https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/court-shows-why-trump-is-right-about-the-national-guard/ar-AA1OZ2Yc

The key part of the decision is the judges' recitation of the factual background of the case. "Since June 2025, there have been regular protests at the Lindquist Federal Building, an ICE facility in Portland," the judges wrote. "Some of these protests have been peaceful, but many have turned violent, and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers and the building."

"Indeed, 'as a result of the destruction caused by protesters' and threats to the building," the opinion continued, "the Department of Homeland Security was forced to close the facility for more than three weeks, from June 13 to July 7." That, of course, "significantly impeded" the work of the federal government. And now, the judges noted, "While the facility is again currently operational, the windows on the building must remain boarded to prevent further damage to property or attempts at incursion and to provide security to those federal employees working inside."

The judges noted that the Portland city government did not seem overly concerned about the federal building's security. "On September 18, the City of Portland issued a Notice of Zoning Violation requiring the removal of wood coverings on the windows within 30 days," the opinion noted. And of course, there is more, also from the opinion:

On June 8, protesters placed wood, rocks, and a traffic barrier apparently to impede operations. On June 11, a man set fire to various materials protesters compiled to barricade a vehicle gate, and other protesters added to the pile of materials, increasing the flames. Protesters then placed a pole against the main lobby entrance. On June 14, a serious incident occurred when a group of protesters, including one who was carrying a firearm, advanced up the driveway of the ICE facility toward the main gate. They threw rocks and sticks at the guard shack and fired M80 fireworks at FPS [Federal Protective Service] officers. Protesters threw a mortar at the front entrance of the building, injuring an officer. Officers were forced to barricade themselves inside the building and protesters placed chains on the exterior doors. Eventually, the protesters attempted to breach the front door and broke the front door's glass. FPS officers were forced to deploy long guns but did not use them. The protesters continued to throw mortars at the building. The Border Patrol Tactical Unit deployed an armored tactical vehicle to the building and, working with an ICE Special Response Team, they eventually pushed protesters back to the street.

The opinion went on for quite some time, listing more examples. Protesters tried to light some sort of incendiary device near the guard shack. One threatened officers with a knife. One shot officers with a paintball gun. Another "shined a laser in an officer's eyes." Another "was arrested for assaulting an officer with a machete and a knife."

The protesters figured out that if they could damage the security card readers at the building's entrances, they could make it harder for anyone with business at the office to go inside. Three card readers were vandalized in June, the opinion said, and it took until mid-October to replace them. Meanwhile, employees had to wait in line to enter the building, during which time protesters took their photos for doxing purposes.

....

First, it concluded that Immergut just ignored most of the evidence of violent protests listed above. Then she declared that there was little or no evidence that Trump needed to act. Rather than reviewing Trump's decision, "the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances," the appeals court said.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789097&forum_id=2most#49369087)