On October 20, 2025, a pivotal legal decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reignited a fierce national debate over presidential power, states’ rights, and the deployment of military forces on American soil. The court’s three-judge panel ruled that the Trump administration could send National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, overturning a lower court’s block and setting the stage for a dramatic escalation in the standoff between federal and local authorities.
This ruling, reported by CNN and Seattle Red, came after months of protests outside the Portland U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Demonstrations, which began in June, had occasionally flared into violence, including a declared riot and arson arrests during the summer. President Donald Trump, in his second term, seized on these incidents to justify deploying troops, repeatedly characterizing Portland as “war ravaged” and “burning down,” and likening life there to “living in hell.”
The legal saga began in early October, when U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, herself a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order blocking any National Guard deployment to Oregon. Immergut’s skepticism was palpable during a hastily arranged hearing, as she grilled federal attorneys: “How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention to the temporary restraining order I issued yesterday?” she asked, cutting off the government’s counsel. “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?”
Despite the judge’s order, the Trump administration pressed ahead. On September 28, over the objections of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, the White House mobilized the Oregon National Guard, a move that swelled protest numbers outside the ICE facility. That Saturday, about 400 demonstrators gathered before federal agents responded with tear gas. The administration also reassigned roughly 200 California National Guard troops—100 landed in Portland, with another 100 arriving later that evening, according to Oregon National Guard commander Alan Gronewold. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered up to 400 Texas National Guard personnel for possible deployment to Oregon, Illinois, and other states.
But the Ninth Circuit’s decision did not grant the administration an immediate green light. As CNN explained, while the panel overturned one of two restraining orders, a second remained in force, preventing immediate deployment. The Trump administration quickly filed to have this second order lifted, arguing both were based on the same legal logic.
The panel itself was divided. Two Trump-appointed judges, Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, sided with the administration, asserting that even if Trump exaggerated the severity of Portland’s protests on social media, “this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements.” Judge Susan P. Graber, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, dissented forcefully: “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.”
The White House celebrated the ruling as vindication. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated, “As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address.” Trump’s critics, however, were quick to respond. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the decision “dangerous,” warning, “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 petitioned for an en banc review—a reconsideration by a larger panel of appellate judges—hoping to overturn the decision.
Governor Tina Kotek, speaking at a virtual press conference, voiced deep concern for the National Guard members caught in the crossfire. “I’m very troubled by the decision of the court,” she said. “These citizen soldiers have been pulled away from their families and their jobs for weeks to carry out some kind of mission in Oregon.” Kotek echoed Judge Graber’s dissent, emphasizing the lack of clear communication from the Trump administration on where, how, or how many troops would be deployed if the restraining order was lifted. She also challenged the president’s depiction of Portland, arguing that the city’s situation was nowhere near as dire as federal officials claimed. Notably, under new city leadership, Portland had seen a reduction in crime, fewer homeless encampments, and increased downtown foot traffic.
The legal wrangling has not been confined to Oregon. Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard have sparked similar clashes in Chicago, Memphis, and even San Francisco. In Chicago, Trump authorized the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard troops to protect federal officers and assets, a move fiercely opposed by Governor JB Pritzker. Illinois and Chicago officials asked the Supreme Court to block the administration’s emergency request, arguing that “no protest activity in Illinois has rendered the President unable to execute federal law.”
Memphis, too, became a flashpoint after Tennessee’s governor and attorney general ordered National Guard deployment at Trump’s direction. Local officials sued, arguing the move violated both state and federal law, as there was no rebellion or public safety emergency. Memphis Mayor Paul Young pointed out that crime had fallen by double digits, and Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis clarified that Guard personnel were intended for non-enforcement roles to avoid the appearance of militarization.
Meanwhile, President Trump threatened to send the National Guard to San Francisco, blaming “woke” policies for the city’s alleged decline. California Governor Gavin Newsom shot back on social media: “Nobody wants you here. You will ruin one of America’s greatest cities.” San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie noted that crime was actually down 30%, the lowest in decades, and the city had seen a surge in police recruits.
These federal deployments have fueled protests nationwide, including a second “No Kings” rally over the weekend, with millions participating in more than 2,700 events. Senators from Oregon and other states have called for an inquiry into the cumulative effects of domestic National Guard deployments, warning they are “fundamentally un-Constitutional, dangerous for American civil rights” and risk “straining military readiness and resources.”
While the Ninth Circuit’s ruling marks a significant legal victory for the Trump administration, the path forward remains uncertain. With the possibility of an en banc review and ongoing legal challenges in multiple states, the battle over federal authority, state sovereignty, and the rights of American citizens to protest continues to simmer—leaving the fate of Portland’s streets, and the nation’s constitutional balance, hanging in the balance.
