🔗 Share this article

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

Judicial Panel Agrees to Rehear Case

The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled on Tuesday that it would rehear the legal dispute concerning the president’s authority with an larger panel of 11 judges. The judicial body also vacated a earlier ruling from a three-judge panel that had sided with the administration.

Legal Saga Over Military Presence

This order represents the most recent turn in a long-running court case over whether the administration has the authority and valid reason to deploy national guard forces in the city. Approximately 200 federalized guard members have been in limbo since late September when the deployment effort was started in due to ongoing demonstrations.

Conflicting Arguments

The federal government has argued that government employees at the ICE facility in the southern part of the city were facing threats, while local authorities maintain that municipal police have control of the situation.

Contrary to characterizations of Portland as “war ravaged”, locals have been sharing footage of lush hiking trails and a thriving food scene, and organizing activities such as an protest bicycle event against the “militarization of our city”.

Recent Legal Actions

The Tuesday ruling came after a US district judge in the city issued two temporary restraining orders this month – one blocking the federal control of the Oregon national guard, 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 200 Oregon national guard – but the subsequent injunction remained in place, blocking the physical sending of the troops.

En Banc Review

The latest ruling means the matter will be heard by the full court – with all decisions under consideration together – by a group of eleven justices.

“This ruling shows that facts are important and that the courts are striving to ensure government responsibility. The founding document limits the executive authority, and local populations cannot be treated as a training ground for expansive government power,” stated the state attorney general in a official comment.

“The court is sending a definite signal: the executive leader cannot dispatch the armed forces into American urban areas unnecessarily. We will continue protecting Oregon’s laws, values, and autonomy as this case moves forward and our legal battle continues in the judicial system.”