9th Circuit Court Questions Order Halting Trump’s Troop Deployment to Portland

A recent hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raised questions surrounding a temporary order that halts President Donald Trump’s deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland. The court expressed skepticism about the legal basis for blocking such an action. The case involves a dispute between the Trump administration and Oregon state officials regarding the necessity and legality of bringing in the National Guard amidst ongoing protests.

Legal Background and Court Proceedings

On October 9, 2025, a three-judge panel listened to arguments in San Francisco about this contentious issue. The panel included Judges Ryan Nelson, Bridget Bade, and Susan Graber. Both Nelson and Bade were appointed by Trump, while Graber was nominated by President Bill Clinton.

Attorneys for Trump contended that he has the authority to federalize the National Guard amidst escalating violence and threats directed at federal officials and facilities. They sought to overturn a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Karin Immergut, who stated that the administration failed to provide sufficient evidence of an invasion or insurrection to justify the deployment.

Conditions for National Guard Deployment

According to federal law, a president can deploy the National Guard under specific circumstances, such as foreign invasion, rebellion, or incapacity to enforce federal laws. Judge Immergut determined that the Trump administration’s arguments did not establish these criteria in the context of the protests occurring in Portland.

Arguments Presented

• Trump Administration’s Position: The federal representation, led by Eric McArthur from the Department of Justice, claimed that the current unrest warranted military intervention. They referenced specific incidents of violence during protests, including assaults on officers.
• Oregon State’s Counter-Argument: The state’s attorney, Stacy Marie Chaffin, argued that the majority of protests were peaceful expressions under the First Amendment. She emphasized that the request for military deployment exceeded executive authority.

Specific Incidents of Protest Violence

McArthur highlighted sporadic violence, including an episode on June 14, where protesters engaged in attacks against officers. He claimed that daily local police resources were overstretched due to ongoing protests. “At any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence,” McArthur remarked.

Judicial Insights and Considerations

The judges expressed concern over whether the judiciary has the right to challenge the president’s assessments regarding the necessity for National Guard deployment. Judge Nelson questioned the practicality of a district court questioning executive decisions in law enforcement.

In contrast, Chaffin indicated that sporadic violence did not equate to organized rebellion or an attempt to overthrow the government, suggesting the administration’s reasoning for deployment lacked substantial evidence.

Conclusion and Future Developments

The appeals court has not issued a ruling yet but has stated that it will provide an opinion swiftly. Observers are closely monitoring the outcome, which could set a significant precedent regarding the deployment of National Guards in similar scenarios.