The Trump administration has received judicial approval to mobilize the Oregon National Guard in Portland following a recent ruling by a federal appeals court. On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's injunction that had temporarily blocked the deployment. However, there remains a significant legal obstacle before troops can be deployed on the ground.
The court's decision, rendered by a 2-1 majority, stated, “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority.” This ruling, supported by two judges appointed by Trump, nullifies a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who had previously extended two orders preventing federal troop mobilization in Portland.
Despite the court's recent ruling, the administration cannot mobilize troops immediately as one restraining order still remains in effect. This second order prohibits the mobilization of National Guard troops from anywhere in the U.S. to Oregon. In a filing made on Monday evening, the administration argued that this second order should also be overturned, asserting that both lower court decisions were founded on the same legal arguments.
As the legal battle continues, hundreds of National Guard troops find themselves in a holding pattern. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek expressed her concerns during a news conference, stating, “I’m very troubled by the decision of the court. These citizen soldiers have been pulled away from their families and their jobs for weeks to carry out some kind of mission in Oregon.” Kotek also indicated that the lack of communication from the Trump administration adds to the uncertainty regarding troop deployment timelines and numbers.
The dissenting opinion on the appellate panel came from Judge Susan P. Graber, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. In her dissent, Graber criticized the ruling, arguing that it undermines essential constitutional principles, including the control states have over their militias and the First Amendment rights of citizens to assemble and protest government actions. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed this sentiment, declaring that the ruling, if upheld, would grant the president excessive power to deploy Oregon soldiers without adequate justification.
Rayfield has requested an “en banc” review from the Ninth Circuit, which involves a larger panel of judges reassessing the case. In a related development, a Ninth Circuit judge has also called for a vote on whether the case should be reconsidered by the full court. Attorneys for both the state and the Trump administration have until midnight on Wednesday to present their arguments.
Protests against the White House's immigration policies began in Portland in June, escalating to declared riots and arson arrests in the summer months. The situation remained relatively calm until President Trump announced in late September the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the city. Administration officials have described Portland as “war-ravaged” and characterized it as dangerously violent, claims that Kotek and other local leaders have strongly disputed.
Kotek asserted in court that the conditions in Portland are not as dire as federal officials have suggested. In a letter sent to the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General, a group of senators, including those from Oregon, called for an investigation into recent National Guard deployments, arguing that they are unconstitutional and detrimental to military readiness.
The Trump administration's success in Oregon coincides with ongoing legal battles in other states. Officials from Illinois and the city of Chicago have filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to block the administration's request to maintain National Guard troops in Illinois. The filing argues that there is no state of rebellion or failure to execute federal law, asserting that local authorities can manage protest activities without federal intervention.
In Tennessee, a lawsuit has been filed against the governor and state attorney general concerning the deployment of the Tennessee National Guard to Memphis under Trump’s direction. The lawsuit claims that such deployment violates state laws, which only permit Guard activation in cases of rebellion or invasion declared by the General Assembly. Governor Bill Lee has defended his authority to deploy troops under Tennessee law.
Additionally, Trump has expressed intentions to send the National Guard to San Francisco, commenting that the city has “gone wrong, gone woke.” In response, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie stated that the deployment would not aid in combating drug-related issues, emphasizing that the National Guard lacks the authority to arrest drug dealers.
As the situation develops, the implications of these legal decisions and troop deployments will continue to shape the political landscape across the United States, particularly concerning federal-state relations and the rights of citizens to protest government actions.
