Federal Court Backs Trump Administration’s Move to Deploy National Guard in Portland Despite Ongoing Legal Battle:

In a controversial decision that has sparked fresh debate over presidential power and civil liberties, a U.S. federal appeals court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration's efforts to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The ruling, issued Monday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, allows the federal government to move forward with its plans to send 200 troops to the city — a move strongly opposed by state and local officials. The court found that President Donald Trump had likely acted within his statutory authority in federalizing Oregon’s National Guard. “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” wrote the majority, composed of two out of three judges on the panel. The legal battle, however, is far from over. A separate restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut still prohibits the deployment, at least for now. That order was put in place after the Trump administration attempted to bypass an earlier ruling by deploying California National Guard troops instead. The Department of Justice has responded swiftly, urging Judge Immergut to dissolve her second restraining order. DOJ lawyers argue that the courts have no right to second-guess a president’s judgment when it comes to national defense or public safety decisions. But critics of the administration argue that Trump’s actions are politically motivated and lack any legitimate emergency justification. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, called the ruling dangerous and said he will push for a broader panel of the Ninth Circuit to reconsider. “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 said. “We are on a dangerous path in America.” The decision comes amid broader criticism of the Trump administration’s use of federal troops in Democrat-led cities across the country. In Portland, demonstrators have frequently gathered outside immigration facilities, often dressed in colorful costumes and blasting music to protest the aggressive tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some protestors have been seen in inflatable frog suits, chicken costumes, or even baring all to make a statement. Despite the largely peaceful nature of these protests, the administration has consistently painted Portland as a city under siege. Officials have claimed that protesters are obstructing immigration enforcement and creating lawless zones — though local authorities say no such conditions exist. Judge Susan Graber, the lone dissenting voice on the appellate panel, sharply criticized the ruling. “Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all... observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling... as merely absurd,” she wrote. “But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their militias and the people’s First Amendment rights.” Civil liberties advocates have also condemned the move. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned that the domestic use of military force without clear emergency conditions sets a dangerous precedent. “The presence of troops in vibrant American cities erodes a sense of safety and undermines the core freedoms to assemble and voice dissent,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. As the legal fight continues, Portland remains a flashpoint in the broader national debate over federal authority, protest rights, and the militarization of domestic policy. Whether the full Ninth Circuit will revisit the decision — or if the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in — remains to be seen.

NEWS