Federal Judges Bar Trump's National Guard Deployment in Portland Following Three-Day Trial
Federal and Trump-appointed judges have blocked the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, after a three-day trial, citing no significant damage to federal facilities.
Judge extends block on Portland National Guard deployment through Friday
Washington Examiner
Overview
- Federal and Trump-appointed judges have jointly paused and barred President Trump's deployment of the National Guard into Portland, Oregon, following a legal challenge.
- This decision followed a three-day trial where the state and Department of Justice presented arguments regarding the necessity of the National Guard's presence.
- Judge Immergut granted a preliminary injunction, citing no significant damage to the immigration facility and confirming ICE's ability to perform its duties despite protests.
- The ruling initially barred National Guard troops in Portland until at least Friday, with Judge Immergut expected to issue a final order after the trial.
- Federal judges have since extended the injunction, preventing the National Guard's deployment into Portland until November 7, 2025, building on earlier rulings.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Center-leaning sources cover this story neutrally, focusing on reporting the federal judge's decision to block the National Guard deployment to Portland. They present the judge's findings, the Trump administration's arguments, and the plaintiffs' positions without employing loaded language or selective emphasis. The coverage details the legal back-and-forth and witness testimonies factually.
"The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law."
ABC News"Judge Immergut concluded that the attempt to send troops into Portland stemmed from exaggerated claims of violence in the city, where isolated protests were already contained by federal and local law enforcement."
ABC News"The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, an appointee of Mr. Trump, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law."
CBS NewsArticles (9)
FAQ
The judges cited that there was no significant damage to federal facilities, particularly the immigration facility, and that ICE could perform its duties despite protests. The court also noted likely violations of federal law allowing military takeover of the National Guard only in cases of rebellion or invasion and emphasized state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
During the three-day trial, the state and Department of Justice presented arguments about the necessity of deploying the National Guard. Judge Karin Immergut granted a preliminary injunction to block the deployment, finding no credible evidence of serious injuries or widespread violence that would justify military involvement. This ruling stopped the deployment until a final order was issued.
Initially, Judge Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking deployment, which was extended after a three-day trial. The injunction was further extended to prevent National Guard deployment into Portland until November 7, 2025, reflecting an ongoing legal objection to the federalization of the state National Guard in Portland.
State and local officials, including Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, opposed the deployment, arguing it was unnecessary and infringed on local sovereignty. They characterized Portland as peaceful and criticized President Trump's claims of the city being 'war-ravaged,' leading to legal challenges against the federal deployment.
The Trump administration stated that the deployment was a lawful exercise of presidential authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent incidents. They appealed the district court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, expecting to be vindicated by higher courts.
History
- 1M
6 articles