The politically slanted decisions emanating from federal courts have rarely been so stark, nor the stakes for civil liberties so high, as witnessed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Trump sending troops into Portland. In a move that ripped the veil off any pretense of judicial impartiality, two judges appointed by the former President Donald Trump delivered a decisive blow to the right to protest, greenlighting the deployment of federalized National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon [1], [3]. This decision effectively paused a temporary restraining order (TRO) that had initially blocked such a deployment, an order issued by yet another judge appointed during the Trump administration. The only non-Trump appointee on the panel, however, saw through the charade, vehemently denouncing the outcome as nothing less than “political theater” and “propaganda,” and issuing an urgent call for an en banc review to overturn this dangerous precedent [1], [6].
The narrative spun by the administration and echoed in the halls of the appellate court is one of order and necessity, but the reality on the ground, and the legal foundations for such actions, tell a far more cynical story. What we are witnessing is a playbook for executive overreach, stamped with judicial approval, and disguised as a response to civil unrest. It’s a stark demonstration of how deeply partisan affiliations can penetrate even the supposedly neutral arbiters of justice, twisting legal interpretation to serve political ends.
The Courts as Political Battlegrounds: A Portland Case Study
For weeks, Portland had been a crucible of dissent, with citizens taking to the streets to exercise their fundamental rights to assembly and free speech. These protests, largely driven by calls for justice and accountability, often focused on issues pertaining to federal law enforcement activities and the use of force. In response, President Trump, frequently railing against perceived urban disorder and expressing a strong desire to assert federal authority, made clear his intent to deploy federal forces, including the National Guard, into the city.
This ambition, however, was initially checked by a federal judge in Oregon, who understood the sensitive nature of such a deployment and its potential to escalate tensions rather than de-escalate them. This judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to specifically block the deployment of National Guard members to a federal immigration building in Portland [4], [5]. This initial judicial hurdle was a vital, if ultimately ephemeral, testament to the courts’ fundamental role as a check on executive power, designed to protect individual liberties from potential government overreach. The order was intended to prevent the federal government from unilaterally injecting a military presence into supposed local civic unrest, thereby upholding a crucial aspect of federalism and the rights of peaceful protesters.
However, the administration, ever eager to assert its dominance and portray an image of decisive action, quickly sought to overturn this protective measure. The legal battleground then shifted to a higher tier of the federal judiciary: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It was here that a panel of three judges was tasked with reviewing the order blocking the president’s desired deployment [2]. The composition of this panel, as events would prove, was pivotal.
The Trump Judges Deliver: A Study in Deference
It was within this appellate setting that two Trump-appointed judges, whose skepticism for the temporary restraining order was evident from the outset, effectively paved the way for federal boots on Portland’s streets [4]. Their questioning during the review process signaled a clear and consistent predisposition to favor the executive’s expansive assertion of power. This judicial receptiveness to the administration’s arguments stands in sharp contrast to the initial caution exhibited by the federal judge in Oregon.
The core of the administration’s legal argument, as presented by government lawyers like McArthur, leaned heavily on broad interpretations of presidential authority under federal law. This statute purportedly allows the president to deploy Guard members under specific, severe circumstances: specifically, in cases of an “invasion from a foreign nation,” a “rebellion,” or if the president cannot carry out federal laws with “regular forces” [5]. McArthur specifically argued that the law authorized the president to call up the National Guard when “violence and threats of violence directed at federal officials and facilities has significantly impeded federal law enforcement” [5]. With an air of unassailable executive prerogative, he further asserted that “the president is entitled to say, ‘Enough is enough’ and bring in the National Guard to reinforce the regular forces” [5].
This line of reasoning is a classic legal sleight of hand, designed to stretch the plain meaning of the statute beyond recognition to fit a political agenda. To suggest, with a straight face, that “largely peaceful protests,” even with isolated incidents of property damage or confrontation, constitute an “invasion from a foreign nation” or a “rebellion” is not merely a legal stretch; it is a profound distortion of both factual reality and statutory intent. The language of the law is clear: it envisages existential threats to the nation’s sovereignty or governmental stability. The Portland protests, while at times tense, simply did not meet this high bar. Furthermore, the notion that federal authorities were so utterly overwhelmed as to be incapable of enforcing laws with “regular forces” strains credulity, especially given that numerous credible reports and the administration’s own judicial filings often described the protests as “largely peaceful” [7]. The deployment was explicitly directed at an ICE facility, a context that further highlights the politically charged nature of the intervention rather than a response to widespread chaos or an existential threat to federal authority [7]. The ruling, in essence, redefines “rebellion” and “invasion” to encompass domestic dissent, setting a dangerous precedent for the suppression of civil liberties.
The Dissent: Unmasking “Political Theater” and “Propaganda”
Amidst this judicial maneuvering, where legal precedent seemed to bend to political will, one voice stood in stark contrast to the majority opinion. The lone non-Trump appointed judge on the panel, observing the proceedings and the resulting decision, did not mince words. This judge decried the court’s decision, labeling it as a blatant exercise in “political theater” and “propaganda” [1]. This wasn’t merely a disagreement on nuanced legal interpretation; it was a profound indictment of the court’s perceived complicity in a politically motivated agenda, where the majesty of the law was being co-opted for public relations purposes.
