HOUSTON, US – In a closely watched decision that underscores deepening divisions over presidential authority, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday ruled 2-1 to lift a lower court's temporary restraining order, allowing President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The ruling, issued on October 20, 2025, paves the way for the mobilization of approximately 200 Oregon National Guard members to safeguard federal immigration facilities and personnel in the city, despite vehement opposition from state and local Democratic leaders who decry it as an unconstitutional overreach.
The three-judge panel, comprising Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade – both Trump appointees – and dissenting Judge Susan Graber, appointed by President Bill Clinton, sided with the Trump administration's argument that the president holds broad discretion under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize state National Guard units when federal law enforcement is impeded. The majority opinion emphasized that while Trump's public statements, including his September 27 social media post labeling Portland a "war-ravaged" city requiring "Full Force, if necessary," may exaggerate the situation, they do not invalidate his legal judgment. The court cited ongoing protests near the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in South Portland – which have persisted since mid-June – as providing a "colorable" basis for intervention, including a surge in Federal Protective Service officers to manage unrest.
This decision also greenlights the deployment of 300 California National Guard troops, as a secondary order by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut – herself a Trump appointee from his first term – blocking out-of-state federalized units is expected to be lifted imminently. Immergut's original October 4 ruling had halted the Oregon deployment, finding that Trump's claims of severe disruption were "simply untethered to the facts." State-provided police records corroborated this, documenting only 25 arrests during mid-June demonstrations and none since June 19, describing the gatherings as "small and sedate." A trial on the merits is slated for October 29, but Monday's appellate reversal shifts the immediate balance toward federal control.
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, a Democrat, lambasted the ruling as a "dangerous path" that erodes state sovereignty, echoing concerns rooted in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. "I'm very troubled by this decision," Kotek stated in a press conference, urging the Trump administration to "send all the National Guard members home" and warning of heightened tensions in a city already strained by months of demonstrations against aggressive ICE operations. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson similarly vowed to pursue every legal avenue, including an en banc rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit – a request filed hours after the panel's decision, with a vote now underway among the court's 29 active judges. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, also a Democrat, called the outcome a failure to hold the president accountable, predicting an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. "Today's ruling would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification," Rayfield said.
The Portland case is but one front in a broader wave of legal skirmishes over Trump's expansive use of the National Guard, which has targeted at least five Democratic-led cities since his inauguration earlier this year. Deployments began in June with 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell protests sparked by widespread ICE raids under Trump's intensified immigration enforcement agenda. There, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on September 2 that the action violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – a Reconstruction-era law prohibiting federal military involvement in domestic policing absent explicit congressional or constitutional authorization – and issued an injunction barring troops from arrests, searches, or crowd control. Breyer described the deployment as an "intentional" establishment of military presence for law enforcement, noting no evidence of rebellion or invasion as required by statute.
Similar patterns emerged elsewhere. In August, Trump federalized the D.C. National Guard – over which presidents hold direct command – deploying 2,000 troops, including 800 locals, to patrol tourist areas amid claims of a "miracle" crime drop, though FBI data showed violent incidents already at multi-year lows. Chicago saw Texas National Guard arrivals in early October despite Governor J.B. Pritzker's objections and a pending lawsuit alleging Tenth Amendment violations; the Seventh Circuit temporarily blocked further escalation on October 16, mandating completion of legal proceedings. Memphis, Tennessee, received 150 troops in September under a joint federal-state task force, blending Guard units with ICE agents to target what Trump called "savagery," even as local data indicated a 25-year crime low.
Critics, including the Democratic Governors Association, frame these moves as politically motivated theater, timed ahead of the 2026 midterms to project strength in blue strongholds while blurring lines between crime-fighting, immigration crackdowns, and military training. Trump has publicly mused about using cities as "training grounds" for the Guard, raising alarms about nonpartisan military norms. In Portland, protesters – galvanized by opposition to Trump's deportation policies – have rallied outside ICE facilities, with recent clashes involving federal agents drawing national attention. Social media footage from October 21 showed far-left demonstrators attempting to disrupt arrests of suspected undocumented migrants in New York City, fueling Trump's narrative of "domestic terrorists." Public sentiment remains polarized: supporters hail the Guard as essential for safety, with one declaring, "National Guard and Trump are going to steamroll you and fix it FOR YOU!" while detractors decry it as an "assault on the rule of law."
Legal scholars note the courts' inconsistency: While district judges like Immergut and Breyer have uniformly ruled against Trump – marking zero favorable decisions at that level – appellate panels have split, with the Ninth Circuit previously upholding a Los Angeles deployment and the Seventh Circuit pausing Chicago's. The Posse Comitatus Act's ambiguities – including exceptions for Title 32 status, where Guard units operate under state command with federal funding – have allowed workarounds, though experts warn of erosion in civil-military boundaries. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the Portland move as "lawful authority to protect federal assets," dismissing critics as enablers of chaos.
As troops could arrive within days – pending procedural formalities – the ruling amplifies fears of escalation. California Governor Gavin Newsom has preemptively threatened lawsuits against rumored San Francisco deployments, while Illinois and Oregon attorneys general coordinate multi-state challenges. With an en banc review or Supreme Court appeal looming, Portland's streets may soon test the limits of federal power in America's polarized heartland. For residents like Portland small-business owner Maria Gonzalez, who has boarded up her shop amid sporadic unrest, the uncertainty weighs heavy: "We just want peace, not soldiers deciding our fate."
