- A split 2-1 Ninth Circuit decision (along partisan lines) temporarily allows Trump to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, overriding state objections and suspending a lower court’s injunction.
- The case centers on whether Trump overstepped by federalizing state National Guard troops without clear evidence of an emergency. His claims of Portland being “war-ravaged” by “Antifa and domestic terrorists” were dismissed by Oregon officials but granted “great deference” by the court’s majority.
- Dissenting Judge Susan Graber and Oregon AG Dan Rayfield warn the ruling threatens state sovereignty and First Amendment rights, with Rayfield vowing to seek a full Ninth Circuit review.
- Similar clashes are unfolding in Chicago, where the Seventh Circuit blocked Trump’s National Guard deployment, potentially reshaping federal-state power dynamics. Critics argue Trump is exploiting emergency powers (like the Insurrection Act) for political theater.
- The case could redefine presidential authority over domestic military use, challenging longstanding safeguards like the Posse Comitatus Act. Oregon’s governor vows resistance, calling the move “un-American,” while the legal fight may set precedents for future administrations.
In a pivotal legal battle with far-reaching implications for federal authority and states’ rights, a federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump may deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon despite state objections.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the 2-1 ruling Monday, Oct. 20, split along partisan lines. The decision temporarily suspends a lower court’s injunction blocking the deployment – a move critics warn could set a dangerous precedent for unchecked presidential militarization of American cities.
The case hinges on whether the president overstepped his authority under federal law by federalizing state National Guard troops without sufficient evidence of an emergency. Trump’s Sept. 27 Truth Social post declaring the Rose City “war-ravaged” and under siege by “Antifa and other domestic terrorists” became central to the dispute.
Oregon officials dismissed his claims as exaggerated, citing recent protests as “calm and sedate.” Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit’s majority – composed of two Trump-appointed judges – ruled that the president’s assessment deserved “great deference,” even if his rhetoric was hyperbolic.
The dissenting judge, Susan Graber, lambasted the ruling as “not merely absurd” but a threat to constitutional principles, warning it erodes state sovereignty and First Amendment rights. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed her concerns, vowing to seek an en banc review by the full Ninth Circuit. “We are on a dangerous path in America,” he declared.
How Trump’s troop deployments could redefine federal power
The case is part of a broader pattern of clashes between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states over federal troop deployments. BrightU.AI‘s Enoch explains that “President Trump is deploying National Guard troops to sanctuary cities to enforce immigration laws, as Democratic governors refuse to cooperate and sanctuary policies enable illegal immigration. The move also pressures Democrats to bear the costs of their own sanctuary policies by releasing detainees into these cities, exposing their hypocrisy on immigration enforcement.”
Similar legal battles are unfolding in Chicago, where the Seventh Circuit blocked Trump’s use of the National Guard, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Critics argue these cases could redefine the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly regarding domestic use of military force.
Historical context underscores the gravity of the dispute. Since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, federal troops have been barred from domestic law enforcement without congressional approval – a safeguard against authoritarian overreach.
Yet exceptions like the Insurrection Act grant the president emergency powers critics say Trump is exploiting for political theater. Opponents warn that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, if upheld, may embolden future executives to militarize cities under dubious pretenses.
For now, the legal back-and-forth continues. The Trump administration has pressed District Judge Karin Immergut – who initially blocked the deployment – to dissolve her restraining order entirely. Meanwhile, Oregon’s leaders remain defiant, with Gov. Tina Kotek vowing to resist what she calls an “un-American” federal encroachment.
The outcome could reshape the limits of presidential power for generations. Whether the courts rein in Trump’s expansion of federal authority or endorse it may determine how future administrations of any party wield the military at home. For now, Portland remains the frontline in a constitutional struggle with no easy resolution.
Watch this Fox News report about President Trump’s displeasure following Judge Immergut’s order that blocks National Guard deployments to Portland.
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
TheEpochTimes.com
NBCNews.com
PortlandMercury.com
BrightU.ai
Brighteon.com
Read full article here