Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Judge Issues Fatal Blow to Trump Shutting Down Plan

Episode Date: November 9, 2025

A Trump appointed Judge just PERMANENTLY BLOCKED his use of the National Guard in Portland Oregon after a 3 day trial, finding that he had no right under Congress’ statute to take over and deploy the National Guard because there was no “rebellion” on the streets of Oregon, nor was ICE unable to execute its immigration and detention policy because of basically peaceful protests. Michael Popok dissects the 106 page order, and predicts Trump’s next steps including an appeal to the 9th Circuit and to the US Supreme Court. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Boarding for flight 246 to Toronto is delayed 50 minutes. Ugh, what? Sounds like Ojo time. Play Ojo? Great idea. Feel the fun with all the latest slots in live casino games and with no wagering requirements. What you win is yours to keep groovy. Hey, I won! Boarding will begin when passenger fisher is done celebrating.

19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close, you call 1866-3-3-1-2-60 or visit comixonterio.ca. You know, it's better than the one big thing? Two big things. Exactly. The new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS's five-year rate plan price lock. Yep, it's the most powerful iPhone ever, plus more peace of mind with your bill over five years. This is big.

Get the new iPhone 17 Pro at TELUS.com slash iPhone 17 Pro on select plans. Conditions and exclusions apply. At Desjardin, we speak business. speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk, business. Now streaming on Paramount Plus, it's the epic return of Mayor.

of Kingstown. Warden? You know who I am. Starring Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner. I swear in these walls. Emmy Award winner Edie Falco. You're an ex-con who ran this place for years. And now, now you can't do that. And Bafto Award winner Lenny James. You're about to have a plague of outsiders descend on your town. Let me tell you this. It's going to be consequences. Mayor of Kingstown, new season now streaming on Paramount Plus.

Get no frills delivered. same in-store prices online and enjoy unlimited delivery with PC Express Pass. Get your first year for $2.50 a month. Learn more at pceexpress.ca. It seems like I've started a lot of hot takes this week with in breaking news, a federal judge has issued an injunction or a temporary restraining order or a ruled against the Trump administration. There's been nine different examples of that this week alone. And in breaking news, we have our latest, just coming in the last couple of hours on a late Friday night. Judge Emmergut, right on time, has issued now her permanent injunction.

Trial is over, case is over, permanent injunction to block Donald Trump's commandeering, militarization, mobilization, and deployment of National Guard on the streets of Portland, Oregon, and Oregon. Finding that Donald Trump abused his power given to him by Congress under Section 12406, about when he could take over a state's militia and federalize it. Also, that he violated, this is on permanent injunction after trial, that Donald Trump violated the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the state's all powers not reposited in the federal government,

their state sovereignty. I'll read to you from the order. It's 106 pages. I'll give you the highlights. She cites the founding fathers. She cites the framers. She cites the Federalist papers for why we don't want a standing army in the hands of an overgrown executive. And she's not saying, she said point blank in the order,

I'm not saying there aren't times when a president can't invoke 12406 to take over a state militia. It's just under these times, under these circumstances, under these facts, where she had three days of testimony, dozens of witnesses, 750 or more exhibits, she just doesn't see the evidence to support the proper and good, faith exercise of that particular provision. It came down to two things. Was there a rebellion as that term has been used in our nation's history? Yes or no? As exhibited on the streets of Portland during their First Amendment protest, did that First Amendment protest tip over into armed, organized rebellion against the power of the federal government? The answer to that, she answered

in the negative. No. Was there an inability of Trump and his federal forces to execute their laws, was there some sort of extended delay in the ability to capture and detain and process immigrants and migrants at the ICE detention center in Portland? The answer to that was no. Was there some violence on the streets? Yes. Was it in September when the National Guard was nationalized or attempted to be nationalized by Donald Trump? No. It was in June. By time September rolled around, there was very little going on on the streets of Portland, Oregon, other than probably the naked bike race, the naked bikers protesting using their First Amendment speech. I'm Michael Popak.

You're on legal AF and Midas Dutch Network. Let's get down to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Imbergat. Let me remind you or tell you for the first time, if you didn't know, she is a Trump appointee. She is a rock-rib conservative Republican. She was the U.S. attorney for Portland, Oregon, back of the day. She was a U.S. attorney, assistant U.S. attorney in L.A. She worked in Rhode Island. She is not to be trifled with.

