QuickTake:

The officer cited doxxing risks and threats as reasons why he should not be named in court documents. News organizations challenged that, but got a mixed outcome from a judge.  

A federal officer whose duties include protecting the Eugene Federal Building must be named in court transcripts about a National Guard deployment to Portland, a federal judge ruled Friday, May 1.

But the ruling was a mixed outcome for media organizations that filed a motion March 6 to push for more disclosures from court proceedings which took place last year.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s order Friday cited the Eugene-based officer’s claims of targeted harassment by protesters in allowing the redaction of other officers’ names from court exhibits.

“In sum, there are compelling reasons why [personally identifiable information] should remain sealed to prevent harassment, and there are no countervailing public interests that support disclosure,” Immergut said in the order.

The officer, who has the title of area commander, testified last year during the legal challenge by state leaders that ultimately halted President Donald Trump’s efforts to have a sustained troop presence during protest activity against immigration enforcement.

In a March 24 written statement, the officer said he feared doxxing, having his reputation maligned and being “subject to threats of serious bodily injury or death” should his name and likeness be made public. 

Immergut cited his descriptions of events in her opinion Friday.

“On February 22, 2026, two individuals parked in [his] private driveway as [he] departed his residence, and he noticed them taking photographs of his home,” Immergut wrote, referring to the officer’s statement.

“[He] also describes how ‘anti-immigration enforcement groups in Eugene have taken photographs of [him], created “Wanted – Domestic Terrorist” posters with [his] name and image and hung them throughout Eugene,’” Immergut wrote in her six-page order.

In February, Lookout Eugene-Springfield journalists noticed such posters in downtown Eugene, but it’s unclear what evidence there is about who created them.

Immergut also cited a written statement from the deputy director of the Federal Protective Service that two people Feb. 9 “banged on the door” of another officer’s home, in the Portland area, making the officer’s wife fear for her safety. The declaration also stated the deputy director had a man yell at him from three feet away that he should kill himself with his own gun, and that other federal officers are “routinely berated with similarly threatening hateful speech.”

Five media organizations — The Associated Press, Gray Local Media Inc., Oregon Capital Chronicle, Oregon Public Broadcasting and Oregonian Media Group — argued that under the law there’s a “strong presumption in favor of access,” and federal attorneys had “not articulated a compelling justification” for the redactions.

“Media Intervenors first argue that ‘the public has an interest in learning what led to the unprecedented federalized deployment of the National Guard’ and ‘understanding the Court’s decision-making.’ Public disclosure of the redacted exhibits has satisfied both these interests, and revealing the identities of particular low-level officers would not shed any more light on either,” Immergut wrote.

Initials used

Lookout Eugene-Springfield is choosing not to name the Eugene-based Federal Protective Service officer because of his harassment claims.

Only his initials were used in testimony during court proceedings last year, when he testified about his experience in Portland during clashes between officers and protesters at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

The Federal Protective Service is charged with protecting government facilities. Along with the area commander, Immergut ordered that the name of the agency’s regional deputy director be named in court transcripts, as he, too, had only been identified in court by his initials.

In their motion, the media organizations argued that federal attorneys “presented a short, vague statement about ‘doxxing’ as their justification for allowing the witnesses to testify using their initials.”

Several news organizations nevertheless last year published the name of the deputy director, Robert Cantu, as the motion from the media organizations noted that the “pseudonyms are easily traceable to the full names on the record” in a witness list filed in court and not redacted.

Immergut’s written opinion, which used the full name of both FPS witnesses, stated that federal attorneys “do not object” to the names now being used in full in the hearing transcript.