this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
542 points (99.3% liked)

News

32924 readers
2711 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration notched itself an illusory victory in federal court this week in one of the ongoing legal battles over the federal use of state National Guard troops to police American cities.

On Monday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, stayed a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term in office.

By Friday, the full 9th Circuit administratively stayed the panel's own stay – "[w]ithout objection from the panel," an order notes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] neatchee@piefed.social 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
  • Trump admin sends national guard
  • State sues to stop the troops from being sent
  • Court grants a temporary block on sending troops pending a final determination
  • Trump admin asks 9th Circuit to intervene and block the ruling that prevented them from sending troops, arguing that they needed to send 25% of all Federal Protection Service agents to safeguard ICE, which left others vulnerable, and that the national guard deployment would alleviate that problem.
  • Based partially on this 25% stat, 9th Circuit agrees to block the lower court's temporary order preventing troops from being sent to Oregon. This did not stop the lawsuit, but did allow the troops to be sent while the lawsuit proceeded
  • Plaintiffs (state of Oregon) informed the 9th Circuit that the number of FPS agents sent at a single time was not 25% (actually closer to 7%), and requests that their decision be reversed. 9th Circuit reviews the situation and agrees, reinstating the temporary order that prevents the Trump admin from sending troops to Oregon
[–] stankmut@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They didn't claim a low number of troops, they claimed a high number of Federal Protection Service officers. They claimed that they had to send 25% (115) of all protection officers to Portland to protect ICE and that demonstrates an inability to execute federal law. The actual peak number of protection officers deployed at any one time was 31.

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

ah you're right, I misread. correcting....