AG Rayfield Secures Final Court Order Blocking National Guard Deployment

November 7, 2025
• Posted in ,

“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law.”

Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced today that a federal court has ruled in Oregon’s favor in the case involving attempted federal deployment of the Oregon National Guard. The U.S. District Court’s decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so. The ruling was based on the testimony and evidence from last week’s trial.

Oregon Attorney General Rayfield issued a statement after today’s decision:

“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law.

From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Today’s decision is the district court’s final order in a lawsuit filed by Oregon and the City of Portland in late September, after the President attempted to federalize and deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. They argued that the President lacked a basis to federalize the Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 because there is no “rebellion,” and existing state, local and federal resources are sufficient to manage protests and to respond to any civil disturbances around the ICE building in Portland.

Oregon and the City of Portland also argued that the President’s actions violated Oregon’s sovereign rights under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Today, the district court permanently enjoined the federal defendants from deploying National Guard troops within Oregon. In a 106-page opinion, the court reasoned that, “after a three-day trial that included the testimony of federal state, and local law enforcement officials and hundreds of exhibits describing protest activity outside the Portland ICE building, the evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority.”

Background:

  • Oregon and the City of Portland challenged the federal government’s attempt to assert control over the Oregon National Guard.
  • The State argued that decisions about the Guard are reserved to the Governor and state leadership unless extraordinary circumstances exist that justify federalization of the Guard, which is not the case here.
  • The U.S. District Court initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops in Portland while the case was under review.
  • The federal government then attempted to deploy California National Guard troops to Portland. California joined Oregon’s lawsuit, and the plaintiffs sought and received a second TRO from the district court, prohibiting deployment of any National Guard troops in Oregon.
  • The government appealed the first TRO. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit initially stayed that TRO; the full Ninth Circuit subsequently vacated that ruling and voted to take that case en banc. Those proceedings remain pending, and the Ninth Circuit has ordered that Oregon National Guard troops should not be deployed, for now.
  • Last week, the district court held a three-day trial on the merits, then issued a preliminary injunction order that continues to prohibit deployment of National Guard troops in Oregon.