🔗 Share this article

The ninth circuit court has upheld a ban on deploying state troops in Portland, Oregon, after a latest legal decision.

Appeals Court Concurs to Rehear Case

The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled on this week that it would reexamine the case concerning the president’s authority with an larger group of 11 judges. The judicial body also vacated a previous ruling from a smaller judicial group that had supported the federal government.

Legal Saga Over Military Presence

This order represents the most recent development in a protracted court case over whether the administration has the legal right and justification to send national guard forces in Portland. Approximately two hundred troops have been in limbo since the end of September when the mobilization attempt was started in response to months of protests.

Conflicting Arguments

The administration has argued that government employees at the ICE facility in the southern part of the city were facing threats, while city and state officials assert that municipal police have control of the circumstances.

In defiance of descriptions of Portland as “war ravaged”, locals have been posting videos of lush hiking trails and a thriving food scene, and organizing events such as an protest bicycle event against the increased military presence.

Court Proceedings

The Tuesday ruling came after a federal judge in Portland issued two temporary restraining orders this period – one preventing the federal control of the state troops, and another prohibiting the deployment of any national guard troops in the state, after efforts to evade the initial injunction by calling up out-of-state forces.

On the previous day, the ninth circuit panel had put the first ruling on hold – allowing control of state troops – but the second ruling remained in place, blocking the physical sending of the forces.

En Banc Review

The Tuesday decision means the matter will be heard “en banc” – with all decisions under consideration together – by a panel of 11 judges.

“This ruling demonstrates 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,” stated the state attorney general in a statement.

“The court is sending a clear message: the president cannot dispatch the armed forces into US cities unnecessarily. We will continue defending Oregon’s laws, values, and autonomy as this case progresses and our fight continues in the judicial system.”