The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear a pivotal case concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland. This significant decision vacates an earlier panel ruling that had sided with the Trump administration, effectively restoring a lower court’s injunction that blocks the deployment while the full court undertakes a comprehensive review of the National Guard deployment case. The move signals a heightened judicial scrutiny of presidential powers regarding the domestic military use of forces.
Full Court Agrees to Reconsider National Guard Deployment Case
In an order issued Tuesday, Chief Judge Mary Murguia announced that a majority of the Ninth Circuit’s active judges voted for an “en banc” rehearing of the National Guard deployment case. This means the appeal will now be considered by an expanded panel of 11 judges, rather than the three-judge panel that had previously issued a 2-1 decision in favor of the Trump administration. The immediate effect of this en banc order is that the prior ruling, which had temporarily permitted the federalization of approximately 200 members of the Oregon National Guard, is nullified. Consequently, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s initial restraining order, which barred any such deployment, remains in effect, affecting the National Guard deployment.
The case, State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al., centers on the Trump administration’s attempt to invoke Title 10 US Code authority to place state National Guard members under federal control for deployment in Portland amid ongoing protests. This legal challenge represents a critical clash between federal authority and state sovereignty, with profound implications for the balance of power in the United States, particularly concerning National Guard deployment.
Legal Underpinnings of the Dispute
The core of the legal battle lies in the interpretation of federal statutes governing the National Guard’s use. The Trump administration argued that President Trump lawfully exercised his statutory authority under Title 10 US Code. This statute permits the President to federalize National Guard troops when regular federal forces are unable to execute the laws of the United States, or in cases of invasion or rebellion. The administration contended that the situation in Portland, particularly concerning federal facilities like the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building, necessitated such an intervention for National Guard deployment.
However, the plaintiffs—the state of Oregon, the city of Portland, and later joined by the state of California—argued that Trump’s federalization order violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, impacting state sovereignty. They also invoked the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally prohibits the domestic military use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes. Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee herself, had previously ruled that the President’s justification for deployment, which characterized Portland as “war ravaged” and its ICE facility “under siege,” was “simply untethered to the facts” and lacked a factual or legal basis. Her initial ruling emphasized that the protests did not constitute a “rebellion” as required by law, questioning the grounds for National Guard deployment.
A Tumultuous Legal Journey
The path to the Ninth Circuit’s en banc review has been marked by a series of contentious court decisions concerning National Guard deployment. Following Judge Immergut’s temporary restraining orders (TROs) blocking the deployment, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit initially granted the Trump administration’s request to stay Immergut’s order, suggesting it was likely the President had acted lawfully. This panel decision, authored by Trump-appointed judges, drew sharp criticism from legal experts and officials who viewed it as an overreach of presidential power, related to the Trump presidential power debate.
However, a dissenting judge on that panel urged the full court to rehear the case regarding the National Guard deployment. Subsequently, an administrative stay was put in place, followed by the formal request for an en banc rehearing, culminating in the Tuesday order. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc underscores the judges’ recognition of its significant constitutional implications for National Guard deployment.
Broader Implications for Federal-State Relations
This ongoing legal saga highlights a persistent tension between federal executive authority and state autonomy, particularly concerning the deployment of National Guard forces. The case is part of a broader legal debate that has emerged regarding the President’s ability to use military power domestically, with similar challenges arising in other cities like Chicago and Los Angeles. Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates have warned that a broad interpretation of presidential power in this context could undermine democratic principles and the rule of law, affecting future National Guard deployment decisions.
Chief Judge Mary Murguia’s acknowledgement that the issues were “serious enough for a full review” suggests the appellate court intends to thoroughly examine the constitutional boundaries of presidential action. The outcome of this en banc review could set a significant precedent for future instances of federal-state disputes over National Guard deployments and the limits of executive power, impacting the federalization order process.
What Lies Ahead
While the Ninth Circuit prepares for its en banc rehearing, the injunction blocking the federalization of the Oregon National Guard remains in effect. The specific date for the en banc hearing has not yet been set. Meanwhile, a trial before Judge Immergut was scheduled to commence, focusing on the factual basis for the federalization order. The news from the Ninth Circuit, however, places the immediate future of any federalized National Guard deployment in Portland firmly on hold, awaiting the decision of the full appellate court. This critical news from Oregon’s federal courts continues to be closely watched, as it may define the scope of presidential power in domestic affairs for years to come, influencing the nature of National Guard deployment.
