A federal judge in Oregon has issued a temporary block on former President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, halting the move for at least two weeks amid escalating tensions between federal and local authorities over public safety and constitutional limits.
The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, responds to a lawsuit filed by Oregon state officials, who argued that the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority. Immergut agreed, stating the state and city were “likely to succeed” in proving the president’s actions violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states.
“The evidence suggests that local and state authorities retain the primary responsibility for maintaining public safety within their borders,” Judge Immergut wrote. “Federal involvement of this magnitude—without a clear invitation from the state—appears to overstep those boundaries.”
The ruling halts all federal preparations for deployment until at least October 18, pending further legal review.
Background: Federal vs. Local Authority
Portland has experienced waves of protest and civil unrest in recent years, reigniting in 2025 over renewed debates on police reform and federal oversight. In response, Trump announced plans to send National Guard troops to the city, calling Portland “war-ravaged” and blaming Democratic leaders for failing to maintain order.
The administration argued the deployment was necessary to protect federal property and personnel, referencing past attacks on courthouses and government buildings. But state and local leaders pushed back, calling the move unconstitutional and likely to escalate tensions.
Judge Immergut’s Legal Reasoning
Immergut’s decision hinged on two key legal arguments: the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement without Congressional approval.
While acknowledging the federal government’s right to protect its own assets, the judge concluded that Trump’s plan went beyond that scope and veered into general law enforcement—something she said requires state consent.
“Recent incidents of property damage, while concerning, do not rise to the level that would justify the use of federal troops in state and local policing matters,” she wrote.
Oregon Officials Applaud the Ruling
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who led the lawsuit, called the ruling “a major victory for state rights and the Constitution.”
“The federal government cannot unilaterally occupy our streets,” Rayfield said. “This decision sends a strong message that the rule of law still matters.”
Governor Tina Kotek echoed that sentiment, warning that sending in federal forces would have likely escalated tensions.
“We’ve seen the damage that outside intervention can cause,” she said. “Our priority is de-escalation and rebuilding trust—not militarizing our communities.”
White House Pushes Back
The Trump administration criticized the ruling as a threat to public safety. A White House spokesperson called it “a misguided decision that restricts the president’s ability to protect federal employees and infrastructure.”
“The president will continue to use all lawful means to safeguard federal property,” the spokesperson added, hinting at an imminent appeal.
A Justice Department official said the administration believes the courts will ultimately uphold the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution.
Legal Experts Divided
The ruling has sparked debate among constitutional scholars. Some view it as a necessary check on executive power; others argue it may hinder federal responses to future crises.
Professor Eleanor Watkins, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling reinforces the balance of power.
“Even during times of unrest, presidential authority has limits,” she said.
Former federal prosecutor Michael Hanley disagreed, warning the decision could “tie the hands of future presidents when federal intervention may be necessary.”
What’s Next?
The temporary order expires October 18, but Oregon officials have already signaled plans to seek an extension. The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, setting up what could become a major legal battle over the scope of federal power.
Legal analysts say the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, especially if broader questions of state sovereignty and federal authority remain unresolved.
In the meantime, the debate over how best to address civil unrest continues to divide the nation—and Portland remains a focal point in the ongoing struggle between local control and federal intervention.
Leave a Reply