Judge Karin Immergut has once again stepped into the fray, extending a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s ability to send National Guard troops to Portland for another two weeks.
As reported by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, Immergut, a Trump appointee, reaffirmed her earlier orders from Oct. 4 and Oct. 5 during a telephonic hearing on Wednesday, preventing the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard and any Guard troops from other states to the city.
This legal tug-of-war between state and federal power hinges on claims by Oregon and Portland officials that Trump overstepped his authority, violating laws and the 10th Amendment by attempting to override local leaders’ objections to such deployments.
During a telephonic hearing on Wednesday, Immergut extended these orders for another 14 days. Now, an expedited trial is set for Oct. 29, despite federal lawyers begging for a delay. Seems like the administration wants to buy time, but the clock’s ticking.
Meanwhile, Oregon and Portland officials are crying foul, claiming Trump’s actions trample on state rights and the 10th Amendment. They argue this is a federal overreach into local policing powers. It’s a classic showdown: state sovereignty versus presidential authority over the military.
On the ground, the feds couldn’t even muster fresh evidence to justify Guard troops at Portland’s South Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. Protests there have been small and peaceful—hardly the chaos narrative some progressive activists might want you to believe. So why the urgency, one wonders?
Here’s where it gets spicy: a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco could unravel Immergut’s orders any day now. The panel, made up of Judges Susan Graber, Ryan Nelson, and Bridget Bade, is weighing whether Trump can federalize Oregon’s Guard. Two of the three hinted last week they might lean toward presidential power—good news for those who value strong federal leadership.
Legal scholars are scratching their heads over why it’s taken nearly a week for the 9th Circuit to rule—unusually slow for such a hot-button case. Willamette University professor Norman Williams speculated, “I think that the passage of time means there’s a dissent being written,” likely by Judge Graber. If true, that’s a signal of judicial friction, and conservatives might hope the majority holds firm.
Let’s not forget, the 9th Circuit did agree to let Trump maintain control over 200 Oregon Guard troops for now, though they can’t be deployed until the ruling drops. Compare that to a June case in Los Angeles, where a different 9th Circuit panel overturned a similar block on Trump’s Guard federalization in just 48 hours. Speedy justice then, but now we wait.
Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aren’t sitting idle, though—they’ve already federalized 200 Oregon Guard troops and up to 300 from California, stationing them at military camps in Warrenton and Happy Valley. Hegseth also ordered 400 Texas Guard troops federalized on Oct. 5 for potential deployment to Portland, Chicago, and beyond. Yet, it’s unclear if any Texans have reached Oregon soil.
These federalized troops are under the U.S. Northern Command in Colorado, awaiting final orders. For those of us who see the need for law and order, this readiness is reassuring, even if the left paints it as some authoritarian boogeyman. The reality is, federal power sometimes must step in when local leaders falter.
If the 9th Circuit sides with Trump, the fallout could be swift. Michael Gerardi, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer, stated, “If the 9th Circuit judges overrule Immergut’s first temporary restraining order barring the Oregon Guard Deployment, the government’s lawyers will, within 48 hours, ask Immergut to dissolve both restraining orders and the state’s lawsuit against the federal government.” That’s a bold play, and one hopes it restores federal prerogative.
Oregon isn’t backing down either. Brian Marshall, senior assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice, countered, “The state would require at least 48 hours to respond to that request before Immergut made a decision.” It’s a legal chess game, and the state’s clinging to every move to keep control.
At its core, this battle isn’t just about Portland—it’s about who calls the shots when push comes to shove: states or the White House. For conservatives tired of progressive policies letting cities spiral into disorder, Trump’s push feels like a necessary check on local inaction. Yet, even critics of federal overreach deserve a fair hearing on constitutional grounds.
So, we wait for the 9th Circuit’s verdict, which could redefine the limits of presidential power over military deployment. Until then, Portland remains a flashpoint in a broader struggle over governance in America. One thing’s certain: this isn’t the last we’ll hear of this tug-of-war between state and federal authority.
