🔗 Share this article

The ninth circuit court has upheld a ban on deploying national guard in the Oregon city, after a latest legal decision.

Appeals Court Concurs to Reconsider Case

The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled on this week that it would rehear the case concerning the executive power with an expanded panel of 11 judges. The judicial body also vacated a earlier decision from a smaller judicial group that had supported the federal government.

Ongoing Dispute Over Military Presence

This order represents the latest turn in a long-running court case over whether the administration has the legal right and valid reason to send national guard forces in Portland. Approximately 200 federalized guard members have been in uncertainty since late September when the deployment effort was started in response to ongoing demonstrations.

Differing Viewpoints

The federal government has argued that federal officials at the ICE facility in the southern part of the city were under attack, while local authorities assert that local officers have control of the circumstances.

Contrary to characterizations of Portland as “war ravaged”, locals have been posting footage of lush hiking trails and a vibrant culinary culture, and organizing events such as an protest bicycle event against the increased military presence.

Recent Legal Actions

The Tuesday ruling came after a US district judge in Portland enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federalization of the state troops, and another stopping the deployment of any national guard troops in the state, after attempts to circumvent the initial injunction by calling up troops from California.

On Monday, the ninth circuit panel had put the first ruling on hold – allowing control of 200 Oregon national guard – but the second ruling stayed effective, preventing the actual deployment of the troops.

Full Panel Consideration

The Tuesday decision means the matter will be heard “en banc” – with both rulings under consideration together – by a panel of eleven justices.

“This ruling shows that facts are important and that the courts are striving to hold this administration accountable. The constitution restricts the executive authority, and local populations cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority,” said the state attorney general in a official comment.

“The judicial body is sending a clear message: the executive leader cannot send the armed forces into US cities unnecessarily. We will continue defending state legislation, principles, and autonomy as this case progresses and our fight continues in the courts.”