The ninth circuit court has upheld a prohibition on deploying state troops in Portland, Oregon, following a latest court ruling.
The ninth circuit court of appeals decided on this week that it would rehear the case concerning the president’s authority with an expanded group of eleven justices. The court also overturned a earlier decision from a smaller judicial group that had sided with the federal government.
This legal directive represents the most recent development in a long-running legal battle over whether the former president has the legal right and justification to deploy state military units in the city. Approximately two hundred troops have been in limbo since the end of September when the deployment effort was started in due to ongoing demonstrations.
The federal government has argued that government employees at the ICE facility in south Portland were facing threats, while local authorities maintain that municipal police have control of the circumstances.
Contrary to characterizations of Portland as “war ravaged”, residents have been posting videos of scenic paths and a vibrant culinary culture, and organizing events such as an protest bicycle event against the “militarization of our city”.
The appeals court decision came after a US district judge in Portland enacted two legal injunctions this period – one blocking the federal control of the Oregon national guard, and another stopping the use of any military personnel in Oregon, after efforts to circumvent the first order by mobilizing out-of-state forces.
On the previous day, the ninth circuit panel had temporarily suspended the initial decision – allowing command of state troops – but the second ruling remained in place, blocking the physical sending of the troops.
The latest ruling means the issue will be heard “en banc” – with all decisions under consideration simultaneously – by a panel of 11 judges.
“This decision demonstrates that facts are important and that the judicial system are striving to ensure government responsibility. The founding document limits the president’s power, and local populations cannot be treated as a testing site for unchecked federal authority,” said the state attorney general in a official comment.
“The judicial body is sending a definite signal: the executive leader cannot dispatch the military into American urban areas without cause. We will continue defending state legislation, principles, and sovereignty as this legal proceeding moves forward and our legal battle continues in the courts.”
Elena Hartwell is a multidisciplinary artist and educator passionate about fostering creative communities in London.