In a closely watched legal showdown over presidential power, a federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, overturning a lower court’s block on the move. The decision, handed down on October 20, 2025, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, marks a key win for the Trump administration as it pushes to send federal forces into Democratic-led cities facing protests over immigration enforcement. However, the ruling’s immediate impact remains limited, and both sides are gearing up for further battles in the courts.
The 2-1 decision from a three-judge panel allows Trump to federalize the Oregon National Guard under a statute that permits such action when the president determines regular federal forces cannot execute the laws of the United States. The majority opinion criticized U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut’s earlier orders, which had halted the deployment, for failing to give proper deference to Trump’s assessment of the situation. Immergut, a Trump appointee from his first term, had argued that by late September—when Trump announced the plan—Portland’s protests had largely calmed, with no sustained violence for months.
Protests in Portland, Oregon’s largest city, erupted in June over White House immigration policies, particularly targeting the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Demonstrators clashed with federal agents in mid-summer, leading to arrests for riots and arson. The Trump administration contends that the facility has faced “actual and threatened violence,” including attacks on officers and property, necessitating military support to protect federal assets. In court filings, Justice Department lawyers described the unrest as ongoing and unsustainable for limited federal law enforcement resources.
Oregon officials paint a different picture. State Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D) and Governor Tina Kotek have accused the administration of exaggerating threats to justify federal overreach. They argue that demonstrations have been mostly peaceful since summer, with no arrests needed for months by the time of Trump’s announcement. Kotek, in a virtual press conference after the ruling, expressed deep concern, noting that hundreds of National Guard troops—citizen-soldiers pulled from families and jobs—remain in limbo without clear deployment orders or communication from federal officials. “I’m very troubled by the decision of the court,” she said, echoing calls for a full review by a larger panel of judges.
The appeals panel, consisting of Judges Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade (both Trump appointees) and Susan P. Graber (a Bill Clinton appointee), heard arguments earlier this month. During oral arguments, Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacy M. Chaffin emphasized that staffing shortages among federal agents do not constitute a “rebellion” or emergency warranting troops on city streets. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur countered that Immergut had wrongly focused on a narrow timeframe, ignoring broader patterns of disruption, including incidents in September.
The majority agreed, stating that Immergut “substituted her own assessment of the facts for the President’s assessment” and erred in characterizing recent events as non-violent. They found it “likely” that Trump acted lawfully under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which covers situations where federal laws cannot be enforced without military aid. The panel also linked Immergut’s two restraining orders— one blocking Oregon Guard deployment and another barring any National Guard entry—ruling they “rise or fall together.” Following the decision, the Justice Department moved to dissolve or pause the second order.
Judge Graber dissented sharply, warning that the ruling “erodes core constitutional principles,” including states’ control over their militias and citizens’ First Amendment rights to protest. She argued there had been no disruptions to law enforcement in the two weeks before Trump’s order and dismissed claims of an ongoing emergency as illogical: “A pot of tepid water is not a pot of boiling water, and it cannot hurt you, even if it was boiling three hours earlier.” Graber urged an immediate en banc rehearing by the full 9th Circuit and noted that, without an appeal of the second order at the time, the ruling wouldn’t yet allow deployments.
The White House hailed the decision as validation of Trump’s authority. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated, “President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address. This ruling reaffirms that the lower court’s ruling was unlawful and incorrect.” Rayfield, however, called it a “dangerous path,” warning it grants the president “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification.”
This case is part of a broader wave of legal challenges to Trump’s second-term push to deploy troops in cities he has labeled “war-ravaged” and “Democrat-run disasters.” Protests have fueled a national backlash, including a weekend “No Kings” rally with over 2,700 events drawing millions. A group of senators, including Oregon’s representatives, sent a letter to the Defense Department Inspector General on October 17, requesting an inquiry into the deployments’ effects on military readiness and civil rights, calling them “fundamentally un-Constitutional” and risky.
Elsewhere, outcomes have been mixed:
- Chicago, Illinois: A federal judge blocked Trump’s deployment, citing a “lack of credibility” in federal claims. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule— a decision could come this week. Separately, the 7th Circuit partially lifted a block, allowing troops to stage at a reserve base outside the city but not enter.
- Los Angeles and San Francisco, California: Trump has vowed to send forces, prompting sharp rebukes. Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted, “Nobody wants you here. You will ruin one of America’s greatest cities.” San Francisco Senator Scott Wiener added, “Stay the hell out of San Francisco.” Tech mogul Marc Benioff initially supported troops for a conference but later apologized, saying they weren’t needed.
- Washington, D.C., and Memphis, Tennessee: Similar mobilizations have sparked lawsuits and pop-up protests from local leaders who argue the moves inflame tensions rather than resolve them.
Trump has invoked the rare Insurrection Act as a potential tool, allowing military deployment in extreme cases, though he has not yet done so. Critics, including civil liberties groups, fear it blurs civil-military lines and targets political opposition.
For now, Portland’s troops remain sidelined pending possible en banc review. Both sides must submit briefs by October 22 on whether the full 9th Circuit should rehear the case. A separate judge has already requested a vote on en banc status, and Oregon plans to petition for it. As the appeals process unfolds—and with the Supreme Court looming—these rulings underscore a tense national debate over when, and how, the federal government can override local control in times of unrest.