Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s deployment of CA National Guard to Portland

In a setback to President Donald Trump’s administration, federal judge Karin Immergut temporarily blocked the administration’s deployment of 300 California National Guard troops to Portland, Ore. during a hearing Sunday evening, writes CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn.

The administration planned to deploy the troops a day after Immergut — a Trump-appointee — on Saturday blocked it from federalizing the Oregon National Guard. Trump wanted to deploy 200 Oregon troops in Portland in response to demonstrators protesting against federal immigration enforcement. Immergut said the protestors didn’t do anything to warrant a military response.

California moved quickly to sue the administration: Hours before the hearing, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state had filed an amended complaint with Oregon to seek a temporary restraining order to stop the deployment. The suit is California’s 42nd lawsuit against Trump since his return to the White House.

Gov. Gavin Newsom also slammed the move, describing it as a “breathtaking abuse of the law and power.” 

• Newsom, in a statement: “This isn’t about public safety, it’s about power. The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email that Trump “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.”

In her Saturday ruling, Immergut said that the protests were not “significantly violent or disruptive” to justify sending the Oregon National Guard, and that reported incidents against federal officials “are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

The dispute over the cross-state deployment is a striking development of Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard, which began in June. After Trump activated troops in Los Angeles in the summer to protect federal buildings and support immigration enforcement agents, California unsuccessfully sued to stop the deployment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down the state’s efforts, and the Trump administration is once again taking its case to the Ninth Circuit to appeal Immergut’s Saturday decision.

Read more here.

A campaign to place an anti-tax measure on the November 2026 ballot is raising alarm among California cities, which could stand to lose billions of dollars if the measure passes, writes CalMatters’ Ben Christopher.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is proposing a state constitutional amendment that would, among other things, cap the rate of transfer taxes on the sale of real estate. The proposal takes aim at L.A.’s Measure ULA, which enabled the city to heavily tax the sale of mansions and other high-value real estate deals.

Since its passing in 2022, L.A.’s so-called “mansion tax,” has brought in revenues of $830 million and is the largest single contributor to the city’s overall homelessness spending. Critics of Measure ULA argue that it slows new construction in a region already grappling with a severe housing crunch. 

But if the new anti-tax amendment passes, cities would lose up to $3 billion each year. Berkeley, for example, stands to lose up to $63 million, or 30% of its general fund.

Read more here.

From CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay:

The California Insurance Department on Friday accused a couple of Tesla insurance companies of “ongoing systemic failures” and “unfair” practices that include not responding to auto policyholders’ claims within 15 days as required by law; failure to thoroughly investigate claims; failure to pay claims after accepting them; and failing to respond to the department.

The allegations of nearly 3,000 violations stemming from 2,642 complaints from 2022 through September 2025 could result in total fines of up to $29.1 million. The companies, which the insurance department said largely insure Tesla drivers, could also get their licenses to operate in the state suspended or revoked.

The accused companies include State National Insurance, for which Tesla Insurance Services acts as an agent. They have 15 days to respond and show cause as to why the insurance commissioner should not impose fines, and a hearing will be scheduled within 30 days of the accusation. 

The Tesla insurance companies are subsidiaries of Tesla, which did not immediately respond to CalMatters’ questions.

• License plate reader bill vetoed: Citing that the bill would impede criminal investigations, Newsom last week vetoed a measure that would have required regular purges of license plate databases. But records newly reviewed by CalMatters show that Riverside County Sheriff’s deputies are misusing databases to monitor certain cars using vague justifications. Read more from CalMatters’ Khari Johnson and Mohamed Al Elew.

• CA sues city of El Cajon: Amid heightened concerns over immigration and abortion protections, California has filed a lawsuit against El Cajon in San Diego County. State Attorney General Bonta is accusing the city’s police department of violating state law by sharing data from automated license plate readers with law enforcement agencies in 26 other states. Read more from CalMatters’ Wendy Fry.

• Mental health and immigration enforcement: Trump’s immigration raids may have long-term mental health consequences for California children and school communities, experts say. In Ventura County’s Oxnard School District, school counselors detail the anxiety and fear among students after a summer of aggressive immigration enforcement. Read more from CalMatters’ Ana B. Ibarra.