PORTLAND, OR – President Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland against the wishes of state and local leaders is likely unlawful, a federal judge ruled Sunday night.

Following an expedited three-day trial, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary decision that finds the federal government violated Title 10 of the U.S. Code and the 10th amendment by federalizing and attempting to deploy Oregon, Texas and California National Guard troops to Portland over the objections of state and local leaders and California’s governor.

Each of these issues deals with the balance of state and federal power — particularly related to authority over policing within states — and the extent of presidential power over the U.S. military.

Immergut plans to issue a final judgement by Friday at 5 p.m. Until then, the roughly 400 currently federalized Oregon and California Guard troops sitting in waiting since early October at two military camps in Oregon will remain federalized but cannot be deployed.

“Today’s ruling is a step toward truth and accountability. From the beginning, this case has been about making sure the facts—not the President’s political whims—guide how the law is applied,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek in a statement called it “another affirmation of our democracy and the right to govern ourselves.”

Lawyers for the federal government said Friday that they would appeal any decision Immergut made against them to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning the saga is not yet over. The 9th Circuit is also reviewing a decision by two of its members to overturn Immergut’s initial order that blocked the federal government from deploying troops.

It’s been just more than a month since President Donald Trump announced on social media that he would deploy troops to “war ravaged” Portland. Since then, he has federalized and attempted to deploy hundreds of National Guard from Oregon, California and Texas to Portland.

In her Sunday decision, Immergut found Trump’s decision was not based on a “colorable assessment of the facts” or within a “range of honest judgement.”

“Defendants’ federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard commandeered these State officers to enforce a federal law enforcement program at the Portland ICE Facility, in violation of the Tenth Amendment,” she wrote.

She also found that federal lawyers didn’t provide evidence to support their argument that 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,” in the two months leading up to Trump’s federalization order.

“The violence that did occur during this time period predominately involved violence between protesters and counter- protesters, not violence against federal officers or the ICE facility,” she wrote.

A related case involving Trump’s attempted deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Illinois is sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s expedited schedule, or “shadow docket,” and a decision won’t be reached until at least Nov. 17, according to the court’s most recent request for briefs.

On Friday, federal lawyers would not agree to giving Immergut more time to deliberate before the expiration of one of her temporary restraining orders barring National Guard troops from any state from being deployed to Portland. That restraining order was renewed on Oct. 15, and expires on Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Typically, temporary restraining orders can only be extended once. In response, Immergut said she would reach at least a preliminary decision in the case by Sunday night.

In her ruling she wrote that she rejected the federal lawyers’ argument that she could not issue a preliminary decision before her final decision so she could have time to sit with the evidence.

“This Court heard three days of testimony and argument in a trial that ended 48 hours ago. During the trial, the parties introduced over 750 exhibits, many of which are voluminous,” she wrote. “The interest of justice requires that this Court complete a thorough review of the exhibits and trial transcripts before issuing a final decision on the merits.”

This story first appeared on Oregon Capital Chronicle.