A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred President Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, until at least Friday. The judge stated 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. This is 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 on city streets to quell protests.
The ruling came from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, following a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.
In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Judge Immergut said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.
According to the Trump administration, the purpose of the deployment is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. However, legal experts noted that a higher appellate court order currently in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.
Judge 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.
The complex case arises as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement—including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit—seek to push back. They argue that 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.
Judge Immergut issued two orders in early October blocking deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that President Trump had failed to show 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 on October 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.
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 protests typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to President Trump’s National Guard announcement.
The Trump administration stated it has had to shuffle federal agents from around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion”—another condition 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 (FPS), the agency within the Department of Homeland Security responsible for security at federal buildings. Due to safety concerns, the judge allowed this official to testify under the initials R.C.
When cross-examined, R.C. said he did not request troops and was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and did not agree with statements suggesting Portland was burning down.
Attorneys for Portland and Oregon argued that city police have been able to respond effectively to the protests. After declaring a riot on June 14, the police changed strategy to direct officers to intervene primarily when person and property crimes occurred. Crowd sizes have largely diminished since the end of June, police officials testified.
Another Federal Protective Service official, also allowed to testify under initials due to safety concerns, stated that protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility, and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building. Court documents and testimony revealed that the ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage.
Cammilla Wamsley, the regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, said that during the closure period, employees worked from another building. The plaintiffs argued this was evidence they were able to continue their work functions despite the protests.
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.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-guard-portland-judge-blocks-deployment-again/