In a significant legal development, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut announced late Sunday that she would extend her ruling to prevent the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Oregon until Friday, November 7, at 5 p.m. This preliminary injunction, issued at a critical juncture, halts any deployment of National Guard troops under presidential authority in the state.
Judge Immergut’s decision comes just as her previous temporary restraining order was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday. She stated that she is still “in the process of diligently reviewing all the evidence,” which includes hundreds of exhibits and additional arguments presented during the three-day trial that concluded on Friday afternoon.
This order represents the latest turn in a month-long legal struggle regarding the Trump administration's attempts to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon. In late September, President Trump took to social media to announce his intention to “provide all necessary Troops” to protect Portland, referring to the city as “war ravaged” and “under siege” by “domestic terrorists.”
While Judge Immergut's ruling is not final, it strongly indicates her inclination to favor the states of Oregon and California, as well as the city of Portland, all of whom argue that the president's plans are unlawful and infringe upon state sovereignty.
During the trial last week, law enforcement officials offered conflicting perspectives on the nature of ongoing protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland's South Waterfront neighborhood. Testimony from officials with the Portland Police Bureau indicated that protests had largely subsided since reaching a peak in June. In contrast, federal law enforcement claimed they were outnumbered and required additional support.
In her comprehensive 16-page order, Judge Immergut noted that she found “no credible evidence” suggesting that protests outside the ICE building “grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel” in the months preceding the president's decision to take control of the Oregon National Guard.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield expressed his support for Judge Immergut's decision, stating, “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure the facts—not the President’s political whims—guide how the law is applied.” His comments underscore the ongoing tension between federal authority and state sovereignty amidst the evolving dynamics of law enforcement and civil rights.
As the situation unfolds, many are keenly watching to see how this legal battle will affect the deployment of National Guard troops and the broader implications for state-federal relations in the context of law enforcement and civil unrest.
