The Brief

A divided federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit today overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland — removing the legal impediment that was preventing the Trump administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland.

"After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,'" the majority wrote in their decision.

It's unclear what impact this ruling will immediately have on the ground. The 9th Circuit's decision only applies to one of the two temporary restraining orders U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued earlier this month blocking the deployment.

The ruling comes in the wake of a series of Trump authorizations to deploy National Guard troops to American cities including Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Chicago. President Trump has said the deployments are necessary to protect the work of ICE agents, and reduce crime.

On Oct. 16, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling in Illinois, temporarily blocking the president's federalization and deployment of the National Guard deployment there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Trump called the National Guard to Portland last month

The Trump administration federalized 200 members of the Oregon National Guard on Sept. 28, after the president described Portland on social media as "war ravaged" and "under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists."

This characterization is false according to local and state officials, residents, and journalists on the ground. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek told NPR on Oct. 6 that the president's portrayal was "ludicrous."

"We had thousands of people on the streets of Portland for the Portland Marathon," she said. "The city is beautiful. The city is thriving."

The federal government has argued in court documents that the National Guard is needed to protect a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland that has been the site of protests since June. They wrote that protesters had assaulted federal officers "with rocks, bricks, pepper spray and incendiary devices, causing injury."

In their own court documents, attorneys for the city of Portland and state of Oregon wrote that the protests had been small and largely peaceful for months.

In a declaration provided to the court, Craig Dobson, an assistant chief with the Portland Police Bureau (PPB), stated the protests have never been so out-of-control that local officers couldn't respond.

"In fact, on any given weekend," he stated, "the nightlife in Portland's entertainment district has warranted greater PPB resources than the small, nightly protests in front of the ICE facility."

The federal government, however, has argued that things have been quieter because 115 federal police officers were sent to Portland this summer to help protect the ICE building there. They say some of those federal officers have since been sent back. And while it's not clear how many remain, the federal government says their deployment is a strain on resources.

In response, attorneys for the state of Oregon have said such deployments are a normal part of the federal police's responsibilities.

Lower court blocked the deployment 

On Oct. 4, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut granted the city and state a temporary restraining order, preventing the federal government from deploying the National Guard to Portland.

The President can federalize National Guard members if there's a foreign invasion, a rebellion or danger of one, or an inability to carry out federal laws with "regular forces."

Immergut wrote that the Trump administration did not have a legitimate basis for federalizing the National Guard because the protests in Portland had been "generally peaceful" since June and did not prevent federal law enforcement officers from doing their jobs.

She wrote that the Trump administration only described a few incidents of protesters clashing with federal officers in September before the National Guard federalization. They involved people shining overpowered flashlights in the eyes of drivers, "posting a photograph of an unmarked ICE vehicle online," and "setting up a makeshift guillotine to intimidate federal officials."

"These incidents are inexcusable," Judge Immergut wrote, "but they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces."

The following day, despite her ruling, Trump sent 200 federalized California National Guard members to Oregon. A memo from the Department of Defense also authorized up to 400 members of the Texas National Guard to deploy to Portland and Chicago.

Immergut then granted a second order blocking the Trump administration from sending any federalized members from any National Guard from deploying to Oregon.

In their appeal to the 9th Circuit, the Trump administration said in court documents the lower court judge had "impermissibly second-guessed the Commander in Chief's military judgments."

On Oct. 6, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a press briefing: "With all due respect to that judge, I think her opinion is untethered in reality and in the law." She went on to say that the president was using his authority as commander in chief.

Appeals court sides with the President

The majority opinion for the 9th Circuit was authored by judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, who were both appointed during Trump's first term.

They wrote that the district court erred when it discounted "the violent and disruptive events that occurred in June, July, and August," outside the ICE facility and focused "on only a few events in September," the month Trump federalized the National Guard.

The law, they argued, didn't put such limitations on the facts or circumstances that the President could consider when making a decision to deploy the national guard.

"The President can, and should, consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether he 'is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,'" they wrote.

"Rather than reviewing the President's determination with great deference," the panel of judges wrote, "the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances."

