On October 28, 2025, the ongoing legal and political struggle over federal authority in Oregon reached a dramatic turning point. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of the nation's most influential appellate courts, voted to vacate a prior order that had permitted President Donald Trump’s administration to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland. This decision, which now halts any troop deployment pending further review, sets the stage for a constitutional showdown on the limits of presidential power and state sovereignty.
The roots of the conflict stretch back to late September, when President Trump announced via social media that he was authorizing the use of “full force” in Portland. According to the Davis Vanguard, Trump’s online statement painted Portland as a “war-ravaged city under siege from domestic terrorists.” Yet, Oregon officials quickly countered that description, pointing out that protests outside Portland’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility had dwindled to fewer than 30 participants in recent weeks, with no arrests since mid-June. Governor Tina Kotek immediately rejected the federal order, insisting that “Oregon does not need help from the military” and that local law enforcement was fully capable of maintaining public safety.
Within just 24 hours of Trump’s announcement, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum federalizing 200 members of the Oregon National Guard for a 60-day deployment. The administration justified its move by citing “numerous incidents of violence and disorder” in Portland, which it characterized as a “form of rebellion.” However, as detailed in the 45-page amended complaint filed by Oregon, California, and the City of Portland in early October, state officials argued that the President’s order violated both the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement.
Central to the states’ argument is that the President failed to meet any of the legal conditions required to invoke Title 10 authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. This statute permits federalization of the National Guard only in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when regular federal forces are unable to enforce the law. “Oregon’s sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement activity and National Guard resources is being trampled,” the complaint asserts, warning that the federal action “threatens to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry.”
The legal battle quickly escalated. On October 20, a two-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit—both Trump appointees—overruled a lower court’s restraining order and allowed the deployment to proceed. But Oregon’s legal team, led by Attorney General Dan Rayfield, immediately petitioned for a rare “en banc” review by the full court, arguing that the panel had misapplied precedent set in Newsom v. Trump, a similar case from earlier in 2025 involving the California National Guard. In that situation, the court had found that more than “minimal interference” with federal property was necessary to justify federalizing the Guard, and that presidential actions must reflect “a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment.”
Oregon’s lawyers contended that the circumstances in Portland did not meet these standards. They pointed out that the federal government’s own data, obtained via evidence requests, showed that the law enforcement needs at the ICE facility had been overstated. While federal lawyers claimed that 115 Federal Protective Service officers—25% of the force—were sent to Portland, Oregon’s evidence indicated that no more than 31 officers were deployed in any month over the summer, with 25% of the force never present. “If that justifies federalizing the National Guard, then almost anything would,” Oregon’s lawyers wrote in their petition for review, as reported by Oregon Capital Chronicle.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant en banc review is significant. Such reviews are extremely rare, typically granted in only one to three cases per year out of hundreds. According to Willamette University constitutional law professor Norman Williams, by the time a majority of judges agree to review a case, “it’s quite clear something is wrong.” Eleven judges, including Chief Judge Mary Helen Murguia, will now undertake the review. The en banc review suspends the deployment of troops to Portland until the court completes its deliberations—a process that could take several weeks or more.
Attorney General Rayfield welcomed the court’s action, stating, “This ruling shows the truth matters and that the courts are working to hold this administration accountable. The Constitution limits the president’s power, and Oregon’s communities cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority.” State attorneys general from Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Washington, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed briefs supporting Oregon’s position.
The legal issues at stake are complex, with far-reaching implications for federal-state relations. The underlying case, State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al., is scheduled for trial beginning October 30, 2025, in Portland’s U.S. District Court. The plaintiffs will argue that the President’s actions are “ultra vires”—beyond the scope of his legal authority—and that the forced deployment of state National Guard troops violates constitutional limits on federal power. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, echoing the concerns of many state officials, stated, “President Trump is misapplying the law and misusing the power of the executive. If he has his way, he would remake America into a military state, with an army that answers to no one but him.”
Beyond the legal wrangling, Oregon and Portland officials have warned that the federal action could endanger the state’s emergency preparedness. The complaint notes that the Oregon National Guard is a critical resource for wildfire response and other emergencies, and that federalizing even a portion of its personnel during an active fire season could leave the state vulnerable. “Given the Guard’s limited resources and the inherent uncertainty about what needs might arise, needlessly calling hundreds of the Guard’s members into federal service for a months-long period places the state in jeopardy,” the complaint states.
The controversy also reflects a broader pattern of conflict between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states. The Oregon complaint draws heavily from the earlier California case, arguing that Trump’s use of the National Guard for civilian policing represents a “pattern of political retribution” against states that have resisted his immigration policies. The complaint references Trump’s repeated public statements threatening to deploy military personnel domestically, including his April 2024 remark that he would have “no problem using the military” to promote “law and order in our country.”
For now, the Ninth Circuit’s en banc order keeps Judge Immergut’s temporary restraining order in effect, preventing any deployment of Oregon or California National Guard troops under federal authority in Portland. The upcoming trial and the appellate court’s eventual decision will determine whether the President’s asserted powers to federalize the Guard withstand constitutional scrutiny—and, more broadly, how far the federal government can go in overriding state control over its own law enforcement resources.
As the legal battle intensifies, all eyes are on Portland, where the outcome could set a precedent for the balance of power between states and the federal government for years to come.
