A federal appeals court handed President Donald Trump a significant legal win on Monday, ruling that his administration can proceed with plans to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, in a decision that underscores ongoing tensions over presidential power and state authority. The 2-1 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturns part of a lower court’s block on the deployment, though troops remain in a holding pattern due to a separate legal order, marking a pivotal moment in the administration’s broader effort to federalize guard units in several Democrat-led cities.
The three-judge panel, composed of two Trump appointees and one appointed by former President Bill Clinton, delivered the split decision after reviewing temporary restraining orders issued by a district court. Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade formed the majority, arguing that the president likely acted within his statutory authority under federal law, which allows for federalizing the National Guard when regular forces are insufficient to execute U.S. laws. In their ruling, they acknowledged that while the administration’s characterization of Portland’s protests might be exaggerated, other facts provided a ‘colorable basis’ to support the deployment, focusing on alleged threats to federal property and personnel.
This legal victory stems from protests that began in June outside Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, which have occasionally escalated into clashes with law enforcement. Trump has repeatedly cited these demonstrations as justification for sending up to 200 National Guard troops, describing the city as ‘war-ravaged’ and uncontrollably violent, though local officials have consistently disputed this portrayal. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield have emphasized that the situation on the ground is manageable without federal intervention, with crime rates not warranting such extreme measures.
The White House welcomed the ruling, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson stating it validates the president’s lawful authority to protect federal assets amid what she called ‘violent riots’ that local leaders have failed to address. However, the decision faced sharp criticism from the dissenting judge, Susan Graber, who argued it erodes core constitutional principles, including states’ control over their militias and citizens’ First Amendment rights to assemble. Her dissent highlighted concerns about blurring the line between civil and military power, warning of a ‘dangerous path’ for American democracy.
In response, Oregon officials have moved swiftly to challenge the ruling, filing a petition for an en banc review by a larger panel of 11 appellate judges. Rayfield described the decision as granting the president ‘unilateral power’ to deploy Oregon soldiers with minimal justification, and the court has set a deadline of October 22 for both sides to present arguments on whether to rehear the case. Meanwhile, Governor Kotek expressed frustration over the impact on National Guard members, who have been pulled from their families and jobs for weeks without a clear mission, underscoring the human cost of the legal standoff.
The Portland case is part of a wider pattern, as the Trump administration seeks to deploy National Guard units in other cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and Memphis, often over the objections of state and local leaders. In Chicago, a similar legal battle is underway, with the Supreme Court recently asked to weigh in on troop deployments, while in San Francisco, Trump’s threats have sparked backlash from California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials. These efforts have fueled nationwide protests, including the ‘No Kings’ rallies, which draw millions opposing what critics call an authoritarian crackdown.
Legal experts note that the outcome in Portland could set a precedent for presidential authority under laws like the Insurrection Act, which allows military deployment in limited domestic situations. The administration’s push has raised questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments, with senators from affected states requesting an inquiry into the constitutional and readiness implications of such deployments. As the en banc review looms, the ruling’s fate will likely influence not only Portland’s immediate situation but also the broader legal landscape for executive power in the United States.