Research assistance from Claude AI. This case is on Courtlistener.com at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71481149/.

STATE OF OREGON and the CITY OF
PORTLAND,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States; PETE
HEGSETH, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Defense; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE; KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:25-cv-01756
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Filed 09/28/25

Summary of Court Pleading

Case Overview

The State of Oregon and City of Portland are suing President Trump, the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, and their departments to block the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland. The complaint alleges this action, taken on September 28, 2025, is unlawful political retaliation disguised as a response to small protests at a Portland ICE facility.

Important Legal Issues

1. Statutory Authority (10 U.S.C. ? 12406)

Whether the federal government can federalize Oregon’s National Guard when the statute requires one of three conditions:
– Invasion by a foreign nation
– Rebellion or danger of rebellion against the U.S. government
– Inability to execute federal laws with regular forces

2. Posse Comitatus Act Violation

Whether using federalized troops for civilian law enforcement violates the statutory prohibition against military involvement in domestic policing.

3. Constitutional Violations

• Tenth Amendment: Whether federalization usurps Oregon’s reserved police powers
• Equal State Sovereignty: Whether singling out Oregon for political reasons violates the principle that states must be treated equally
• Separation of Powers: Whether the President exceeded constitutional authority over state militias

4. Pretextual Justification

Whether the stated reasons (Portland being “war ravaged” and “under siege”) are fabricated pretexts when evidence shows only small, peaceful protests.

What Plaintiffs Must Prove to Prevail

Standing

• State sovereignty injury: Loss of control over National Guard and law enforcement
• Concrete harms: Diversion of Guard resources (especially during wildfire season), interference with local policing, economic damage, escalated civil unrest
• Causation: Injuries directly caused by federal action

On the Merits

1. None of the ? 12406 prerequisites exist:
   • No foreign invasion
   • No rebellion (protests involve ~30 people, no arrests since June 19)
   • Federal government hasn’t been unable to execute laws
2. Pretextual justification: Trump’s own statements reveal political motivation (targeting “sanctuary cities,” Democrat-led jurisdictions)

3. Posse Comitatus violation: Deployment is for law enforcement purposes (protest control, immigration enforcement) without statutory exception

4. Pattern of unlawful conduct: Similar deployments in LA and DC were found illegal; this follows the same pattern

5. Constitutional violations: Federal action tramples state police power and targets Oregon for political retaliation

Injunctive Relief Requirements

• Irreparable harm (ongoing sovereignty violations)
• Likelihood of success on merits
• Balance of equities favors plaintiffs
• Public interest in maintaining constitutional limits

Available Defenses

Strongest Defenses

1. Executive discretion on national security: Argue courts should defer to President’s judgment about threats to federal facilities

2. Broad interpretation of “rebellion”: Claim sustained protests targeting federal enforcement constitute rebellion or danger thereof

3. Inability to execute laws: Argue Oregon’s “sanctuary” policies prevent execution of immigration laws, justifying federalization

4. Commander-in-Chief authority: Assert inherent presidential power to protect federal property and personnel

Moderate Defenses

1. Political question doctrine: Claim military deployment decisions are non-justiciable (though LA case precedent weakens this)

2. Standing challenges: Argue injuries are too speculative or generalized (though direct federalization makes this weak)

3. Statutory interpretation: Argue ? 12406 itself provides Posse Comitatus exception

4. Protecting federal facilities: Distinguish from general law enforcement by claiming specific mission to protect ICE building

Weak Defenses

1. Factual dispute: Contest characterization of protests (contradicted by plaintiffs’ detailed evidence)

2. State consent: Claim Oregon’s non-response to 12-hour ultimatum implies consent (legally dubious)

3. Ripeness/mootness: Claim case not ripe or could become moot (unlikely to succeed given federalization already ordered)

Key Strengths of Plaintiff’s Case

• Trump’s own statements reveal political motivation and pretext
• Prior court ruling that similar LA deployment violated Posse Comitatus Act
• Well-documented evidence protests are small and peaceful
• Clear pattern of targeting “sanctuary” jurisdictions for retaliation
• No genuine inability to execute federal law demonstrated

Key Vulnerabilities

• Courts traditionally defer to executive on national security matters
• Broad interpretation of “execute federal laws” could encompass immigration enforcement concerns
• Proving pretext requires showing no reasonable basis for action

The plaintiffs have a strong case based on precedent, factual record, and statutory language. The defendants’ position appears significantly undermined by the President’s own statements and the pattern of similar unlawful deployments.