In a stunning turn of events, President Donald Trump has clinched a major legal win that reaffirms his authority to bring order to chaotic streets.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a ruling on Monday, October 20, 2025, allowing Trump to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, overturning a lower court’s block and marking another notch in his belt as commander-in-chief, as Breitbart reports.
This saga began earlier in October 2025, when U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee no less, issued a temporary restraining order halting the National Guard’s deployment to Portland. Her decision raised eyebrows among conservatives who see federal intervention as a necessary response to urban unrest.
Judge Immergut’s stance was clear, as she declared, “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” While her words carry a certain idealism, they seem to gloss over the gritty reality of law enforcement challenges in cities like Portland, where federal help might be the only lifeline.
Undeterred, the Trump administration pushed back, and the Ninth Circuit responded with a decisive reversal of Immergut’s order. This isn’t the first time this court, often criticized by the right for its progressive leanings, has sided with Trump’s constitutional powers. A similar ruling in a California case set the precedent, showing that even liberal-leaning benches can’t ignore the law.
The majority opinion from the Ninth Circuit didn’t mince words, stating, “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3).” This reference to federal law, which permits federalizing the National Guard when regular forces can’t maintain order, cuts through the noise of judicial overreach. It’s a reminder that the presidency isn’t just a ceremonial role—it comes with teeth.
The court went further, emphasizing that while the nation is grounded in constitutional principles, it doesn’t bow to judicial whims that undermine law and order. This pointed jab at lower court rulings suggests a growing impatience with activist judges who prioritize ideology over practicality.
Portland isn’t the only battleground in this legal war over federal authority. Just days before the Ninth Circuit’s decision, on October 16, 2025, a federal appeals court in Illinois upheld a district ruling temporarily blocking Trump’s National Guard deployment in that state. It’s a mixed bag of outcomes, showing how fractured the judiciary remains on this issue.
The Trump administration isn’t taking the Illinois setback lying down, already seeking Supreme Court intervention to clarify the scope of presidential power. This move signals a broader fight—one that could redefine how far a commander-in-chief can go to protect national stability.
Back in Portland, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a breath of fresh air for those who believe federal intervention is long overdue in cities plagued by disorder. It’s not about heavy-handed tactics; it’s about ensuring that laws aren’t just words on paper but enforceable realities.
Critics of the deployment will undoubtedly cry foul, claiming it’s an overreach of executive power. Yet, when local authorities struggle to maintain control, isn’t it the federal government’s duty to step in? This isn’t about politics—it’s about protecting communities from spiraling into chaos.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision also sends a message to other courts tempted to block Trump’s actions: statutory authority isn’t a suggestion, it’s a mandate. For conservatives frustrated by years of judicial roadblocks, this ruling feels like a rare moment of clarity in a fog of progressive resistance.
While the Portland ruling is a win, the Illinois block shows this fight is far from over. Trump’s push for Supreme Court review could be the ultimate test of whether the judiciary will respect the boundaries of presidential authority or continue to play referee in policy disputes.
For now, the focus remains on Portland, where the National Guard’s potential deployment could shift the dynamic on the ground. It’s a chance to restore order, but it must be done with precision, not provocation, to avoid fueling the very unrest it aims to quell.
As this legal tug-of-war unfolds, one thing is clear: Trump’s determination to assert federal control isn’t just a policy choice—it’s a stand against a culture that often seems to prioritize protest over pragmatism. The Ninth Circuit’s backing, however unexpected from a court with its reputation, might just be the leverage needed to tip the scales toward law and order. Let’s hope the balance struck is one that respects both security and liberty.