The dissenting opinion underscored a critical, often overlooked, point: when courts succumb to political pressure, or allow executive branch overreach under flimsy legal pretexts, they cease to be impartial arbiters of justice. Instead, they risk becoming instruments of power, lending a veneer of legitimacy to actions that might otherwise be seen as authoritarian. The judge’s reference to “political theater” suggests that the legal arguments and the court’s proceedings were less about upholding the law and more about crafting a public narrative supportive of the executive’s actions. The term “propaganda” further implies an active effort to shape public perception through a seemingly authoritative judicial ruling, thereby validating the president’s contentious deployment strategy.
This judge’s urgent call for an “en banc review ASAP” was not a casual request; it was an impassioned and necessary plea to the full Ninth Circuit to intervene immediately, to “vacate today’s decision before the” situation further deteriorates and the precedent becomes entrenched [1], [6]. An en banc review, involving a larger panel of judges from the entire circuit, offers a crucial and established opportunity to correct what many observers, and indeed, one of their own, see as a deeply flawed and politically charged ruling. It is a mechanism designed precisely for moments when a panel’s decision is perceived to be fundamentally wrong, to create a dangerous legal precedent, or to be in conflict with established law. Such a review would force a broader array of judicial minds to confront the implications of this ruling, potentially restoring a measure of integrity and balance to the court’s stance.
A Calculated Erosion of Checks and Balances: The Executive-Judicial Nexus
The decision by the two Trump-appointed judges is not an isolated incident; it fits into a broader, disconcerting pattern of judicial deference to executive power, particularly when that power is wielded by the administration responsible for their appointments. This willingness to interpret statutes in the most expansive way possible, often ignoring the spirit of the law, the framers’ intent, and the factual context on the ground, chips away at the foundational principles of checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy. It creates a feedback loop where an assertive executive can push the boundaries of its power, confident that a sympathetic judiciary will provide the necessary legal imprimatur.
Consider the profound potential ramifications: if a president can unilaterally deploy federalized troops to quell “largely peaceful protests” under the flimsy guise of an “emergency” that lacks credible legal or factual basis, what then remains of the First Amendment’s robust protections for assembly and free speech? The very act of deploying federal forces into a civilian protest environment, especially when those protests are primarily peaceful, is inherently intimidating and chilling. It signals that dissent will be met not with dialogue or de-escalation by local authorities, but with the heavy hand of federal military presence.
What also becomes of the delicate balance of power between federal and state authorities? The very essence of federalism dictates that states retain significant autonomy over internal matters, including policing and public order. When federal forces can be imposed on a city without local consent or a clear, irrefutable threat to national security or the integrity of federal operations, it fundamentally undermines this constitutional division of power. This ruling transforms the National Guard from a last-resort protective force, intended for genuine emergencies like natural disasters or foreign invasions, into a potential political instrument, weaponized against citizens exercising their constitutional rights within their own communities.
The Fight for Judicial Integrity and Civil Liberties: The Path Forward
The battle for Portland’s streets, therefore, is inextricably linked to the battle for judicial integrity itself. The dissenting judge’s fiery admonition against “political theater” and “propaganda” serves as a stark reminder that even within the judiciary, there are those who recognize when the scales of justice are being tilted for partisan gain, and who are willing to speak truth to power. This internal critique is vital.
The urgent demand for an en banc review is more than a mere legal maneuver; it is a desperate attempt to restore public confidence in a system that appears increasingly vulnerable to political capture and to reaffirm the judiciary’s role as an independent arbiter. It asks the full court to critically assess whether the panel’s decision was truly based on sound legal interpretation and objective fact, or if it was a capitulation to a specific political agenda, undermining the very principles it is sworn to uphold.
The outcome of such a review will have profound implications, not just for the citizens of Portland, but for every community across the nation that might find itself at odds with a powerful executive. It will determine whether the judiciary remains a steadfast guardian of constitutional liberties and the rule of law, or whether it becomes another stage for political maneuvering, where the unvarnished truth is sacrificed at the altar of executive power. The receipts are clear, the narrative unvarnished: this is not about maintaining order, it is about maintaining control, and a significant portion of the judiciary appears all too willing to play along. The question now is whether the wider court will recognize the dangerous precedent being set and act decisively to correct it, reaffirming its independence and its commitment to justice over political expediency.
Sources & Footnotes
- https://www.resetera.com/threads/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-trump-can-deploy-national-guard-troops-to-portland.1329805/ ↩
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/09/us/national-guard-portland-appeals-court-hearing.html ↩
- https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1obr495/9th_circuit_court_of_appeals_rules_trump_can/ ↩
- https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/15/portland-national-guard-restraining-order-status/ ↩
- https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/09/ninth-circuit-court-trump-national-guards-oregon/ ↩
- https://www.instagram.com/p/DQC1QZ6iU9Q/ ↩
- https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-clears-way-for-federalization-of-oregon-national-guard/ ↩
Leave a Reply