Federal judge says Sunday she will block National Guard deployment to Portland through Friday

By CONRAD WILSON/Oregon Public Broadcasting

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut said late Sunday she would continue to block the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Oregon until 5 p.m. Friday.

The short-term preliminary injunction, issued late Sunday, came at a critical moment: Immergut’s temporary restraining order, which blocked any National Guard troops under the president’s authority from deploying anywhere in Oregon, was about to expire in a matter of hours. Immergut said in the Sunday order she plans to issue a final ruling by Friday. No matter the outcome, it will likely be appealed.

The judge wrote she’s still in the “process of diligently reviewing all the evidence,” which includes hundreds of exhibits and additional arguments following the three-day trial that ended Friday afternoon.

“From the beginning, this case has been about making sure the facts—not the President’s political whims—guide how the law is applied,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement following Sunday night’s order.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek called the decision “another affirmation of our democracy and the right to govern ourselves” and said the state “stands united against this unwanted, unneeded, unconstitutional military intervention.”

The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This order is the latest in a month-long legal battle over the president’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon. In late September, Trump announced on social media he would “provide all necessary Troops” to protect Portland, which he described as “War ravaged” and “under siege” by “domestic terrorists.”

Immergut’s decision Sunday, while not final, suggests she’s likely to side with the states of Oregon and California, and the city of Portland, who say the president’s efforts to deploy troops is unlawful and a violation of state sovereignty.

During the trial last week, law enforcement officers gave divergent views on the danger of ongoing protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city’s South Waterfront neighborhood. Officials with the Portland Police Bureau testified that the protests had mostly quieted after peaking in June. While federal law enforcement said they were outnumbered, and needed additional support.

In her 16-page order, Immergut said she found “no credible evidence” that protests outside the ICE building “grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” in the months before the president took control of the Oregon National Guard.

Protests “likely not a ‘rebellion’”

Throughout the case, attorneys for the Justice Department argued the president followed the statute, which allows the executive branch to call up the National Guard if federal law can’t be carried out, or if there’s a rebellion.

Based on evidence heard during last week’s trial, Immergut indicated the situation in Portland had not met either of those conditions.

The Portland ICE building was closed for several weeks this summer after it was damaged and protesters frequently blocked the facility’s driveway.

Immergut, who was appointed by Trump, said that despite the closure “the evidence also showed that federal law enforcement officers were able to clear the driveway” and ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations “was able to temporarily relocate to another facility in Portland for administrative purposes until the building reopened,” and continued “making arrests in the community.”

The judge also said the protests outside the Portland ICE building did not amount to a rebellion. She referenced several dictionary definitions and even cited prominent events from American history in the late 1700s, including the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays’ Rebellion, two events that saw bloodshed shortly after the nation’s founding.

“Putting those principles together, a rebellion is an organized group engaged in armed hostilities for the purpose of overtaking an instrumentality of government by unlawful or antidemocratic means,” Immergut wrote.

She said that based on “credible” testimony at trial from the Portland Police Bureau, “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.”

Instead, Immergut found the violence outside the Portland ICE building largely consisted of “sporadic isolated instances of violent behavior toward federal officers and property damage to a single building.”

Immergut also appeared to shoot down a central argument from the Trump administration — that protests in Portland were a coordinated effort, being organized by “antifa” which the president recently labeled an “domestic terrorism organization.”

The Trump administration, she added, had not provided evidence “those episodes of violence were perpetrated by an organized group engaged in armed hostilities for the purpose of overtaking an instrumentality of government by unlawful or antidemocratic means.”