Judge Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Portland

On March 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction against former President Donald Trump‘s effort to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon. Immergut, nominated by Trump, determined that the federal government lacked legal authority to intervene, as local law enforcement was capable of managing the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without federal assistance.

The ruling hinged on credibility, with Oregon officials asserting that their police forces had the situation under control. In contrast, the Justice Department claimed the city faced a significant violent emergency. Immergut found the state’s narrative more convincing, dismissing many of the federal government’s assertions as exaggerations or fabrications.

Judge’s Findings Highlight Credibility Issues

During a three-day bench trial, Immergut scrutinized testimonies and evidence to discern the truth. She consistently found that the information provided by the Trump administration was not credible, while the data presented by Oregon officials was reliable. The ruling emphasized that there was no lawful justification for sending in the National Guard, as local law enforcement effectively managed the protests.

In a discussion on the podcast Amicus, legal analysts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern reviewed the implications of Immergut’s ruling, highlighting its thoroughness and attention to detail. Lithwick described the ruling as a “106-page masterpiece” addressing factual disputes, while Stern pointed out that the Justice Department had previously been caught lying in this case.

Stern noted that one of the key witnesses for the government, Cammilla Wamsley, the ICE field office director for Seattle and Portland, made numerous claims regarding the extent of damage inflicted by protesters on the ICE facility. Wamsley alleged that protesters caused catastrophic damage, claiming they broke all the windows on the first floor and some on higher floors, as well as entry doors and steel gates. Immergut countered this assertion, stating, “there is no credible evidence” to support Wamsley’s claims, as no other witnesses corroborated her account, and the government failed to produce any documentation of the alleged damage.

Inconsistencies in Government Testimonies

Immergut expressed skepticism regarding Wamsley’s reliability, especially concerning the protests. The judge found that the assertion of protesters breaching the ICE facility lobby was “inconsistent” with available evidence, indicating that there was no actual invasion. Stern remarked, “This is as close as you get” to calling out the government for dishonesty, emphasizing the importance of creating a factual record in court.

Further inconsistencies emerged regarding claims of violence at the protests. A deputy director from the Federal Protective Service testified that federal agents were attacked with fireworks and rocks, yet no evidence substantiated these claims, and the supposed victims didn’t appear in court. Local police investigations refuted ICE’s claims of barricading their facility due to violence, stating that federal officers freely entered and exited the building during the protests.

Immergut’s ruling underscored a critical divide between state and federal law enforcement during the protests. While ICE officials portrayed the situation as out of control, local police focused on public safety and provided assistance to federal officers when necessary.

The judge’s findings revealed a troubling pattern of behavior from the federal government, as multiple high-ranking officials from the Federal Protective Service provided testimony that was later deemed not credible. This trend of dishonesty has surfaced in various cases involving ICE, raising concerns about the integrity of government statements.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the implications of Immergut’s ruling may extend beyond this case, emphasizing the need for accountability in law enforcement. If courts do not take a firm stance against such dishonesty, the possibility of continued misrepresentation in legal contexts remains a pressing issue.