Oregon leaders say the fight isn’t over after a federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump likely had the authority to take control of the Oregon National Guard during the social unrest that shook Portland in 2020.
The protests that erupted after the murder of George Floyd began peacefully before clashes with federal officers filled downtown streets with tear gas and flash-bangs. Local leaders accused the White House of inflaming tensions when it moved to federalize the Guard without the governor’s consent.
A federal appeals court on Monday cleared Trump to for now send Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, lifting a previous lower court ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Trump likely acted within his authority when he ordered 200 Guard members into federal service for 60 days to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workers and property at the Lindquist Federal Building.
The Department of Justice appealed the previous decision and received a 2-1 ruling in their favor.
A federal district court later blocked the move and barred any troop deployment into Oregon. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now reversed part of that ruling, finding that the president likely has the power to federalize a state’s Guard under federal law. Another order still prevents deployment for now.
City and state officials say the decision may settle a legal question but not the tension left behind.
“The court may have ruled on the legality, but it can’t ignore the impact that deployment had on our community,” a Portland city spokesperson told Military.com. “Portland needed de-escalation, not confrontation.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said the decision undermines state authority and risks turning federal power against local communities.
“This ruling is deeply troubling,” Merkley said in a statement. “It opens the door for any president to seize control of a state’s National Guard for political purposes. Oregonians remember what happened when federal forces flooded Portland’s streets. No community should have to relive that.”
White House, DHS Support Ruling
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the court reaffirmed that Trump was acting lawfully to protect federal facilities.
“As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address,” Jackson said. “This ruling reaffirms that the lower court’s ruling was unlawful and incorrect.”
A Department of Homeland Security official added that the ruling validates the work of federal officers who protected courthouses and government property, saying DHS remains committed to safeguarding federal employees and facilities wherever threats arise.
The ruling could set the stage for a Supreme Court challenge over who controls a state’s Guard in times of unrest. Oregon officials have not said whether they will appeal.
Story Continues
Read the full article here
27 Comments
Oregon’s leaders have every right to push back, but was the White House actually overstepping? The Guard is technically under federal authority, even if they’re usually state-controlled.
I think the bigger question is whether this sets a dangerous precedent.
The issue isn’t just authority, but the timing and justification.
Oregon’s pushback isn’t just about this incident. It’s about the principle of states’ rights versus federal authority, which has been a persistent issue in US governance.
That tension never really goes away, does it?
This ruling is a reminder that legal authority and public perception don’t always align, especially in volatile situations like Portland in 2020.
That’s always the risk with federal interventions in state matters.
This ruling seems to hinge on whether the federal government had a legitimate reason to intervene. Protecting ICE property might not have been the best way to gain local support, even if legally justified.
It’s all about perception, which is why this became so controversial.
This legal battle highlights broader tensions between state and federal authorities over National Guard control. It’s a slippery slope when the federal government can override local decisions, especially in matters of public safety.
The concern is setting a precedent for future interventions.
Agreed, but wasn’t this about protecting federal property during unrest?
Interesting that the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the initial district court ruling. It shows how legal interpretations can vary even within the same judicial system.
The split decision from the appeals court suggests there’s no clear consensus.
Exactly, and it’s really the job of the courts to interpret these authority gaps.
The federal government’s authority to control the National Guard is always controversial. This case will probably be studied for years.
Especially if the Supreme Court takes it up.
The Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 ruling suggests internal disagreement. That alone shows how fraught this issue is, even for judges.
It’s rare to see such disagreement in the appeals court, which makes this worth watching.
The federal appeal victory is a win for the administration, but it’s not the final word. This fight could still go to the Supreme Court.
That would be the next big legal showdown if it happens.
Local leaders accused the White House of inflaming tensions. Whether that’s true or just political posturing is harder to say.
Politics always plays a role in national security decisions.
The protests started peacefully, but the federal response escalated tensions. It’s a case study in how law enforcement can sometimes make situations worse.
But wasn’t the federal presence meant to de-escalate things by protecting federal assets?
The court’s decision to lift the block on deployment is temporary, which means the legal battle isn’t over. Oregon still has options to contest this.
The fight continues, for better or worse.