As the wind and rain blew across the sodden city this weekend, Portlanders awaited clarity from the courts on whether and when federalized National Guard troops might be seen on the streets.
“The rain really adds an element of fighting to this,” screamed one of the leaders of this weekend’s protest in front of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in South Portland into a megaphone.
Around 100 people braved the atmospheric river to continue what have been months of largely low-key protests against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
That attention was magnified late last month, when President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland to defend the ICE facility from protesters.
Now residents are in a kind of legal limbo until at least Tuesday, when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to revisit an earlier ruling.
It’s been a busy few weeks of legal rulings and rhetorical statements as the city has become a flashpoint in the national discourse on how the president can use the National Guard.
Here’s a quick look at where things stand right now.
On Monday, Oct. 20, a panel of three judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling which overruled a lower court’s decision blocking the federalization of the Oregon National Guard.
“We won the case in the Court of Appeals, I think it was the 9th Circuit,” President Trump said to a group of reporters at the White House. “It’s a pretty good and very strong opinion that we have the right to use the National Guard.”
But that ruling only covered one of two temporary restraining orders issued by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut. The second restraining order had never been challenged by the federal government and remained in place, blocking federalized National Guard troops anywhere in the U.S. from deploying to Oregon.
The two judges who wrote the majority opinion for the 9th Circuit stated that because both of Immergut’s restraining orders are based on the same legal reasoning, they should both be dissolved — the two “rise or fall together on the merits.”
“Not so,” the third appeals court judge stated in her dissenting opinion. “Nothing in the majority’s order does — or could — require the district court to dissolve the second TRO, which is not before us.”
On Friday, Oct. 24, Judge Immergut held a hearing to try to resolve the matter — and announced that she would rule on whether or not to dissolve her second restraining order by Monday, Oct. 27, potentially opening the door to troop deployment.
Just a few hours later, also on Friday, the 9th Circuit stayed Monday’s order by the panel of three judges, in order to allow a broader swathe of appeals judges time to decide whether to rehear the matter — what’s known as an “en banc” review.
“This decision gives the court time to fully consider the serious constitutional questions at stake,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement Friday. “It also ensures there won’t be a federal deployment while that process plays out — an important step in protecting Oregonians’ rights and keeping our communities safe.”
The newly issued hold lasts until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 28.
And all of this legal wrangling is only over the two restraining orders issued by Judge Immergut, who is still set to hold a three-day trial on the original lawsuit from Portland, Oregon and California against the troop deployment altogether.
In those proceedings, set to start Oct. 29, she’ll be looking at the merits of the case.
Meanwhile, over 200 members of the Oregon National Guard wait under federal control at Camp Rilea in Warrenton.
This story comes to you from the Northwest News Network, a collaboration between public media organizations in Oregon and Washington.
