On Monday, October 20, 2025, a pivotal ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted President Donald Trump sweeping authority to deploy the National Guard into Portland, Oregon, igniting fierce debate over the limits of presidential power and the future of American democracy. The 2–1 decision, delivered by two judges appointed by Trump, largely embraced the administration’s depiction of Portland as a “war zone,” despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary presented by the district court. The move has stirred deep anxieties among legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and politicians, who warn of the potential for unchecked executive authority to suppress peaceful dissent.
According to Slate, the majority opinion leaned heavily on the executive branch’s claims of widespread violence in Portland, dismissing the district court’s extensive findings that painted a far less dramatic picture. The Trump administration’s portrayal of the city as a battleground became the basis for federal intervention, a decision that has left many questioning the impartiality and rigor of the court’s review.
Perhaps the most forceful critique came from Judge Susan Graber, who issued a scathing dissent. She argued that the deployment rested on “false pretenses,” “fabrication,” and “propaganda”—all of which she described as “political theater” that should not be dignified by the judiciary. Graber did not mince words, calling the action an “illegal deployment of troops” and warning that it set a dangerous precedent for the use of military force against American citizens. Her dissent underscored the importance of judicial responsibility in checking executive overreach, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.
Yet the ruling’s implications stretch far beyond Portland. In a concurring opinion, Judge Ryan Nelson went even further, asserting that the judiciary has no power whatsoever to review or halt a president’s deployment of the National Guard to suppress alleged domestic unrest. In Nelson’s view, Trump—or any future president—enjoys absolute discretion to send troops into American cities for any reason he deems necessary, with no court able to intervene. This, Nelson argued, is rooted in historical precedent and the constitutional role of the commander in chief.
To support his argument, Nelson cited the 1827 Supreme Court case Martin v. Mott, which involved President James Madison’s authority to call up state militias during the War of 1812. The ruling, written by Chief Justice Joseph Story, included the oft-quoted line: “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” On its face, this seems to grant the president unfettered power. But as constitutional scholars Steve Vladeck, Joshua Braver, and John Dehn have painstakingly explained, this interpretation is deeply flawed.
According to El Balad, the historical context of Martin v. Mott reveals a far narrower holding. The Supreme Court’s concern was with preserving the military chain of command during a foreign invasion, not with insulating the president’s domestic use of force from judicial scrutiny. The ruling clarified that the president, not lower-ranking officers, could make the initial determination to deploy the militia in a national crisis. It did not, as Nelson claimed, strip courts of their ability to review such decisions. Legal experts have since debunked Nelson’s reading, emphasizing that judicial oversight remains a crucial safeguard against the abuse of military power.
Modern statutes further complicate Nelson’s argument. The laws governing presidential deployment of the National Guard have evolved significantly since the early 19th century. Whereas the Militia Acts of 1795 and 1807 granted the president broad discretion to “call forth” the militia, Congress has since imposed explicit restrictions. Under current law, the president may deploy the National Guard only in cases of insurrection, rebellion, or when regular forces are unable to enforce federal laws. These limitations were designed to prevent the very kind of unchecked executive action that Nelson’s concurrence would allow.
Judge Graber’s dissent highlighted this evolution, noting that Congress has deliberately narrowed the president’s authority and established clear boundaries for domestic military deployments. She argued that these statutory limits create a “judicial responsibility” for courts to intervene when the president acts “in a situation far divorced” from what Congress envisioned. Without judicial review, she warned, the president could override congressional intent and use the military for partisan purposes—a prospect that should alarm anyone concerned about the balance of power in American government.
The stakes of this debate are not merely academic. Critics contend that, if Nelson’s view prevails, a president could mobilize the National Guard over a governor’s objections for blatantly illegal ends, with no legal recourse. He could deploy troops to punish voters, protesters, or lawmakers who oppose his agenda, or even flood opposition strongholds with soldiers during an election. The opportunities for repression, as Slate put it, are “boundless.” Such unchecked authority flies in the face of the framers’ deep-seated suspicion of a standing army responsible for domestic security—a suspicion rooted in the painful lessons of history.
Adding to the urgency, the Supreme Court is now weighing a closely related case out of Chicago. The Trump administration has asked the justices to freeze an order by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the deployment of troops in the city. The outcome of this case may well determine whether the judiciary retains any meaningful role in policing the president’s use of military force within the United States. If the Supreme Court sides with Nelson’s radical view, it could open the door to a future in which the executive branch wields the military as a tool against its own people.
Legal experts warn that abolishing judicial review would not only undermine Congress’s authority over the militia but also threaten the constitutional rights of citizens. The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble and protest, yet those rights could be trampled if the president is free to deploy troops at will. Congress might attempt to check such abuses by denying funding, but recent Supreme Court decisions have already given the executive branch considerable leeway to redirect appropriated money for its own purposes.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, the debate over presidential power and the role of the judiciary has reached a fever pitch. For many, the question is not just about the specifics of the Portland deployment, but about the very nature of American democracy. Can the courts serve as a bulwark against executive overreach, or will they cede their authority in the face of political pressure? The answer may shape the country’s future for years to come.
For now, the eyes of the nation—and indeed the world—are fixed on the highest court in the land, as it prepares to decide whether the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard is truly beyond judicial review. The outcome will reverberate far beyond Portland and Chicago, touching the core of what it means to live in a nation governed by laws, not men.
