Judge Immergut Halts Trump’s Troop Deployment - A Ruling as a Warning Against the March Toward Martial Law

Portland – After many hours of waiting, we were glad about this ruling – a shared struggle that has, for now, found a good end. Of course, it can be assumed that Trump will run to the Supreme Court like a defiant child, but the chances will not be good for him there. It was a ruling that was legally precise but politically struck like a thunderclap. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that President Donald Trump had no legal basis to deploy the National Guard to Oregon. In a 106-page opinion, the judge, appointed by Trump himself, explained why the president in this case not only exceeded his authority but violated the constitutional foundation of the American system – the principle that military force within the country is permissible only as a last resort and under narrowly defined legal conditions.

The lawsuit filed by the City of Portland and the State of Oregon challenged a troop deployment ordered by the administration in September, officially to protect the ICE building – that symbol of immigration policy that has for years been the scene of massive protests. For three days, attorneys on both sides presented their arguments. The government invoked its right to protect federal personnel and property, while the plaintiffs pointed to the clear line the Constitution draws between civil order and military power.

Immergut followed the Constitution. She found that although the president has “broad discretion” when it comes to activating the National Guard, no law and no provision of the U.S. Constitution grants him the power to deploy troops against demonstrators unless there is an uprising or the threat of one – and as long as regular law enforcement can enforce the law. “The president is acting outside any statutory delegation,” she wrote, “and is taking measures that contradict the express will of Congress.”

In sharp terms, she referred to the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees to the states all rights not expressly transferred to the federal government. By federalizing the National Guard without a legal basis, Trump, according to the court, violated Oregon’s sovereignty. The president cannot invoke emergency powers or the so-called Take Care Clause, which obliges him to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed – because that clause does not grant him military authority over the troops of the individual states. Take Care Clause berufen, die ihn zur Wahrung der Gesetze verpflichtet – denn diese Klausel verleihe ihm keine militärische Gewalt über die Truppen der Bundesstaaten.

The consequences of this decision reach far beyond Oregon. Immergut made clear that a president who expands his powers in the name of security endangers the fragile balance between the federal government and the states. “The defendants’ actions interfere with the constitutional balance of power,” her opinion states. “The federal government has neither statutory nor constitutional authority to place members of the state National Guard into federal service when no such legal or constitutional basis exists.” The judge spoke of “irreparable harm” to Oregon should the deployment not be stopped – an encroachment on the state’s sovereign powers that could not be undone. Even the announcement of the deployment had caused the situation in Portland to escalate, with the number of demonstrators rising sharply. Immergut referred to earlier deployments in California and Portland itself, where military presence had inflamed unrest rather than calmed it.

Equally remarkable is the historical section of her decision. She cited James Madison, one of the fathers of the Constitution: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty.” By doing so, she placed her decision in a line that reaches back to the founding of the United States – to the idea that military power must always remain under civilian control. “This is a nation of constitutional law, not of martial law,” she wrote in a sentence likely to endure.

The ruling could enter history as a key document. It not only protects the rights of a single state but also draws a clear boundary against a president who has repeatedly sought to use the military as a domestic instrument of power. For Oregon, it is a victory of the Constitution over command. For Washington, it is a warning – and for American democracy, a reminder that even in times of unrest, freedom must never be defended with bayonets.

The White House initially remained silent on the ruling. But the message from Oregon is unmistakable: The Constitution remains stronger than the will of the president.