The ninth circuit court has upheld a prohibition on deploying national guard in Portland, Oregon, after a recent legal decision.
Appeals Court Concurs to Reconsider Legal Matter
The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled on this week that it would rehear the legal dispute concerning the executive power with an larger group of eleven justices. The judicial body also vacated a previous decision from a smaller judicial group that had sided with the administration.
Ongoing Dispute Over Troop Deployment
This order represents the latest turn in a protracted legal battle over whether the administration has the authority and justification to deploy state military units in Portland. Approximately two hundred troops have been in uncertainty since the end of September when the mobilization attempt was started in response to ongoing demonstrations.
Differing Viewpoints
The federal government has argued that federal officials at the ICE facility in the southern part of the city were facing threats, while city and state officials maintain that municipal police have control of the situation.
In defiance of characterizations of the city as “war ravaged”, residents have been posting footage of scenic paths and a thriving food scene, and planning activities such as an protest bicycle event against the “militarization of our city”.
Recent Legal Actions
The appeals court decision came after a federal judge in the city issued two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federal control of the state troops, and another prohibiting the deployment of any national guard troops in the state, after attempts to evade the first order by calling up out-of-state forces.
On the previous day, the appeals court had put the first ruling on hold – permitting command of state troops – but the second ruling stayed effective, blocking the physical sending of the forces.
En Banc Review
The Tuesday decision means the issue will be heard by the full court – with both rulings under consideration together – by a group of 11 judges.
“This ruling shows that the truth matters and that the courts are striving to ensure government responsibility. The constitution restricts the president’s power, and local populations cannot be treated as a testing site for expansive government power,” said the legal representative in a statement.
“The court is sending a definite signal: the president cannot dispatch the armed forces into US cities without cause. We will continue protecting state legislation, principles, and autonomy as this legal proceeding progresses and our fight continues in the judicial system.”
