🔗 Share this article

The ninth circuit court has maintained a ban on deploying national guard in Portland, Oregon, following a latest legal decision.

Judicial Panel Agrees to Rehear Legal Matter

The federal appeals court decided on this week that it would reexamine the legal dispute concerning the president’s authority with an larger group of 11 judges. The court also overturned a earlier ruling from a three-judge panel that had sided with the administration.

Ongoing Dispute Over Military Presence

This order represents the latest development in a protracted court case over whether the administration has the authority and valid reason to deploy national guard forces in Portland. Approximately 200 federalized guard members have been in limbo since late September when the deployment effort was started in due to ongoing demonstrations.

Conflicting Arguments

The federal government has claimed that government employees at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while city and state officials assert that local officers have control of the circumstances.

In defiance of characterizations of the city as a conflict zone, locals have been sharing videos of lush hiking trails and a vibrant culinary culture, and planning activities such as an Emergency Naked Bike Ride against the “militarization of our city”.

Recent Legal Actions

The appeals court decision came after a federal judge in Portland enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federalization of the Oregon national guard, and another prohibiting the use of any national guard troops in the state, after efforts to evade the initial injunction by calling up out-of-state forces.

On Monday, the appeals court had put the first ruling on hold – permitting command of state troops – but the subsequent injunction stayed effective, blocking the physical sending of the forces.

En Banc Review

The Tuesday decision means the issue will be heard by the full court – with all decisions under review simultaneously – by a panel of 11 judges.

“This ruling shows that the truth matters and that the courts 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 expansive government power,” said the state attorney general in a statement.

“The court is sending a definite signal: the president cannot dispatch the armed forces into US cities unnecessarily. We will continue defending state legislation, values, and sovereignty as this case progresses and our legal battle continues in the judicial system.”