🔗 Share this article

The federal appeals court has upheld a prohibition on sending state troops in the Oregon city, after a recent legal decision.

Appeals Court Concurs to Rehear Legal Matter

The ninth circuit court of appeals decided on this week that it would rehear the legal dispute concerning the president’s authority with an expanded panel of 11 judges. The judicial body also vacated a earlier decision from a three-judge panel that had sided with the federal government.

Legal Saga Over Troop Deployment

This order represents the most recent turn in a protracted court case over whether the administration has the legal right and justification to deploy state military units in Portland. Approximately two hundred troops have been in limbo since the end of September when the mobilization attempt was initiated in response to ongoing demonstrations.

Conflicting Arguments

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

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

Court Proceedings

The Tuesday ruling came after a federal judge in the city enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federalization of the state troops, and another stopping the deployment of any military personnel in Oregon, after efforts to evade the first order by calling up troops from California.

On the previous day, the appeals court had put the first ruling on hold – permitting command of 200 Oregon national guard – but the second ruling remained in place, preventing the actual deployment of the forces.

En Banc Review

The latest ruling means the issue will be heard “en banc” – with all decisions under review together – by a group of 11 judges.

“This ruling shows that facts are important and that the judicial system are striving to ensure government responsibility. The founding document restricts the executive authority, and Oregon’s communities cannot be treated as a testing site for expansive government power,” said the state attorney general in a statement.

“The court is sending a definite signal: the executive leader cannot dispatch the armed forces into American urban areas unnecessarily. We will continue defending state legislation, principles, and autonomy as this case moves forward and our fight continues in the judicial system.”