Washington, D.C. — October 20, 2025 — A United States Court of Appeals has ruled that President Donald Trump has the legal authority to federalize and command Oregon’s National Guard troops, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal confrontation over the president’s power to deploy military forces within US borders. The decision, issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, allows the administration to move forward with plans to send 200 National Guard soldiers to Portland, Oregon, though a separate court order still temporarily prevents the deployment.
Federal Court Backs Presidential Authority
The Ninth Circuit’s majority opinion, supported by two of the three judges on the panel, concluded that the president likely “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he federalized Oregon’s Guard under existing federal law. The court’s ruling represents a win for the Trump administration, which has argued that the deployment is necessary to restore law and order in Portland — a city it claims is “under siege” by violent protesters and anti-government groups.
However, the deployment remains on hold due to a separate temporary restraining order issued by US District Judge Karin Immergut, which prohibits the president from sending any National Guard members to Oregon. The restraining order was issued after the administration allegedly tried to circumvent an earlier injunction by reassigning troops from California instead.
The Department of Justice has since petitioned Judge Immergut to dissolve that restraining order, asserting that it is “not the role of the courts” to second-guess a president’s national security and public order determinations.
Oregon Pushes Back Against Federal Control
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, immediately vowed to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, calling for a larger panel of appellate judges to rehear the case.
“Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification,” Rayfield warned. “We are on a dangerous path in America.”
The state of Oregon has argued that Trump’s actions violate the Constitution’s federalist principles, which reserve control of state militias to governors except in limited, emergency circumstances. Critics say no such emergency currently exists in Portland.
Dissenting Opinion: “A Threat to Constitutional Principles”
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Susan Graber denounced the majority’s reasoning as “a direct assault on state sovereignty and civil liberties.”
“The ruling erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and object to government actions,” Graber wrote.
Graber mocked the government’s depiction of Portland as a “war zone,” noting that most protesters were peaceful and even dressed in “chicken suits or inflatable frog costumes” during demonstrations.
“Observers may be tempted to view the government’s characterization of Portland as absurd,” she added, “but the implications of today’s decision are deeply serious.”
Civil Liberties Groups Decry Ruling
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the appellate ruling, arguing that deploying military forces domestically without an immediate crisis undermines democratic freedoms.
“The founders emphasized that domestic troop deployment should be a last resort during extreme emergencies,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “What we’re seeing now — troops in vibrant, peaceful American cities — erodes public safety and weakens the freedom to assemble and dissent.”
The ACLU and other civil rights advocates have accused the administration of using immigration enforcement raids and militarized policing as tools of intimidation, disproportionately targeting immigrant communities and protesters in Democrat-led cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.
Protests and Political Fallout in Portland
In Portland, “No Kings” protests have continued outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, where demonstrators have condemned federal overreach and the use of excessive force by armed agents. Witnesses have reported that federal officers in tactical gear have detained individuals without warrants or probable cause, sparking widespread outrage.
Trump’s administration has defended its actions as necessary to counter “lawlessness,” framing the protests as a challenge to immigration enforcement and federal authority. But opponents argue that the “law and order” narrative is being used as political theater ahead of the 2026 election season.
Broader Implications for Presidential Power
Legal experts say the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could set a far-reaching precedent for future presidents’ control over state National Guards, potentially reshaping the balance of power between federal and state governments.
Constitutional scholar Dr. Lisa Rodriguez of Georgetown University warned that, “If upheld, this ruling could give the executive branch a green light to override governors at will — a dramatic expansion of presidential power under the Insurrection Act and related statutes.”
As the legal battle continues, the situation in Portland remains tense. State officials are preparing emergency motions to keep troops out of Oregon until the courts issue a final decision. Meanwhile, demonstrators continue to gather nightly, vowing to defend their First Amendment rights against what they see as creeping authoritarianism.
Leave a Reply