A divided U.S. appeals court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, despite opposition from the city and state governments. The decision marks a significant legal victory for Trump as he continues to send troops into several Democratic-led states and cities.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Justice Department’s request to suspend a lower court order that had blocked the deployment pending ongoing litigation. The court said Trump’s move was justified by threats from protesters who had damaged a federal building and endangered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
The unsigned majority opinion, supported by Circuit Judges Bridget Bade and Ryan Nelson both Trump appointees described the deployment as lawful. Nelson, in a concurring opinion, further asserted that courts had no authority to review the president’s decision to send troops.
However, Circuit Judge Susan Graber, appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, dissented, calling the ruling “not merely absurd but dangerous.” She argued that allowing federal troops to respond to “merely inconvenient” protests set a troubling precedent and urged the full 9th Circuit to overturn the decision before Trump acts on it.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield also condemned the ruling, warning that it “puts America on a dangerous path” and grants the president “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification.”
Also Read: Portland National Guard Deployment Faces Temporary Injunction
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson welcomed the decision, saying Trump had acted within his lawful authority to safeguard federal property and personnel.
The legal battle stems from Trump’s 27 September order deploying 200 National Guard troops to Portland as part of a wider effort to suppress protests and reinforce immigration enforcement. Portland-based U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had earlier blocked the deployment, ruling that Trump likely acted unlawfully and that the situation did not meet the criteria for federal intervention.
City and state officials maintain that the protests had been largely peaceful and accuse Trump of exaggerating unrest to justify taking control of Oregon’s National Guard. Police data show that protests in Portland had been small and largely uneventful for months, with no arrests reported since mid-June.
Under U.S. law, the National Guard normally answers to state governors but can be federalised by the president under limited conditions such as rebellion or invasion. The 9th Circuit’s divided opinion reflects sharp disagreement over whether those conditions were met in Portland.
The case continues as Trump asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review his authority to send troops to Democratic-led cities after a separate appeals court ruled against his deployment of forces to Chicago.
