US appeals court says Trump can take command of Oregon troops though deployment blocked for now

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An appeals court on Monday put on hold a lower-court ruling that kept President Donald Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. However, Trump is still barred from actually deploying those troops, at least for now.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders early this month — one that prohibited Trump from calling up the troops so he could send them to Portland, and another that prohibited him from sending any National Guard members to Oregon at all, after the president tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.

The Justice Department appealed the first order, and in a 2-1 ruling Monday, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the administration. The majority said the president was likely to succeed on his claim that he had the authority to federalize the troops based on a determination he was unable to enforce the laws without them.

However, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, so no troops may immediately be deployed.

The administration has said that because the legal reasoning underpinning both temporary restraining orders was the same, the second one was also invalid, and the majority opinion also said the two TROs “rise or fall together.”

Soon after the ruling Monday, the Justice Department asked Immergut to immediately dissolve her second order, which would allow Trump to deploy troops to Portland. The Justice Department argued that it is not the role of the courts to second-guess the president’s determination about when to deploy troops.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision staying the first TRO is a significant change in law that plainly warrants dissolution of this Court’s second TRO,” the administration's lawyers wrote.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, said he would ask for a broader panel of the appeals to reconsider the decision.

“Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification," Rayfield said. “We are on a dangerous path in America.”

The Justice Department did not return an email seeking comment.

Trump's efforts to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-led cities have been mired in legal challenges. A judge in California ruled that his deployment of thousands of National Guard troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a longstanding law that generally prohibits the use of the military for civilian policing, and the administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area,

Mostly small nightly protests, limited to a single block, have been occurring since June outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland. Larger crowds, including counterprotesters and live-streamers, have shown up at times, and federal agents have used tear gas to disperse the demonstrators.

The administration has said the troops are needed to protect federal property from protesters, and that having to send extra Department of Homeland Security agents to help guard the property meant they were not enforcing immigration laws elsewhere.

Immergut previously rejected the administration's arguments, saying the president’s claims about Portland being war-torn are “simply untethered to the facts.” But the appeals court majority — Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, both Trump appointees — said the president's decision was owed more deference.

Bade wrote that the facts appeared to support Trump's decision “even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media.”

Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton appointee, dissented. She urged her colleagues on the 9th Circuit to “to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.”

“In the two weeks leading up to the President’s September 27 social media post, there had not been a single incident of protesters’ disrupting the execution of the laws,” Graber wrote. “It is hard to understand how a tiny protest causing no disruptions could possibly satisfy the standard that the President is unable to execute the laws.”

Johnson reported from Seattle.

Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge on the a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, at right, as people in costumes protest on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

Law enforcement officers walk back to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as people protest on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

People wearing costumes protest outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, at right, on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

Law enforcement officers watch as the gates close at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as people protest outside on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Democrats across the country are proposing state law changes to rein in federal immigration officers and protect the public following the shooting death of a protester in Minneapolis and the wounding of two people in Portland, Oregon.

Many of the measures have been proposed in some form for years in Democratic-led states, but their momentum is growing as legislatures return to work amid President Donald Trump’s national immigration crackdown following the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis. Republicans are pushing back, blaming protesters for impeding enforcement of immigration laws.

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul wants New York to allow people to sue federal officers alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Another measure aims to keep immigration agents lacking judicial warrants out of schools, hospitals and houses of worship.

Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal agents for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

New Jersey’s Democrat-led Legislature passed three bills on Monday that immigrant rights groups have long pushed for, including a measure prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has until his last day in office Tuesday to sign or veto them.

California lawmakers are proposing to ban local and state law enforcement from taking second jobs with the Department of Homeland Security and make it a violation of state law when ICE officers make “indiscriminate” arrests around court appearances. Other measures are pending.

“Where you have government actions with no accountability, that is not true democracy,” Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco said at a news conference.

Democrats in Georgia introduced four Senate bills designed to limit immigration enforcement — a package unlikely to become law because Georgia’s conservative upper chamber is led by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a close Trump ally. Democrats said it's still important to take a stand.

“Donald Trump has unleashed brutal aggression on our families and our communities across our country,” said state Sen. Sheikh Rahman, an immigrant from Bangladesh whose district in suburban Atlanta’s Gwinnett County is home to many immigrants.

Democrats in New Hampshire have proposed numerous measures seeking to limit federal immigration enforcement, but the state's Republican majorities passed a new law taking effect this month that bans “sanctuary cities.”

In Tennessee, instead of considering a Democratic measure that would limit civil immigration enforcement at schools and churches, Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton said he was working with the White House on a separate package of immigration-related bills. He hasn't said what they would do.

The Trump administration has opposed any effort to blunt ICE, including suing local governments whose “sanctuary” policies limit police interactions with federal officers.

States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the U.S. Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

“There’s not a super clear, concrete legal answer to a lot of these questions,” he said. “It’s almost guaranteed there will be federal litigation over a lot of these policies.”

That's already happening.

California in September was the first to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces on duty. The Justice Department said its agents won't comply and sued California, arguing that the laws threaten the safety of officers who are facing “unprecedented” harassment, doxing and violence.

The Justice Department also sued Illinois last month, challenging a law that bars federal civil arrests near courthouses, protects medical records and regulates how universities and day care centers manage information about immigration status. The Justice Department claims the law is unconstitutional and also threatens federal officers’ safety.

Minnesota and Illinois, joined by their largest cities, sued the Trump administration this week. Minneapolis and Minnesota accuse the Republican administration of violating free speech rights by punishing a progressive state that favors Democrats and welcomes immigrants. Illinois and Chicago claim “Operation Midway Blitz” made residents afraid to leave their homes.

Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of ignoring public safety and called the Illinois lawsuit “baseless.”

Associated Press writers John O’Connor in Springfield, Illinois; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey; Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tennessee; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Claire Rush in Portland, Oregon; and Jeff Amy in Atlanta contributed.

Protesters confront federal immigration officers outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Adam Gray)