In a significant legal decision, the 9th Circuit Court has approved the federalization and deployment of the National Guard to Portland, Oregon. This ruling comes after the court overturned a temporary restraining order previously imposed by a federal district judge.
Background of the Ruling
The court’s majority decision stated that President Trump likely exercised his legal authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). This statute allows the federalization of the National Guard when the President cannot execute U.S. laws with regular forces. The ruling specifically addressed the ongoing unrest in Portland, where demonstrations have taken place near a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
Details of Deployment
- Date of Federalization: September 28, 2025
- Number of Troops Deployed: 200 members of the Oregon National Guard
- Presidential Justification: Trump described Portland as “war ravaged” and “under siege from domestic terrorists.”
Opposition to the Characterization
Local officials have disputed the portrayal of unrest in Portland. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek criticized the President’s claims, asserting that the city was thriving, evidenced by events like the Portland Marathon.
Legal Battles Over the Deployment
On October 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut blocked the deployment, asserting that the protests had remained mostly peaceful and that there was insufficient justification for federalizing the National Guard. Despite her ruling, federalized troops were sent to Portland.
Arguments in Court
The Trump administration contended that prior protests had been violent, necessitating the National Guard’s presence for protection. However, local law enforcement stated they could manage the protests adequately without federal intervention.
Appeals Court Decision
The 9th Circuit’s majority opinion was authored by judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, both appointed by Trump. They argued that the district court improperly downplayed the incidents leading to the federal response and noted that a comprehensive view of circumstances should inform the President’s decisions regarding National Guard deployment.
Dissenting Opinion
Judge Susan Graber dissented, questioning the justification for deploying the National Guard. She interpreted the majority’s decision as an unsubstantiated view of Portland’s situation.
Responses to the Ruling
The White House welcomed the ruling, asserting it validates the President’s authority to protect federal properties and personnel amid escalating tensions. Oregon’s Attorney General expressed concerns about the potential for increased executive power in military deployments to states.
This remains a developing story, and updates will follow as new information becomes available.
