U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon on Thursday agreed to recuse himself from hearing Oregon’s challenge to President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Portland after federal government lawyers asked him to step aside.
“Although the Court does not believe that recusal is required under either federal law or the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, because it is necessary that the focus of this lawsuit remain on the critically important constitutional and statutory issues presented by the parties, the undersigned U.S. District Judge hereby recuses himself,” according to a notice on the case docket Thursday afternoon.
The recusal came shortly after Justice Department lawyers had filed a request suggesting Simon step aside to avoid “the appearance of partiality,” considering his wife, a U.S. congresswoman, has spoken out against the troop activation.
Simon noted that the Justice Department filed the recusal request three days after he held a phone scheduling conference with all parties on Monday and less than 24 hours before Friday’s 10 a.m. hearing on the state’s motion for a temporary restraining order to block the deployment of troops.
The case has been randomly reassigned to U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who is still scheduled to hear the pending motion on the restraining order at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 15B of the U.S. Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse in Portland.
Immergut, who was nominated by Trump, has served on the federal bench since 2019.
Justice Department lawyers highlighted in their recusal request that U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat, stood last Saturday with Gov. Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson at a news conference in Portland to blast Trump for saying the city needed military help to quell protests at the ICE building in “War ravaged” Portland.
Bonamici released a statement that day that said: “Donald Trump is lying. I was at the ICE facility two days ago and saw a few peaceful protesters, not a ‘siege.’
“We do not want or need federal troops in Portland,” said Bonamici, who represents much of the west metro area. “The Trump administration is using lies and delusions to try to justify turning the military against US citizens. It’s illegal, dangerous, and outrageous.”
The federal government’s recusal request, titled “Defendants’ Suggestion of Recusal,” pointed out that Bonamici has suggested the Trump administration’s federalization of Oregon National Guard troops could result in “violations of law.”
The Justice Department lawyers also noted that Bonamici has blasted Trump’s actions on social media, and had “interfaced” in her official role with each defendant in the suit. Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem are named as defendants.
The day after the news conference, Trump and Hegseth informed the state that the federal government was ordering the Guard into federal service in Portland for 60 days. The state hours later joined with the city to file a lawsuit challenging the deployment and then filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the troops’ arrival.
Jean Lin, special litigation counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the government recognizes “that Judge Simon and Representative Bonamici speak for themselves, not for each other.”
“Nonetheless, the unique factual, legal, and political role that Judge Simon’s spouse has played in the central events of this lawsuit may create the appearance of partiality,” she wrote in the recusal request. “… The significant public interest in this lawsuit likewise makes it vital that the Court endeavors to ensure public confidence in the outcome of litigation by removing any possible perception of partiality.”
Simon has served on the U.S. District Court bench in Portland for 14 years, nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2011. The court assigns the cases on a randomized schedule.
Attorney Steven Kantor, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School, said a judge’s recusal requires “an overwhelming conflict.”
Simon could have rejected the government’s request, saying that he is able as a judge to decide the case based on the facts and arguments presented in court and is not influenced by his wife’s political activities or stance, Kantor said.
He added, “But of course it will be used politically.”
If Simon had rejected the request, the Justice Department could have appealed.
Lewis and Clark Law School professor Tung Yin said recusal generally occurs if judges have a financial stake in a matter before them or have personal knowledge of events in the subject in court.
Yin referred to a case when another judge’s impartiality was questioned because of his wife’s job.
In 2019, proponents of California’s law banning same-sex marriage asked a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse himself from the case because his wife, Ramona Ripston, was the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and a strong opponent of Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative to add a new section to the state Constitution that said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The ACLU was not a party to the appeal.
That judge, Stephen Reinhardt, considered the motion and ruled that he would not recuse himself, saying he could rule impartially.
According to federal law, judges must disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including if they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, personal knowledge of disputed evidence, or if they or their spouse or any child in their household has a financial interest in the matter.
The law also holds that judges should step aside if they or their spouse are a party to the proceeding, act as a lawyer in the proceeding, are known “to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” of the proceeding or are likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
© 2025 Advance Local Media LLC.
Visit oregonlive.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
