While President Donald Trump's plethora of successfully confirmed judicial nominees is generally considered to be among the top achievements of his first term, some of those federal judges have turned out to be rather disappointing in how they've ruled in certain cases.

A prime example of that is U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump in 2018, who just issued a permanent injunction against the president's deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, according to Breitbart.

Immergut, whose nomination tellingly earned the support of both of Oregon's far-left progressive Democrat senators, has rejected all of the Trump administration's arguments for why it was necessary to deploy the troops to counter near-daily and, at times, disruptive and violent protests and attacks against federal immigration agents.

Troop deployment blocked

Following months of protests, vandalism, and occasional mob violence outside of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, President Trump ordered in September the deployment of 200 National Guard troops to assist the beleaguered and besieged federal agents, per Breitbart.

Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek refused to activate those troops, prompting Trump to federalize them, which swiftly resulted in oppositional lawsuits filed by the state and city governments.

Judge Immergut, who initially blocked Trump's move with a preliminary injunction last month, has now more permanently enjoined the administration from utilizing federalized National Guard troops as part of its response to the incessant anti-ICE protests that are intended to disrupt and obstruct federal operations.

Judge rules Trump exceeded his authority

According to ABC News, Judge Immergut wrote in her 106-page decision that President Trump "exceeded" his "authority" when he federalized the Oregon National Guard troops and deployed them to Portland.

Noting the vocal objections from local leaders and the lack of any formal request from federal officials for the troops, the judge went on to flatly reject the administration's arguments for the necessity of the deployment, including the need to counter a growing "rebellion" against federal authority, that Antifa was an organized domestic terror group, and that the violence of some protesters warranted the tough response.

"When considering these conditions that persisted for months before the President's federalization of the National Guard, this Court concludes that even giving great deference to the President's determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard," Immergut wrote.

As to the "precise standard" that would support the president's limited authority to deploy military troops to American cities, the judge deferred that as being "ultimately a question for a higher court to decide."

That question could be decided soon, as Reuters reported last month that the Trump administration has already appealed to the Supreme Court a similar ruling blocking his deployment of troops to Chicago, Illinois. Breitbart noted that federal attorneys have already stated their intentions to appeal Immergut's order to the Ninth Circuit and beyond, if necessary.

Oregon's two leftist senators endorsed the judge

While President Trump and his supporters are generally proud of his many judicial nominees from his first term, there were immediate signs that Judge Immergut likely wouldn't pan out to be one of the Republican president's top appointments.

Chief among those signs was the ringing endorsement the former county judge and U.S. attorney had received from Oregon's two progressive leftist senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, according to a 2019 Oregon Public Broadcasting article about Immergut's confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Indeed, the two Democratic senators issued a joint statement at the time of Immergut's nomination that stated, in part, that her appointment "fits with our bipartisan state judicial selection committee’s decision that she was among the highest-qualified applicants, and exemplifies how the judicial selection process should work."