A federal appeals court has issued a major rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. This ruling certainly dashes his ambitions. On Tuesday, that Ninth Circuit panel went even further. It reemphasizes limits on the federal government’s authority to deploy state militias without legitimate legal justification.
The court’s ruling comes as tensions remain high in Portland, Oregon, where months of protest have rocked the city. The Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case with an en banc panel of 11 judges. They have effectively conceded the prior automatically-in-favor ruling they had received from the Trump administration. The appeals court put one ruling on hold, but it upheld two temporary restraining orders issued by US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee.
Trump’s efforts to federalize the Oregon National Guard were short-circuited when U.S. In a second order, she barred him from mobilizing any federal troops to the state. Trump tried to work around these orders by summoning troops from outside of California. This unprecedented move has been widely criticized and met with lawsuits.
Since late September, some 200 purposes federated guard members have been ready in limbo. In the same way, Portland is still a work in progress. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield expressed joy after the court’s decision. He continued, “This ruling proves that the truth still matters and that the courts are doing their part to hold this administration accountable.” The constitution limits the president’s power, and Oregon’s communities cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling serves as an important indication that the tide is turning in the long-running debate over the extent of federal power and its restrictions. The panel’s forthcoming en banc hearing will bring additional scrutiny to Trump’s actions and clarify the legal parameters surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops.
Shedding light on their decision, the court underlines that the president does not have authority to send military troops into U.S. cities at will. This claim repeats common fears about civil liberties and state sovereignty. It arrives in the context of continuing protests that have defined much of Portland’s recent history.
As this case continues through our judicial system, advocates in Oregon and around the country will be watching the next steps attentively. Our community is excited to see what happens next. The result may establish an important new precedent on the scope of executive power and military authority in domestic contexts.