A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction preventing US President Donald Trump from deploying 200 Oregon National Guard troops to Portland as a lawsuit challenging the decision progresses. The ruling by US District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland represents a setback for Trump’s efforts to send military personnel to cities he deems lawless against the objections of their Democratic leaders.
Immergut, a Trump appointee, halted the President from dispatching troops until at least October 18, citing a lack of evidence that recent protests in Portland amounted to a rebellion or significantly impeded law enforcement efforts. Contrary to Trump’s characterization of the city as “war-ravaged,” attorneys from the Oregon attorney general’s office characterized the demonstrations as “small and sedate,” resulting in just 25 arrests in mid-June and no arrests in the following 3-1/2 months.
In response to the ruling, the White House announced plans to appeal, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson asserting that Trump acted within his legal authority to safeguard federal assets and personnel in Portland amidst violent riots and assaults on law enforcement. Meanwhile, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson dismissed Trump’s portrayal of the city, stating that it was peaceful and that the narrative of unrest was fabricated.
Trump has already deployed National Guard troops to oversee security in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, and has indicated intentions to send troops to additional cities. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, raised objections to Trump’s plan to send 300 National Guard troops to Chicago, a move that was disclosed by Trump a day prior to the filing of the Portland lawsuit by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield on September 28.
The lawsuit challenges the legality of Trump’s deployment of troops to Portland to protect federal immigration facilities, alleging that the President exaggerated the protest threat to justify commandeering state National Guard units. Oregon’s lawsuit contends that Trump’s actions violate federal laws and the state’s authority to police its residents, asserting that the deployment to selectively target Democratic cities like Portland infringes upon the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Judge Immergut expressed support for Oregon’s arguments, indicating that the state is likely to prevail in demonstrating that Trump unlawfully called up the National Guard and infringed on Oregon’s constitutional rights. While acknowledging the deference owed to the President in military matters, Immergut emphasized that Trump cannot disregard the prevailing circumstances, cautioning against allowing the President unchecked authority to deploy troops at will, which could blur the distinction between civil and military power to the nation’s detriment.
This legal challenge is the latest in a series of disputes over Trump’s deployment of military forces to Democratic-led cities, with state and local Democratic officials rejecting his claims of rampant crime and hostility to immigration enforcement. Prior legal challenges have arisen in California and Washington, DC, where federal judges have intervened in response to concerns about the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement purposes.