Case: State of Oregon v. Trump

3:25-cv-01756 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: Sept. 28, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 28, 2025, the State of Oregon and the City of Portland filed suit in the District of Oregon against President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiffs allege that Secretary Hegseth’s September 28, 2025 memorandum, issued under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and signed by President Trump, federalized 200 members of the Oregon National Guard for a 60-day deployment in Portland and directed them to perform civilian law-enforcement and crowd-control functions in connection with localized protests near Portland’s ICE facility. The complaint asserts that this federalization and deployment order is unlawful on multiple grounds:

Ultra Vires Action (10 U.S.C. § 12406) – The order exceeds statutory authority because none of the statutory predicates—such as invasion, rebellion, or the inability of regular forces to execute the laws—were satisfied, and the directive was not issued “through the governor” as required.
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) and 10 U.S.C. § 275 – The deployment unlawfully directs federalized National Guard members to engage in arrests, searches, and other civilian law-enforcement activities without specific congressional authorization.
Tenth Amendment and Equal State Sovereignty Violations – The action infringes on state sovereignty by usurping state control over its militia and violates the principle of equal state sovereignty by selectively targeting Portland for political retribution.
Administrative Procedure Act Violations (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C)) – The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security acted in excess of statutory jurisdiction and in an arbitrary and capricious manner, lacking any lawful factual or legal basis.
Constitutional Violations — Separation of Powers, Militia Clauses, and Take Care Clause – The President’s actions usurp Congress’s Article I power to call forth the militia and violate the Article II duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions to block the Guard’s federalization and deployment.

On October 2, 2025, the defendants filed a Suggestion of Recusal in the District of Oregon, asking Judge Michael H. Simon, to whom the case was initially assigned, to step aside under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). They cited the public statements and involvement of his spouse, Representative Suzanne Bonamici, who represents part of Portland and had publicly opposed the Guard deployment and visited the ICE facility at issue. Defendants argued that Representative Bonamici’s direct involvement in the factual and legal controversy—through letters, press conferences with Oregon officials, and public commentary—created an appearance of partiality that could undermine public confidence in the case’s fairness. That same day, Judge Simon recused himself, noting no legal basis for disqualification but doing so to avoid even the appearance of bias, and the case was reassigned to Judge Karin J. Immergut.

On October 4, 2025, Judge Immergut granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, blocking the implementation of the September 28 federalization and deployment order under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court held that the President likely acted ultra vires, as conditions in Portland did not meet the statutory prerequisites for calling up the Guard. Protests cited as justification were small and peaceful, and federal law enforcement already had adequate resources. Judge Immergut found no evidence of a “rebellion” or that regular forces were “unable” to execute the laws, as required under subsections (2) and (3) of § 12406. Exercising authority beyond those limits, the court reasoned, infringed Oregon’s Tenth Amendment sovereignty over its militia. Because the federalization order diverted state resources and undermined state control, Oregon showed irreparable harm. The balance of equities and public interest also favored maintaining constitutional limits on military deployment in domestic affairs. The TRO remains in effect until October 18, 2025, unless extended, and the government’s motion to stay the injunction was denied. Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-CV-1756-IM, 2025 WL 2817646 (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2025)

On October 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint and a Second Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, now joined by the State of California. The amended filing alleged that, within hours of the district court’s October 4 TRO, federalized members of the California National Guard had been redeployed to Portland—an act plaintiffs characterized as a deliberate circumvention of the court’s order. Specifically, approximately 101 federalized California Guard members landed in Oregon early on October 5, with another 99 expected later that day. Plaintiffs argued that these troops were called to perform the same unlawful mission under the same inadequate authority—10 U.S.C. § 12406—that the court had already enjoined. The amended complaint reiterated that no invasion, rebellion, or inability of regular forces existed in Oregon and emphasized that redeploying troops originally federalized for unrest in Los Angeles lacked any lawful or factual basis. The plaintiffs asserted the same five causes of action—ultra vires action, violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, Tenth Amendment and equal sovereignty violations, APA violations, and constitutional separation-of-powers violations—and sought a new TRO preventing the deployment of federalized troops from any state in Oregon.

