A federal appeals court on Monday handed President Donald Trump a significant — though temporary — legal victory, ruling that he may deploy National Guard troops across Oregon while litigation over the move continues.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lifted a lower court order that had blocked Trump’s effort to federalize Oregon’s National Guard. The ruling gives the president the green light, at least for now, to move ahead with his plan to send troops into Portland and other Democratic-led cities he has frequently described as “lawless” and “unsafe.”
Court Sides with Presidential Authority
The unsigned majority opinion said the district court overstepped its bounds by questioning Trump’s judgment in deploying the National Guard, emphasizing that courts must show “great deference” to the president’s determination of when such deployments are necessary.
“Rather than reviewing the President’s determination with great deference, the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances,” the majority wrote.
The panel added that Trump may have had legitimate, undisclosed national security or law enforcement reasons for his decision, even if his public comments about Portland’s condition were exaggerated.
“Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media,” the opinion noted, “this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements.”
Background: Clash Over Federalization
The dispute began in late September when Trump directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard members. The move came despite strong opposition from Oregon Governor Tina Kotek (D), who said the state neither requested nor consented to the deployment.
Trump defended the order as necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in Portland, which he said were “under siege.” Oregon and Portland officials quickly sued, calling the federal takeover an abuse of power and an infringement on state sovereignty.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, initially sided with the state, blocking the administration’s move to seize control of Oregon’s Guard. When the administration attempted to bypass that ruling by bringing in Guard troops from other states, Immergut issued a second order halting any National Guard deployment within Oregon’s borders.
Divided Court, Sharp Dissent
During oral arguments earlier this month, appellate judges appeared divided. Judge Ryan Murphy, appointed by Trump, questioned whether lower courts should interfere at all with the president’s discretion in enforcing federal law.
“I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of executing the laws is right or wrong,” Murphy said during the hearing.
Murphy later commented that both small and large protests could impede the president’s ability to execute the law, describing the decision to send in troops as an “internal” one.
Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee, dissented strongly from Monday’s ruling, accusing the majority of disregarding the factual record and undermining constitutional principles.
“The demonstrations in Portland were non-disruptive and small,” Graber wrote, noting there was “no evidence whatsoever” that ICE facilities were unable to function or that local authorities had lost control.
She added a biting critique of the administration’s portrayal of Portland as a war zone:
“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” she wrote. “But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles.”
Oregon Vows to Keep Fighting
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield condemned the ruling as a “dangerous step” toward granting the president unchecked authority to send troops into any state.
“If allowed to stand, this decision would give President Trump unilateral power to deploy military forces on our streets with little justification,” Rayfield said in a statement. “America is on a dangerous path.”
Rayfield said Oregon would immediately ask the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case en banc, urging the court to “act swiftly” before “an illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.”
What’s Next
Judge Immergut extended her temporary restraining orders for another 14 days while setting a three-day bench trial for Oct. 29 to determine whether a longer injunction should remain in place.
The legal battle is expected to continue well beyond that hearing, potentially setting up another high-stakes constitutional showdown over presidential power, state sovereignty, and the balance between public order and political dissent.
