Legal Challenges Persist Over Trump's National Guard Troop Deployment in Oregon

Tue Oct 21 2025 14:27:12 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

An appeals court temporarily halts a ruling blocking President Trump's command over Oregon National Guard troops, yet deployment remains barred amid ongoing legal disputes.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has intervened to stay a lower court's ruling that prevented President Donald Trump from deploying 200 Oregon National Guard troops to the state. Although a portion of the lower court's order was put on hold, Trump is still prohibited from sending the troops to Portland. The case reflects continuing tensions between federal and state authority regarding military deployment in civil matters, with Oregon officials expressing significant concerns over the implications for democratic governance.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A major legal twist unfolded in the ongoing saga over President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday temporarily put on hold a lower court ruling that blocked Trump from mobilizing 200 troops from the Oregon National Guard. Despite this legal development, a separate ruling still prohibits the deployment from occurring, leaving the situation in a complicated balance.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had issued restrictions aimed at limiting Trump's ability to send troops into Oregon, asserting that the presence of federal forces could undermine public safety and democratic governance. Trump's administration, however, argued that the president must have the ability to federalize the troops to ensure law and order, claiming that without them, he could not effectively enforce the laws necessary to protect federal properties.

Following the appellate panel's ruling, the administration indicated plans to request that Judge Immergut lift the ban on troop deployment. The Justice Department has persistently maintained that it's inappropriate for the courts to interfere with the president's decisions regarding military mobilization.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield opposed this interpretation, arguing that allowing the federal government to unilaterally send troops poses a significant threat to civil liberties. He expressed concerns about the precedent this sets, highlighting that unchecked presidential power could lead to excessive military presence on state streets with little justification.

Meanwhile, Trump's efforts to deploy military forces in response to civil unrest continue to face criticism and legal pushback. His past actions in cities like Los Angeles have already been challenged in court, raising questions about the legality of military involvement in civilian matters, especially under laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

With the legal limbo ongoing, small-scale protests have persisted in Portland, with groups appearing near the ICE building amidst climactic back-and-forth between federal and state authorities. The situation remains fluid with potential consequences for governance and public safety.