A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration can proceed with deploying National Guard troops to Oregon despite opposition from the state government, effectively reversing a lower court’s earlier decision that prohibited the deployment. This ruling, issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was decided by a narrow 2-1 margin, with the majority judges concluding that President Trump likely acted within his legal authority.
The Justice Department argued that the ruling from U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut, who expressed skepticism about the President’s claims regarding the situation in Portland, improperly interfered with the President’s authority over military operations. Judge Immergut, a nominee of Trump, criticized the President’s assertions of a “war ravaged” city plagued by violence as exaggerated and disconnected from reality. She cited a calmer situation on the ground, referencing that only a small number of individuals were present at recent protests, mostly exhibiting low energy.
The majority opinion from Judges Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade emphasized that the President’s determination regarding the necessity of troop deployments merited significant deference, even if his social media statements might exaggerate the situation. They criticized the lower court’s findings as overstepping its bounds by substituting its assessments for the President’s.
In a sharp dissent, Judge Susan P. Graber argued that the ruling undermines vital constitutional principles, including states’ rights and the First Amendment. She characterized the portrayal of Portland as a war zone as far-fetched, particularly given the light-hearted conduct of some protesters.
While this ruling enables the deployment of Oregon’s National Guard, it specifically does not expand to troops from other states sent to Portland, a decision that remains subject to further appeals. The government has indicated its intention to challenge any restrictions on deploying troops in other regions, including a recent similar ruling in Chicago that barred National Guard deployment there.
This ruling showcases a significant tension between federal authority and state autonomy, particularly regarding military presence in civil matters. As the situation evolves, both sides appear committed to utilizing legal avenues to assert their positions in this matter.