Trump Administration Appeals 106-Page Ruling Blocking Portland Guard Deployment

The Trump administration has officially appealed a federal judge's decision that permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued a comprehensive 106-page ruling in early November, finding that the administration lacked a legal basis for the deployment amidst ongoing protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. This appeal continues a prolonged legal battle between the federal government and state and city officials over the use of military forces in domestic matters.

Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, concluded that the president did not establish a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" nor was he "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States" in Oregon. Her ruling cited violations of Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs presidential authority over the National Guard, and the 10th Amendment, which protects states' policing powers. The judge's decision followed a three-day trial where evidence was presented by both sides.

The Trump administration has consistently argued that the National Guard was necessary to protect federal personnel and property in Portland, a city President Trump described as "war ravaged." Prior to the permanent injunction, Judge Immergut had issued two temporary restraining orders, blocking the deployment of Oregon's own National Guard and then preventing the federalization of troops from any state. The administration had attempted to circumvent the initial block by trying to deploy California National Guard members.

The appeal has been filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously issued conflicting rulings on temporary blocks related to these deployments. This legal challenge is part of a broader trend, with similar lawsuits filed by Democratic-led cities like Chicago, where a related case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The ongoing court battles highlight a significant constitutional debate regarding the limits of presidential power in deploying military forces domestically and states' sovereignty.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield affirmed the state's commitment to defending its values, stating, "The district court's ruling made it clear that this administration must be accountable to the truth and to the rule of law." Legal experts view these court decisions as crucial checks and balances against potential executive overreach. David Janovsky, a senior policy analyst, noted, "There's a pretty common theme that deploying the military into U.S. cities is not something that can be done lawlessly."