🔗 Share this article Court to Reexamine Decision That Allowed Trump to Send Troops to Oregon City The federal appeals court has upheld a prohibition on sending state troops in Portland, Oregon, following a recent legal decision. Appeals Court Concurs to Rehear Case The federal appeals court decided on this week that it would reexamine the case concerning the president’s authority with an expanded panel of 11 judges. The court also overturned a previous decision from a three-judge panel that had supported the federal government. Legal Saga Over Troop Deployment This legal directive represents the most recent turn in a protracted court case over whether the administration has the legal right and valid reason to deploy national guard forces in the city. Approximately two hundred troops have been in limbo since late September when the mobilization attempt was started in response to months of protests. Conflicting Arguments The federal government has claimed that government employees at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while city and state officials assert that local officers have control of the circumstances. Contrary to descriptions of the city as a conflict zone, locals have been sharing footage of scenic paths and a thriving food scene, and planning events such as an Emergency Naked Bike Ride against the increased military presence. Court Proceedings The appeals court decision came after a federal judge in Portland enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one blocking the federalization of the state troops, and another prohibiting the use of any military personnel in the state, after attempts to evade the initial injunction by mobilizing troops from California. On Monday, the ninth circuit panel had temporarily suspended the initial decision – permitting control of state troops – but the second ruling stayed effective, blocking the physical sending of the forces. En Banc Review The Tuesday decision means the matter will be heard “en banc” – with all decisions under review together – by a group of eleven justices. “This ruling shows that facts are important and that the courts are striving to hold this administration accountable. The founding document restricts the executive authority, and local populations cannot be treated as a training ground for expansive government power,” stated the state attorney general in a statement. “The court is sending a clear message: the executive leader cannot dispatch the armed forces into American urban areas unnecessarily. We will continue defending state legislation, principles, and autonomy as this case progresses and our fight continues in the judicial system.”