President Trump’s push to bring order to Portland’s chaotic streets with National Guard troops has just hit a judicial brick wall.
The Washington Times reported that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a prior decision that would have greenlit Trump’s deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, while a separate ruling allowing troops in Los Angeles stands firm.
This saga kicked off when Trump turned to the military for support in Los Angeles back in June, after riots erupted over a crackdown on immigration enforcement.
At its peak, Los Angeles saw about 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines on the ground, protecting federal property and backing up immigration agents during deportation efforts.
Though numbers have dwindled to a few hundred, the 9th Circuit declined to reconsider a ruling that keeps troops in place, citing the president’s broad legal authority to federalize forces when regular means fall short.
California and Los Angeles fought hard against this, with a lower court initially siding with them, but the appeals panel put that on hold, affirming Trump’s discretion in such matters.
Emboldened by the Los Angeles precedent, Trump sought to deploy troops to Portland and Chicago, pointing to anti-ICE protests as a threat to federal immigration operations.
District judges in both cities slapped down the plan with restraining orders, and while Chicago’s block was upheld on appeal—with Trump now seeking Supreme Court intervention—Portland’s case took a dramatic twist.
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit seemed to side with Trump, suggesting his legal footing for deployment was solid, though a second restraining order lingered.
That glimmer of hope for Trump was snuffed out on Tuesday when the full 9th Circuit decided to rehear the Portland case with a larger panel, reinstating both district court orders blocking the troops.
This move is a clear win for Oregon and Portland, who’ve been battling tooth and nail to keep federal forces off their streets, and a frustrating setback for a president trying to restore law and order.
While the left cheers this as a stand against so-called militarization, one has to wonder if they’d be singing the same tune if their own federal buildings were under siege.
Judge Ronald M. Gould didn’t mince words, cautioning, “Using military force to quell predominantly peaceful public protests as a first rather than a last resort may cause dissatisfaction of the citizenry and provoke civil unrest.”
With all due respect to the judge, isn’t unrest already the problem when protests disrupt federal duties—shouldn’t the priority be protecting those who enforce our laws, not coddling the chaos?
Gould doubled down, adding, “To have an armed military faced off against civilian protesters, whatever the motivation of the president, threatens to produce another tragedy, such as that occurring at Kent State University in 1970.”
While the historical nod stings, equating today’s targeted federal response to a 1970s catastrophe feels like a stretch—Trump’s aim is security, not suppression.