🔗 Share this article

The ninth circuit court has upheld a prohibition on deploying state troops in Portland, Oregon, following a recent court ruling.

Appeals Court Agrees to Rehear Case

The federal appeals court decided on Tuesday that it would rehear the case concerning the president’s authority with an expanded group of 11 judges. The judicial body also overturned a previous decision from a three-judge panel that had supported the administration.

Ongoing Dispute Over Troop Deployment

This order represents the latest development in a protracted legal battle over whether the administration has the authority and justification to send state military units in Portland. Approximately 200 federalized guard members have been in limbo since the end of September when the deployment effort was started in response to months of protests.

Conflicting Arguments

The administration has claimed that federal officials at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while city and state officials maintain that local officers have command of the situation.

In defiance of characterizations of the city as “war ravaged”, locals have been sharing footage of scenic paths and a thriving food scene, and planning events such as an protest bicycle event against the “militarization of our city”.

Recent Legal Actions

The appeals court decision came after a US district judge in the city enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federal control of the state troops, and another prohibiting the deployment of any national guard troops in the state, after attempts to evade the first order by calling up troops from California.

On the previous day, the ninth circuit panel had put the first ruling on hold – allowing control of state troops – but the second ruling remained in place, preventing the physical sending of the troops.

Full Panel Consideration

The latest ruling means the matter will be heard by the full court – with all decisions under review together – by a group of 11 judges.

“This ruling demonstrates that facts are important and that the judicial system are striving to hold this administration accountable. The founding document restricts the president’s power, and local populations cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority,” said the state attorney general in a statement.

“The court is sending a definite signal: the executive leader cannot dispatch the military into American urban areas unnecessarily. We will continue protecting state legislation, values, and sovereignty as this legal proceeding moves forward and our legal battle continues in the courts.”