Later that same day, Judge Immergut granted the plaintiffs’ Second Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, issuing an October 5, 2025 order, from the bench, enjoining the implementation of Secretary Hegseth’s September 28, 2025 memorandum that had federalized and deployed the Oregon National Guard to Portland. The second TRO also extended to prevent the redeployment of federalized California National Guard troops who had been sent to Oregon in what plaintiffs described as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court’s prior injunction.

Defendants appealed the October 4 TRO (but not the second one) to the Ninth Circuit, which on October 8, 2025, granted an emergency administrative stay of that first order. The appellate court explained that maintaining the status quo—under which Oregon Guard members remained federalized but not deployed, and the unchallenged October 5 TRO continued to prohibit any National Guard deployment in Oregon—would best preserve existing conditions while it considered the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Oregon v. Trump, No. 25-6268, 2025 WL 2848495 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025).

On October 16, 2025, Judge Karin J. Immergut entered a Stipulated Protective Order governing the handling of confidential and classified materials in discovery. The order covered operational directives, interagency communications, and security-sensitive information related to the federalization of the Oregon National Guard. It restricted access to counsel and approved experts, required secure handling and eventual destruction of materials, and allowed in camera and ex parte review of classified content. The court retained continuing jurisdiction to enforce the order, emphasizing the need to balance discovery rights with national security and operational confidentiality.

On October 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted the federal government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, allowing President Trump’s September 28 order federalizing the Oregon National Guard to take effect. The panel held that the President likely acted within his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), finding a colorable basis for concluding that regular federal forces were unable to execute the laws in Portland.

On October 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated the October 20 panel opinion. The full court will now hear the appeal. On October 30, 2025, Chief Judge Murguía ordered that the October 8 administrative stay remains in effect pending further order of the en banc court, thereby preserving the existing posture under which the Oregon National Guard remains federalized but cannot be deployed in Oregon pursuant to the unchallenged October 5 TRO.

On November 2, 2025, Judge Immergut issued an Opinion and Order granting a preliminary injunction until November 7, 2025, maintaining the status quo while she prepares a final decision on the merits. Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM (D. Or. Nov. 2, 2025). Following a three-day consolidated hearing under Rule 65(a)(2), the court found that Oregon, California, and Portland were likely to succeed on their claims that the federalization and deployment of the National Guard were ultra vires under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment.

Applying Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2025), the court concluded that the President lacked a colorable basis to invoke § 12406(2) or (3), as the Portland protests were largely peaceful and did not significantly impede federal law enforcement. The order enjoined Secretary Hegseth from implementing the September 28, October 5, and October 16 memoranda federalizing or deploying Guard units from Oregon, Texas, or California—and any similar orders relying on the same predicates—while staying the injunction in part to allow the Guard to remain federalized but not deployed pending the court’s final ruling.

On November 7, 2025, following a three-day bench trial, Judge Immergut issued a Partial Final Judgment in Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM (D. Or. Nov. 7, 2025). The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs—the State of Oregon, the City of Portland, and the State of California—on their claims that the federalization and deployment of National Guard members from Oregon and California were ultra vires under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment. Judge Immergut granted declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, holding that the President and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security had exceeded their statutory and constitutional authority. The order permanently enjoined Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and their departments from implementing the September 28, October 5, and October 16, 2025 memoranda authorizing the deployment of federalized National Guard members to Oregon. The injunction also prohibited any similar deployments from other states based on the same predicates.

Judge Immergut partially stayed the injunction for 14 days as to the federalization (but not deployment) of the Oregon National Guard to maintain the status quo, under which Guard members remained federalized but could not be deployed. The permanent injunction against deployment took immediate effect, and the court retained jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enforce its terms.

