The Night a Court Defended Democracy - and a President Crossed the Line

It was shortly after midnight when Judge Karin Immergut picked up the phone. Outside in Portland, clouds of tear gas hung over a single city block, while new deployment orders were already being sent out in Washington. And while the public was still discussing the first court ruling from Saturday, the president had already triggered a new stage of escalation - this time with troops from California and Texas. Immergut, a jurist whom Donald Trump himself had once appointed, reacted as a judge must when a president challenges the rule of law: she issued a second, expanded temporary restraining order - a Second Temporary Restraining Order - that once again reined in the White House. Her ruling stated clearly and unequivocally:

"The defendants are hereby temporarily enjoined from deploying federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon."

This prohibited not only the planned deployment of the Oregon National Guard but also any attempt to station troops from other states in Oregon through indirect means. Not a legal technicality, but a direct intervention in the power of a president who believes that federal order is a suggestion, not a law. This second order, signed on October 5, 2025, shows that the judiciary is literally working day and night to maintain the balance of power. Immergut set a deadline: the plaintiffs must post a symbolic bond of 100 dollars within 48 hours. On October 17, the court will review whether the order should be extended, and on October 29, a combined hearing is scheduled in Courtroom 13A of the U.S. District Court in Portland.

In the dry language of legal precision, the ruling reads like a document of resistance. It makes clear that the court recognized what the White House was doing: it was looking for loopholes to circumvent the previous day's decision. And it found them - temporarily - in the South. Because while Oregon's National Guard was blocked, an internal Pentagon document obtained by us showed how the administration was already working on a replacement solution. The document bears the letterhead Secretary of War, 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C., and is addressed to the Adjutant General of the Texas National Guard, transmitted "through the Governor of Texas." It is signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

It states:

"The President has authorized me to coordinate with you on the mobilization of up to 400 members of the Texas National Guard to perform federal protection missions where needed - including in the cities of Portland and Chicago."

Das Schreiben beruft sich auf § 12406 des Title 10 U.S. CodeThe letter cites Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a provision that allows the president to call up National Guard members for federal service - but only in exceptional cases, such as during insurrections or when laws can no longer be enforced. Yet in Oregon there are no uprisings, no siege, no threat to public order. The protests Trump referred to took place on a single block in front of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility - peaceful, locally contained, with candles, banners, and chants.

Reality therefore stands in sharp contrast to the scare tactics from Washington. And yet, according to the memo, the Pentagon ordered up to 2,000 National Guard members nationwide to be mobilized "to protect federal personnel and property where violent demonstrations are occurring or likely to occur." For Oregon, the deployment was set for 60 days - with an option for extension. The court recognized this for what it was: an attempt to bypass the states' federal control. Immergut wrote that the administration's actions were "in direct contravention" of her decision from the previous day, which had prohibited the deployment of Oregon’s National Guard.

California Governor Gavin Newsom called it "a breathtaking abuse of power," and Oregon Governor Tina Kotek described it as "a clear attempt to bend the law." Even jurists close to Trump described the situation as unprecedented: never before in U.S. history has a president simultaneously entangled three states in a domestic conflict - Oregon, California, and Texas.

Judge Immergut, who completed her order within just a few hours, also directed that all motions for preliminary injunctions be filed by October 17, responses by the 23rd, and replies by the 27th - a timeline that shows how seriously the court views the situation.

"It feels like we’re playing legal whac-a-mole," said Oregon’s attorney Scott Kennedy during the hearing. "As soon as we plug one loophole, the next one appears."

The federal government argued that Oregon and Portland lacked standing and that California could not show harm if some of its soldiers were deployed to a neighboring state. But Immergut rejected that argument. She emphasized that conditions in Oregon had not changed and that she saw no legal or factual basis for the deployment of the National Guard. Meanwhile, a comment spread rapidly across social media that captured the moment better than any editorial:

"A reminder that our judiciary is working day and night, seven days a week, to protect our country from this overreach."

A sentence that, in its simplicity, describes what is actually happening: a judiciary working at full speed to uphold the limits of power - and a president systematically testing those limits.

On Sunday evening, a few dozen demonstrators outside the ICE building in Portland cheered when they learned of the judge’s decision. A man wrapped in an American flag told cameras, "For the first time in weeks, I feel like the law still matters." He may not have known that the same sentiment appeared minutes later in a ruling by a federal judge in Washington - not in those exact words, but with the same meaning. In sober tone, on legal paper, yet carried by the same conviction: that law and constitution must be stronger than the whims of power.