9th Circuit Panel Appears Skeptical of Oregon’s Effort to Halt Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Portland
In a tense courtroom exchange that underscored deepening tensions between federal and state authorities, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday expressed significant doubts about Oregon’s legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to Portland. The hearing, held in San Francisco, focused on whether Trump’s actions to send approximately 200 Oregon National Guard members to protect a federal immigration facility amid ongoing protests overstep constitutional bounds.
The case stems from a whirlwind of legal maneuvering that began earlier this month. On September 28, the Trump administration issued a Department of Defense memorandum federalizing the Oregon National Guard, citing “violence and threats of violence” directed at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in Portland as justification under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Trump described the city as “war-ravaged,” invoking powers to suppress what he called an “active threat” to federal personnel and property.
Oregon officials, including Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield, swiftly sued, arguing the deployment violated federal laws, encroached on the state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, and blurred the line between civil policing and military intervention. They contended that protests outside the ICE building in South Portland—largely peaceful demonstrations against immigration policies—did not meet the threshold of insurrection or imminent danger required for such a call-up. “There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security,” Kotek declared in a statement following an initial court victory.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, agreed in a scathing 31-page ruling on October 4, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocked the deployment. Immergut described Trump’s rationale as “simply untethered to the facts,” noting that local data showed only sporadic incidents—25 arrests in mid-June and none in the subsequent 3.5 months—far short of the “significant impediment” to federal operations needed to justify military involvement. She warned that allowing the move could normalize “martial law” over civilian affairs, eroding long-standing traditions against military intrusion into domestic protests.
The administration’s response was swift and aggressive. It appealed the TRO to the 9th Circuit while attempting an end-run: deploying 200 federalized California National Guard troops and planning to send Texas units to the same site. Immergut, in a second ruling on October 5, extended her block to these out-of-state forces, calling the maneuver a “direct contravention” of her order and likening it to “rhetorical whack-a-mole.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom joined the fray, suing over the federalization of his state’s Guard and decrying it as an overreach.
Thursday’s oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel—comprising two Trump appointees, Ryan Bounds and Eric Miller, and one Clinton appointee, Susan Graber—tilted toward the administration’s position, with the majority of questions probing the limits of judicial oversight over presidential military decisions. Department of Justice attorney Benjamin McArthur defended the deployment vigorously, insisting that the president enjoys “great deference” in assessing threats to federal assets and that Portland’s “violent people” posed an ongoing risk, even if incidents had waned. “These are violent people,” McArthur told the panel. “At any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence.”
Bounds, in particular, voiced frustration with Oregon’s arguments, questioning how courts could second-guess the commander-in-chief’s resource allocation. “What I’m struggling with is, the president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it just seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come in and say ‘No,'” he remarked. Miller echoed this, suggesting Immergut had “impermissibly second-guessed” Trump’s military judgments.
Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacy Chaffin pushed back, acknowledging presidential latitude but arguing the facts didn’t support it here. “It doesn’t represent a colorable assessment of the facts within the range of honest judgment,” she said, accusing the administration of relying on outdated 2020 protest footage to inflate the current threat. Graber appeared more receptive to this line, grilling McArthur on the proportionality of the response to what she called “largely protected First Amendment conduct.”
The panel did not issue a ruling at the hearing’s conclusion, but legal observers noted the skeptical tone from the Trump appointees as a potential harbinger of a decision favoring the administration. Earlier this week, the court had already placed an administrative hold, allowing the Oregon Guard to remain federalized but barring their deployment to Portland pending resolution— a move that preserved a fragile status quo.
This dispute is part of a broader pattern in Trump’s second term, where federal deployments to Democratic-led cities like Portland and Chicago have sparked lawsuits. In Illinois, a district judge blocked a similar Guard call-up, but the 9th Circuit has signaled openness to Trump’s authority in the West. Protests in Portland, ongoing for months with small crowds waving signs and occasionally clashing with federal agents, have remained low-key compared to 2020’s unrest, according to local police reports.
As the appeals court deliberates—potentially issuing a decision within days—the eyes of civil liberties advocates, state leaders, and Trump supporters remain fixed on Portland. For now, the ICE facility stands guarded by federal agents, but without the military presence the president sought. Whether this marks a temporary reprieve or a prelude to escalation could redefine the boundaries of executive power in an era of polarized protests.