Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... rump_et_al

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 56.0_1.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
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-1756-IM

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

Dan Rayfield, Oregon Attorney General; Benjamin Gutman, Oregon Solicitor General;
Dustin Buehler, Special Counsel; Scott Kennedy, Brian Simmonds Marshall, Thomas Castelli,
Ian Van Loh, and Rachel Sowray, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; and Alexander C. Jones
and Derek Olson, Assistant Attorneys General, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 100 SW
Market Street, Portland, OR 97201. Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Oregon.
Robert Taylor, Portland City Attorney; Caroline Turco, Senior Deputy City Attorney; and
Naomi Sheffield, Chief Deputy City Attorney, OFFICE OF THE PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY,
1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 430, Portland, OR 97204. Attorneys for Plaintiff City of
Portland.
Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; Eric J. Hamilton, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General; Alexander K. Haas, Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch; Jean Lin, Special
Litigation Counsel, Federal Programs Branch; Christopher D. Edelman, Senior Counsel; and
Benjamin S. Kurland, Trial Attorney, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL
PROGRAMS BRANCH, 1100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Attorneys for Defendants.
Case 3:25-cv-01756-IM Document 56 Filed 10/04/25 Page 1 of 31
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
IMMERGUT, District Judge.
This case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our
constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government
and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and
domestic law enforcement. The third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring
that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative
branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three
relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States.
On June 7, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a Memorandum broadly authorizing
the federalization of National Guard service members under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, without
specifying a designated location or duration. This Memorandum authorized federalized troops to
temporarily protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and other federal
employees “who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law,
and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring
or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.” Declaration
of Major General Timothy L. Rieger (“Rieger Decl.”), Ex. D, ECF 37 at 20.
In the wake of this June 7, 2025 Memorandum, protests ensued at the ICE facility in
Portland. From June 11th to June 25th, these protests included violent behavior and required an
increased law enforcement presence by both the Portland Police Bureau (“PPB”) and federal law
enforcement agencies. After June 25, 2025, however, the protests were generally peaceful in
nature with only sporadic incidents of violence and disruptive behavior. By late September, these
protests typically involved twenty or fewer people.
Case 3:25-cv-01756-IM Document 56 Filed 10/04/25 Page 2 of 31
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER
On September 27, 2025, President Trump posted a message on his Truth Social account
stating that he was directing Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, to provide troops to protect
“War ravaged Portland” from “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists” and authorizing “Full
Force, if necessary.” Declaration of Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall (“Marshall
Decl.”), Ex. 12, ECF 9-12 at 2. In response, on September 28th, Secretary Hegseth issued a
memorandum authorizing the deployment and federalization of 200 of Oregon National Guard
service members, over the objection of Oregon’s Governor, Tina Kotek.
That same day, the State of Oregon and the City of Portland (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
brought this lawsuit against President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, the Secretary of Homeland
Security Kristi Noem, and the U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security
(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ actions are ultra vires1 and
therefore unlawful because they violate 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the Posse Comitatus Act, and 10
U.S.C. § 175 by federalizing Oregon’s National Guard. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants’
conduct violates the Tenth Amendment and the separation of powers doctrine by infringing on
Oregon’s state sovereignty and police powers. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Secretary Hegseth’s
Memorandum violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because it is not in accordance
with the law, is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, and is arbitrary and
capricious.
Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and stay of Defendants’
September 28, 2025, Memorandum ordering the federalization and deployment of Oregon
1 Ultra vires actions allow courts to adjudicate “constitutional challenges to presidential
acts” and “actions by subordinate Executive Branch officials that extend beyond delegated
statutory authority.” Murphy Co. v. Biden, 65 F.4th 1122, 1128–29 (9th Cir. 2023) (first
citing Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 790–91 (1992); then citing Larson v. Domestic
& Foreign Com. Corp. 337 U.S. 682, 689–90 (1949)).
Case 3:25-cv-01756-IM Document 56 Filed 10/04/25 Page 3 of 31
PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER
National Guard service members to Portland. Defendants respond that this Court may not second
guess the President’s determination that conditions in Portland warranted a federal military
response. Defendants also contend that their conduct did not violate the U.S. Constitution or any
statutory provision or exceed their statutory authority.
This Court has considered the briefing and declarations submitted in this case, the
submission of amici, and the presentation of the parties at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ TRO on
October 3, 2025. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden
at this stage of the litigation and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.

[admin]

[admin]

Flotilla Activists RIP Israel For Abusive Treatment
The Young Turks
Oct 6, 2025



70-year-old Margaret Pacetta and famed humanitarian activist Greta Thunberg allege that they were abused by the IDF while being detained. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks