🔗 Share this article Judicial Panel to Reexamine Ruling That Allowed Former President to Send Military Forces to Oregon City The federal appeals court has maintained a ban on sending national guard in Portland, Oregon, following a recent legal decision. Judicial Panel Concurs to Rehear Legal Matter The federal appeals court decided on Tuesday that it would rehear the legal dispute concerning the executive power with an larger panel of 11 judges. The judicial body also overturned a earlier ruling from a smaller judicial group that had supported the federal government. Ongoing Dispute Over Troop Deployment This order represents the latest development in a protracted court case over whether the former president has the authority and justification to send national guard forces in Portland. Approximately 200 federalized guard members have been in limbo since late September when the mobilization attempt was initiated in response to ongoing demonstrations. Conflicting Arguments The administration has argued that government employees at the immigration center in south Portland were facing threats, while city and state officials assert that local officers have control of the circumstances. Contrary to characterizations of the city as a conflict zone, residents have been posting footage of scenic paths and a thriving food scene, and organizing activities such as an Emergency Naked Bike Ride against the increased military presence. Recent Legal Actions The Tuesday ruling came after a federal judge in Portland enacted two temporary restraining orders this month – one preventing the federal control of the Oregon national guard, and another prohibiting the deployment of any national guard troops in the state, after efforts to evade the first order by calling up troops from California. On the previous day, the appeals court had put the first ruling on hold – allowing control of 200 Oregon national guard – but the subsequent injunction remained in place, preventing the physical sending of the troops. En Banc Review The Tuesday decision means the matter will be heard “en banc” – with both rulings under review together – by a panel of eleven justices. “This decision demonstrates that facts are important and that the courts are working to ensure government responsibility. The founding document limits the president’s power, and local populations cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority,” said the state attorney general in a official comment. “The court is sending a clear message: the president cannot send the military into US cities unnecessarily. We will continue protecting state legislation, values, and sovereignty as this case moves forward and our fight continues in the courts.”