Donald Trump’s intention to send 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers to Portland has been temporarily halted by a federal judge he appointed.
The October 4, 2025, order from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut has raised national concerns about the distribution of power between the federal government and the states.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order halting the troop deployment.
- The court ruled the move violated the 10th Amendment, which protects state control over local guard units.
- The White House has appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, continuing the legal battle.
- Portland officials insist the city is peaceful and under control, disputing Trump’s claims.
- The ruling raises wider questions about executive power and the limits of federal authority.
The Judge Who Said “No”
Trump chose Judge Karin Immergut in 2019. Before that, she was a state prosecutor and judge. The president called Portland “war-ravaged” and full of “domestic terrorists” before she made her decision.
Immergut, on the other hand, said that these statements were “not based on the facts.”
Local police reports confirmed that there were fewer than 30 people protesting near the ICE facility, that the protests were mostly peaceful, and that the city police were in charge of them.
Immergut said that the federal action could set a bad example by blurring the line between civilian and military control.
Political Reactions and Constitutional Lines
The judge’s order, which was good until October 18, was based on the 10th Amendment, which says that the federal government can’t get involved in state matters.
She said that letting the federal government take over could bring the country closer to martial law, which would weaken constitutional protections.
The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, saying it was wrong. Trump publicly criticized Immergut on October 5, saying she “ought to be ashamed” and blaming bad advice for her nomination.
Stephen Miller and other conservatives called the decision a “legal insurrection,” saying it weakens the power of the federal government. At the same time, Oregon leaders like Governor Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson thanked the court for keeping things calm and stopping things from getting worse.
States Fight Back, Courts Step In
Trump has tried to send troops to Democratic-led cities like Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago before, saying that threats linked to immigration protests were the reason.
States have repeatedly said that these actions are too much for the federal government and that they can handle local unrest on their own.
On October 5, California joined Oregon’s lawsuit to keep National Guard troops from other states from coming in.
Some units had already gotten there before the restraining order went into effect. Governor Gavin Newsom said the deployment was a “abuse of power,” which backed Immergut’s intervention.
A Turning Point in the Law
Legal experts and civil rights activists praised Immergut’s decision as a necessary limit on the power of the president. Even though conservatives have looked into her, she has earned respect for being fair about past decisions, even those that upheld some gun control laws.
Many people on social media called her a defender of the Constitution. Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the decision a “healthy check on presidential power.”
But people on the right see it differently and want her to be impeached because they think she is biased. As the appeals move forward, the case could affect future discussions about how far the federal government can go in using state troops.
Right now, Americans are paying close attention. Not only will the outcome decide who is in charge of local security, but it will also show how well the Constitution holds up under political pressure. The next hearings could change the line between what the federal government can do and what states can do on their own.
