PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that the Trump administration did not meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland. This followed a lawsuit from the city and state to block the deployment, which they argued lacked proper justification.
Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump, reached her decision after a three-day trial where both sides presented arguments regarding whether the protests near the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building justified military intervention. The administration claimed the military was necessary to protect federal personnel and property.
In her 106-page opinion, Immergut recognized that while the president is granted considerable deference in national defense decisions, he must provide a valid legal basis for such deployments. She determined that the administration had not demonstrated that there was a rebellion or imminent threat of rebellion nor that law enforcement was incapable of handling the situation without military support.
The White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment on this ruling. Democratic cities like Portland, and others targeted for military involvement by Trump, have pushed back against the administration, arguing that the president did not meet the legal threshold for deploying troops, which would infringe upon state sovereignty.
Following earlier orders issued by Judge Immergut, the deployment of troops was already blocked pending further court action. The current trial has expanded the factual record that might influence future appellate court decisions. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has since mandated that no troops be deployed while the case progresses.
During the trial, local and federal witnesses were interrogated about law enforcement's response to protests, which peaked in June when the police declared a riot amidst growing tensions. The protests were described as involving a limited number of participants over the ensuing weeks, despite the administration's characterization of the situation as a severe rebellion.
Federal officials testified about staffing shortages and personnel requests, but key witnesses suggested that the deployment of troops was not sought by local authorities, contradicting the administration's narrative of an urgent security crisis. City representatives cited that local police had successfully managed the protests and maintained law and order.
As the situation unfolds, legal battles surrounding the invocation of military forces in civilian matters appear set to continue, raising critical questions about the scope of presidential power in handling civil unrest.
