A federal appeals court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump can deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to grant a stay of a lower court’s temporary restraining order that had blocked the deployment. The decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with federalizing 200 Oregon National Guard members while the legal challenge continues through the courts.
In its unsigned opinion, the majority concluded that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'”
The appeals court criticized the lower court for “substituting its own assessment of the facts for the President’s assessment of the facts” rather than applying the required “highly deferential standard of review.” The panel determined that when considering the totality of circumstances from June through September 2025, the President’s decision “reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.'”
Judges Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, both appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Trump during his first term, formed the majority. Judge Susan P. Graber, appointed by President Bill Clinton, dissented.
The legal battle stems from months of protests outside the Lindquist Building, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland. According to court documents, protests began in early June 2025, with varying levels of intensity.
The Trump administration cited numerous incidents to justify the deployment, including protesters throwing rocks, sticks, and incendiary devices at federal officers; setting fires; attempting to breach the building’s front door; and doxing ICE agents online. The facility was closed for approximately three weeks from June 13 to July 7 due to protest-related damage and threats.
Federal officials stated that the Federal Protective Service had deployed 115 officers—nearly 25% of the agency’s nationwide capacity—to Portland, working 12-hour shifts seven days a week at a cost exceeding $2 million in overtime since June. Officials described these deployments as “irregular and unsustainable.”
On October 4, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, initially blocked the National Guard deployment. Judge Immergut found that the President’s characterization of Portland as “war-ravaged” and under siege from “Antifa and other domestic terrorists” was “simply untethered to the facts.”
In her ruling, Judge Immergut noted that in the two weeks preceding Trump’s September 27 announcement, protests had been small and peaceful, with police reports describing “minimal activity” and protesters “mostly sitting in lawn chairs.” On September 26, the day before Trump’s announcement, police observed approximately 8-15 people with “low energy” and “minimal activity.”
Judge Immergut concluded that recent incidents, while “unacceptable,” did not rise to the level that “cannot be managed by regular law enforcement forces.” She determined that Oregon and Portland were likely to succeed in their claim that the President exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.
The judge also issued a second temporary restraining order on October 5 that prohibited the deployment of any federalized National Guard members in Oregon after the administration attempted to send California National Guard troops to the state.
In a lengthy dissent, Judge Graber argued that the government failed to meet its burden of showing it would likely succeed on appeal. She emphasized that in the five days immediately preceding the President’s September 27 announcement, police reports showed “no activity,” “minimal activity,” and “no incidents,” with small groups ranging from 7 to 20 people.
Judge Graber criticized the majority for expanding the relevant timeframe beyond the present circumstances contemplated by the statute’s plain language, which uses present tense: “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” She argued that the statute’s text, when compared to its companion subsections that include forward-looking language about “danger of invasion” and “danger of rebellion,” makes clear that subsection three concerns only present circumstances.
The dissent also questioned the majority’s reliance on Federal Protective Service staffing challenges, noting that the government provided insufficient detail about whether officers rotated in and out or whether Portland truly represented an unsustainable drain on resources.
The deployment is part of a broader Trump administration effort to send National Guard troops to multiple Democratic-led cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.. Courts have issued mixed rulings on these deployments. The Ninth Circuit previously allowed deployment to Los Angeles in a similar case, Newsom v. Trump, while the Seventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion regarding deployments to Chicago.
The second temporary restraining order blocking deployment of any National Guard troops in Oregon remains in effect, as the government has not appealed that order. Legal analysts expect the Justice Department to seek dissolution of that order in light of Monday’s ruling.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has indicated the state will continue fighting the deployment. The legal battle is expected to continue as the case proceeds through the appeals process and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court.