Appeals court judge Susan Graber, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, dissented, writing there was no justification to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard.

"Given Portland protesters' well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority's ruling, which accepts the government's characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd," Graber wrote.

Officials at the White House praised the court's ruling Monday, saying it affirms that the lower court's ruling "was unlawful and incorrect."

"As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield also responded to today's ruling with a statement: "Today's ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification," he wrote. "We are on a dangerous path in America."

This is a developing story and will be updated.
Copyright 2025 NPR

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting agreed Monday to fulfill a $36 million, multi-year contract with NPR that it had yanked after pressure from the Trump White House.

The arrangement resolves litigation filed by NPR accusing the corporation of illegally yielding to Trump's demands that the network be financially punished for its news coverage. The argument, part of a broader lawsuit by NPR and several stations against the Trump administration, focused on CPB funding for NPR's operation of a satellite distribution system for local public radio stations. NPR announced Monday it would waive all fees for the stations associated with the satellite service.

The judge in the case had explicitly told CPB's legal team he did not find its defense credible. CPB lawyers had argued that the decision to award the contract to a new consortium of public media institutions was driven by a desire to foster digital innovations more swiftly.

"The settlement is a victory for editorial independence and a step toward upholding the First Amendment rights of NPR and the public media system in our legal challenge to [Trump's] Executive Order," Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR, said in a statement. "While we entered into this dispute with CPB reluctantly, we're glad to resolve it in a way that enables us to continue to provide for the stability of the Public Radio Satellite System, offer immediate and direct support to public radio stations across the country, and proceed with our strong and substantive claims against this illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order. We look forward to our day in court in December."

In its submission Monday evening to the court, CPB did not concede that it had acted wrongfully — nor that it had yielded to political pressure from the administration.

Instead, in a statement posted on its website, CPB asserted its side "prevails" as a result of the settlement.

"This is an important moment for public media," said Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of CPB. "We are very pleased that this costly and unnecessary litigation is over, and that our investment in the future through [Public Media Infrastructure] marks an exciting new era for public media." CPB had awarded a rival contract to PMI, a newly created consortium of public radio organizations including several major stations, to ensure the digital distribution system functions properly. That contract will continue, CPB said.

Federal subsidies for public broadcasting stopped on Oct. 1 as a result of a party-line vote over the summer by Congress, called a rescission. Only a skeleton crew remains at CPB, which was created as a nonprofit corporation more than a half-century ago to funnel federal subsidies to public media. While PBS has had layoffs and NPR is monitoring its own finances, many local stations across the country have been hit hard.

Over the course of the litigation this fall, mounting evidence appeared to demonstrate that CPB's board chair and executives had acted against NPR in what turned out to be a futile attempt to salvage the corporation's own future.

In hearings last month in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss told CPB's legal team they had not made a credible case for why the corporation reneged on the contract just a day after a top White House official warned senior CPB leaders against doing business with NPR. A trial had been set to start on Dec. 1.

CPB's change of mind — and NPR's ensuing lawsuit — sparked consternation and unease within the larger public media ecosystem. The two organizations had served as partners for decades. But that relationship frayed earlier this year, as the system came under attack from the Trump administration.

Trump's public campaign against NPR and PBS started in earnest soon after he returned to the White House. Trump kicked it into high gear in late March with a series of social media posts.

In early April, CPB leaders sought to get money out the door before Trump took action against public media. On April 2, CPB's board approved the extension of a contract with NPR to distribute public radio programs, including those not produced by NPR. The arrangement stretched back four decades. The amount included millions still due on the then-current contract.

The next day, CPB's board chair and two senior executives met with a top White House budget official who attested to her "intense dislike for NPR." The budget official told them CPB didn't have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," according to a deposition from CPB executive Clayton Barsoum submitted as part of NPR's legal filings.

And the day after that — just 48 hours after that board vote — CPB reversed itself. CPB executive Kathy Merritt informed NPR's top official over the satellite and distribution service that it had to be spun off: it could not be part of NPR. NPR refused to do so. CPB revised the scope of the contract and solicited new bids. NPR's submission proved unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, the White House was ramping up the pressure. It accused NPR and PBS of bias. On April 14, for example, it issued a formal statement that called their offerings "radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news'." NPR and PBS's chief executives have rejected the accusations of bias.

