On November 7, 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a permanent injunction preventing the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, in response to protests against the administration's immigration policies. The ruling followed a three-day trial and determined that the president had exceeded his authority by federalizing the National Guard without sufficient legal grounds.

Judge Immergut, who was appointed by Trump, concluded that there was no evidence of a rebellion or imminent danger that would justify the use of military force. The judge's detailed opinion emphasized that the conditions in Portland did not meet the legal criteria necessary for invoking federal military action, particularly under the Militia Act of 1792, which allows for such mobilization only when civil government fails to enforce laws.

The legal conflict began when U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth mobilized approximately 200 Oregon National Guard members to protect the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building amid ongoing protests. The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General's Office filed a lawsuit in September, arguing that the deployment was unnecessary and unlawful, claiming that the administration exaggerated instances of violence to justify military intervention.

During the trial, conflicting narratives emerged. While Justice Department lawyers characterized the protests as a violent siege, attorneys for Oregon and Portland argued that violence was infrequent and manageable by local law enforcement. Judge Immergut noted that the protests had largely subsided and remained predominantly peaceful, with only isolated incidents of low-level violence.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek criticized the federalization of the National Guard as a significant misuse of power, highlighting the impact on local communities and the importance of respecting state sovereignty. She reiterated calls for the withdrawal of all troops from the state. California Attorney General Rob Bonta also described the ruling as a victory for the rule of law and constitutional values.

In response to the ruling, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended the administration's actions, asserting that they were lawful and necessary to protect federal officers and property. The Department of Justice has indicated plans to appeal the decision, arguing that it undermines the Commander in Chief's authority and jeopardizes federal personnel and property.

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's approach to deploying military forces in American cities, raising ongoing questions about the balance of power between federal and state authorities and the implications of militarization in civilian contexts.