A Judge Steps In: The Emergency Order

Federal Judge Shuts Down Troop Transfer – In a dramatic late-night ruling, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order that halted the deployment of 300 California and 400 Texas National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The decision came after Oregon filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s action as unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power.

Judge Immergut, appointed during President Trump’s first term, stated that the deployment violated federal statute 10 U.S.C. §12406 and the Tenth Amendment. Her ruling emphasized that the protests in Portland were localized and mostly peaceful, contradicting the administration’s claims of widespread chaos.

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote, adding that the federalization of state troops without proper justification risked blurring the line between civil and military authority.

Oregon’s Legal Challenge: Defending State Rights

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led the legal charge, arguing that the President’s move infringed upon the state’s sovereign rights. The lawsuit, filed on 28 September, claimed that the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the Tenth Amendment, which limits federal interference in state matters.

The protests, centered around a single block near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, had seen minimal disruption. According to state officials, there were only 25 arrests in mid-June and none in the three months following. This peaceful nature of the demonstrations weakened the federal government’s justification for military involvement.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek expressed concern over the federal government’s actions, stating, “Oregon is our home. It is not a military target.” Her remarks underscored the sentiment that the state should handle its internal affairs without federal interference.

California Joins the Fight: Newsom’s Lawsuit

California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a separate lawsuit opposing the deployment of his state’s National Guard troops to Portland. Newsom celebrated the court’s decision on social media, writing, “BREAKING: We just won in court — again. A federal judge BLOCKED Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to DEPLOY 300 OF OUR NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO PORTLAND.”

The lawsuit argued that California had no obligation to send troops to another state, especially when the deployment lacked a clear and lawful purpose. Newsom’s legal team emphasized that the federal government’s actions were a direct attempt to circumvent Judge Immergut’s earlier ruling that blocked the use of Oregon’s own National Guard.

The judge agreed, stating that bringing in troops from other states was “in direct contravention” of her previous order. She denied the Justice Department’s request for a stay, reinforcing the urgency and seriousness of the situation.

A Divided Response: Texas Supports the Deployment

While California and Oregon opposed the federal action, Texas Governor Greg Abbott supported it. Abbott authorized the deployment of 400 Texas National Guard troops, stating, “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it.”

The Department of Defense confirmed that the troops were being activated for deployment to Oregon, Illinois, and possibly other states. However, Judge Immergut’s sweeping order blocked the movement of any National Guard troops from any state to Oregon, effectively halting the Texas deployment as well.

This clash between Republican-led and Democratic-led states highlighted the growing political divide over federal authority and states’ rights. Legal experts noted that the case could set a precedent for future disputes over the use of military force in domestic situations.

What Happens Next: Appeals and Political Fallout

The Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal Judge Immergut’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department argues that the President retains authority under federal law to deploy National Guard forces in cases of “domestic unrest.”

However, Immergut’s ruling emphasized that such authority must be based on factual evidence and not political narratives. “Accepting Trump’s legal arguments would mean that he could send military troops virtually anywhere at any time,” she wrote, warning of the dangers of unchecked executive power.

The next hearing is scheduled for 17 October, where the court will decide whether to extend the restraining order. Meanwhile, the situation in Portland remains calm, with local officials urging residents to stay peaceful and avoid confrontation.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson stated, “This narrative was manufactured. Our city is peaceful, and we will continue to protect our community through lawful and democratic means.”

As the legal battle continues, the case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between federal authority and state sovereignty. It also raises important questions about the role of the military in civil matters and the need for judicial oversight in times of political tension.