department, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, subsequently issued a memorandum on September 28, 2025, to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard for 60 days to protect federal property.
Following the ruling, reactions were swift. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who filed the lawsuit, hailed the decision as 'a healthy check on the president,' asserting that 'Portland is not the president's war-torn fantasy' and that there was 'no rebellion.' Oregon Governor Tina Kotek echoed this sentiment, stating there was 'no insurrection or threat to public safety that necessitates military intervention.' Conversely, the White House indicated an appeal was likely, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson stating that President Trump 'exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland' and expected to be 'vindicated by a higher court.' This marks the second instance where a federal court has blocked a Trump administration National Guard deployment, following a similar ruling in Los Angeles that was later stayed on appeal.
5 Comments
Muchacho
This ruling highlights the tension between federal power and local control, a debate that needs more careful consideration than a simple court order can provide.
ZmeeLove
Constitutional law, not martial law. Period.
Habibi
While state sovereignty is crucial, federal property also needs protection. There's a fine line between overreach and necessary intervention.
Mariposa
Judge Immergut got it right. States' rights matter!
Bella Ciao
Protect federal property! This ruling is dangerous.