	Document
1 3:25-cv-01756	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	Sept. 28, 2025	Sept. 28, 2025 Complaint
22 3:25-cv-01756	Defendant's Suggestion of Recusal	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
56 3:25-cv-01756	Opinion and Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order	Oct. 4, 2025	Oct. 4, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 2817646
69 3:25-cv-01756	FTR Recording or Transcript Designiation and Order Form	Oct. 5, 2025	Oct. 5, 2025 Other
88 3:25-cv-01756	Stipulated Protective Order	Oct. 16, 2025	Oct. 16, 2025 Order/Opinion
134 3:25-cv-01756	Opinion and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Until November 7, 2025, at 5 P.M. PT	Nov. 2, 2025	Nov. 2, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 3057622
146 3:25-cv-01756	Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law	Nov. 7, 2025	Nov. 7, 2025 Order/Opinion
147 3:25-cv-01756	Partial Final Judgment	Nov. 7, 2025	Nov. 7, 2025 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $405 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10005061 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by State of Oregon, City of Portland against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Proposed Summons). (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 09/28/2025) 1 Exhibit 1 View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 2 View on RECAP 3 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP 4 Proposed Summons View on RECAP	Sept. 28, 2025	Sept. 28, 2025 Clearinghouse
2	Summons Issued Electronically as to All Defendants. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (eo) (Entered: 09/28/2025)	Sept. 28, 2025	Sept. 28, 2025
3	Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Michael H. Simon and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 1/26/2026. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 2/25/2026. Pretrial Order is due by 2/25/2026. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (eo) (Entered: 09/28/2025)	Sept. 28, 2025	Sept. 28, 2025
4	Notice of Appearance of Caroline Turco appearing on behalf of City of Portland. Filed by on behalf of City of Portland. (Turco, Caroline) (Entered: 09/28/2025)	Sept. 28, 2025	Sept. 28, 2025
5	Notice of Appearance of Naomi Sheffield appearing on behalf of City of Portland. Filed by on behalf of City of Portland. (Sheffield, Naomi) (Entered: 09/28/2025)	Sept. 28, 2025	Sept. 28, 2025
10	SCHEDULING ORDER - The Court sets a Telephone Conference to set a schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF 6 ) for Monday, September 29, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. before Judge Michael H. Simon. The Court will provide the parties with a call-in number by separate sealed entry. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 09/29/2025)	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025
11	Affidavit of Service of Summons Issued 2 upon All Defendants Filed by State of Oregon. (Marshall, Brian) (Entered: 09/29/2025)	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
12	Declaration of Franz Schoening in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by City of Portland. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C) (Turco, Caroline) (Entered: 09/29/2025) 1 Exhibit B View on RECAP 2 Exhibit C View on RECAP	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
13	Declaration of Caroline Turco in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by City of Portland. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D) (Turco, Caroline) (Entered: 09/29/2025) 1 Exhibit D View on RECAP	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
14	MINUTES OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: ORDER - The Court sets the following schedule: Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF 6 ) is due by 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 2, 2025. Oral Argument is set for Friday, October 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Portland, Courtroom 15B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Brian S. Marshall, Scott P. Kennedy, Caroline Turco present as counsel for Plaintiffs. Christopher D. Edelman and Jean Lin present as counsel for Defendants. Court Reporter: Kellie Humiston. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 09/29/2025)	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025
6	Motion for Temporary Restraining Order . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 09/29/2025)	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
7	Declaration of Craig Dobson in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 09/29/2025) 1 Exhibit A View on RECAP	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
8	Declaration of Cameron Bailey in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Kennedy, Scott) (Entered: 09/29/2025)	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
9	Declaration of Brian Marshall in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5, # 6 Attachment 6, # 7 Attachment 7, # 8 Attachment 8, # 9 Attachment 9, # 10 Attachment 10, # 11 Attachment 11, # 12 Attachment 12, # 13 Attachment 13, # 14 Attachment 14, # 15 Attachment 15, # 16 Attachment 16, # 17 Attachment 17, # 18 Attachment 18, # 19 Attachment 19, # 20 Attachment 20, # 21 Attachment 21, # 22 Attachment 22, # 23 Attachment 23, # 24 Attachment 24, # 25 Attachment 25) (Marshall, Brian) (Entered: 09/29/2025) 1 Attachment 1 View on RECAP 2 Attachment 2 View on RECAP 3 Attachment 3 View on PACER 4 Attachment 4 View on RECAP 5 Attachment 5 View on RECAP 6 Attachment 6 View on RECAP 7 Attachment 7 View on RECAP 8 Attachment 8 View on PACER 9 Attachment 9 View on RECAP 10 Attachment 10 View on PACER 11 Attachment 11 View on RECAP 12 Attachment 12 View on RECAP 13 Attachment 13 View on PACER 14 Attachment 14 View on RECAP 15 Attachment 15 View on RECAP 16 Attachment 16 View on PACER 17 Attachment 17 View on PACER 18 Attachment 18 View on PACER 19 Attachment 19 View on PACER 20 Attachment 20 View on PACER 21 Attachment 21 View on RECAP 22 Attachment 22 View on RECAP 23 Attachment 23 View on RECAP 24 Attachment 24 View on RECAP 25 Attachment 25 View on RECAP	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025 RECAP
