A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, has denied the Trump administration’s request to quickly lift her order prohibiting the deployment of federalized national guard troops to the city. Judge Karin Immergut stated that she would make her decision by Monday regarding the ongoing legal battle, which has generated a flurry of lawsuits and conflicting rulings stemming from Trump’s controversial decision to send military personnel into cities led by Democratic officials.
Immergut previously issued two temporary restraining orders preventing the deployment of national guard troops in response to small but persistent protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office. Her initial ruling blocked the mobilization of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, stating that Trump had overstepped his authority by claiming the city faced a state of war-like rebellion—a determination she found to lack factual basis.
Despite the first order being overturned by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Immergut’s second order, which blocks troop deployment from all states in response to the government’s attempt to circumvent her first ruling, remains effective as the administration did not seek to appeal this measure.
During a virtual hearing, Immergut outlined her rationale for maintaining the injunction, noting that the Ninth Circuit left a central issue unaddressed—the attempt by the government to evade her order. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit has temporarily paused any lifting of the first order until the court can deliberate the possibility of rehearing it with a larger panel.
In Washington D.C., a similar situation unfolds as U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb hears arguments related to the request by the District of Columbia’s Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, to withdraw over 2,000 guard members from the streets. After Trump declared a “crime emergency” despite a reported decrease in violent crime in the district, more than 2,300 National Guard troops have been deployed, alongside additional federal agents.
The continuation of military presence remains uncertain, as discussions around the deployments and legal challenges progress. States like West Virginia are also facing scrutiny; civic organizations argue against Governor Patrick Morrisey’s authority to deploy troops supporting Trump’s initiatives, with the state’s attorney general defending the decision as authorized under federal law.
Further complications arise in Chicago, where Judge April Perry has halted troop deployment until further legal proceedings can take place or the Supreme Court intervenes. The federal government has signaled its intent to pursue emergency orders to allow for troop movements, while state attorneys continue advocating for the protection of constitutional liberties during this turbulent time.
With these developments, the legal battles highlight the ongoing tensions between federal authority and state governance, and the outcomes may shape the dynamic of civil rights and democratic governance in major U.S. cities. As courts deliberate and review the implications of these deployments, many are hopeful for resolutions that reaffirm the importance of local governance while ensuring public safety.