Judge Blocks Trump From Sending Out-Of-State National Guard Troops To Oregon

United States District Judge Karin J. Immergut on Sunday expanded her ruling from the day before, blocking the Trump administration from deploying hundreds of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

Immergut called “an emergency hearing Sunday, then broadened her restraining order to cover ‘the relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon,’” The New York Times reported. Meanwhile, the Trump administration still plans to send Texas National Guard troops to Chicago to restore order amid a series of anti-ICE attacks.

On Saturday, Immergut granted the State of Oregon and the City of Portland’s motion for a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump from federalizing the National Guard and sending them to Portland.

On Sunday, Immergut stated that “the relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state,” implied that she wants to forbid Trump from sending out-of-state National Guard troops to Oregon to protect federal agents or property.

One social media user commented, “I want you to realize how crazy this is. She is saying the Federal government has no jurisdiction to protect Federal property. The last time someone tried to argue this was Fort Sumter,” referring to the beginning of the Civil War, when the Confederacy argued that the U.S. federal government had no right to maintain or protect Fort Sumter because South Carolina had lawfully seceded from the Union, and therefore, Fort Sumter (located in Charleston Harbor) now belonged to South Carolina, and by extension, the Confederacy.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! 

Additionally, there is precedent for the National Guard from one state being deployed to a jurisdiction outside its state. For instance, during the civil rights era riots in 1968, National Guard units from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland were sent to Washington, D.C.

On September 27, 2025, President Trump posted a message on his Truth Social account stating that he was directing Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, to provide troops to protect “War ravaged Portland” from “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists” and authorizing “Full Force, if necessary.” On September 28, Hegseth issued a memorandum authorizing the deployment and federalization of 200 of Oregon National Guard service members, over the objection of Oregon’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek.

Immergut noted in her decision that three reasons could be adduced to support a president “activating” the National Guard to serve on a mission, adding that the reason in Trump’s case could be derived from Title 10 of the United States Code, where the Guard is considered federal military and under the command of the U.S. President.

“Members of the National Guard generally do not receive training to perform local law enforcement tasks, such as learning de-escalation techniques, the use of non-lethal force, or how to properly conduct criminal investigations,” Immergut opined.

After delineating numerous instances of agitation, including protestors lighting fires to barricade a vehicle gate at an ICE facility, rocks and M80 fireworks hurled at Federal Protective Services officers, an assault of a federal officer with a machete and knife, the shining of high-powered flashlights in the eyes of drivers leaving the ICE facility, as well as ICE employees being “doxed” and having their personal information posted online, Immergut defended the plaintiffs instead, writing they “have adequately shown irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in their favor” from the National Guard being federalized.

“Here, this Court concludes that the President did not have a ‘colorable basis’ to invoke § 12406(3) to federalize the National Guard because the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law. The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she wrote.

“Defendants also argue that the September 28, 2025 federalization order is authorized under subsection two, which permits federalization of the National Guard in response to ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,’” Immergut stated. “First, a rebellion must not only be violent but also be armed. Second, a rebellion must be organized. Third, a rebellion must be open and avowed. Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole — often with an aim of overthrowing the government — rather than in opposition to a single law or issue.”

“The President also stated that ‘protests or acts of violence [that] directly inhibit execution of the laws constitute a form of rebellion. These conceptions of rebellion improperly conflate the statutory preconditions,” she contended. She also argued that sending in the National Guard would inflame the situation, asserting, “state and local law enforcement will need to expend additional resources to quell increased civil unrest that is likely to result from the Guard’s mobilization.”

“The issues at stake in this case are important, and the consequences of this Court’s decision are far-reaching. As soon as the federalized National Guard deploys to Portland, the state of Oregon will suffer an injury to its sovereignty,” Immergut argued.

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation,” she concluded.