Federal enforcement officers stand guard near a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., Monday, Oct. 6, 2025. (AP Photo/Ethan Swope)
A federal appeals court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon—despite objections from the state government—temporarily halting a lower court’s decision that had blocked the move.
Appeals Court Allows President Trump to Deploy Natl Guard to Portland
In a 2–1 ruling, judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said they believed it was likely that the president had acted within his legal authority.
“After reviewing the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” the majority wrote.
Lawyers for the Justice Department had argued that U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut’s earlier order overstepped constitutional boundaries, interfering with the president’s powers as commander in chief and undermining military operations intended to protect federal property and personnel.
Immergut, who was appointed by Trump, had ruled that the administration’s claims about chaos in Portland were exaggerated, noting Trump’s language describing the city as “war ravaged” and under nightly siege by “Antifa” and “crazy people.”
“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” she wrote at the time.
But the two appellate judges—both Trump appointees—disagreed, saying the president’s judgment deserved more respect.
“Rather than reviewing the President’s determination with great deference, the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances. That approach is error,” wrote Judges Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade.
They added that even if the president exaggerated the situation on social media, “other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements.”
Judge Susan P. Graber dissented sharply, mocking what she called the majority’s acceptance of an overblown narrative.
Portland Protestors Target ICE
“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling—which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone—as merely absurd,” Graber wrote.
She went on: “It is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and object to the government’s policies and actions.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, said he would ask the full 9th Circuit to review the case, warning that the decision sets a dangerous precedent.
“If allowed to stand, this ruling would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification,” he said. “We are on a dangerous path in America.”
The White House praised the decision. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the court had reaffirmed the president’s right to act.
“As we’ve said all along, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address,” she said. “This ruling confirms that the lower court’s order was unlawful and incorrect.”
Judge Immergut had earlier found that the protests had largely calmed by the time Trump ordered the deployment.
“On September 26, the eve of the President’s directive, law enforcement observed approximately 8 to 15 people outside the ICE facility—mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around. Energy was low, minimal activity,” her ruling stated.
DOJ Claimed Federal Officers Faced Threats and Harassment
At a recent 9th Circuit hearing, Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur argued the opposite, claiming federal officers had repeatedly faced threats and harassment outside the immigration processing center, including an incident where protesters lit a fire near the facility.
“These are violent people,” McArthur told the panel.
During that same hearing, the two Trump-appointed judges signaled skepticism toward Oregon’s case.
“It just seems a little counterintuitive to me that the City of Portland can come in and say, no, you need to do it differently,” Nelson remarked.
Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit issued a similar decision in a case involving the National Guard in Los Angeles, ruling that the president’s judgment about troop necessity deserved “a great level of deference.”
Immergut cited that decision but stressed that “a great level of deference” did not mean ignoring facts on the ground.
For now, Monday’s ruling allows only Oregon National Guard troops to be deployed. Immergut’s separate order blocking troops from other states remains in place, though the appeals court suggested that it would likely be overturned for the same reasons.
Hours after the ruling, the Trump administration cited the appellate decision in a new motion urging Immergut to withdraw her ban on out-of-state deployments.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Chicago issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month preventing National Guard deployment there. The 7th Circuit allowed that order to remain while the administration appeals, and on Friday, the administration took the case to the Supreme Court.
We occasionally recommend interesting products and services. If you make a purchase by clicking one of the links, we may earn an affiliate fee. High Wire Media operate independently, and this doesn’t influence our coverage.
 |  |  |
About the Author
