WASHINGTON D.C. – A United States federal judge on Friday, November 7, 2025, issued a final and permanent injunction blocking President Donald Trump's administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, concluded that the federal government had failed to provide credible evidence of a rebellion or widespread violence that would legally justify such an intervention against the wishes of state and local officials.

The decision marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's efforts to use federalized troops to quell protests in various U.S. cities. In her 106-page ruling, delivered around 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (Saturday, 4:00 AM EAT), Judge Immergut stated that the president had exceeded his authority. She found that protests outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland were "predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence." The court determined that these conditions did not meet the legal threshold of a "rebellion" required to invoke the federal law—Title 10—that President Trump had used to authorize the deployment.

Legal Battle Over Executive Power

The legal challenge was initiated in September 2025 by the state of Oregon and the city of Portland after President Trump announced his intention to send troops to the city, which he described as "war-ravaged" and "under siege." The state of California later joined the lawsuit after the administration attempted to deploy federalized California National Guard troops to Oregon to circumvent earlier temporary court orders.

During a three-day trial, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the deployment was necessary to protect federal agents and property, portraying the protests as a violent siege. However, Judge Immergut's final order concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that the protests were out of control. The injunction specifically bars the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, from deploying National Guard members to Oregon under the current circumstances. The White House has indicated it is likely to appeal the decision.

The protests at the Portland ICE facility have been ongoing since June 2025, part of a broader series of demonstrations against the administration's immigration policies. While Portland Police did declare a riot on one occasion in June, testimony from law enforcement officials indicated that subsequent demonstrations were mostly low-level and that local police were capable of managing the situation.

Global and Kenyan Relevance

While this ruling is rooted in U.S. domestic law, its implications resonate internationally, particularly in nations grappling with questions of executive authority, judicial independence, and the right to protest. For Kenya, where the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary has been a central feature of its constitutional development since the 2010 Constitution, this case serves as a powerful external example of an independent judiciary acting as a check on executive power.

The Kenyan judiciary has itself delivered landmark rulings that have tested the limits of executive authority, most notably the Supreme Court's nullification of the 2017 presidential election results and the High Court's 2021 ruling against the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI). These moments have affirmed the judiciary's role as a guardian of the constitution. The Portland case highlights a similar dynamic, where a court, even one with a judge appointed by the president in question, upholds legal and constitutional principles over executive orders deemed to be an overreach.

Furthermore, the debate over the deployment of security forces for internal civil matters is a pertinent topic in the East Africa region. The U.S. court's rigorous demand for evidence of a "rebellion" before sanctioning military involvement in civilian affairs provides a legal benchmark that reinforces the principle of civilian-led law enforcement. This principle is crucial for maintaining democratic order and protecting citizens' rights to assembly and expression. The ruling underscores that a government's description of protests as a national crisis does not, in itself, provide a sufficient legal basis for extraordinary measures. As Kenya continues to navigate its own complex political and security landscape, the assertion of judicial oversight in such matters provides a compelling case study in democratic accountability.