Trump's plan to deploy troops to Portland ruled unlawful by US judge

By Erik Larson and Madlin Mekelburg

 

President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, to quell protests against his immigration crackdown was permanently blocked by a US judge, handing him a major loss in his bid to send troops to Democratic-led cities.

 

A federal judge who oversaw a trial last month agreed with the city and the state of Oregon on Friday that the protests were largely peaceful and didn’t require the intervention of federal troops. The suit was filed in mid-September to block the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops over the objection of the governor. 

 

The judge said the troops can remain under federal control while the government appeals the ruling, but they cannot be deployed.

 

The decision is the first time a federal judge has ruled directly on whether the president properly invoked a federal law to bring state troops under federal control and deploy them. In the case, US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, had to weigh whether the level of unrest in Portland justified the move. 

 

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Representatives of Oregon and Portland didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Immergut found that Trump violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects state sovereignty. She also found that the federal government failed to demonstrate that the protests amounted to a rebellion or prevented the president from enforcing immigration laws with regular forces necessitating the federalization of National Guard troops.

 

The judge found that the protests “have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence.”

 

“The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws,” she wrote.

 

The ruling only applies to the National Guard deployment in Portland, but marks a significant development in the wide-ranging legal fight over the president’s use of military forces in response to civilian activity. 

 

Separate lawsuits challenging similar deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, DC. have been making their way through the courts, but the case in Oregon is the first to result in a verdict on whether Trump legally invoked a rarely used federal law to deploy the troops over objections from state and local officials.

 

The deployment was in response to ongoing protests outside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office just south of downtown. In issuing the order, Trump invoked a law that allows the president to bring guardsmen under federal control when there is a rebellion against the US government or when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” Trump said both applied.

 

Immergut held a three-day trial that concluded on Oct. 31. She heard testimony from a range of witnesses with knowledge of the protests, including high-ranking Portland police commanders and Department of Homeland Security officials, who gave conflicting views about the severity of violence at the rallies, the danger they posed to federal agents and the level of law enforcement response necessary to keep demonstrators in check.

 

The administration claims the Portland protests have been violent and put federal property and personnel at risk, while often preventing immigration agents from performing their duties. State and local officials say Trump is wildly exaggerating the situation and that the combined force of federal agents and local law enforcement has been sufficient in responding to the protests.

 

Lawyers for Portland and the state of Oregon repeated claims throughout the trial that the deployment was based on a “manufactured crisis,” and that federal agents inflamed tensions with protesters with their response tactics.

 

Lawyers for the Justice Department stressed that agitators at the scene were repeatedly targeting the ICE facility and its workers with intimidation and threats of violence, impeding their ability to carry out their work. They said those actions amount to a “rebellion against the authority of the United States,” one that cannot be contained without the use of National Guard troops.

 

Immergut’s ruling comes less than a week after she issued a preliminary injunction barring the deployment of troops in the city while she weighed the arguments presented by both parties.

 

The case is State of Oregon vs. Donald Trump, 3:25-cv-01756, US District Court, District of Oregon (Portland).