	1 - Scheduling	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025
	Scheduling Conference	Sept. 29, 2025	Sept. 29, 2025
15	Notice of Appearance of Christopher D. Edelman appearing on behalf of All Defendants . Filed by on behalf of All Defendants. (Edelman, Christopher) (Entered: 09/30/2025)	Sept. 30, 2025	Sept. 30, 2025 RECAP
16	Notice of Appearance of Jean Lin appearing on behalf of All Defendants . Filed by on behalf of All Defendants. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 09/30/2025)	Sept. 30, 2025	Sept. 30, 2025 RECAP
17	Notice of Appearance of Benjamin Kurland appearing on behalf of All Defendants . Filed by on behalf of All Defendants. (Kurland, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/30/2025)	Sept. 30, 2025	Sept. 30, 2025 RECAP
18	Notice of Appearance of Derek Olson appearing on behalf of State of Oregon. Derek Olson,Derek Olson for State of Oregon,Derek Olson,Derek Olson,Derek Olson for State of Oregon. Filed by on behalf of State of Oregon. (Olson, Derek) (Entered: 10/01/2025)	Oct. 1, 2025	Oct. 1, 2025 RECAP
19	Notice of Appearance of Robert L. Taylor appearing on behalf of City of Portland. Filed by on behalf of City of Portland. (Taylor, Robert) (Entered: 10/01/2025)	Oct. 1, 2025	Oct. 1, 2025 RECAP
20	Exhibits re Declaration, 9, This filing includes a conventionally filed USB Flash Drive. This conventional filing is maintained in the Clerk's Office but cannot be made a part of the court's electronic record in CM/ECF.. Filed by State of Oregon. (gd) (Entered: 10/01/2025)	Oct. 1, 2025	Oct. 1, 2025 RECAP
21	Supplemental Declaration of Craig Dobson in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by City of Portland. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Turco, Caroline) (Entered: 10/01/2025)	Oct. 1, 2025	Oct. 1, 2025 RECAP
22	Brief Regarding Suggestion of Recusal. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DHS Request for Assistance (Sept. 26, 2025)) (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 10/02/2025) 1 Exhibit DHS Request for Assistance (Sept. 26, 2025) View on RECAP	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 Clearinghouse
22	Brief Regarding Suggestion of Recusal. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DHS Request for Assistance (Sept. 26, 2025)) (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 10/02/2025) 1 Exhibit DHS Request for Assistance (Sept. 26, 2025) View on RECAP	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 Clearinghouse
23	Notice of Appearance of Pilar C. French appearing on behalf of Mark A. Graber. Filed by on behalf of Mark A. Graber. (French, Pilar) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
23	Notice of Appearance of Pilar C. French appearing on behalf of Mark A. Graber. Filed by on behalf of Mark A. Graber. (French, Pilar) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
24	Unopposed Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae . Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (French, Pilar) (Entered: 10/02/2025) 1 Exhibit A View on RECAP	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
24	Unopposed Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae . Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (French, Pilar) (Entered: 10/02/2025) 1 Exhibit A View on RECAP	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
25	Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Donald Sherman. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10012176. Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Sherman, Donald) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
25	Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Donald Sherman. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10012176. Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Sherman, Donald) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
26	Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Nikhel Sus. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10012190. Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Sus, Nikhel) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
26	Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Nikhel Sus. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10012190. Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Sus, Nikhel) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
27	Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Alex M Goldstein. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10012197. Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Goldstein, Alex) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
27	Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Alex M Goldstein. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10012197. Filed by Mark A. Graber. (Goldstein, Alex) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
29	Declaration of Jared Mees . Filed by State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Jones, Alexander) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
29	Declaration of Jared Mees . Filed by State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Jones, Alexander) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
30	Declaration of Taylor Valdes . Filed by State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Jones, Alexander) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
30	Declaration of Taylor Valdes . Filed by State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Jones, Alexander) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP
31	Declaration of Sarah Shaoul . Filed by State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 .) (Jones, Alexander) (Entered: 10/02/2025)	Oct. 2, 2025	Oct. 2, 2025 RECAP

Case: State of Oregon v. Trump

3:25-cv-01756 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details