In a dramatic twist that has stunned both Washington and the legal world, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut—a conservative jurist appointed by President Donald Trump himself—has blocked the administration’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. Her ruling, grounded in constitutional principles and sharp legal reasoning, has thrust her into the national spotlight and reignited debates over executive power, federal overreach, and the independence of the judiciary.
Table of Contents
- Who Is Judge Karin Immergut?
- From Clinton Scandal to Trump’s Bench
- The Portland Ruling That Defied Expectations
- White House Fury and Misgendering
- Why This Case Matters Beyond Portland
- Sources
Who Is Judge Karin Immergut?
At 64, Judge Immergut is no stranger to high-stakes legal battles. A seasoned federal prosecutor with deep roots in both California and Oregon, she built a reputation for meticulous, nonpartisan work long before donning a black robe.
Colleagues describe her as “incredibly hard-working,” “always prepared,” and guided by a simple mantra: “Do the right thing, for the right reason.” That ethos has defined her 30-year legal career—from prosecuting drug traffickers and white-collar criminals to overseeing terrorism cases as U.S. Attorney for Oregon under President George W. Bush.
From Clinton Scandal to Trump’s Bench
Immergut’s conservative credentials are undeniable. In the 1990s, she served on Ken Starr’s team during the investigation into President Bill Clinton. She was the attorney who questioned Monica Lewinsky before a grand jury, extracting detailed testimony about her relationship with Clinton—a moment that later fueled intense political controversy.
Given that background, it’s no surprise that Trump nominated her to the federal bench in 2018. She was confirmed with bipartisan support and took her seat in 2019, seen as a reliable conservative voice in the Pacific Northwest.
Yet as her recent ruling shows, judicial independence sometimes trumps political pedigree.
The Portland Ruling That Defied Expectations
On October 5, 2025, Judge Immergut issued a temporary restraining order halting the Trump administration’s plan to send National Guard troops from Texas and California into Portland. The White House argued the deployment was necessary to protect federal property and enforce immigration law amid ongoing protests outside an ICE facility.
But Immergut wasn’t convinced. In her order, she wrote: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” She emphasized that the protests—typically fewer than 30 people, often featuring demonstrators in whimsical costumes like chickens and frogs—were “not significantly violent or disruptive.”
More critically, she warned that the administration’s actions “risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”
When the White House tried to sidestep her initial order by swapping Oregon troops for out-of-state ones, Immergut swiftly expanded her ruling to cover any National Guard deployment into Oregon without state consent.
White House Fury and Misgendering
The reaction from Trump and his inner circle was swift—and telling.
Stephen Miller, the architect of the troop deployment plan, dismissed Immergut as a “far-left Democrat judge,” despite her conservative record. On social media, he accused her of trying to “nullify the 2024 election by fiat.”
President Trump himself lashed out—while repeatedly misgendering her. “That judge ought to be ashamed of himself,” he told reporters, referring to Immergut as “he” and “him” multiple times. He added, “If they put judges like that on, I wasn’t well-served by the people who picked judges.”
The irony wasn’t lost on legal observers: a president criticizing his own appointee for upholding the Constitution.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Portland
Immergut’s ruling touches on foundational questions about federalism and the use of military force on U.S. soil. The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows presidents to deploy troops domestically under extreme circumstances—but only when there’s actual insurrection or obstruction of federal law.
Legal experts say Portland in 2025 doesn’t meet that threshold. As former U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams put it: “What’s happening now is nothing like 2020. This is a careful balance between law enforcement and lawful protest.”
If Immergut’s temporary order becomes permanent after the October 29 trial, it could set a powerful precedent limiting future presidents’ ability to federalize the National Guard against the will of state governors.
For now, Judge Immergut remains focused on the facts—not the politics. And in doing so, she’s reminded America that even judges appointed by partisans can become guardians of the rule of law.
