As the clock ticks down in Portland, Oregon, a pivotal legal battle over presidential powers and state sovereignty has captured the nation’s attention. By Sunday night, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut is expected to decide whether federalized National Guard troops can be deployed to protect Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility—a site that’s become a flashpoint for protests and a symbol of deeper constitutional questions.
The case, which wrapped up a whirlwind three-day trial on Friday, is the culmination of months of mounting tension between the Trump administration and state and local leaders. At its core: Does the president have the authority to override state objections and deploy the military within U.S. borders to enforce federal law? The answer, Judge Immergut acknowledged, is anything but simple. “I’ve never had a trial quite like this, honestly,” she remarked from the bench, noting both the compressed timeline and the sheer volume of evidence involved.
According to Courthouse News Service, the city of Portland, alongside the states of Oregon and California, sued the Trump administration to block the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Portland’s ICE facility. Their argument? The administration was “manufacturing a crisis” to justify an unprecedented federal incursion, one that Oregon Justice Department Attorney Scott Kennedy described as “one of the most significant infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon history.”
The Trump administration, for its part, insisted that the situation at Portland’s ICE facility was dire enough to warrant intervention. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that, under Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, the president can federalize the National Guard when regular forces are insufficient or there’s a “danger of rebellion.” As Hamilton put it during closing arguments, “The court and the president don’t have to find there’s actually a rebellion; there just has to be a danger of a rebellion.” He cited testimony from federal officers who reported threats and harassment from what they described as “violent agitators.”
Federal officials painted a picture of escalating chaos: shattered windows, broken doors, damaged access card readers, and an inoperable entrance gate at the ICE facility. Cammillia Wamsley, field director for ICE’s Seattle office, described the damage in detail. Yet, when pressed by the state, Wamsley admitted she hadn’t seen reports detailing the specific events at the Portland facility, prompting Judge Immergut to ask, “I’m confused; do you ever see these kinds of documents that talk about your region that you’re in charge of?” Wamsley responded that she typically received broader, less detailed reports.
The plaintiffs, however, challenged the administration’s narrative, arguing that the federal government failed to provide photographic or video evidence to support its claims of violent protester actions—such as the alleged use of a prop guillotine or weapons. Kennedy emphasized that while federal officials insisted the National Guard was necessary to relieve overworked officers, the strain was due to routine staffing shortages, not extraordinary protest activity. He also pointed out that Wamsley herself had been directed to double daily immigration arrests in her region, a goal she pursued without reporting any significant disruption from protests.
On the ground, the dispute over law enforcement responsibilities has been fraught. Federal officials claimed that local police, hamstrung by Oregon’s sanctuary laws and use-of-force restrictions, provided little to no assistance in managing protest activity at the ICE facility. A commander with the Federal Protective Service, identified in court only as W.T. due to safety concerns, testified, “It has become common knowledge that the Portland Police Bureau is not going to respond to assist us with protest activity at the ICE facility.”
But the city and states pushed back, defending local law enforcement. Oregon’s sanctuary laws, they argued, prohibit state officers from aiding federal immigration enforcement, and other state statutes restrict the use of force and prevent agencies from finding workarounds. Kennedy noted that federal officers successfully cleared the ICE driveway on their own each time, and evidence showed the Portland Police Bureau stayed in contact with federal officers. Sometimes, Portland officers had to withdraw after federal agents deployed tear gas, which would have violated state use-of-force laws had local police remained.
The Trump administration requested the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members, arguing this would free up federal agents for their regular duties. Timothy Rieger, acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified, “I’ve never seen the Guard aggravate a situation or incite a situation. I’ve only seen it calm a situation, and that’s in 30 years of service.” Federal officials also suggested that the dispute could have been avoided if Oregon Governor Tina Kotek had agreed to oversee the Guard mission. “It would have been entirely her decision,” Rieger said, though plaintiffs pointed out that Trump could still have federalized the troops if dissatisfied with their performance.
The trial itself played out at breakneck speed, with more than a thousand exhibits and dozens of hours of depositions assembled in just three days, as reported by Willamette Week. Administrative hiccups and technical snafus abounded, but Judge Immergut kept the proceedings moving, aware of the looming deadline: a temporary restraining order blocking the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard was set to expire at midnight on Sunday, November 2, 2025. The federal government, for its part, refused to agree to extend the order even briefly, prompting frustration from the plaintiffs who wanted more time to submit post-trial briefs.
At the heart of the legal wrangling is the interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 12406, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard under certain conditions, including rebellion or when federal law cannot otherwise be executed. The Trump administration argued that the determination of whether these conditions are met “belongs exclusively to the president, whose decision is conclusive on all other persons.” Plaintiffs countered that such unchecked power poses grave constitutional risks, echoing fears voiced by the nation’s founders.
As the trial concluded, Kennedy urged the court to look beyond isolated incidents of disorder and consider the broader context. He argued that “a military deployment was an inappropriate response to intermittent crimes and disorder and offensive conduct, which are unfortunate everyday challenges of modern urban life.” The administration, he said, was using sporadic unrest as a pretext for a dramatic assertion of federal authority.
Whatever Judge Immergut decides, the saga is far from over. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to rehear the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing related efforts by the Trump administration to deploy troops in Chicago. Yet, for Portland, the next chapter hinges on a single ruling—one that will shape the balance of power between states and the federal government for years to come.
With tensions high and the legal stakes even higher, Portland waits. As attorneys filed out of the courthouse Friday evening, trading farewells and letting out sighs of relief, the city braced for whatever comes next. The decision, expected by the end of the weekend, will not just determine the fate of federalized troops in Portland—it will set a precedent for the nation.
