Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode: Judge Issues Fatal Blow to Trump Shutting Down Plan

Date: November 9, 2025
Host/Analyst: Michael Popok (National Trial Lawyer Strategist, MeidasTouch Network)

Episode Overview

This Legal AF episode unpacks a landmark federal court decision that deals a significant defeat to former President Donald Trump. The episode’s central focus is Judge Anna J. Brown Immergut’s issuance of a permanent injunction halting Trump’s attempt to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, during the 2020 protests. Michael Popok provides a detailed legal breakdown, contextualizes the ruling’s constitutional impact, and explores what this means for federal-state power balance moving forward.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background and Breaking News

• Judge Immergut issued a permanent injunction blocking Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Portland, Oregon ([00:30]).
• Trump’s action was deemed as an abuse of power under Section 12406, alongside a violation of the 10th Amendment which preserves state sovereignty.

2. Judge Immergut's Ruling: The Legal and Historical Reasoning

• Credentials & Perspective:
  • Judge Immergut is a Trump appointee, with a conservative background and deep prosecutorial experience ([03:00]).
  • “She is not to be trifled with. She knows what she's doing.” — Michael Popok ([03:40])
• Key Findings:
  • The court found that conditions in Portland did not meet the legal definition of “rebellion” required to federalize state militia.
  • The protests, although at times violent (in June), had mostly abated by September, when Trump tried nationalization.
• On Presidential Powers:
  • The President cannot unilaterally deploy the National Guard absent a bona fide rebellion or clear failure of law enforcement capacity.
• Founders’ Intent:
  • Judge cites the Federalist Papers and the Founders’ “profound fear and distrust of military power” in civilian matters ([06:50]).

3. Highlights from the Court Order

“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 civil law enforcement officers… since then, protests have been predominantly peaceful, with isolated instances of low level violence.”
— Judge Immergut’s order as summarized by Popok ([05:37])

• The court referenced the Supreme Court and Founding Fathers on the limiting of military power domestically.
• Specific quotes and historical context drawn from the Virginia Ratifying Convention and Patrick Henry.
• “Ought not common sense be the rule of interpreting this Constitution? … All that we are to infer is that when the civil power is not sufficient, the militia must be drawn out.” ([10:25], quoting Patrick Henry via Immergut).

4. Legal Procedure and Teach-In

• Popok explains the sequence of judicial orders, from temporary restraining order ➔ preliminary injunction ➔ permanent injunction ([04:30]).
• This order comes post-trial, making appellate temporary restraining orders moot.

5. Appeals and Next Steps

• Trump can appeal the permanent injunction to the 9th Circuit and likely the Supreme Court.
• Prior interim appellate rulings in the case are now superseded by the permanent ruling.
• Popok predicts emergency SCOTUS filings could be imminent ([11:00]).

6. Broader Context: Trump’s Legal Setbacks

• By Popok’s count, this is Trump’s ninth legal defeat of the week, not including other unrelated losses ([11:10]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This is on precedent permanent injunction after trial that Donald Trump violated the 10th Amendment… violated the state’s sovereignty.” ([00:49] – Popok)
• “[Judge Immergut] 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.” ([01:14])
• "She is a rock rib conservative Republican. She was the U.S. attorney for Portland, Oregon… She is not to be trifled with." ([03:10])
• “Even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard under 10 USC 12406.” ([06:30], – quoting Immergut’s order)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:30 - 02:00]: Breaking news coverage and overview of Judge Immergut’s order
• [02:00 - 04:00]: Legal context, background of the judge, and interplay with prior National Guard case law
• [04:30 - 05:45]: Explanation of injunction types and judicial procedure
• [05:45 - 08:00]: Key passages and rationale from the court’s written order
• [10:05 - 10:45]: Citing Patrick Henry, Founders’ intent on limited military use
• [11:00 - End]: Appeals process, broader implications, tally of Trump court losses

Concluding Thoughts

• Popok underscores that this is a landmark assertion of state sovereignty over federal overreach.
• The episode serves as both a news update and a mini-class on constitutional law and civil-military relations.
• Listeners are reminded to follow up for rapid developments as the inevitable appeals process unfolds.

For further reading, Popok invites audience members to access the Legal AF substack for relevant court documents and daily legal roundups.