By CLAIRE RUSH and GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon until at least Friday, saying she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.

The city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

It’s the latest development in weeks of legal back-and-forth in Portland, Chicago and other U.S. cities as the Trump administration has moved to federalize and deploy the National Guard in city streets to quell protests.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Immergut said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.

Related Articles

California law to protect Jewish students faces challenge over free speech concerns

Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee

Some Head Start preschools shutter as government shutdown continues

Hegseth visits inter-Korean border ahead of security talks with South Korean officials

A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?

Judge says claims of protest violence are overstated

The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.

Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.

“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.

Ruling follows weeks of back and forth in federal court

The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — seek to push back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with regular forces — one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up troops.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”

One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October — under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.

Federal witness describes ‘surprise’ at troop deployment

During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” — another one of the conditions for calling up troops under federal law.

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that “without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest … that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”

Johnson reported from Seattle.

By ED WHITE, Associated Press

DETROIT (AP) — Two men were charged with terrorism-related crimes in the Detroit area after federal authorities made arrests and seized a cache of weapons last week in a storage unit and elsewhere, officials said Monday.

Related Articles

Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee

FBI raid at Idaho horse track shows how immigration is a top focus across law enforcement

Tylenol, Kleenex, Band-Aid and more put under one roof in $48.7 billion consumer brands deal

Nvidia and other tech companies prop up Wall Street as most stocks fall

After mistaken deportation, Abrego Garcia fights smuggling charges. Here’s what to know

The men had scouted LGBTQ+ bars in Ferndale, a Detroit suburb, according to a 72-page criminal complaint unsealed in federal court.

FBI Director Kash Patel had announced arrests Friday, but no other details were released at the time while agents searched a home in Dearborn and a storage unit in nearby Inkster.

The court filing says the two men who were charged and other co-conspirators were inspired by Islamic State extremism. Investigators say a minor was also involved in the discussions.

The FBI said the men repeatedly referred to “pumpkins” in their conversations, a reference to a Halloween attack.

The two men will appear in court Monday afternoon for their initial appearance. Defense lawyer Amir Makled over the weekend seemed to wave off the allegations, saying they were the result of “hysteria” and “fearmongering.”

By JANIE HAR, Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is challenging a new California law designed to protect Jewish students from discrimination, arguing it is unconstitutionally vague and violates their free speech rights.

The federal complaint, filed Sunday in San Jose, seeks to invalidate legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last month, creating an Office of Civil Rights to help schools identify and prevent antisemitism. State lawmakers approved the legislation as political tensions have flared in the U.S. over Israel’s war in Gaza.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, does not define antisemitism but gives educators the impression that they could be charged with discrimination “if they expose their students to ideas, information, and instructional materials that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism,” according to the complaint.

Jenin Younes, national legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says the lack of guidance has a chilling effect on speech among educators.

“They censor themselves very broadly because they don’t know what’s going to get them into trouble,” she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of individual teachers and students in California public schools, and the Los Angeles Educators for Justice in Palestine.

In the complaint, middle school science teacher Jonah Olson, says students at his rural, largely Christian school district, often ask him what it means to be Jewish. He responds in part by saying that his Judaism does not include support for the State of Israel, and now he fears that might violate the law.

Related Articles

Judge again bars Trump administration from deploying troops to Portland

Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee

Some Head Start preschools shutter as government shutdown continues

Hegseth visits inter-Korean border ahead of security talks with South Korean officials

A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?

Parents who are part of the lawsuit say they fear their children will be prevented from learning about differing perspectives on Israel, Palestinians and the Middle East.

Students in public schools nationwide are generally protected against discrimination through state, federal and district policies, but supporters of the law say they needed to do more given a surge in harassment and bullying of Jewish and Israeli students.

The Anti-Defamation League, which supports the new law, said 860 antisemitic acts such as harassment, vandalism and assault were reported to the group last year at non-Jewish K-12 schools nationwide. The number is a 26% decrease from the previous year but much higher than the 494 reported in 2022.

By JOHN RABY and JONATHAN MATTISE, Associated Press

Courts in two states will hear arguments Monday on the legality of the deployment of the National Guard, including the use of troops on the streets of Memphis, Tennessee, and from West Virginia as part of President Donald Trump’s enforcement efforts in the nation’s capital.

Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities has unleashed a whirlwind of lawsuits and overlapping court rulings.

Related Articles

Judge again bars Trump administration from deploying troops to Portland

California law to protect Jewish students faces challenge over free speech concerns

Some Head Start preschools shutter as government shutdown continues

Hegseth visits inter-Korean border ahead of security talks with South Korean officials

A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?

Here’s what to know about the latest legal efforts on the issue:

Tennessee court addresses Guard deployment in Memphis

Monday’s hearing on the Memphis deployment is before Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal in Nashville.

Democratic state and county officials contend in a lawsuit that Republican Gov. Bill Lee cannot deploy the Tennessee National Guard for civil unrest unless there is rebellion or invasion, and even then, it would require action by state lawmakers.

Since their arrival on Oct. 10, National Guard troops have been patrolling neighborhoods and commercial areas of Memphis, including near the iconic Pyramid in downtown, wearing fatigues and protective vests that say “military police.” Officials have said Guard members, who are armed, have no arrest power.

Trump announced in September that the National Guard would accompany authorities from a slew of federal agencies as part of the so-called Memphis Safe Task Force.

Members of the National Guard stand watch at the intersection of B.B. King Blvd. and Beale Street, Friday, Oct. 24, 2025, in Memphis, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV)

Democratic Mayor Paul Young, who is not involved in the lawsuit, said he never requested that the Guard come to Memphis. But after Trump made the announcement and Lee agreed, Young and others have said they wanted the task force to focus on targeting violent offenders.

Since they arrived Sept. 29, the federal agencies have made more than 1,500 arrests and issued thousands of traffic citations, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Marshals Service. Arrests have been made on charges ranging from homicides and drug and weapons violations to immigration warrants. Lee has said the National Guard would “play a critical support role” for local law enforcement.

Judge considers West Virginia deployment in D.C.

West Virginia is among several states that sent National Guard members to Washington, D.C., to support Trump’s crime-fighting efforts. Last month a West Virginia judge asked attorneys for the state to address whether Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s deployment of up to 300 Guard members to the nation’s capital in August was legal.

A civic organization called the West Virginia Citizen Action Group says in a lawsuit that Morrisey exceeded his authority. Under state law, the group argues, the governor may deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.

Morrisey’s office has argued the deployment was authorized under federal law.

D.C. National Guard members clean up the park around Fort Stevens Recreation Center, Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Washington. News of the cleanup sparked a community debate over the presence of the Guard. (AP Photo/Gary Fields)

Kanawha County Circuit Judge Richard Lindsay in Charleston heard initial arguments in the case Oct. 24. The civic group claimed it was harmed by the deployment by being forced to refocus its resources away from government accountability and transparency.

The state attorney general’s office sought to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacked standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision. Lindsay rescheduled the hearing and ordered the state to focus on whether what Morrisey did was lawful.

The West Virginia National Guard has said its deployment could last until the end of November.

While Trump issued an executive order in August declaring a crime emergency in the nation’s capital, the U.S. Justice Department says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.

Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling under the Army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.

Separately, a federal judge heard arguments Oct. 24 on District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb ’s request for an order that would remove National Guard members from Washington streets. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, did not rule from the bench.