President Donald Trump’s administration is facing legal challenges in Oregon over its attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland despite state resistance. The trial, presided over by Judge Karin Immergut, will address whether the president can federalize National Guard units to support federal officers in the city amid claims of unrest and crime.
The case has been in the news for weeks, with the Trump administration continuing to seek the federalization of National Guard units to provide added protection for federal officers in Portland, a city the president has described as ‘war ravaged’ and in need of military reinforcements. Judge Immergut, who was appointed by Trump, will preside over the trial, which is expected to last through the week.
The administration has faced a string of setbacks in Oregon, where it has sought to deploy 200 National Guard soldiers as added protection for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and other federal officers. However, repeated court orders have blocked the deployment, citing state opposition. The federal government has appealed these orders, and the trial is expected to produce a more permanent decision, although it will likely be appealed by either party right away.
In court papers filed ahead of the trial, DOJ lawyers argued that the deployment to Portland was ‘amply justified’ due to the alleged threats and assaults on federal officers. They cited instances where agitators had assaulted federal officers and damaged federal property, including spray-painting violent threats and blockading the vehicle entrance to the Portland ICE facility. Additionally, they stated that law enforcement officers assigned to immigration-related tasks had been diverted to managing the local unrest, which they claimed took them away from their regular duties.
State lawyers, meanwhile, contended that the use of National Guard troops should only be a last resort and that ordinary governance challenges cannot justify such a measure. They pointed out that Congress’ laws governing National Guard deployment allow the president to federalize the reserved troops against the will of state governors only as a last resort. ‘The ordinary challenges of governing cannot justify the extraordinary measure Defendants employed here,’ they wrote in their legal briefs.
The case is part of a broader legal battle involving the Supreme Court, which is considering whether to take up Trump’s National Guard deployment in Chicago. This case could have far-reaching implications for similar cases in Oregon and California, as the outcome could set a precedent for how other states handle federal requests for the deployment of National Guard units.
With the trial underway, the case is expected to generate significant attention, particularly given the ongoing tensions in Portland and the high-profile nature of the administration’s involvement. The outcome will likely have broader implications for federal-state relations and the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.