A few hours ago, a federal judge in Oregon issued a temporary order blocking President Donald Trump’s attempt to send the National Guard to Portland to reinforce the city’s security. The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the state and the city, which argued that the deployment violated state sovereignty and lacked justification, as the protests have been mostly peaceful.
The judge responsible for the ruling, Karin Immergut, emphasized that the demonstrations near federal immigration facilities have not shown significant violence or public disorder that would justify direct military intervention. She added that the presidential decision, as presented, “is not supported by verifiable facts.”
This ruling joins other cases in which courts have questioned the use of federal forces in local jurisdictions, particularly under accusations of excessive executive authority. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has announced its intention to appeal the measure.
Can this ruling prevent other presidential military deployments in U.S. cities?
Yes. If the courts uphold the interpretation of clear limits between state and federal powers, cases like Portland’s could set legal precedents that make similar deployments more difficult in other jurisdictions.
