PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland. On Sunday, the judge ruled that the administration can’t proceed with this action until at least Friday, citing a lack of credible evidence that the city’s protests had spiraled out of control prior to the federal intervention earlier this fall.

The legal dispute began when the city and state filed a lawsuit in September seeking to prevent the deployment.

This decision marks the latest chapter in a series of legal battles playing out in Portland, Chicago, and other cities across the United States. The Trump administration has faced widespread scrutiny for its efforts to federalize and send National Guard troops into urban areas to manage protests.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump, delivered the ruling after a three-day trial. During the proceedings, both parties debated whether the demonstrations at Portland’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility warranted the use of military forces under federal law.

In a detailed 16-page document released late Sunday, Judge Immergut stated that she plans to issue a final decision by Friday. This delay is due to the extensive evidence presented during the trial, which included over 750 pieces of evidence.

Judge says claims of protest violence are overstated

The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.

Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.

“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.

Ruling follows weeks of back and forth in federal court

The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue seek to push back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with regular forces one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up troops.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”

One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed remains in effect.

Federal witness describes ‘surprise’ at troop deployment

During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” another one of the conditions for calling up troops under federal law.

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that “without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest … that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”

___

Johnson reported from Seattle.