Oregon officials are currently engaged in a successful legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s repeated attempts to deploy military forces. A federal judge initially issued a temporary injunction, blocking Trump’s directive to militarize the Oregon National Guard for the protection of federal immigration agents in Portland. When Trump subsequently sought to circumvent this ruling, the judge also prevented his effort to send the California National Guard to the city.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield informed TIME that Trump’s actions were guiding the nation towards employing the military for law enforcement, prompting Oregon to challenge him in court to establish a “bright line.”
Rayfield stated that the demonstrations occurring outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city do not warrant military intervention. He remarked, “It is a cornerstone of our democracy that deploying the United States military within our cities is not normal. This is not a third-world country, and we perceived that the President was aiming to normalize the use of the military in our urban areas.”
On Saturday, Judge Karin Immergut of the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon, a Trump appointee from 2018, ruled that military assistance was unnecessary, contrary to arguments from Justice Department lawyers, and temporarily halted the deployment of troops. Judge Immergut wrote, “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” The following day, when Trump attempted to deploy the California National Guard, she again intervened, asserting that Trump’s Justice Department was trying to bypass her Saturday order. The judge has scheduled a trial for October 29.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the President from utilizing the military within the U.S. for law enforcement functions. The National Guard, however, may be deployed to assist American citizens during natural disasters and in instances of insurrection or open revolt.
When questioned about her ruling later on Sunday, Trump appeared to convey a belief that judges he nominated should rule in his favor. Trump told reporters that if his administration had appointed a judge like Immergut to the bench during his first term, then “I wasn’t well-served by the people who picked judges.”
Under the Constitution, federal judges are granted lifetime appointments and belong to a distinct branch of government not subject to presidential control, a measure designed to shield them from political pressure.
Rayfield, Oregon’s attorney general, labeled it “absurd” that Trump would “disregard the judge’s order.” Rayfield added that Trump has since attempted to mobilize National Guard troops from Texas and other states for deployment to Oregon.
Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller posted on X that Immergut’s ruling constituted “legal insurrection.” When TIME inquired if he was advocating for President Trump to take action against judges whose rulings he disagreed with, Miller replied, “No, it’s simply a factually accurate statement that when a judge assumes for him or herself the powers that have been delegated by the Constitution to the President, that that is a form of illegal insurrection.”
In Portland, Rayfield has urged protestors not to “take the bait” if provoked by federal law enforcement. Rayfield commented, “This is an issue that has been manufactured in the minds of the Trump Administration.” He further advised, “If the President is directing his personnel to be more aggressive and they are moving off federal property to instigate encounters with peaceful demonstrators, our protestors need to avoid provocation and back off. Don’t participate in their strategy.”