On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that no federal money should go to the two public broadcasting networks. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations then filed suit against the White House, saying they were being unlawfully punished because the president did not like their news coverage. They contended the executive order represented a violation of First Amendment protections. Their suit names CPB as a defendant as well for, in their characterization, bending to the president's will. In Monday's legal filing, CPB agreed that the executive order was precisely the sort of government interference that Congress sought to prevent in establishing CPB as it did.

In the summer, Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress, urged on by Trump, pulled back all $1.1 billion for future public broadcasting that had already been approved and signed into law by the president.

Throughout the legal battle, NPR has said, regardless of the outcome of the case, it would work with Public Media Infrastructure.

NPR's broader constitutional case against Trump's executive order purporting to ban federal funding of public media continues. A hearing on its merits is scheduled for December.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editors Gerry Holmes and Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
Copyright 2025 NPR

A long-awaited vision for Huntington Drive is finally coming into focus. In the future, the busy corridor will have dedicated bus lanes, protected bike lanes, two lanes of vehicle traffic in each direction, a thin median and wide sidewalks.

This was the plan chosen by the City for the Huntington Drive Multi-Modal Transportation Improvement Project, which runs on an approximately four-mile stretch of the street between North Mission Road near LAC+USC Medical Center and Alhambra/South Pasadena. This had much more public support than the competing alternative, which featured a wide median rather than wide sidewalks, according to Mary Nemick, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Engineering.

Nemick said the next step is to hire a consultant to create design and engineering documents. This phase is expected to take about two years before groundbreaking can occur.

Currently, Huntington Drive has three vehicular lanes in each direction, the bike lanes are unprotected, and about 25% of the corridor lacks sidewalks. Though pedestrians and bicyclists account for only 1% of peak-hour trips, they account for 54% of severe or fatal injuries from traffic collisions, according to a project document.

The design budget is about $10.5 million, Nemick said, and the overall project cost will be determined after designs are completed.

The project is being funded by some of the money previously allocated for the construction of the 710 Freeway extension, which was abandoned in 2018 after decades of local opposition.

The Columbia Memorial Space Center in Downey held a groundbreaking ceremony Monday for a roughly 40,000-square-foot expansion that will include indoor and outdoor science learning areas and space for special exhibits.

The centerpiece of the buildout will include an interactive display of the Inspiration space shuttle mockup, where visitors can go inside the cargo bay.

Built in 1972, the 35-foot-tall model made of wood, plastic and aluminum functioned as a prototype and fitting tool for all of the orbiters that launched into space.

“We’re super excited to be able to put it on display for the public, really for the first time in forever,” Ben Dickow, president and executive director of the Columbia Memorial Space Center, told LAist.

The expansion will also allow for educational areas, where students can learn about the pioneering engineering and design work that went into building the model at Rockwell International in Downey.

The backstory

Last fall, after sitting in storage for more than a decade, the full-scale model was moved a few blocks to a temporary home.

The Inspiration space shuttle mockup was moved in sections to a temporary home last fall

(

Courtesy Columbia Memorial Space Center

)

The Space Center said renovation work on the mock up will take months and include rehabs of its 60-foot cargo bay and flight deck.

Dickow said Downey is where all of the Apollo capsules that went to the moon and all of the space shuttles were designed and built.

“This is part of the L.A. story as much as entertainment or anything like that,” Dickow said, adding that it’s a legacy he feels like Angelenos sometimes forget. “The space craft that took humanity to the moon, the space craft that brought humanity into lower earth orbit and built the international space station, these are human firsts... and they all happened right here.”

What’s next? 

The Space Center is looking to raise $50 million that would go toward building plans, special exhibits and more.

Dickow said the new building that will house the space shuttle mockup should be open to the public in about two years.

By early next year, he said the plan is to have the shuttle model available for bi-monthly public visits as it undergoes renovation.