On October 20, 2025, a deeply divided federal appeals court cleared the way for President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, igniting a fierce debate about presidential power, states’ rights, and the boundaries of federal intervention in local affairs. The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, overturned a lower court’s temporary restraining order that had blocked the deployment for nearly a month. The majority opinion, authored by Trump appointees Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, found that Trump “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he ordered Oregon National Guard troops into Portland on September 27.
The decision immediately set off a flurry of legal maneuvering and political reaction. The Oregon Department of Justice and the city of Portland announced they would seek a review and reconsideration by the full appeals court—an en banc hearing that would involve all 11 appellate judges of the Ninth Circuit. According to Democracy Docket, a judge on the court called for such a review without prompting, underscoring the case’s high stakes and contentious nature.
At the heart of the controversy is Trump’s use of 10 U.S.C. 12406, a rarely invoked statute that allows the president to federalize state National Guard troops in times of foreign invasion, rebellion, or when regular resources are insufficient to enforce federal law. Trump’s administration argued that ongoing protests outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland—which at times led to clashes with federal agents—constituted a rebellion and justified federal intervention. The Department of Justice maintained that troops were needed to protect federal buildings and personnel, describing the deployment as a "measured response" to what it called “violent riots that local leaders have refused to address,” according to a White House statement reported by BBC News.
But city and state officials in Oregon have consistently pushed back, arguing that the protests were largely peaceful and manageable with local resources. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said, “We will not stand by while federal agencies sidestep local authority. Our legal team, working with the Oregon Department of Justice, will use every lawful tool to prevent this overreach.” Governor Tina Kotek echoed this sentiment at a news conference, stating, “I have repeatedly called on the Trump administration to tell the public exactly what mission he expects National Guard members to do. These citizen soldiers have been pulled away from their families and their jobs for weeks to carry out some kind of mission in Oregon, but the Trump administration has been silent on the answer to my questions.”
The legal battle began in late September when Trump declared his intention to federalize the Oregon National Guard and send them to Portland. U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, initially blocked the deployment, finding that Trump’s assessment of the situation was “simply untethered to the facts.” Immergut concluded that the protests near the ICE facility did not amount to a rebellion against the federal government and that local law enforcement was capable of maintaining order. When the administration attempted to deploy troops from other states, such as Texas and California, Immergut issued additional orders blocking those efforts as well.
However, the Ninth Circuit panel’s majority found that Immergut had erred by not giving sufficient deference to the president’s judgment. “Instead, the district court substituted its own assessment of the facts for the President’s assessment of the facts,” Judges Nelson and Bade wrote. They added that the statute “delegates the authority to make that determination to the President and does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider in doing so.” The ruling emphasized that the president “can, and should, consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether he ‘is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’”
The lone dissent came from Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee and former Oregon Supreme Court judge. In a strongly worded 15-page opinion, Graber called the majority’s ruling “absurd” and warned that it “erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.” She noted, “In the two weeks leading up to the President’s September 27 social media post, there had not been a single incident of protesters’ disrupting the execution of the laws. I repeat: not a single incident for two weeks.” Graber urged her colleagues to “swiftly vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur,” and asked the public to “retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”
Following the appeals court’s decision, lawyers for the federal government quickly asked Judge Immergut to dissolve her second temporary restraining order, which still barred deployment of any guard troops until Oregon’s lawsuit against the federal government is decided after a trial at the end of October. Oregon’s lawyers were given 24 hours to respond. Portland City Councilor Candace Avalos commented on social media that more information about the National Guard deployment could be available within 24 to 72 hours.
Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued a stark warning about the implications of the ruling: “Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification. We are on a dangerous path in America.” U.S. Representative Maxine Dexter, who represents the area where the ICE facility protests have taken place, added, “Portland is a peaceful, kind, and loving place. Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, does not change that. Trump wants to incite violence and chaos. Portland sees this authoritarian takeover for what it is, and we will not bend the knee.”
The White House, for its part, welcomed the ruling, stating that it “reaffirms that the lower court’s ruling was unlawful and incorrect,” and that Trump was “exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots.”
This case is far from over. The full Ninth Circuit’s decision on whether to rehear the case en banc could reshape the legal landscape for future federal interventions in states’ affairs. At stake are not only the immediate questions of troop deployment and public safety in Portland, but also fundamental issues about the limits of presidential power and the enduring tension between state and federal authority—a debate that has shaped American democracy since its founding.
