A highly anticipated ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given President Donald Trump a significant legal victory, allowing him to proceed with the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. This decision overturns an earlier block by a district judge and reignites critical debates over federal versus state power, the use of military forces in domestic policing, and the fundamental rights of protest in the United States.
The legal battle surrounding President Donald Trump’s order to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, reached a critical juncture with a recent ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday, October 20, 2025, a divided three-judge panel granted the Justice Department’s request to pause a lower court’s order that had initially blocked the deployment. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing tensions between the White House and liberal-leaning states resisting what they perceive as federal overreach.
The Thorny Path to Portland: A Timeline of Legal Challenges
The saga began on September 27, 2025, when President Trump ordered approximately 200 National Guard troops to Portland. He described the city as “war-ravaged” and authorized “full force, if necessary,” citing the need to protect federal buildings and enforce immigration laws. This move was part of a broader strategy by the administration to deploy military personnel to several Democratic-led cities, including Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Memphis, often sparking local opposition.
Oregon state and city officials swiftly filed a lawsuit, arguing that the president’s actions violated federal laws governing military force deployment and infringed upon the state’s rights under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment. They accused Trump of exaggerating the severity of local protests to unlawfully seize control of state National Guard units.
- October 4, 2025: Portland-based U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued an initial ruling that the president likely acted unlawfully, blocking the deployment. She stated that Trump’s characterization of Portland as “war-ravaged” was “simply untethered to the facts,” noting that police records indicated protests were often “small and sedate.”
- October 5, 2025: Judge Immergut followed up with a second order, preventing Trump from circumventing her first decision by calling in National Guard troops from other states.
- October 9, 2025: Arguments were heard before the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, setting the stage for the recent decision.
- October 20, 2025: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump could deploy the troops, overturning Judge Immergut‘s initial stay. However, a separate order from Judge Immergut remains in place, and a non-jury trial is set for October 29 to consider a longer-term block.
The Heart of the Matter: Federal vs. State Authority
The core of this legal contention lies in the dual nature of the National Guard. Typically, these forces operate as state-based militias under the command of their respective governors. However, federal law, specifically Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, allows a president to federalize and deploy state National Guard units under specific circumstances, such as repelling an invasion, suppressing a rebellion, or executing federal law. This statute is a part of the broader Insurrection Act, a series of laws that grant the President authority to deploy U.S. military forces domestically. For further understanding of this legal framework, refer to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.
The appeals court majority, composed of Circuit Judges Bridget Bade and Ryan Nelson (both appointed by Trump), stated that it was “likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he federalized the state’s National Guard. They considered evidence from earlier, more active protests in June that had caused the ICE headquarters in Portland to shut down, alongside other unrelated events.
Dissent and Constitutional Concerns
The ruling was not unanimous. Circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, strongly dissented. She argued that allowing troops to be deployed in response to what she characterized as “merely inconvenient” protests was “not merely absurd” but a dangerous precedent. Judge Graber specifically highlighted the erosion of two fundamental constitutional principles:
- Sovereign states’ control over their militias: This speaks directly to the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. The ability of a president to bypass a governor’s authority over their state’s National Guard is a significant point of contention. More details on the Tenth Amendment can be found at the Legal Information Institute.
- The people’s First Amendment rights: The right to assemble and object to government policies. Judge Graber notably pointed out the “well-known penchant” of Portland protesters for wearing “chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all,” contrasting this imagery with the administration’s portrayal of a “war zone.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed these concerns, stating that the ruling, if allowed to stand, would put America on a “dangerous path” by giving the president “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, however, welcomed the ruling, asserting that Trump had exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel.
Broader Implications and the Path Forward
This ruling is a critical, though perhaps temporary, win for the Trump administration’s approach to domestic unrest and federal authority. The legal landscape remains complex, with appeals courts across the country having split on similar issues. For instance, while the 9th Circuit has previously backed Trump‘s use of troops in California, another appeals court ruled against his decision to send troops to Chicago.
The continuing legal challenges underscore a fundamental tension in American governance: the balance between federal executive power and states’ rights, particularly in moments of social and political unrest. As the non-jury trial scheduled by Judge Immergut for October 29 approaches, the ultimate resolution of Trump‘s authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland—and other cities—remains uncertain, promising further legal and political scrutiny.
