🔗 Share this article

The ninth circuit court has maintained a prohibition on deploying national guard in Portland, Oregon, after a recent legal decision.

Appeals Court Agrees to Rehear Case

The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled on this week that it would rehear the case concerning the president’s authority with an expanded panel of eleven justices. The judicial body also overturned a earlier ruling from a smaller judicial group that had supported the administration.

Ongoing Dispute Over Troop Deployment

This legal directive represents the most recent development in a protracted legal battle over whether the former president has the legal right and valid reason to send state military units in Portland. Approximately two hundred troops have been in limbo since late September when the mobilization attempt was initiated in response to months of protests.

Conflicting Arguments

The administration has claimed that government employees at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while local authorities assert that municipal police have control of the circumstances.

In defiance of descriptions of Portland as “war ravaged”, residents have been sharing videos of lush hiking trails and a vibrant culinary culture, and planning events such as an Emergency Naked Bike Ride against the “militarization of our city”.

Recent Legal Actions

The Tuesday ruling came after a federal judge in the city issued two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federal control of the Oregon national guard, and another prohibiting the use of any military personnel in the state, after attempts to circumvent the initial injunction by calling up troops from California.

On the previous day, the ninth circuit panel had temporarily suspended the initial decision – allowing control of 200 Oregon national guard – but the subsequent injunction stayed effective, blocking the actual deployment of the forces.

Full Panel Consideration

The latest ruling means the issue will be heard “en banc” – with all decisions under review together – by a group of 11 judges.

“This ruling shows that facts are important and that the judicial system are striving to ensure government responsibility. The founding document restricts the president’s power, and local populations cannot be treated as a training ground for expansive government power,” said the state attorney general in a official comment.

“The judicial body is sending a definite signal: the executive leader cannot dispatch the military into US cities unnecessarily. We will continue protecting state legislation, values, and sovereignty as this legal proceeding moves forward and our fight continues in the judicial system.”