by Salman J. Choudhury
In a significant legal development, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Trump administration acted within its authority in deploying the Oregon National Guard to Portland, Oregon — a move that had been previously blocked by a lower court.
The appellate court overturned an earlier temporary restraining order (TRO) which found that conditions in Portland did not justify federal intervention and that the President’s justification for deploying the Guard was “factually unsupported.”
After reviewing the case, the Ninth Circuit’s majority concluded that, at this preliminary stage, the President likely exercised lawful authority.
“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,”
the court stated in its ruling.
Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, both appointed by President Trump, supported the decision, while Judge Susan Graber dissented. In her dissenting opinion, Graber warned that the ruling could “undermine state control over its own military forces” and threaten “the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and protest against government policies.”
Following the decision, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield criticized the ruling, saying the panel had “failed to hold the President accountable” and announced that the state would ask the full Ninth Circuit to review and overturn the decision “before an unlawful deployment takes place.”
The case stems from an earlier September directive issued by the Trump administration to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. The move was intended to quell protests outside a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, despite opposition from local and state officials.
Key Points
• The Ninth Circuit ruling marks a legal win for the Trump administration, granting temporary approval for federal authority over state-controlled National Guard units.
• However, a broader injunction preventing the deployment of Oregon’s National Guard to Portland remains in effect.
• The ruling is preliminary; the case could proceed to further appeals, possibly reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
• The decision reignites national debate over the balance between federal power and state sovereignty, as well as citizens’ constitutional rights during civil unrest.
In Summary
The Ninth Circuit’s decision gives the Trump administration a legal victory in its ongoing struggle to assert federal control over state National Guard deployments. While the ruling is far from final, it underscores the growing tension between Washington and state governments over how to handle domestic protests and the limits of presidential authority.
