.
Federal Appeals Court Allows Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Oregon
On Oct. 8, the appeals court restored the president’s control over the troops but said he could not deploy them for the time being.
Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and police, clash with protesters outside a downtown Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 4, 2025. Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Matthew Vadum
10/20/2025|Updated: 10/20/2025
A federal appeals court ruled on Oct. 20 that President Donald Trump may deploy National Guard troops to deal with violence directed against federal immigration facilities in Portland, Oregon, while the case works its way through the lower courts.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit voted 2–1 to stay an Oct. 4 order of District Judge Karin J. Immergut of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, who blocked a move by Trump to deploy members of the Oregon National Guard to Portland.
The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Ryan Nelson, Bridget Bade, and Susan Graber, heard oral arguments in the case in San Francisco on Oct. 9.
“Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal, and ... other stay factors weigh in their favor,” the panel stated in its new order. “We grant Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal.”
The defendants in the case, known as State of Oregon v. Trump, are Trump, War Secretary Peter Hegseth, the Department of War (formally known as the Department of Defense), Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and the Department of Homeland Security.
The panel found that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. [Section] 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’”
Responding to a lawsuit filed by Oregon, Immergut had issued a temporary restraining order directing the Trump administration to not deploy federalized National Guard troops to Oregon. A president may take over, or federalize, state National Guard troops on an emergency basis in certain circumstances. The order was set to expire on Oct. 18.
In her order, Immergut noted that Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sept. 27 that he was sending troops “to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
The judge held that Trump was not legally entitled to federalize the Oregon National Guard and that the situation in Portland was not as dire as the federal government claimed.
On Oct. 15, Immergut extended her order by 14 days.
On Oct. 8, the same Ninth Circuit panel restored Trump’s control over Oregon National Guard troops but said he may not deploy them for the time being. The panel granted what lawyers call an administrative stay of Immergut’s order, which gives the circuit court judges more time to consider the federal government’s emergency appeal.
At a hearing the next day, Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacy Marie Chaffin told the panel that the protests directed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Portland in September had been “generally calm and sedate,” and only minimally interfered with ICE business.
Nelson said Chaffin’s description of the extent of the violence was “clearly erroneous.”
“There’s still violence going on,” the judge said.
Nelson said the violence in Portland has been diminishing over time, but only because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent 115 members of the Federal Protective Service to the scene.
Bade said the ICE facility was forced to shut down from June 13 to July 7. There have been at least two attempts to burn the building down, she said, and it is currently boarded up.
In the new order, the panel stated that there have been regular protests at the Lindquist Federal Building, an ICE facility in Portland, since June of this year.
“Some of these protests have been peaceful, but many have turned violent, and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers and the building,” the order reads.
The order spends several pages detailing the violent protests.
Protesters have set fire to material barricading a vehicle gate, and on June 14 the protesters, including one carrying a firearm, threw rocks and sticks at a guard shack and fired M80 fireworks at Federal Protective Service officers.
The order also states that Federal Protective Service and ICE officers “have been the targets of doxing” and that protesters have protested at the hotels where the officers were staying.
Several officers had their names, photographs, and home addresses posted publicly, “along with threatening messages.”
“Multiple Portland ICE officers have had unknown individuals appear at their residences in vehicles and on foot, peering into their homes and recording officers coming and going,” the order states.
The order states that on Sept. 9, screenshots taken from social media captured threats to murder ICE officers. The social media posts contained messages such as “Fed ain’t nothin but a target practice,” “Execute gestapo on sight,” and “Off The Pigs.”
Graber dissented from the panel’s order.
She cited a police officer’s report from Sept. 26 that states that throughout that day about eight to 15 people were seen in front of the ICE facility at any given time and that they were “mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around.”
“It is hard to understand how a tiny protest causing no disruptions could possibly satisfy the standard that the President is unable to execute the laws,” Graber said.
The panel majority “abdicates our judicial responsibility” and allows the president “to invoke emergency authority in a situation far divorced from an enumerated emergency,” she said.
Meanwhile, later on Oct. 20, Senior Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas made an order calling a vote among the circuit court judges on whether the case should be reheard by a larger panel of judges. The order said a judge on the circuit requested such a vote but did not identify the person.
The parties were directed to file briefs by midnight on Oct. 22 on whether the case should be reheard.
--------------
From The Epoch Times
Link:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/fed...tm_campaign=gp
.
