Judge Extends Block on Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Portland

Federal Court Temporarily Prohibits Use of Guard Troops

A federal judge in Oregon has extended a block on former President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, prolonging a legal battle over the limits of federal power.

On Sunday night, Judge Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the federal government from sending in Guard soldiers for at least five more days, pending her final decision on Friday.

While the ruling is temporary, Judge Immergut strongly suggested that the restriction would likely become permanent, citing potential violations of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

“The medical services Dr. Carpenter rendered are legal in New York State,” the judge noted, underscoring that the proposed deployment “falls squarely within the limits of state authority protected by the Constitution.”

Background: The Clash Over Federal Authority

The Trump administration sought to federalize Oregon’s National Guard to protect an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building that had been a focal point of demonstrations since early June.

State and local officials in Oregon and Portland sued to block the move, arguing that the president’s plan represented one of the most significant infringements on state sovereignty in the state’s history.

The administration’s attorneys cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, claiming that Guard troops were necessary to quell what they called a rebellion against federal authority and to assist ICE officers.

Judge Immergut rejected those claims, writing that the government had failed to prove “a rebellion was imminent” or that ICE “could not fulfill its duties using existing federal resources.”

Arguments in Court

At the week-long hearing, Justice Department lawyers argued that protesters had disrupted ICE operations and endangered officers.

“This is a rebellion against immigration authority,” said Eric Hamilton, a Justice Department attorney.

Attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that the protests were largely peaceful, with only sporadic violence, and that federal agents had already escalated tensions by using pepper balls and tear gas.

“This is one of the most significant infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon’s history,” said Scott Kennedy, a senior assistant attorney general for the state.

Judge’s Findings and Constitutional Implications

Judge Immergut — herself a Trump appointee — emphasized that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states powers not delegated to the federal government.
She also noted that neither the Federal Protective Service nor ICE had formally requested Guard troops, weakening the administration’s justification.

Her ruling may set a precedent for state versus federal authority, particularly in cases involving civil unrest and federal law enforcement.

Legal scholars predict that if her final ruling mirrors Sunday’s injunction, the Justice Department will appeal, potentially escalating the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Next Steps and Broader Implications

The judge is expected to issue her final decision by Friday at 5 p.m. local time.
If she upholds her order, similar lawsuits — including one challenging the deployment of Texas National Guard soldiers to Illinois — could gain traction nationwide.

For now, the ruling keeps all National Guard forces out of Oregon, reinforcing the legal principle that state sovereignty limits presidential authority in domestic law-enforcement matters.