A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully took control of the Oregon National Guard to respond to protests in Portland. The decision, issued on Friday by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, significantly limits the federal government’s ability to deploy National Guard troops without state consent.

In a detailed 106-page opinion, Immergut stated that Trump’s federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members, along with the deployment of troops from California and Texas to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, exceeded his legal authority. The judge emphasized that these actions violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects state sovereignty.

The ruling followed a three-day trial where the court examined whether the protests at the ICE facility justified the military's involvement. Immergut noted that the government failed to demonstrate any rebellion or imminent threat that warranted such a deployment. She stated, "Even affording 'great deference' to the president, the government did not show a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against federal authority in Portland."

The judge found that the unrest surrounding the ICE building was brief and had significantly decreased by the time the National Guard was called in. Local law enforcement, including the Oregon State Police, had been sufficient to maintain order without federal troops. Immergut pointed out that the protests were often small, with many nights seeing more federal officers present than demonstrators.

The lawsuit was initiated by the State of Oregon and the City of Portland, which challenged Trump’s decision to override Governor Tina Kotek’s refusal to activate the Oregon Guard for immigration-related policing. The judge highlighted that the deployments were made without requests from federal officials responsible for the ICE facility's security.

Immergut also dismissed the Trump administration's claims of an organized insurrection led by groups like Antifa, stating that there was no evidence of a cohesive organization directing the protests or inciting violence. She described the administration's portrayal of Portland as "war-ravaged" as inconsistent with the evidence presented during the trial.

The ruling is a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, which has argued that the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property. The administration has the option to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, a similar case in Chicago is also under review, where federal courts have questioned the legality of deploying National Guard troops to protest sites.

Governor Kotek praised the ruling as a validation of the facts and a rejection of what she termed a "gross abuse of power" by the federal government. The judge's decision reinforces the principle that the National Guard, unless lawfully federalized, remains under the command of state governors, not the president.

As the legal battles continue, the implications of this ruling may influence how federal and state authorities interact regarding the deployment of military forces in domestic situations.