national

Judge’s ‘permanent injunction’ bars National Guard troops in Portland

Nov. 8 (UPI) — A federal judge issued a permanent injunction that prevents the deployment of the National Guard in Portland, Ore., saying Donald Trump “exceeded the President’s authority.”

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, in a 106-page decision Friday, wrote in all caps: “THIS PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.”

She issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 4 blocking the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. One day later a second order blocked deployment of National Guard troops from other states to Portland streets.

“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,” the judge, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, wrote.

Immergut, who made the decision after the three-day trial, said the troops were not needed to quell protests against Trump’s immigration policies.

“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,” Immergut wrote.

She said a stay of federalization of Oregon troops will last 14 days that “preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed.”

Starting in early June, there were daily demonstrations outside ICE’s building in Portland. They have been small and peaceful and dispersed when federal agents in riot gear came to the scene, The New York Times reported.

Sometimes federal officers used tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray balls.

Immergut said she expects the decision to be appealed with the White House not responding to a request for comment Friday night.

“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,” she wrote.

During the trial, federal lawyers said they intended to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

On Sept. 27, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he planned to use “full force” to protect “war-ravaged Portland.”

The next day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asked Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek to activate 200 members of the Oregon National Guard to protect federal property. Kotek refused and Trump federalized the troops.

Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a president may use the National Guard on U.S. soil in only three situations: a foreign invasion; a rebellion or threat of a rebellion; or laws of the nation cannot be enforced with existing resources.

The Trump administration argued the last two conditions were met. The judge disagreed.

“Oregon National Guard members have been away from their jobs and families for 38 days,” Kotek, a Democrat, said after the ruling on the lawsuit by the state and city. ” The California National Guard has been here for just over one month. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision involving his state’s troops “a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people.”

Trump has sought to send troops into Democrat-run cities. Another judge has blocked troops from Chicago after a lawsuit and that decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Troops have been sent to the District of Columbia, Los Angeles and Memphis, Tenn., to assist ICE and/or reduce crime.

Source link

US judge says Trump cannot deploy National Guard to Portland

A US judge will not allow President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard members to the city of Portland, Oregon.

The ruling is the latest in a weeks-long court battle over whether the president violated federal law when he sent troops to a US city despite objections from local officials.

Troops had been blocked from deploying to the city due a temporary court order. Now, that order is permanent.

The Portland deployment is part of a series of efforts by Trump administration to subdue protests against federal immigration raids in primarily Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC.

The decision by US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, is the first time the Trump administration was permanently blocked from deploying troops to a city.

The administration is widely expected to appeal the decision, though, and the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.

When she ruled against the Trump administration earlier this month, Judge Immergut issued two temporary restraining orders. One blocked Trump from mobilising the Oregon National Guard to Portland, while another, broader order stopped him from sending in any troops from any state to Oregon. Trump had tried to send forces from California and Texas.

In the 106-page ruling, Judge Immergut said that she was not blocking the president from ever using National Guard troops, but said that in Portland “the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard”.

She wrote that there was neither a rebellion or danger of a rebellion where the president needed to deploy troops.

She also said Trump had violated the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, which gives states any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

The judge added that she would leave it to a higher court to set a standard for when a president can “deploy the military in the streets of American cities”, but that “wherever this line precisely is, defendants have failed to clear it. “

In Oregon, there have been competing narratives between state and local officials and the Trump administration on what exactly is happening on the ground.

The Department of Justice has described the city as “war-ravaged” and said there has been a violent siege at a Portland immigration detention facility.

“As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address,” the White House previously said.

But local officials and many city residents have said the violence is not widespread and is contained by Portland police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s attorney Caroline Turco said.

Source link

US judge rules Trump illegally ordered National Guard troops to Portland | Donald Trump News

US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers.

United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities.

The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland.

Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media.

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports.

The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion.

Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city.

But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.

A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation.

About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours.

Prosecutors dismissed two cases.

Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest.

Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.



Source link

Passage of Prop. 50 brightens Newsom’s national prospects

California voters delivered a major victory for Democrats nationwide Tuesday — and possibly for Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political ambitions — by passing a redistricting plan that could help the party seize as many as five congressional seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The ballot measure was seen as a searing denunciation of President Trump and his administration’s policies, which have included divisive immigration raids, steep tariffs, cuts to healthcare and a military occupation of Los Angeles.

Proposition 50 was launched at warp speed in August in an attempt to counter President Trump’s successful attempt to pressure Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to gerrymander their own states to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections. If Democrats gain power they could imperil his agenda and launch investigations into his administration.

“After poking the bear, this bear roared,” Newsom said Tuesday night shortly after the polls closed and the Associated Press determined Proposition 50 had passed.

Newsom said he was proud of California for standing up to Trump and called on other states with Democrat-controlled legislatures to pass their own redistricting plans.

“I hope it’s dawning on people, the sobriety of this moment,” he said.

The president, meanwhile, in a post Tuesday morning on his social media site called the vote “A GIANT SCAM” and “RIGGED” and said it is “under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!” The White House did not explain what he meant by “serious legal and criminal review.” After the polls closed, Trump again posted, writing enigmatically: “…AND SO IT BEGINS.”

