In a significant legal setback for former President Trump, a federal judge ruled on Friday that his decision to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland was unlawful. This decision represents the most significant judicial rebuke yet to Trump’s attempts to send military forces into cities governed by Democrats, where protests have often focused on federal immigration facilities.

Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump himself, issued a permanent injunction preventing the president from deploying Oregon’s National Guard troops to the streets of Portland. Her ruling highlighted that Trump’s actions violated federal law and infringed upon the state’s rights, undermining its sovereignty.

This case is particularly notable as it marks the first instance where a court has addressed the fundamental legal issues surrounding Trump’s assertive use of the National Guard. Similar legal challenges concerning his actions in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., are still progressing through the judicial system.

Judge Immergut clarified in her ruling, “This Court does not conclude that the President can never deploy the National Guard to Oregon, or elsewhere, should the situation warrant such intervention. However, under the U.S. Constitution, it is Congress that holds the authority to mobilize the National Guard for enforcing federal laws, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions. This power has been delegated to the President through legislative means.”

She further emphasized, “Unless and until the President legally federalizes the National Guard, its members function solely as part of the State militia, under the command of the state’s governor.”

The decision comes on the heels of a three-day trial, which featured testimony from local and federal law enforcement — often in tension about the nature of the protests at the heart of the case.   

Trump called up Oregon’s National Guard in September, promising to protect “war-ravaged” Portland and its U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. State and city officials quickly sued to block his efforts.   

The president initially federalized and moved to deploy 200 Oregon troops, but after Immergut temporarily blocked the effort, he sought to send troops from California and Texas into the city, prompting the judge to bar any troops from being deployed. The administration has appealed.  

At trial, Justice Department (DOJ) lawyers argued that Trump lawfully federalized the National Guard under a provision of Title 10 that lists three circumstances where the president may do so: an invasion, a rebellion or an inability to execute the law with regular forces. 

They claimed that the protests outside Portland’s ICE facility have thwarted federal officers’ ability to do their jobs without help and amounted to rebellion against the government, while maintaining that courts should not review Trump’s determination. 

“Congress, in Section 12406, made those decisions for the president to make,” said DOJ lawyer Eric Hamilton, referencing the provision. 

Two Federal Protective Service supervisors testified anonymously that the National Guard would alleviate strains, though they conceded that neither requested military assistance.  

Immergut noted their testimony in her ruling, in addition to the testimony of Maj. Gen. Timothy Rieger, acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, who said he had no personal knowledge of the situation on the ground in Portland when issuing the memo proposing the troops’ assistance.  

Portland police provided a different picture of the scene on the ground in testimony. 

They said that largely peaceful protests have already been inflamed by the few federal officers on site and pointed to the riots that consumed the city in 2020 to exemplify how tactless policing can rile up crowds.  

The officers also used the 2020 demonstrations — which began as peaceful demonstrations after George Floyd’s police killing in Minneapolis but devolved into 200 days of sustained protest and sometimes violent clashes — to undermine the administration’s contention that the city is now under siege.  

“It was just an entirely different type of disorder,” Portland Police Bureau Cmdr. Franz Schoening said of the protests five years ago.  

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit paused one of Immergut’s orders last month, but the appeals court vacated that decision and said the full court would rehear the case.  

Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard to major cities have seen varying success.  

Troops are on the ground in California and D.C., but courts have so far blocked deployment in Illinois — though the situation could rapidly change.  

The Supreme Court is weighing an emergency application from the administration to let it deploy the National Guard to the Chicago area but has not yet ruled.  

The judge temporarily paused a portion of her final judgment for 14 days, so Trump may maintain control of Oregon’s National Guard but not deploy any troops as the administration appeals.