Portland, Ore. — A federal judge has temporarily halted the Biden administration’s predecessor policy to federalize and deploy National Guard troops in Oregon, saying the Justice Department has not yet demonstrated legal justification for such action under the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction Sunday after reviewing three days of testimony and what she described as “voluminous” evidence. She said she would deliver a final ruling by 5 p.m. local time this Friday.
In her order, Judge Immergut noted that the government failed to prove conditions required to trigger deployment under Title 10, the statute that allows the president to federalize state National Guard forces. Justice Department lawyers argued that protests outside a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility amounted to a “rebellion” and that officers could not perform their duties without additional support.
However, the judge wrote that the evidence provided so far does not indicate an imminent rebellion, nor does it show ICE is unable to enforce the law with existing federal personnel. She further stated the proposed deployment likely infringes on powers reserved to states under the 10th Amendment.
Months of Mostly Peaceful Demonstrations
For nearly five months, demonstrators in Portland have protested federal immigration enforcement. While largely peaceful, protests have occasionally turned confrontational, with crowds blocking facility access and federal officers responding with tear gas and pepper balls.
Tensions escalated in late September after former President Donald Trump announced plans on social media to federalize members of the Oregon National Guard. State and city officials immediately filed lawsuits, arguing the move would undermine state sovereignty and inflame unrest.
Judge Immergut first issued a temporary restraining order on October 4 blocking the deployment. Hours later, the Department of Defense reassigned 200 California National Guard members to Oregon and instructed Texas Guard units to prepare for duty, prompting a second restraining order prohibiting any Guard troops from operating in the state.
States Argue Federal Resources Are Sufficient
Attorneys representing Oregon, Portland, and California told the court that federal agencies already have adequate resources for crowd control. They cited staffing logs, incident reports, and police data showing crowds were manageable prior to the administration’s announcement.
“This is, I think, one of the most significant infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon’s history and now California’s history,” Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy argued in closing statements.
Government Says ICE Officers Were Overwhelmed
Justice Department lawyers painted a different picture, claiming federal officers were outnumbered, threatened online, and targeted with projectiles and fireworks. They also argued that protesters hindered the administration’s directive to double regional immigration arrests.
“This is a rebellion against immigration authority,” DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton told the court.
But Judge Immergut disagreed, noting that the Federal Protective Service — responsible for safeguarding federal facilities — was never consulted about the Guard deployment and did not request additional troops.
What Happens Next
If Friday’s final ruling mirrors Sunday’s preliminary injunction, federal lawyers are expected to appeal. A related challenge involving National Guard deployments from Texas to Illinois is already pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, adding national implications to the Oregon dispute.
For now, the court’s temporary order prevents the federal government from deploying any National Guard soldiers in Oregon, marking a significant legal moment in the ongoing debate over federal authority versus state sovereignty.