🔗 Share this article Judicial Panel to Reexamine Decision That Permitted Trump to Send Troops to Portland The ninth circuit court has upheld a prohibition on sending national guard in Portland, Oregon, following a recent court ruling. Judicial Panel Agrees to Reconsider Legal Matter The ninth circuit court of appeals ruled on Tuesday that it would reexamine the legal dispute concerning the president’s authority with an larger panel of eleven justices. The court also overturned a earlier decision from a smaller judicial group that had supported the federal government. Legal Saga Over Military Presence This order represents the most recent development in a long-running legal battle over whether the administration has the authority and valid reason to deploy state military units in the city. Approximately 200 federalized guard members have been in uncertainty since late September when the mobilization attempt was initiated in response to months of protests. Conflicting Arguments The federal government has claimed that government employees at the immigration center in the southern part of the city were under attack, while city and state officials maintain that municipal police have control of the situation. Contrary to characterizations of the city as “war ravaged”, residents have been sharing footage of lush hiking trails and a thriving food scene, and organizing events such as an protest bicycle event against the increased military presence. Recent Legal Actions The Tuesday ruling came after a US district judge in Portland 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 Oregon, after attempts to evade the initial injunction by mobilizing out-of-state forces. On Monday, the ninth circuit panel had put the first ruling on hold – permitting control of 200 Oregon national guard – but the second ruling stayed effective, blocking the actual deployment of the troops. En Banc Review The Tuesday decision means the issue will be heard by the full court – with both rulings under review together – by a panel of 11 judges. “This ruling shows that facts are important and that the courts are working to ensure government responsibility. The constitution restricts the president’s power, 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 definite signal: the president cannot dispatch the military into American urban areas unnecessarily. We will continue protecting state legislation, values, and autonomy as this legal proceeding progresses and our legal battle continues in the judicial system.”