A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that former President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, marking a major legal setback for his use of the military in domestic policing operations.

The ruling, issued on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut, is the first to permanently block the use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities, highlighting limits on presidential authority under the law.

---

Legal Background and Context

The case stems from Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Portland in response to protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in the city. The administration had claimed that protesters were waging a rebellion, justifying military action under federal law.

Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected this claim, stating that the situation did not meet the legal threshold for invoking military force. Lawyers for the City of Portland and Oregon Attorney General’s Office argued that the violence was rare, isolated, and effectively managed by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” said Portland lawyer Caroline Turco.

---

Reactions from Officials

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling a “huge victory”, emphasizing that the decision confirms the President cannot deploy the Guard in Oregon without a legal basis.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson also praised the decision, stating it vindicates Portland’s position and reinforces the rule of law protecting the community.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said.

---

The Protests and Legal Proceedings

The Portland protests began in June 2025, primarily targeting increased ICE activity. A review of court records by Reuters found that 32 people were charged with federal crimes related to the protests. Of those, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, receiving probation, while roughly half of all defendants faced charges of assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanors.

The Trump administration’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged” was challenged in court. Defense lawyers argued that incidents of violence were isolated, and the city was largely peaceful under local law enforcement control.

---

Future Legal Implications

The Trump administration is expected to appeal Friday’s ruling, potentially taking the case to the US Supreme Court. This decision adds to previous rulings, with at least three federal judges determining that Trump’s National Guard deployments were not permitted under the emergency authority cited by his administration.

Legal experts note that the case could set a significant precedent for limits on presidential power, particularly in using military forces for domestic law enforcement or crowd control.

---

Key Takeaways

• Federal Judge Karin Immergut ruled Trump illegally deployed National Guard troops to Portland.
• The ruling permanently blocks the use of military forces to suppress protests against immigration authorities.
• Officials, including Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, praised the decision.
• Legal challenges continue, with potential appeals to the US Supreme Court.
• The case highlights limits on the Insurrection Act and presidential authority for domestic military deployment.