A federal judge just slammed the brakes on President Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon, calling it a flat-out violation of the Constitution.
The Daily Caller reported that U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction blocking the deployment, ruling that it overstepped presidential powers and trampled on the 10th Amendment.
This saga kicked off when the Trump administration sent 200 National Guard members from Oregon, Texas, and California to Portland, citing the need to protect federal property and personnel amid heated protests at the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.
Oregon and Portland weren’t having it, filing a lawsuit in September to stop what they saw as an overreach of federal muscle on state turf.
Judge Immergut, ironically a Trump appointee, first issued a temporary block on Sunday before dropping the hammer with a permanent injunction on Friday after a three-day trial.
Her 106-page decision didn’t mince words, finding no evidence of a rebellion or crisis that justified militarizing the situation under federal law.
Here’s where it gets spicy—Immergut noted that Oregon’s governor opposed the move, and even the federal officials tasked with guarding the ICE building didn’t ask for backup.
She wrote, “The evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority.” (U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut)
Now, let’s unpack that: if the locals and the feds on the ground didn’t want troops, why force the issue? It smells like a top-down power play that didn’t pass the constitutional sniff test.
Immergut doubled down, stating, “Even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.” (U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut)
Translation? Even with the benefit of the doubt, this move didn’t hold water, and it’s a stark reminder that executive power isn’t a blank check, no matter how noble the intent.
For conservatives who champion state rights over federal overreach, this ruling might sting a bit, but it’s hard to ignore the principle at play—states aren’t just pawns in a D.C. chess game.
Adding fuel to the fire, the administration faces a separate temporary injunction blocking similar troop deployments in Chicago, hinting at a broader pushback against federal intervention in city affairs.
While the Trump team has the right to appeal Immergut’s ruling, it’s clear this battle over who controls the streets—states or the feds—is far from over.
