President Donald Trump just hit a judicial wall in his bid to bring order to Portland’s chaotic streets. A federal judge, ironically, one of his own appointees, has slammed the brakes on his plan to deploy the National Guard to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Breitbart reported that Judge Karin J. Immergut, nominated by Trump himself in 2018, has permanently barred the 47th president from federalizing Oregon’s National Guard to handle the often-violent demonstrations at Portland’s ICE facility, following a lawsuit from Oregon, California, and the City of Portland.
The trouble in Portland kicked off in early June, when nightly protests erupted after the administration’s tough stance on unauthorized migrants sparked outrage.
These gatherings haven’t been peaceful picnics—reports of unruly crowds, brawls, and clashes with counter-demonstrators have become routine. Tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray have been deployed, painting a picture of a city teetering on the edge.
Fast forward to late September, when President Trump, fed up with the disorder, called for 200 National Guard troops to restore calm.
Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek flat-out refused to activate them, prompting the administration to take matters into its own hands by federalizing the Guard. For many conservatives, this seemed like a reasonable response to a spiraling situation.
But the administration’s legal team had to justify this under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which limits a president’s power to deploy the Guard on domestic soil to cases of foreign invasion, rebellion, or when federal laws can’t be enforced otherwise.
They argued Portland’s protests amounted to a rebellion or at least a threat of one, and that ICE officers couldn’t do their jobs amid the chaos. It’s a compelling case for those of us tired of seeing federal property trashed and officers hamstrung.
Enter Judge Immergut, who last month issued a preliminary injunction to halt Trump’s troop order. After a three-day trial, she doubled down with a permanent ruling on Friday, dropping a 106-page bombshell that rejected every argument from government lawyers. Her decision isn’t just a legal slap; it’s a reminder that even Trump-appointed judges won’t always toe the line.
In her ruling, Judge Immergut dismissed the notion that the protests at the ICE building constituted a rebellion or made federal enforcement impossible.
She even questioned the credibility of testimony from ICE’s regional director about property damage and disruptions. For those of us who value law and order, this feels like a disconnect from the reality on the ground.
Moreover, Immergut aimed the administration’s portrayal of Antifa as an organized threat against the U.S. government in Portland. Her skepticism might resonate with those wary of overreach, but it leaves conservatives wondering if the court underestimates the coordinated nature of some protest actions. Are we ignoring a real problem just to avoid a slippery slope?
Here’s a direct take from the judge herself: “The evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the president’s authority,” said Judge Karin J. Immergut.
That’s a sharp rebuke, but it sidesteps the question of whether local inaction justifies federal intervention. Should a governor’s objection trump the need for security?
The administration isn’t taking this lying down—federal lawyers have already signaled plans to appeal to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals if the ruling goes against them.
They’ve also filed an emergency appeal in a similar National Guard case in Illinois before the U.S. Supreme Court. This fight is far from over, and many on the right are hoping higher courts will see the urgency of federal action.
For now, Portland remains a flashpoint, with protests continuing to disrupt ICE operations and test the limits of local and federal patience.
It’s a stark example of the deep divide between progressive state leaders and a conservative administration determined to enforce immigration policy. The tension isn’t just legal—it’s cultural, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
Critics of the ruling might argue that Judge Immergut’s decision ties the president’s hands at a time when decisive action is needed. While respecting state autonomy is important, shouldn’t there be a line when public safety and federal duties are at stake? This feels like a missed opportunity to balance both priorities.
On the flip side, supporters of the judge’s stance will say it’s a vital check on executive overreach, ensuring the National Guard isn’t misused as a political tool. That’s a fair concern, but in a city where nightly clashes are the norm, one wonders if this check comes at the cost of order. It’s a delicate dance, and not everyone’s stepping in rhythm.