On Monday, October 20, 2025, the ongoing legal and political battle over the Trump administration’s attempts to deploy National Guard troops in several U.S. cities reached new heights, as a federal appellate court delivered a significant, albeit complex, ruling regarding the situation in Portland, Oregon. The decision, which allows President Donald Trump to retain federal control over the Oregon National Guard and potentially deploy troops in Portland, has ignited fierce debate across the country, with ramifications stretching from the streets of Chicago to the halls of the Supreme Court.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 ruling overturned a previous temporary restraining order that had barred the Trump administration from mobilizing the Oregon National Guard in Portland. According to the majority opinion, “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority.” This ruling, backed by two Trump-appointed judges, Bridget S. Bade and Ryan D. Nelson, was hailed by the administration as a vindication of the president’s authority to respond to what it has characterized as a volatile and dangerous situation outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland.
Yet, the ruling does not mean National Guard troops will immediately take to Portland’s streets. A second, broader temporary restraining order—granted by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut—remains in effect, barring the deployment of any state’s National Guard to Oregon. The federal government swiftly moved to have this second order dissolved, arguing that both orders rested on the same legal reasoning and should therefore "rise or fall together on the merits," as the majority wrote. The legal wrangling has left hundreds of National Guard troops in limbo, as Governor Tina Kotek noted, separated from their families and regular jobs while awaiting clarity on their fate.
The court’s decision has not gone unchallenged. Judge Susan P. Graber, the lone dissenter on the appellate panel and a Clinton appointee, issued a stinging critique of the majority’s reasoning. In her dissent, Graber wrote, “Today’s decision is not merely absurd. 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 emphasized that the majority’s ruling, if left to stand, would set a dangerous precedent, potentially granting the president "unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification." Graber further urged her colleagues on the appellate court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before any troops could be deployed under “false pretenses.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed these concerns, stating, “We’ll continue to fight for Oregon’s laws and values no matter what.” Rayfield called for an “en banc” review, asking a larger panel of 11 appellate judges to reconsider the case. By Monday afternoon, a Ninth Circuit judge had called for a vote among active circuit judges on whether to rehear the case, a move that underscores the gravity and urgency of the legal questions at stake.
The roots of the controversy trace back to the summer of 2025, when protests erupted in Portland over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown. While some demonstrations were peaceful, others turned violent, with incidents of arson and clashes with law enforcement. President Trump and his administration have repeatedly depicted Portland as “war-ravaged” and out of control, claims that local leaders, including Governor Kotek, have strongly disputed. Kotek insisted in court that the situation in Portland is nowhere near as dire as federal officials suggest, and that local authorities are more than capable of managing the protests.
Judge Immergut, in her earlier rulings, found that conditions in Portland were “not significantly violent or disruptive” enough to justify a federal takeover of the National Guard. She concluded that the president’s claims were “simply untethered to the facts,” noting that local police could handle the protests and that federal officers were still able to enforce federal laws with “regular forces.” The majority on the Ninth Circuit, however, criticized Immergut for discounting earlier violent and disruptive events and for focusing too narrowly on recent, more peaceful periods.
The debate over federal troop deployments is not confined to Oregon. On the same day as the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, officials in Illinois filed a response to the Supreme Court, seeking to block the Trump administration’s emergency request to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago. Illinois authorities argued that there was no rebellion or danger of rebellion—no legal justification for troop deployment. They described protests at the ICE facility in Broadview, near Chicago, as “small” and manageable, stating, “No protest activity in Illinois has rendered the President unable to execute federal law.” The state further contended that federal government coercion to use its National Guard or allow federal troops was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, a group of seven elected officials sued Governor Lee over the deployment of the Tennessee National Guard to Memphis, claiming it violated state law and that no conditions of rebellion existed. Governor Lee’s office responded by asserting his legal authority to deploy the Guard under Tennessee law. Federal troops were first seen in Memphis on October 10, 2025, patrolling alongside local police at the city’s iconic Pyramid landmark.
The controversy has also reached California, where President Trump announced plans to send the National Guard to San Francisco. City officials, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and Governor Gavin Newsom, pushed back hard. Lurie stated that while he appreciated the military’s service, “the National Guard does not have the authority to arrest drug dealers—and sending them to San Francisco will do nothing to get fentanyl off the streets or make our city safer.” Newsom was even more blunt, posting on social media, “Nobody wants you here. You will ruin one of America’s greatest cities.”
As legal battles play out in multiple states, the broader implications are becoming clear. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Oregon is being watched closely as a possible bellwether for Supreme Court action. Robert Klonoff, a former Lewis & Clark Law School dean, noted, “If the administration gets relief from the Supreme Court in Illinois, it’s a game changer for Oregon. It will suggest how the Supreme Court is leaning, giving vast discretion to the president.”
For now, the fate of National Guard deployments in Portland and elsewhere remains uncertain, suspended between competing interpretations of law and constitutional principle. As the courts deliberate, the country waits to see just how far presidential power can reach—and what limits, if any, remain.
