🔗 Share this article

The federal appeals court has upheld a ban on deploying national guard in Portland, Oregon, after a latest legal decision.

Judicial Panel Concurs to Rehear Legal Matter

The ninth circuit court of appeals decided on Tuesday that it would rehear the legal dispute concerning the executive power with an expanded group of 11 judges. The court also vacated a earlier decision from a three-judge panel that had sided with the federal government.

Ongoing Dispute Over Troop Deployment

This legal directive represents the latest turn in a long-running court case over whether the administration has the legal right and valid reason to deploy state military units in the city. Approximately two hundred troops have been in uncertainty since the end of September when the mobilization attempt was started in response to months of protests.

Differing Viewpoints

The federal government has claimed that government employees at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while city and state officials assert that municipal police have control of the situation.

In defiance of characterizations of Portland as a conflict zone, residents have been sharing footage of lush hiking trails and a thriving food scene, and planning events such as an protest bicycle event against the “militarization of our city”.

Court Proceedings

The appeals court decision came after a US district judge in Portland enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federal control of the Oregon national guard, and another prohibiting the use of any military personnel in Oregon, after attempts to circumvent the first order by calling up troops from California.

On the previous day, the ninth circuit panel had temporarily suspended the initial decision – permitting control of state troops – but the second ruling remained in place, blocking the actual deployment of the forces.

Full Panel Consideration

The latest ruling means the matter will be heard “en banc” – with both rulings under review together – by a panel of 11 judges.

“This decision shows that facts are important and that the courts are working to ensure government responsibility. The founding document limits the executive authority, and local populations 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 US cities without cause. We will continue protecting state legislation, values, and sovereignty as this case moves forward and our legal battle continues in the judicial system.”