<div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-0"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">The Trump administration can proceed with deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Ore., under a ruling Monday<strong class="css-8qgvsz ebyp5n10"> </strong>by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that dismissed a lower court’s contention that protests in the city have been largely peaceful and under control.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">The <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150.61.0.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">appellate ruling</a> lifted <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/05/us/trump-national-guard-california-oregon-newsom.html" title="">a temporary block</a> on the deployment of Oregon and California National Guard soldiers by Judge Karin J. Immergut of the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon. It was not immediately clear whether the order also allowed President Trump to use National Guard soldiers from Texas or other states, as he has suggested he might do.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">Lawyers for Oregon and the city of Portland immediately asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for what’s known as an “en banc” rehearing, an appeal before the chief circuit judge and 10 randomly selected judges. But Monday’s ruling opened the door to some federal troops being stationed at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in South Portland that has been the site of street protests since June.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">“Some of these protests have been peaceful, but many have turned violent, and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers and the building,” wrote Judges Bridget Bade and Ryan Nelson, both nominees of Mr. Trump, who has portrayed Portland as a city in chaos.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div><div data-testid="Dropzone-1"></div><div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-1"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">The judges went on to cite a number of instances in which demonstrators in Portland attempted to set fires at the building, threw rocks and sticks, threatened officers with knives, shined lights in officers’ eyes and shot paintballs at officers.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">“Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis” to support his decision to use National Guard soldiers, the judges wrote.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">In a dissent, Judge Susan P. Graber, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, disputed her colleagues’ characterization of the situation in Portland.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">She wrote that “Today’s decision is not merely absurd, it erodes core constitutional principles,” including state control over the National Guard and the First Amendment right to assemble and protest.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">A <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71481149/1/2/state-of-oregon-v-trump/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">memo</a> in September from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Guard troops could be stationed anywhere that protests “are occurring or likely to occur,” and could accompany federal agents who are enacting Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda in the field.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div><div data-testid="Dropzone-3"></div><div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-2"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">The memo came a day after a social-media post by Mr. Trump stating that he would send “all necessary troops” “to protect war-ravaged Portland from “domestic terrorists.”</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">Such incendiary descriptions do not reflect the reality in Portland, Judge Immergut had written, and have been at odds with law enforcement agencies’ <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/us/politics/trump-portland-troops.html" title="">own assessments</a> of protest activity. But that has not stopped the president and other officials from misrepresenting conditions in Portland and <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/us/politics/trump-chicago-new-york-crime.html" title="">in other Democratic-led cities</a> where he wants to send federal forces.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">Much of the litigation prompted by his deployment efforts in Portland and in the Chicago area has turned on whether the Trump administration’s accounts of violence at anti-ICE protests are accurate. The litigation has also debated whether there is a basis for invoking a federal law that allows the president to deploy the Guard if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion,” or if the president is unable to execute U.S. law.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">In a <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/04/us/politics/judge-blocks-national-guard-portland.html" title="">preliminary ruling</a>, Judge Immergut, who was also nominated to the bench by Mr. Trump, found that while there had been some “violent behavior,” including the construction of a “makeshift guillotine to intimidate federal officials,” most of that occurred months ago, and none of it amounted to a rebellion.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">But Judges Nelson and Bade drew a distinction between their ruling and a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked a similar deployment in Chicago. In Portland, they noted, federal officials have said they were forced to close the ICE facility for three weeks in June because of demonstrations. In Broadview, Ill., a Chicago suburb, the ICE facility has remained open, despite protests.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div><div data-testid="Dropzone-5"></div><div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-3"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">Monday’s<strong class="css-8qgvsz ebyp5n10"> </strong>ruling is unlikely to be the final word in the dispute over the Portland deployment. In addition to Oregon and Portland’s request for a broader hearing by Ninth Circuit judges, Judge Immergut has scheduled trial on the full lawsuit by the state and city for Oct. 29.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">Oregon’s attorney general, Dan Rayfield, said in a statement that Monday’s ruling “would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification.”</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">“We are on a dangerous path in America,” he said.</p><p class="css-ac37hb evys1bk0">Mr. Trump has some additional options as well. If the courts wind up going against his deployment, he could invoke <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/06/us/trump-insurrection-act-national-guard.html" title="">the Insurrection Act</a>, which would provide a fresh legal basis for sending in troops, and would almost certainly be the subject of another round of lawsuits.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div>