In a dramatic turn in the ongoing legal battle over the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon agreed on October 2, 2025, to recuse himself from presiding over the lawsuit. The decision followed objections from the U.S. Department of Justice, which questioned his impartiality due to his spouse’s public opposition to the troop deployment. The case, which pits state officials against President Donald Trump’s administration, has now been reassigned to Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, just one day before a critical hearing on a temporary restraining order.
The controversy began when President Trump announced plans to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard troops to protect federal property in Portland, including the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Building located south of downtown. The move was part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to respond to what it described as threats from "domestic terrorists" protesting his immigration policies. According to Reuters, similar deployments to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., also sparked legal challenges, with a California federal judge ruling the Los Angeles deployment illegal, though that decision has since been stayed pending appeal.
On September 28, 2025, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit to block the troop deployment. The lawsuit argued that President Trump was exaggerating the threat posed by protests to justify what state officials called an illegal seizure of control over state National Guard units. As reported by OPB, the suit sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the troops from being sent to Portland.
The legal proceedings quickly became mired in questions of judicial impartiality. Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee who had been assigned the case, is married to U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat whose congressional district encompasses much of Portland. Bonamici had been outspoken in her opposition to Trump’s actions. On September 27, she joined Oregon Governor Tina Kotek at a news conference, where she described the president’s decision as “a gross abuse of power” and declared, “no military is welcome or needed here.” She added, “I was at the ICE facility a couple of days ago. I was in Portland yesterday on the east side for a meeting and last night for an event. Nowhere did I see one single indication that we need military troops here. I strongly oppose this action by the president.”
Bonamici also signed a letter, along with other Oregon Democrats, addressed to President Trump on September 27, urging him to rescind the decision to deploy troops. The letter stated, “We write to reject your decision to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon. We urge you to rescind this decision, and withdraw any military personnel and federal agents you have recently sought to deploy.”
These public statements by Bonamici became the crux of the Justice Department’s argument for Judge Simon’s recusal. In a court filing submitted on October 2, the Department of Justice acknowledged that “Judge Simon and Representative Bonamici speak for themselves, not for each other.” However, it continued, “the unique factual, legal, and political role that Judge Simon’s spouse has played in the central events of this lawsuit may create the appearance of partiality.”
Judge Simon, for his part, initially resisted the call to step aside. In a brief order, he asserted that he “does not believe that recusal is required under either federal law” or the code of conduct for federal judges. Still, he ultimately concluded that “because it is necessary that the focus of this lawsuit remain on the critically important constitutional and statutory issues presented by the parties,” he would recuse himself. As OPB noted, Simon also pointed out that the Justice Department raised the issue three days after the initial hearing and less than 24 hours before a scheduled hearing on the restraining order.
With Simon’s recusal, the case was randomly reassigned to U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut. Immergut, who was appointed by President Trump in 2019 after serving as U.S. attorney for Oregon under former President George W. Bush, will now preside over the proceedings. The hearing on the temporary restraining order, which could determine whether the troop deployment goes forward, remained on the court calendar for October 3, 2025, as of Thursday afternoon.
Through a spokesperson, Representative Bonamici declined to comment on her husband’s recusal. Governor Kotek, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, and Attorney General Rayfield have all remained steadfast in their opposition to the deployment, arguing that it represents an overreach of federal authority and an unnecessary escalation in a city already grappling with tensions over immigration enforcement and civil protests.
The lawsuit in Oregon is not an isolated incident. President Trump’s use of military forces in cities led by Democrats has triggered a wave of legal challenges across the country. In California, a federal judge found that Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles violated a law prohibiting the military from engaging in law enforcement activities. However, as Reuters reported, the ruling was stayed by an appeals court, leaving the legality of such deployments in limbo. Meanwhile, a similar case in Washington, D.C., is still awaiting a decision.
The legal and political stakes in Portland are high. On one hand, the Trump administration has framed the deployment as a necessary step to safeguard federal property and restore order in the face of what it calls violent unrest. On the other, Oregon officials and their allies argue that the presence of federal troops is not only unnecessary but also an affront to state sovereignty and democratic norms. The reassignment of the case to a judge appointed by Trump has only heightened scrutiny, with both sides watching closely to see how the court will rule on the state’s request for a restraining order.
For now, the courtroom drama in Portland underscores the deep divisions over federal intervention in local affairs—a theme that has played out repeatedly in recent years. As the city prepares for the pivotal hearing, the outcome could set a precedent for similar disputes elsewhere, shaping the balance of power between states and the federal government in times of civil unrest.
As legal arguments continue to unfold, all eyes remain on Portland’s federal courthouse, where the question of who controls the deployment of state military resources—and under what circumstances—hangs in the balance.
