Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump deploys California national guard that is under federal control to Portland & Portland files a second TRO. Court has set hearing for 7 p.m., which should be now. 1/

2/ But that call in says for 10 a.m. hearing...haven't succeeded in getting in.

3/

4/ Sounds like it is ready to start momentarily. Will live-post the hearing.

5/ California is in this case too now. Eric Hamilton is handling for DOJ.

6/ Judge: Understand Trump has brought Cal. National Guard to Oregon, sounds like Texas National Guard will be deployed to Oregon or Illinois too.

7/ DOJ: Relocation of 200 National Guard have been or will be relocated. 100 federalized in LA. Relocation is consistent with Trump's order of 6/7/2025. Judge: How is that not in direct violation of yesterday's TRO.

8/ DOJ: TRO said Oregon can't be federalized. Judge: Aren't you circumventing my order? DOJ: That Presidential memorandum that are reasonably necessary to protect federal property. Any state may be called upon to whether the situation is.

9. Judge: You are missing the point. The conditions on the ground in Portland that was basis of my TRO. What is basis that they can be diverted, where no showing that you needed military force.
DOJ: There is little precedent.

10/ Judge: You need to have a colorable basis that federalize.
DOJ: No knew guardsmen were federalized.
Judge: As an officer of the court, do you believe this is an appropriate way to deal with an order.
DOJ: I'm not a policy maker, this is not a violation of TRO. No standing or irreparable harm, in challenging relocation of out of state guardsman. Oregon has no statutory right. Only California could possibly challenge federal, but can't because not redressable any injury California could claim.

11/ Plaintiff: Notes impending transfer of Texas National Guard transfer, and points to Judge saying no basis to federalize, which turns to California national guard and then we see memo with federalizing of Texas National Guard, now need prevent this "gamesmanship" to prevent National Guard of any state or D.C. from being federalized.
Me: What if they aren't federalized?

12/ In other words, couldn't Texas send National Guard to Portland without it being federalized.

13/ Me: Trump continues to do what I said he is wisely doing. Obey the letter of the injunction and nothing more. Me more: I can't believe Dems are fighting to keep law and order from coming to chaotic cities.

14/ Judge: For all reasons stated in prior order, for TRO, grant second motion for TRO, originally I saw it as only California National Guard, but it seems based on conduct defendants and Texas, I see those as direct contravention of order I ordered yesterday, so I'm granting alternative TRO, and troubled by both Cal. & Texas which appears in violation of prior order, but I have concern about breadth and/or modifying prior TRO.

15/ Plaintiff: Appropriate to issue a second order with broader scope to incorporate reasoning, "exploited" b/c TRO limited to Oregon, so we want to prohibit stay federalized members of any national guards of any state or district of columbia. Judge: That's what I will do, I will enter a new TRO prohibiting relocation of federalization, within state of Oregon.

16/ Judge: Same reasoning applies, and entering order barring any federalized national guard. Denying motion for stay and administrative stay.

17/17 So can Governor @GregAbbott_TX send Texas National Guard to Portland on his own? If so, that would still be permitted? Or can Trump just dispatch military to protect federal property?