Appeals Court Reverses Block on National Guard Deployment for Portland
The federal appeals court flipped a district judge’s order and cleared President Trump to send National Guard troops to Portland, reversing a recent block by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut. This move handed the administration a significant legal win and sharpened the clash over federal authority to protect buildings and personnel.
The Ninth Circuit issued a divided ruling that found the president likely acted within his statutory power, leaning on the core text of the federal statute. “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,'” the majority wrote in their decision.
The administration has argued the Guard is needed to shield federal courthouses, ICE facilities, and personnel from repeated attacks and chaos around demonstrations. Opposing judges, including Immergut, pushed back hard, calling the president “untethered to reality” and accusing him of “blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”
Republicans and federal officials say those critiques miss the point: when local authorities cannot or will not protect federal assets, the federal government has a duty to act. The appeals court majority made clear it viewed the statutory mechanism as available precisely for situations where “regular forces” are insufficient.
The legal fight did not stop in the Ninth Circuit; it unfolded almost at the same time as another appeals court tussle in Chicago where a unanimous Seventh Circuit panel upheld a district injunction blocking Guard deployment. That split between circuits set up a possible Supreme Court clash over the proper balance between state and federal responses to unrest.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer moved quickly after the Chicago ruling, filing an emergency petition to the Supreme Court and framing the issue as urgent for federal safety. Sauer argued the lower court’s decision “intrudes on the president’s authority and needlessly puts federal personnel and property at risk.”
He also emphasized the practical consequences facing ICE officers and other federal workers who must operate amid sustained chaos and direct resistance. Sauer pointed to a “disturbing and recurring pattern” ICE agents being met with “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”
“Federal agents are forced to desperately scramble to protect themselves and federal property, allocating resources away from their law enforcement mission to conduct protective operations instead,” Sauer stressed.
Those on the ground report inconsistent support from local police and officials, which the administration says leaves federal teams exposed and undermines enforcement of federal statutes. “Receiving tepid support from local forces, they are often left to fend for themselves in the face of violent, hostile mobs,” the solicitor general added.
