A federal appeals court will reconsider its decision that allowed President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, following legal challenges from state officials who argue the move is unlawful and unnecessary. The en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals maintains a block on the deployment for now, overturning a previous panel ruling.
The legal dispute began in late September when Oregon and Portland officials sued the Trump administration after the president declared he was sending 200 Oregon National Guard members to the city. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued temporary restraining orders to prevent the deployment, citing the administration’s exaggerated claims of violence in Portland, which she described as “untethered to the facts.”
On October 20, a three-judge appeals panel ruled 2-1 to allow the deployment, with Trump appointees Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade in the majority and Clinton appointee Judge Susan Graber dissenting. Graber warned that the decision could set a dangerous precedent, noting that partisans cheering this use of troops might regret it if a future president employs similar tactics for laws they dislike.
The Ninth Circuit announced on Tuesday that it would rehear the case en banc, meaning all active judges will review the panel’s decision. This vacates the earlier ruling and keeps Immergut’s restraining orders in effect indefinitely, with no date set for the new hearing. A separate proceeding is underway to determine whether to impose a permanent injunction against deploying troops.
Complicating the case, the Trump administration admitted this week that it provided incorrect information in court filings about the number of federal agents in Portland. Initially claiming 115 Federal Protective Service officers were deployed, the Justice Department corrected this to 86, with only 65 being security inspectors, undermining part of the justification for military intervention.
Despite the error, the administration maintains that the surge in personnel is unsustainable and that Trump has the authority to deploy troops under federal law. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the president will not “turn a blind eye to lawlessness” and expects the courts to uphold his decisions, emphasizing ongoing violence and local leaders’ failures to act.
The case highlights a broader conflict over presidential power and states’ rights, with implications for similar disputes in other cities like Chicago, where deployment efforts are also contested. It raises fundamental questions about the use of military forces in domestic situations and the balance between federal and state authority in managing civil unrest.
As the legal process continues, the situation in Portland remains volatile, with persistent protests at federal immigration facilities. The court’s eventual decision will not only resolve this specific case but could influence future presidential actions and the interpretation of federal statutes governing National Guard deployments.