On Friday, a federal judge in Oregon determined that President Donald Trump's administration did not fulfill the legal prerequisites for deploying the National Guard to Portland, following a lawsuit filed by the city and state in September to prevent the deployment.
TL;DR
- Judge Karin Immergut rejected President Trump's claim of rebellion in Portland, finding no legal basis for troop deployment.
- The judge ruled the administration failed to prove a rebellion or danger of rebellion necessitating National Guard deployment.
- Protests at the Portland ICE facility were deemed mostly peaceful with minimal interference to federal officers.
- The White House criticized the ruling, vowing to appeal and protect federal officers and assets.
U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump, issued the ruling after a three-day trial last week where both parties debated if demonstrations at the city's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility satisfied the criteria for employing the military domestically under federal statutes.
The administration stated that the soldiers were necessary to safeguard federal staff and assets in a city which Trump characterized as “war ravaged”, experiencing “fires all over the place.”.
In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.
“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”
The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.
“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.
“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”
Democratic cities fight back
Cities led by Democrats, which have been singled out by Trump for potential military intervention, such as Chicago — currently involved in its own legal challenge regarding this matter — have been pushing back. Their contention is that the president hasn't met the necessary legal standard for troop deployment and that such action would infringe upon the autonomy of individual states.
Early in October, Immergut issued two directives that halted the deployment of troops prior to the trial. The initial directive prevented Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. The second, issued the following day, prohibited him from deploying members of any state's National Guard to Oregon, after he attempted to circumvent the first directive by Dispatching California troops.
Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.
Demonstrations at ICE building peaked in June
Local police and federal officials were among those questioned regarding the law enforcement handling of the nightly demonstrations at the city's ICE building. These protests reached their height in June, at which point Portland police officially labeled one a riot. In the weeks preceding Trump's National Guard announcement, the demonstrations usually attracted about two dozen participants.
The Trump administration indicated that it needed to reassign federal agents from other parts of the nation to address the Portland demonstrations, which they've described as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”.
Officials from federal agencies operating in the area gave testimony regarding insufficient staffing levels and unaddressed requests for additional personnel. One such witness was a representative from The Federal Protective Service, a component of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for safeguarding federal properties. The judge permitted this official to testify using only his initials, R.C., due to security considerations.
R.C., asserting he possessed extensive knowledge regarding security at Portland's ICE facility, stated that deploying troops would ease the burden on personnel. During cross-examination, though, he indicated he hadn't sought troops and wasn't consulted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He further mentioned he was “surprised” to discover the deployment and disagreed with claims that Portland was engulfed in flames.
City attorneys and those representing Oregon stated that Portland's police force has managed to respond to demonstrations. Police officials testified that following the department's declaration of a riot on June 14, their approach shifted to instructing officers to intervene during incidents of personal harm or property damage, and that crowd sizes have significantly decreased since late June.
The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.
___
Seattle was the location of Johnson's report. Michelle L. Price, an Associated Press staff writer based in Palm Beach, Florida, also contributed to this report.