On October 2, 2025, a legal drama unfolded in Portland, Oregon, casting a spotlight on the intersection of politics, the judiciary, and federal power. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee, recused himself from a high-profile lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland. The recusal came after the federal government, specifically the Justice Department, raised concerns about Judge Simon’s marriage to U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat and vocal opponent of the troop mobilization. The move, while not legally mandated, underscores the sensitivities surrounding judicial impartiality in politically charged cases.
The controversy began in earnest when President Trump announced on social media on October 1 that National Guard troops were “now in place” in Portland, although, according to on-the-ground reporting by KGW, none were visibly stationed around the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. The administration’s decision to federalize the Oregon National Guard was framed as a response to ongoing protests and what Trump described as threats from “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued statements describing violent protests at the ICE facility, though these accounts were largely contradicted by local media reports.
In the days leading up to the legal showdown, Oregon’s political leadership grew increasingly vocal in their opposition. Congresswoman Bonamici, whose district stretches from Portland’s western suburbs to the coast, joined Governor Tina Kotek at a press conference, declaring, “the number of necessary troops is zero.” She added, “nowhere did I see one single indication that we need military troops here. I strongly oppose this action.” On social media, Bonamici criticized the $3.8 million expected cost of the deployment, calling it “absurd during a government shutdown and when families are struggling to pay for health care, housing, and groceries.” These public statements, coupled with her presence at opposition events, became central to the Justice Department’s request for Simon’s recusal.
In a brief filed just hours before a scheduled hearing on Oregon’s request for a temporary restraining order to block the deployment, federal defendants argued that while they recognized Judge Simon and Representative Bonamici speak for themselves, “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.” They emphasized the importance of preserving public confidence in the proceedings, even though Simon’s relationship with Bonamici did not automatically disqualify him under federal law or the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Judge Simon, who was appointed to the bench in 2011, responded with a measured order. “Although the court does not believe that recusal is required under either federal law or the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, because it is necessary that the focus of this lawsuit remain on the critically important constitutional and statutory issues presented by the parties, the undersigned U.S. District Judge hereby recuses himself,” he wrote. By stepping aside, Simon sought to ensure that the legal battle would not be overshadowed by questions of judicial bias.
The case was promptly reassigned to U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee and former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon. Immergut, who also served a decade as a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge, was set to preside over the initial hearing scheduled for the morning of October 3. The focus of that hearing would likely center on Oregon’s request for a temporary restraining order, a key step in determining whether the federalization and deployment of the National Guard could proceed.
The lawsuit itself, filed jointly by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and the City of Portland on October 1, 2025, names President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants. State leaders argue that the President’s action violates multiple constitutional and statutory protections, including the Posse Comitatus Act—which prohibits military involvement in civilian law enforcement—and the 10th Amendment, which reserves police powers to the states. “Oregon communities are stable, and our local officials have been clear: we have the capacity to manage public safety without federal interference,” Rayfield stated. “Sending in 200 National Guard troops to guard a single building is not normal.”
The backdrop to this legal confrontation is a months-long standoff between local and federal authorities over the characterization and handling of protests in Portland. President Trump has repeatedly painted the city as a hotbed of violence and disorder, at times describing it as “war-ravaged” and likening life there to “living in hell.” Local officials, including Portland Mayor Keith Wilson and Governor Kotek, have consistently pushed back, insisting that the city is not in crisis and that federal intervention is unwarranted. A coalition of 17 Oregon mayors joined in opposition, and members of the state’s congressional delegation reported evasive or misleading answers from ICE officials during a recent tour of the facility at the heart of the dispute.
The timeline leading up to the lawsuit is a study in escalating rhetoric and action. In late September, the Oregon Military Department announced that National Guard units would be deployed in Portland later in the week, with the 200 members training at Camp Rilea in preparation. The state’s lawsuit followed swiftly, as did the federal government’s push to keep the case free from any appearance of bias. The dispute is not occurring in a vacuum; it follows similar National Guard deployments by the Trump administration in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, part of a broader strategy to use federal forces in response to urban unrest and immigration enforcement challenges.
The reassignment of the case to Judge Immergut has been met with a mix of resignation and resolve. While some legal observers note that the federal government’s request for recusal was made just three days after a scheduling conference and less than 24 hours before the crucial hearing, others see it as a necessary step to maintain the integrity of the judiciary in a case fraught with political implications. A spokesperson for Congresswoman Bonamici declined to comment on the recusal filing, perhaps signaling a desire to keep the focus squarely on the legal and constitutional questions at stake.
As the hearing proceeds under Judge Immergut’s supervision, the eyes of the nation—and particularly those of Portland’s residents—are fixed on the outcome. The case stands as a vivid example of the complexities that arise when legal, political, and personal worlds collide. The questions raised—about federal authority, state sovereignty, and judicial impartiality—are as old as the republic itself, yet as urgent as today’s headlines.
For now, the courtroom becomes the stage where these fundamental issues will be argued, scrutinized, and, perhaps, resolved—at least for this chapter in Oregon’s ongoing struggle with federal power.