She knows what she's doing. And she had to make her decision using the Ninth Circuit, which is her bosses, sitting in San Francisco, an earlier decision about California's National Guard. But she said even with the National Guard decision there, which allowed the National Guard to be deployed in California, using that analysis, she still finds that Donald Trump could not deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon. Now, she issued two temporary restraining orders about a month ago. That went up on appeal. One of them went up on appeal to another Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal panel. They ruled against Imriga, but that was vacated and reversed by the 29 judges of the Ninth Circuit who decided to vacate that decision, and they're going to rehear the issue.

But now, all that appellate work is moot. It's old. It's stale because those temporary restraining orders have been replaced, first by a preliminary injunction that came a couple of days ago and now by a permanent injunction. See, when you're going up the scale of injunctions, you start with administrative stay for a few hours, then a temporary restraining order, which is for a few days or a week or a month, then a preliminary injunction until the end of the trial. And then at the trial, if you're successful, a permanent injunction for the duration. They have the same similar elements. You know, the judge takes a look under the hood

before a permanent injunction and says, is it likely that they're going to succeed on the merits? Yes. Is there inadequate remedy in law? Do I need to use my equitable powers? Yes. Does the balance of equities tips in one party's favor? Yes. Is the public interest in somebody's favor? Yes.

Do they have irreparable harm? Yes. That's all done before trial. But this order, just to use this as a teachable moment for procedure, this order is after trial. Three days of trial. and three days of testimony that she heard from Portland ICE and other federal officers and local Portland PD and other people on the street and looked at video and evidence and records and the rest. And then from there, she's not looking at likelihood of success in the merits.

She's finding that somebody succeeded in the merits, in this case, Oregon and the state of California that joined as well. here's what she says at the start of her order in the introduction after a three-day trial that included the testimony of federal state and local law enforcement officials in 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 federal officials exceeded the president's authority while violent protests did occur in june they quickly abated due to the efforts of civil law enforcement officers meaning non-federal, you know, non-criminal. And since that brief span of a few days in June, the protests outside the Portland Ice facility have been predominantly peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence,

largely between protesters and counter-protesters, not even involving forces, federal forces. 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. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress possesses the power to call up the National Guard to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion.

And Congress's delegation of its power to the President is by statute, unless it until the President lawfully federalizes National Guardsmen, they remain members of the state militia under the command of a state. governor. She then says on page four, the court acknowledges that some citizens may support these deployments as a helpful military supplement to effectuate the president's immigration policy. But the founders, founding fathers, quote, embodied their profound fear and distrust of military power in the Constitution and its amendments, which has lived on through the decades as a traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs. In the Supreme Court's words, slight encroachments create new boundaries for which legions of power can seek new territory to capture. This principle has been foundational to the

safeguarding of our fundamental liberties under the Constitution. And she continues about the threats because she heard the evidence. She was the trier of fact. It was a trial by judge. It was a bench. trial. So on page 37, she says, in total, the above-described events illustrate isolated instances of real and threatened violence towards federal officers. The court finds that those instances peaked in mid-June and declined rapidly, remaining at a low level through July, August, and September. That must have been the naked bicycle, First Amendment protests, with sporadic and manageable threats and incidents of non-life-threatening violence typical to public protest. events. She also says that in quoting Patrick Henry, one of our great statesmen of a young

America on page 70, perhaps most illuminating Judge Imbergut writes from the Virginia ratifying convention is Governor Edmund Randolph's response to Patrick Henry's warning of the apparent wide breadth of circumstances in which the militia could be called forth to execute the laws. Randolph stated, it is supposed that the clause for calling forth the militia in the Constitution to suppress insurrections, repel, invasions, and execute the laws of the Union implies that instead of using civil force in the first instance, the militia are to be called forth to arrest petty offenders against the laws. Ought not common sense be the rule of interpreting this Constitution. Is there any exclusion of the civil power? Does it provide

to the laws are to be enforced by military coercion in all cases? No, sir. All that we are to infer is that when the civil power is not sufficient, the militia must be drawn out. I think that kind of sums it up right there. Now, if Donald Trump wants to appeal something, he can appeal a permanent injunction back up to the Ninth Circuit. They can try to expand upon and expound upon their Ninth Circuit decision in the Newsom, California case. as we also I'm sure that the Supreme Court will then have it at their doorstep

by an emergency appeal by Donald Trump sometime in the next week or so. We'll cover it all right here on Midas Touch and on Legal A-F, including the Legal A-F podcast over the weekend. This is by my count, the ninth loss for Donald Trump this week in courts around America.

I didn't include the tariff debacle for him at the United States Supreme Court oral argument, nor election night Tuesday. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popock. Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we formed the legal A.F. Substack.

Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other contributors from Legal A.F.

for there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where legal A-F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.