Newsom early Tuesday dismissed Trump’s threats as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

Proposition 50 will change how California determines the boundaries of congressional districts. The measure asked voters to approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission.

The measure, placed by the ballot by the Democratic-led state Legislature and pushed by Newsom, reconfigured the state’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats, shifting five more House districts into competitive or easily winnable territory for Democrats. California has 43 Democrats and nine Republicans in the House; now the number of GOP members could be cut in half.

While Newsom and Democratic partisans framed the passage of Proposition 50 — which they had dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act — as a major blow against Trump’s iron grip on the federal government, it is far from guaranteed to flip the balance of power in the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a slim majority.

For one, spurred on by Trump, Republican-led states are busy pursuing their own redistricting plans. Several Republican-controlled states including North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri are moving ahead.

What’s more, California voters in the fall of 2026 would then have to be convinced to choose Democratic challengers over incumbent Republicans in those newly crafted districts — and many current GOP members of Congress have said they don’t plan to go quietly.

“Here’s something Newsom and his cronies don’t know: It won’t work,” said Congressman Darrell Issa, a San Diego-area Republican whose seat was targeted by the newly redrawn maps. “The worst gerrymander in history has a fatal flaw. Voters get to pick their representatives. Not the other way around. I’m not going anywhere.”

Congressman Doug LaMalfa whose Northern California district was carved up and diluted with left-leaning coastal voters, said he was “standing in the fight. They’re not going to kidnap my district here without a battle.”

What is sure, however, is that Proposition 50 is a big win for Newsom, who has propelled his fight with Trump onto the national political stage as one of the loudest voices standing against the new administration.

Campaigning for Proposition 50, Newsom mocked Trump on the social media site X with sarcastic, Trumpesque all-caps media posts. The governor won viral fame, guest spots on late-night shows and millions of dollars from Democratic donors around the country delighted to see someone jousting with the president. In recent days, Newsom has begun talking openly about a possible run for president in 2028, after telling CBS last month that he would be lying if he tried to pretend he wasn’t considering it.

The new congressional districts also are expected to set off a mad scramble among ambitious Democratic politicians.

Already, Audrey Denney, a strategist and education director, has announced she will once again mount a campaign against LaMalfa, who represents an area that has been split into two districts saturated with Democratic voters. Former state Sen. Richard Pan, meanwhile, has indicated he intends to target Congressman Kevin Kiley, who saw his hometown of Rocklin yanked out of his district and replaced with parts of more-Democratic Sacramento.

One of the biggest effects of the measure may be the way it has enraged many of the state’s rural voters, and left even those who are registered Democrats feeling as though state leaders don’t care about their needs.

“They think our voices are so small that we don’t count, and because we’re red,” fumed Monica Rossman, the chairwoman of the Glenn County Board of Supervisors in rural Northern California. “This is just one more way of them squeezing us rural people.”

Rossman described Newsom in obscene terms this week and added that “people from urban areas, they don’t realize that us people from One-Taco-Bell-Towns don’t know what it’s like to drive by a dealership and see nothing but battery-operated vehicles. By traffic, we mean Ted’s cows are out again and we have to wait for them to get out of the way. We’re going to have people making decisions about areas they know nothing about.”

But as they headed to polling places across the state, many voters said the Trump administration’s actions in California — from funding cuts to the prolonged immigration raids —convinced them that radical measures were necessary.

Adee Renteria, who came to vote at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in East Los Angeles decked out from head to toe in celebratory Dodgers gear, said she was voting yes on Proposition 50 because “I want a fricking voice.”

“I want our people to be able to walk the streets without getting kidnapped,” she said, adding that she believed the measure would allow Democrats a chance at fighting back against policies that she said had sown terror in her community.

In Buena Park, Guarav Jain, 33, said he had braved long lines to cast his ballot “to prove that we can fight back on the crazy things Trump says.”

“This is the first chance to make our voice heard since the [presidential] election last November,” he added.

The path to Proposition 50, which ranks as the fourth most expensive ballot measure in California history, began in June. That was when Trump’s political team began pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the lines for that state’s 38 congressional districts to gain five Republican seats and give his party a better shot at holding the House after the midterm elections.

When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed on to the idea, Newsom jumped in to announce that California, which has 52 representatives, would counter by redrawing its own districts to try to pick up as many as five seats for Democrats.

“We’re giving the American people a fair chance,” Newsom said in August, adding that California was “responding to what occurred in Texas.”

The move outraged California Republicans and also angered some people, such as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who are no fans of Trump. Some opponents argued that it was an affront to an independent congressional redistricting commission that California voters created in 2010 with the passage of Proposition 20 — an effort to provide fair representation to all Californians.

“They are trying to fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California.… It is insane to let that happen,” Schwarzenegger said at an event at USC in September. “Doesn’t make any sense to me — that because we have to fight Trump, to become Trump.”

But Schwarzenegger didn’t do much to actively campaign against the measure and the No side was far outgunned financially. Proponents raised more than $100 million, according to campaign finance reports, while the No side raised about $43.7 million.

