9th Circuit hears case for Trump National Guard deployment to Portland

Lawyers for President Donald Trump and the state of Oregon clashed Thursday in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over Trump’s desire to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, a high-stakes showdown marked by heated accusations that the president’s actions were illegal and unnecessary.

A three-judge panel, consisting of two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee, seemed deeply skeptical of the arguments made by Oregon Deputy Attorney General Stacy Chaffin, including her assertion that Trump’s descriptions of the violence in Portland were hyperbolic and “out of touch with reality.”

The justices sharply questioned Chaffin about the details of the protests in Portland. Many of them focused on specific details, including the dates of protests and the number of arrests, to ask why — in the state’s view — these conditions did not meet the standards necessary to justify Trump’s deployment of the National Guard.

“I’m not sure even President Lincoln would have been able to authorize the use of force now” if his actions had been scrutinized under the “much higher standards of review” Oregon implied here, Trump-appointed Judge Ryan Nelson loudly interrupted, one of several times he interrupted Chaffin as she attempted to answer the court’s questions.

TRUMP THREATENS TO “FEDERALIZE” DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW IT COULD PLAY

Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Chaffin argued that the protests in Portland fall far short of the definition of a “rebellion,” one of two conditions Trump must meet to meet the legal pretext for deploying the National Guard.

The 9th Circuit Court agreed to respond to the Trump administration’s request to hear the case just days after a federal judge in Oregon issued a temporary restraining order barring the president from immediately sending Oregon National Guard troops to the city of Portland, describing the action as risking “blurring the line between civilian and military federal power – to the detriment of this nation.”

Rebellions “are unusual and extreme emergencies,” Chaffin said, noting that most of the agent complaints recorded instead focus on understaffing. Administrative difficulties “are no reason to bring the army into the streets of Portland or any other American city,” Chaffin added.

Yet Trump’s two court appointees took a much more critical view of the state’s case during oral arguments, which lasted about 90 minutes.

BONDI CASHES WITH DURBIN OVER NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT: ‘LOVE CHICAGO AS MUCH AS YOU HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP’

A Federal Protective Service agent stands guard over protesters as anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests draw hundreds to ICE headquarters in South Portland, Oregon, September 28, 2025. (John Rudoff/Reuters)

Justice Department lawyer Eric D. McArthur, meanwhile, spent most of his time reiterating the two core tenets of the Trump administration’s arguments regarding the deployment of National Guard troops. The first is that there is a threat of an ongoing “rebellion,” and the second is that the federal government cannot enforce the law without the help of the National Guard.

McArthur argued that Portland met the criteria for an “active threat” regardless of the weeks that passed between Trump’s June memo authorizing the federalization of National Guard troops and his September attempt to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland.

Asked by Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Graber whether Trump could hypothetically rely on a violent event “after” the administration’s mobilization of the National Guard to justify his deployment, McArthur said yes.

National Guard troops gather on the East Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington on January 18, 2021, ahead of the 59th Presidential Inauguration. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) ( )

“I think we can rely on subsequent evidence to show that there was a colorable factual basis for the president’s determination,” he told the 9th Circuit judges.

“This demonstrates the type of risk that can materialize at any time with this kind of violent crowd.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The court did not say when it plans to issue its ruling. Meanwhile, dozens of National Guard troops — about 200, lawyers testified Thursday — remain just outside the city limits, awaiting possible deployment.

The case is just one of several challenging Trump’s authority to federalize the National Guard over the objections of state and local leaders.