A recent ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted President Donald Trump the authority to maintain federal control over the Oregon National Guard and deploy troops as the case is litigated in court. While this decision does not immediately result in troops being deployed in Portland, it raises significant concerns about the implications for state sovereignty and federal authority.
Following the ruling, attorneys representing the state of Oregon and the city of Portland announced plans to file a motion for a swift reconsideration by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit Court. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield expressed his concern, stating, "Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification. We are on a dangerous path in America."
Senior Judge Susan P. Graber, the dissenting voice in the 2-1 ruling, asserted that the majority's decision would have no practical effect on troop deployment due to an existing second temporary restraining order. This order prevents any National Guard troops under federal control from being sent to Oregon. In a rare move, Graber urged her colleagues to "act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur."
On the same day of the ruling, the federal government requested that Oregon U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut dissolve her second restraining order without waiting for the state's response. A U.S. Justice Department lawyer argued that the 9th Circuit’s recent decision warranted the dissolution of the restraining order, claiming it was a "significant change in law."
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek urged the court to reconsider the ruling quickly due to the seriousness of the situation. In contrast, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem praised the ruling, stating that it "has vindicated us." The majority of the three-judge panel found that the president deserved significant deference, deeming his decision to mobilize 200 Oregon National Guard members for 60 days a "measured response."
The judges on the panel, both Trump appointees, argued that the federal government is likely to succeed in its claim that local and state authorities are unable to maintain order due to protests near the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland. They criticized Judge Immergut for allegedly substituting her judgment for that of the president regarding the facts on the ground.
The protests in Portland have been tumultuous, particularly surrounding the ICE facility, which saw significant demonstrations in the summer months. While there have been sporadic arrests, the protests gained renewed intensity following Trump's troop mobilization announcement. Events such as a "Naked Bike Ride" and large marches have drawn attention to the ongoing tensions.
Judge Graber's dissent highlighted that allowing the federal government to deploy troops undermines Oregon's sovereignty. She argued that the majority’s ruling sets a concerning precedent for presidential overreach in emergency situations. Graber emphasized that the majority's interpretation of an "emergency" was unfounded, stating there was no significant evidence of organized rebellion in Portland.
The Oregon governor confirmed that National Guard troops remain in limbo due to the restraining orders in place, emphasizing the need for community peace while the state navigates its legal options. As legal battles unfold in Oregon, a related case in Illinois is also being monitored, with implications that could reshape how troop deployments are handled nationally.
As the situation develops, the outcomes of these legal proceedings will be crucial in determining the balance of power between state rights and federal authority, particularly in the context of military deployments during civil unrest.
