On October 12, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction preventing the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon. Judge Immergut, appointed by Trump, determined that the administration lacked legal authority for such an intervention, as local law enforcement was capable of managing the protests against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on their own. The ruling highlighted discrepancies between the claims made by the Justice Department and the assertions of Oregon officials, with Immergut finding the state's account more credible.

The ruling followed a three-day bench trial where Judge Immergut evaluated witness testimonies and evidence. She found that the Trump administration's claims regarding the necessity of National Guard assistance were unfounded. The judge noted that the local police had effectively maintained order during the protests, contradicting the federal narrative of a violent emergency.

Key testimonies from federal officials were scrutinized, particularly that of Cammilla Wamsley, the ICE field office director. Wamsley alleged extensive damage to the ICE facility, claiming that all windows and doors were broken. However, Judge Immergut found no credible evidence to support these claims, noting the absence of photographic documentation or corroborating witness accounts. Furthermore, she deemed Wamsley's testimony unreliable regarding an alleged invasion of the facility's lobby.

The ruling also addressed claims of violence against federal agents, which were found to lack supporting evidence. The Portland police conducted investigations that contradicted ICE's assertions of violence and barricading, revealing that federal officers were able to move freely in and out of the facility.

Judge Immergut's decision underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal law enforcement, with local police focused on public safety while federal agents appeared to prioritize the administration's narrative. The ruling serves as a critical examination of the credibility of federal claims, particularly in the context of the Trump administration's broader approach to law enforcement and civil rights issues. This case reflects a pattern of discrepancies in federal testimonies, raising concerns about the integrity of information presented in legal contexts, especially regarding the treatment of individuals in ICE facilities, where allegations of civil rights violations have emerged alongside claims of destroyed evidence.