PORTLAND, OREGON - OCTOBER 18: Anti-I.C.E. protesters clash with federal agents at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on October 18, 2025 in Portland, Oregon. Organizers expect millions to particip...PORTLAND, OREGON - OCTOBER 18: Anti-I.C.E. protesters clash with federal agents at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on October 18, 2025 in Portland, Oregon. Organizers expect millions to participate in cities and towns across the nation for the second "No Kings" protest to denounce the Trump administration. (Photo by Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images)MORE LESS
Judge Karin Immergut handed down a preliminary injunction late Sunday night, keeping the National Guard out of Portland.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
Last week’s trial was replete with day-to-day accounts of the protests from state police for the plaintiffs and federal officers for the defendants.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
She said that she’d publish her final opinion on Friday.
Last week’s trial was replete with day-to-day accounts of the protests from state police for the plaintiffs and federal officers for the defendants.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
Immergut found that President Trump did not have a “colorable claim” to call up the Guard, and that he had “commandeered” the Oregon National Guard to perform federal law enforcement duties at the ICE facility, in violation of the 10th Amendment. She also underscored the injury to Oregon’s sovereignty in Trump’s attempt to deploy the California and Texas Guard over the governor’s objection.
She said that she’d publish her final opinion on Friday.
Last week’s trial was replete with day-to-day accounts of the protests from state police for the plaintiffs and federal officers for the defendants.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
The ruling maintains the status quo — the Guard remains barred from Portland — but with additional fact-finding by Immergut to back it up based on testimony at a three-day trial. The legality of the president’s attempts to deploy the Guard will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court.
Immergut found that President Trump did not have a “colorable claim” to call up the Guard, and that he had “commandeered” the Oregon National Guard to perform federal law enforcement duties at the ICE facility, in violation of the 10th Amendment. She also underscored the injury to Oregon’s sovereignty in Trump’s attempt to deploy the California and Texas Guard over the governor’s objection.
She said that she’d publish her final opinion on Friday.
Last week’s trial was replete with day-to-day accounts of the protests from state police for the plaintiffs and federal officers for the defendants.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
“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 ruling maintains the status quo — the Guard remains barred from Portland — but with additional fact-finding by Immergut to back it up based on testimony at a three-day trial. The legality of the president’s attempts to deploy the Guard will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court.
Immergut found that President Trump did not have a “colorable claim” to call up the Guard, and that he had “commandeered” the Oregon National Guard to perform federal law enforcement duties at the ICE facility, in violation of the 10th Amendment. She also underscored the injury to Oregon’s sovereignty in Trump’s attempt to deploy the California and Texas Guard over the governor’s objection.
She said that she’d publish her final opinion on Friday.
Last week’s trial was replete with day-to-day accounts of the protests from state police for the plaintiffs and federal officers for the defendants.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
Read Immergut’s ruling here:
“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 ruling maintains the status quo — the Guard remains barred from Portland — but with additional fact-finding by Immergut to back it up based on testimony at a three-day trial. The legality of the president’s attempts to deploy the Guard will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court.
Immergut found that President Trump did not have a “colorable claim” to call up the Guard, and that he had “commandeered” the Oregon National Guard to perform federal law enforcement duties at the ICE facility, in violation of the 10th Amendment. She also underscored the injury to Oregon’s sovereignty in Trump’s attempt to deploy the California and Texas Guard over the governor’s objection.
She said that she’d publish her final opinion on Friday.
Last week’s trial was replete with day-to-day accounts of the protests from state police for the plaintiffs and federal officers for the defendants.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible, particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present, the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” she wrote.
A spoke of the case has reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration had appealed Immergut’s first temporary restraining order blocking the Oregon Guard from deploying (but curiously, not her second TRO, blocking all Guard from any state from deploying, which has remained in effect throughout). A panel, the majority of which was Trump appointees, knocked down her order. A judge on the circuit called for a vote to vacate that order and rehear the case as a full court, which was successful.
A similar case has also reached the Supreme Court, where the administration appealed the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding a district court’s blockade of the Guard from Chicago. The justices recently asked for further briefing on the text of the law that governs the federalization of the Guard, making it unlikely that they’ll act until mid-November.
