Listen to the article
Appeals Court Deliberates as Oregon National Guard Deployment Remains on Hold
A federal appeals court is now considering whether to overturn a temporary restraining order that prevents the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, remains in effect while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deliberates.
During Thursday’s hearing, at least two Trump-appointed judges on the three-judge panel appeared skeptical of Judge Immergut’s decision. The panel, which also includes a Clinton appointee, questioned attorneys extensively about the definition of rebellion, historical precedents, and the specific legal authorities Trump relied on to authorize the Guard deployment.
The timing of the court’s decision remains uncertain, though it will likely come before October 17, when Judge Immergut is scheduled to hold a hearing on extending her restraining order for an additional 14 days. The case represents a significant legal challenge to federal authority in deploying military personnel to address civil unrest.
Meanwhile, The Oregonian/OregonLive has fact-checked several claims made during President Trump’s recent antifa roundtable, which featured administration officials and journalists with right-wing perspectives. The investigation contradicted assertions that Portland is “on fire” or “bombed out.” According to Portland Fire & Rescue data, there have been only four fire-related calls near the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building since June 6. Additionally, no bombs have exploded near Portland since 2008, contrary to implications made during the roundtable.
Thursday night’s protest at the ICE building proved relatively uneventful compared to previous demonstrations. About 100 people gathered, including several dressed in animal costumes – frogs, a unicorn, a polar bear, a raccoon, and other animals – creating a surreal atmosphere amid the serious political tensions.
Federal officers maintained a visible presence, with some positioned on the building’s lower rooftop pointing what appeared to be pepperball guns at the crowd. Officers occasionally fired these weapons when protesters approached federal personnel guarding the building’s entrance. Unlike previous confrontations, many officers did not wear face coverings or gas masks, and the clear riot shields typically used were absent.
During the evening, federal officers detained three individuals, including one counter-protester, bringing them inside the facility as onlookers recorded the encounters. Officers issued clear warnings about trespassing boundaries.
In a separate incident, Portland police arrested 36-year-old Thomas Allen, a prominent right-wing streamer who had been court-ordered to stay at least 200 feet from the ICE building. Police also arrested 32-year-old Harold Smith on harassment allegations.
As the night progressed, the demonstration maintained a relatively peaceful character. One protester carrying a sign reading “End ICE reign of terror” blew bubbles along the painted blue line marking government property. The crowd began to disperse around 10:30 p.m. after a Buddhist priest from Beaverton led prayers.
The contrasting narratives surrounding Portland’s protests highlight the political tensions that have made the city a focal point in national debates about law enforcement, federal authority, and civil liberties. As the appeals court considers the National Guard deployment case, both supporters and opponents of federal intervention are watching closely to see how this latest chapter in Portland’s ongoing unrest will unfold.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
While the protests in Portland are concerning, I’m glad to see the courts playing a role in scrutinizing the federal government’s response. Upholding the rule of law is crucial, even in times of civil unrest.
The fact-checking of Trump’s claims is important, as we need accurate information from reliable sources, especially on sensitive topics like civil unrest. I appreciate the media’s diligence in verifying the facts.
Agreed, it’s crucial that leaders’ statements are scrutinized and held to account. Fact-checking helps maintain public trust in our institutions.
As a commodities investor, I’m curious how the unrest in Portland could impact mining and energy operations, if at all. Any insights on potential supply chain disruptions or regulatory changes would be appreciated.
That’s a good point. While the protests seem focused on broader social issues, any disruptions to transportation, logistics, or permitting processes could have ripple effects on commodity markets. It’s worth monitoring closely.
The ongoing protests in Portland raise concerns about public safety, but the legal limits on federal power to intervene are also crucial. I hope the courts can find the right balance in this case.
Yes, it’s a delicate situation that requires careful consideration of all the stakeholders and legal principles involved. I’m glad to see the judicial system playing its role.
The fact-checking of Trump’s claims about antifa is important, as misinformation can fuel further division and unrest. I hope the media continues to uphold high standards of journalism in covering these complex issues.
Absolutely. Fact-based reporting is essential for the public to make informed decisions and hold their leaders accountable. Kudos to the journalists digging into the details on this story.
Interesting legal battle over the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland. I’m curious to see how the appeals court rules on the definition of ‘rebellion’ and the president’s authority in these situations.
Yes, it’s a complex issue with important constitutional implications. I’ll be following this case closely to see how it unfolds.