🔗 Share this article

The federal appeals court has upheld a prohibition on deploying state troops in Portland, Oregon, after a recent court ruling.

Appeals Court Concurs to Rehear Legal Matter

The ninth circuit court of appeals decided on this week that it would rehear the case concerning the executive power with an larger panel of eleven justices. The court also overturned a earlier ruling from a three-judge panel that had sided with the federal government.

Legal Saga Over Military Presence

This legal directive represents the latest development in a long-running court case over whether the former president has the authority and valid reason to send state military units in the city. Approximately two hundred troops have been in limbo since the end of September when the deployment effort was started in response to ongoing demonstrations.

Conflicting Arguments

The administration has argued that government employees at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while city and state officials maintain that municipal police have command of the situation.

Contrary to characterizations of Portland as a conflict zone, locals have been sharing videos of lush hiking trails and a thriving food scene, and planning events such as an Emergency Naked Bike Ride against the increased military presence.

Recent Legal Actions

The appeals court decision came after a federal judge in the city enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one blocking the federalization of the Oregon national guard, and another stopping the deployment of any national guard troops in Oregon, after attempts to circumvent the initial injunction by mobilizing out-of-state forces.

On the previous day, the ninth circuit panel had put the first ruling on hold – permitting command of 200 Oregon national guard – but the subsequent injunction remained in place, preventing the physical sending of the troops.

Full Panel Consideration

The latest ruling means the issue will be heard “en banc” – with both rulings under review simultaneously – by a group of eleven justices.

“This decision shows that facts are important and that the courts are striving to ensure government responsibility. The founding document limits 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 clear message: the executive leader cannot send the armed forces into US cities unnecessarily. We will continue protecting state legislation, values, and autonomy as this legal proceeding moves forward and our legal battle continues in the judicial system.”