A star-studded cast of Democratic leaders also flooded the airwaves to support the measure, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. President Obama spoke on the issue in ads that aired during the World Series. “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4,” the former president said.

The new congressional district maps are only temporary. They will be in place for elections next year and in 2028 and 2030. After that, California’s independent redistricting commission will resume its duties in drawing the maps.

What may be longer lasting, some rural representatives said, is a sense among many in California’s heartland that their voices don’t count.

LaMalfa, the congressman who saw his deep red district divided into two blue urban areas, said many of his constituents — who work in farming, timber and ranching — believe many state policies are “stacked against them and they have nowhere to go.”

“What they do have is a voice that understands their plight and is willing to speak for them. I am one of the people who does that,” he said. “You don’t have that anymore if you have taken all those folks and just drawn them into urban voters districts.”

Times staff writers Sonja Sharp, Katie King and Katerina Portela contributed to this report.

Source link

Off-year local elections will get national attention on cable news

Politics in the year after a presidential election are typically focused on local and statewide contests.

But the races decided on Tuesday — which include a pivotal mayoral contest in New York and California’s referendum on congressional redistricting — will have national implications. The gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey will be a report card on President Trump’s second term.

As a result, cable news will be paying special attention. The races will also serve as an important test run for a couple of cable news networks in transition.

“This is the first election of the 2026 midterms, and we know what happens 30 seconds after the mid-terms are over — 2028 starts in earnest,” said Chris Stirewalt, political editor for Nexstar Media Group’s NewsNation. “In New Jersey and Virginia, you have two states that look a lot like the country as a whole. President Trump’s approval ratings in those places is about the same as it is nationally.”

MSNBC will be covering its first election night without the resources of NBC News. The progressive-leaning network — which changes its name to MS NOW on Nov. 15 — is being spun off by parent company Comcast into a new entity called Versant.

NBC News no longer shares correspondents or analysts with MSNBC. The channel’s line-up of opinion hosts including Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Nicolle Wallace, Ari Melber and Lawrence O’Donnell remains intact.

Loyal MSNBC viewers will notice that election data maven Steve Kornacki will not be crunching numbers on his big board. Kornacki signed a new deal last year with NBC, where he works for the news and sports divisions.

Kornacki will be a part of the network’s coverage on NBC News Now, its free streaming channel. “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Llamas is leading the coverage with Hallie Jackson, the network’s senior Washington correspondent; and “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

MSNBC host Ali Velshi will take on the voter analysis duties previously held down by Kornacki. The network said it will have 15 correspondents reporting throughout the country, including West Coast-based Jacob Soboroff delivering analysis on TikTok.

MSNBC national correspondent Jacob Soboroff.

MSNBC national correspondent Jacob Soboroff.

(MSNBC/Paul Morigi/MSNBC)

CNN will use the night to test the appeal of its new direct-to-consumer streaming service launched last week.

While CNN will have its usual array of anchors and experts led by anchor Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett, the network will also offer an alternative streaming feed featuring its analyst Harry Enten alongside conservative commentator Ben Shapiro and “The Breakfast Club” radio host Charlamagne tha God.

“CNN Election Livecast” will be only be available from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Pacific to subscribers of CNN All Access. The program will be a discussion of the results presented as “a more casual option” for viewers, according to a representative for the network.

The feed will mark the first time CNN, owned by Warner Bros. Discover, has produced full-scale live coverage exclusively for a streaming audience.

Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier of Fox News

Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier of Fox News

(Fox News)

Fox News will rely on anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum for a special telecast at 10 p.m. Eastern and 7 p.m. Pacific, pre-empting its comedic talk show “Gutfeld!”

The 2025 election night will also mark a change in calling the results. All of the major broadcast networks and cable channels will be using data analysis from the Associated Press, which teamed with Fox News and NORC at the University of Chicago several years ago to create an alternative to the research company used by CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.

Starting Tuesday, all five networks will get voting results at the same time.

Leland Vittert, Elizabeth Vargas and Chris Cuomo will anchor election night coverage for NewsNation.

Leland Vittert, Elizabeth Vargas and Chris Cuomo will anchor election night coverage for NewsNation.

(NewsNation)

The exception is Nexstar Media Group’s NewsNation, which will use Decision Desk HQ to call its races during its coverage co-anchored by Stirewalt, Chris Cuomo, Leland Vittert and Elizabeth Vargas. The service was the first to call the results of the 2024 presidential election, beating the competition by 15 minutes.

The ability to call the races sooner means more time for analysis, which is expected to lean heavily into what the results say about the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential campaign.

Stirewalt said the night has the potential to set up the political plot lines of the next two years. He believes the passage of Proposition 50 in California and a victory for New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani would elevate Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as 2028 presidential contenders.

“That’s would be a big feather in the cap for AOC, who can say that she’s leading a movement,” Stirewalt said. “Gavin Newsom gets to ring the bell. He gets to say ‘I won. I did something that was controversial. I took it to Donald Trump. I’m delivering a win.’”

Source link