PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon until at least Friday, saying she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.
The city and state sued in September to block the deployment.
It’s the latest development in weeks of legal back-and-forth in Portland, Chicago and other U.S. cities as the Trump administration has moved to federalize and deploy the National Guard in city streets to quell protests.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.
In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Immergut said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.
Judge says claims of protest violence are overstated
The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.
Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.
“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.
Ruling follows weeks of back and forth in federal court
The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — seek to push back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with regular forces — one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up troops.
Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”
One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October — under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.
Federal witness describes ‘surprise’ at troop deployment
During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.
The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” — another one of the conditions for calling up troops under federal law.
Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety concerns.
R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.
Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.
Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building.
The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.
Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that “without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest … that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”
