🔗 Share this article

The ninth circuit court has upheld a ban on sending national guard in Portland, Oregon, after a recent court ruling.

Judicial Panel Concurs to Rehear Legal Matter

The ninth circuit court of appeals decided on Tuesday that it would reexamine the legal dispute concerning the executive power with an expanded group of 11 judges. The court also overturned a earlier decision from a three-judge panel that had supported the administration.

Legal Saga Over Troop Deployment

This order represents the latest development in a long-running court case over whether the administration has the legal right and justification to send state military units in the city. Approximately two hundred troops have been in uncertainty since late September when the mobilization attempt was started in due to months of protests.

Conflicting Arguments

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

Contrary to descriptions of the city as a conflict zone, locals have been posting videos of lush hiking trails and a thriving food scene, and organizing activities such as an Emergency Naked Bike Ride against the “militarization of our city”.

Court Proceedings

The Tuesday ruling came after a US district judge in Portland enacted two temporary restraining orders this period – one preventing the federalization of the Oregon national guard, and another stopping the deployment of any national guard troops in Oregon, after attempts to circumvent the first order by mobilizing out-of-state forces.

On Monday, the appeals court had temporarily suspended the initial decision – permitting command of 200 Oregon national guard – but the second ruling remained in place, preventing the physical sending of the forces.

En Banc Review

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

“This decision shows that facts are important and that the judicial system are striving to ensure government responsibility. The constitution limits the president’s power, and local populations cannot be treated as a testing site for unchecked federal authority,” said the state attorney general in a official comment.

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