In a late-night ruling with significant implications for executive authority and the limits of federal power, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops into Portland. The order stops not only the deployment of California’s Guard but bars relocation of troops from any state or Washington, D.C. into Oregon, at least for now.
The ruling comes in response to escalating legal challenges that argue Trump’s actions violate federal law — specifically 10 U.S.C. §12406 — and infringe upon the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states. Judge Immergut appeared to agree, stating directly from the bench that the federal effort “appears to violate both 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment.”
This is not a vague procedural objection. Immergut’s language signals deep concern over what she sees as an overreach — federalizing state troops without proper justification and attempting to bypass court orders already in place. Her pushback was pointed, even confrontational, pressing DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the administration was defying her authority: “You’re an officer of the court. Aren’t defendants circumventing my order?”
Hamilton denied wrongdoing, but the tone of the exchange suggests the court is unconvinced. And that’s where this becomes much more than a legal technicality — it’s a full-blown constitutional confrontation over the scope of federal executive power in the face of state resistance.
This is far from the first clash between Trump’s federalist instincts and the prerogatives of progressive-run states. Portland has become a symbol — a flashpoint — in that broader struggle.
It is where the federal government insists it must restore order, and where local leaders assert they have things under control, even when nightly unrest says otherwise. The battle is not just over bodies in uniform, but over who holds final authority in moments of crisis.
Trump allies argue the president has both historical precedent and statutory authority to deploy Guard units in cases of domestic unrest. And to be clear, the law does provide mechanisms for such deployments.
But the court here is saying that the burden of justification lies with the executive — and that in this case, it hasn’t been met. No new facts were offered, no new threats documented. In the court’s view, Trump’s emergency declaration lacked the emergency.
What is certain is that the Department of Justice isn’t done. An appeal appears likely, and the legal fight will move up the chain. The central question — how far a president can go in deploying military force within the U.S. — remains as unsettled now as it was during the summer of 2020.
