Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Light up
your news

Create account Sign in

About Privacy Terms Help

Mark Turner

Mark Turner

@markturner.net

1.1K followers 1K following 1.5K posts

#Raleigh geek. Tin can salty dog. #Opensource advocate. DevOps dude. #Democrat. Political junkie. #Experiencer (see @ETC.MarkTurner.Net). Aspiring rock star. #ncpol #usnavy #veteran #natsec #infosec #karaoke #dnrnc #antifa AF #blm #ncstate #NAFO He/him

Posts Replies Media Videos

Reposted by Mark Turner

Mike Sacks

@mikesacks.bsky.social

Judge Immergut permanently enjoins Trump from deploying federalized National Guard members to Oregon

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON and the
CITY OF PORTLAND, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Case No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
IMMERGUT, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
On September 27, 2025, the President of the United States federalized 200 members of
the Oregon National Guard over the objection of Oregon's governor and deployed them to a

single federal building in Portland, Oregon. In the ensuing days, the President ordered the
deployment of 400 federalized members of the Texas and California National Guards, all to the
same federal building in Oregon. The mission of these deployments of military troops was
ostensibly to quell violent protests outside the one-block Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") building in Portland. But after a three-day trial that included the testimony of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and hundreds of exhibits describing protest activity
outside the Portland ICE building, the evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which
were objected to by Oregon's governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of
protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President's authority. While violent protests did
occur in June, they quickly abated due to the efforts of civil law enforcement officers. And since
that brief span of a few days in June, the protests outside the Portland ICE facility have been
predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level
violence, largely between protesters and counter-protesters. 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 under 10 U.S.C. § 12406….
Unless and until the President lawfully federalizes National Guardsmen under a
statute such as 10 U.S.C. § 12406, "National Guard members serve solely as members of the

State militia under the command of a state governor." Stirling v. Minasian, 955 F.3d 795, 799
(9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, the President's unlawful federalization of the National Guard violates the Tenth Amendment, which "reserves to the States" any powers
not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. X.
In Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit interpreted the
provision permitting the President to call up the National Guard when he "is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). This Court is
bound to apply Newsom. However, this case presents novel issues not addressed in Newsom.
Newsom did not discuss Section 12406(2), which permits the President to call up the National Guard when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States," nor did it fully delve into the meaning of "to execute the laws of the United
States," contained in Section 12406(3). In resolving these issues, this Court draws on both Newsom's reasoning and the constitutional scope of Congress's calling forth power, which defines the outer boundaries of the President's power under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Indeed, this
Court, "as in all cases, [must] interpret the Constitution in light of its text, purposes, and 'our whole experience' as a Nation." NRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 557 (2014) (quoting Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920)).
After analyzing these statutory provisions, as applied to the facts in this case, this Court
arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion"
nor was the President "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States" in
Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. 10 U.S.C.
§ 12406(2)-(3).

This Court acknowledges that some citizens may support these deployments as a helpful
military supplement to effectuate the President's immigration agenda. But the Founders
"embodied their profound fear and distrust of military power... in the Constitution and its
Amendments," Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 29 (1957) (plurality op.), which has lived on through
the decades as "a traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into
civilian affairs." Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). In the Supreme Court's words, "[s]light
encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to
capture." Reid, 354 U.S. at 39 (1957). This principle has been foundational to the safeguarding of
our fundamental liberties under the Constitution. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
254, 271-72 (1964) (noting that under the First Amendment, "freedoms of expression are to have
the breathing space that they need to survive" (ellipses and internal quotations omitted));
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512(1961) (noting in the Fourth Amendment context
that illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing... by silent approaches
and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure" (internal quotations omitted)).
The "precise standard" to demarcate the line past which conditions would satisfy the
statutory standard to deploy the military in the streets of American cities is ultimately a question
for a higher court to decide. Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051. But based on this Court's application of
Newsom to the factual findings at trial and the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 in light of history
and tradition, this Court finds that wherever this line precisely is, Defendants have failed to clear
it. Therefore, for all the reasons stated below, this Court permanently enjoins Defendants' orders
to deploy federalized members of the National Guard to Oregon.

November 8, 2025 at 1:28 AM

Mark Turner

@markturner.net

This should be the bible of resistance. Freely downloadable, too.

www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501...

Pranksters vs. Autocrats by Srdja Popovic and Sophia A. McClennen | eBook | Cornell University Press

The Lawrence and Lynne Brown Democracy Medal, presented by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State, recognizes outstanding individuals, groups, and organizations that produce innovations....

www.cornellpress.cornell.edu

November 7, 2025 at 2:29 PM

Mark Turner

@markturner.net

💯 true. This is why we need more frog costumes.

November 7, 2025 at 12:19 PM

Mark Turner

@markturner.net

🤣🤣🤣

November 5, 2025 at 1:11 PM