Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Donald Trump, recently made an important legal ruling that stood out not because it was loud or dramatic, but because it calmly and clearly reminded everyone that facts still matter—even when the president is the one making the claims.
In her decision, she temporarily blocked the Trump administration from sending National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon. Trump had claimed the city was under siege by violent protesters, calling them “domestic terrorists” and saying the city was like a war zone. His administration argued that they needed to use emergency powers to restore order. But Immergut took a close look at what was actually happening on the ground—and she found that Trump’s claims simply didn’t match the reality.
Immergut’s opinion is being praised because it’s a clear example of what responsible judging looks like. She didn’t make political speeches or attack anyone personally. Instead, she did what judges are supposed to do: she looked at the law, examined the facts, and made a fair decision.
What makes her ruling so important is the broader context. Trump has repeatedly used claims of “emergency” to try to take powers that Congress didn’t give him—at the southern border, in cities, even online. In many of these cases, the so-called emergencies were exaggerated or completely made up. His pattern has been to declare a crisis, present a distorted version of events, and then demand more authority. He counts on the idea that courts will automatically trust the president to be telling the truth and acting in good faith.
But Immergut didn’t do that. She acknowledged that presidents do deserve a certain level of respect when they make national security decisions. However, she also said that deference doesn’t mean courts should ignore the facts. She made it clear that courts still have the responsibility to check whether a president’s claims are based on real evidence, and in this case, they were not.
The protests in Portland, she found, were not large-scale uprisings. They were scattered, mostly peaceful, and didn’t meet the legal standard of a “rebellion” or an “invasion” as Trump had claimed. There was no serious threat to public safety that local law enforcement couldn’t manage. Trump’s emergency declaration didn’t hold up under scrutiny, and that meant his attempt to use federal troops was not supported by law.
When the federal government ignored her order and continued increasing its military-style presence in the city, Immergut responded by strengthening the limits in her ruling. She held an emergency hearing and told government lawyers that the president was violating her order. She expanded the terms to make it even clearer that the National Guard could not be sent into Oregon without proper legal justification.
Her handling of the case sends a strong message: courts are not required to accept false claims from the president just because of his title. “Deference” to the executive branch is not the same as giving the president a blank check. Judges must still ask whether there’s real evidence to support emergency actions—and if there isn’t, they must act to stop it.
Immergut’s ruling also highlights the growing danger of presidents using emergency declarations for political purposes. Trump and his advisers have often treated these declarations as tools to get around Congress and grab more control. If courts allow that without question, the balance of power between branches of government breaks down—and we risk moving toward a system where truth and law are replaced by whatever the president says.
But Immergut’s opinion offers another way forward. By sticking to the facts and applying the law carefully, she showed that judges can still act as a safeguard against the misuse of power. Her quiet, methodical approach proves that legal courage doesn’t have to come with shouting or drama. It can simply come from refusing to let lies replace reality.
At a time when the truth is often twisted for political gain, and when some judges feel pressured to fall in line with partisan agendas, Immergut showed that there’s still a place for honest, independent judgment. She reminded us that judges don’t need to take sides in political fights—but they do need to protect the law, the facts, and the Constitution.
In this way, her ruling matters far beyond just Portland or one specific case. It shows how the courts can push back when power is being abused, even if the abuse is wrapped in official-sounding words like “emergency” or “national security.” Her decision is a reminder that the law doesn’t belong to any one person or party—it belongs to the people. And judges, at their best, are there to defend it with reason, not noise.
