In a stunning turn of events, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has handed President Donald Trump a significant win by affirming his authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, as Breitbart reports.

This ruling, delivered on Monday, October 20, 2025, overturned a lower court’s decision and reinforced Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions.

Let’s rewind a bit to earlier in October 2025, when a district judge in Portland put the brakes on Trump’s plan to send in the National Guard. That initial roadblock came courtesy of U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee no less, who seemed to think the federal government was overstepping. Her stance was clear, but the higher court had other ideas.

Ninth Circuit Overturns Portland Judge’s Block

Judge Immergut’s ruling didn’t last long, as the Ninth Circuit—a court often criticized by conservatives for leaning left—stepped in to reverse her decision. It’s almost ironic that a court with such a progressive reputation would twice now back Trump’s executive authority. Who says miracles don’t happen in the judiciary?

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),” which allows federalization of the Guard when regular forces can’t enforce federal law. That’s a polite way of saying, “Sorry, lower court, but the law’s on Trump’s side.” And for those of us tired of endless legal obstructions, it’s a refreshing dose of clarity.

But not everyone’s cheering, of course, as evidenced by Judge Immergut’s earlier declaration: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” It’s a dramatic line, no doubt, meant to paint federal intervention as some authoritarian overreach. Yet, when laws aren’t being enforced and chaos reigns in places like Portland, one has to wonder if “constitutional law” includes the right to restore order.

Second Win for Trump in Ninth Circuit

This isn’t the first time the Ninth Circuit has sided with Trump against lower court resistance. A prior case involving California saw the same appeals court uphold his commander-in-chief powers, marking a surprising pattern for a judiciary often seen as hostile to conservative policies. It’s almost as if even progressive judges can’t ignore the Constitution when push comes to shove.

National Public Radio noted that the Ninth Circuit’s divided panel overturned a temporary restraining order that had initially halted the deployment in Portland. That legal barrier is now gone, clearing the way for the Trump administration to act. For those of us who value law and order over endless courtroom delays, this feels like a long-overdue correction.

Still, the broader fight over federalizing the National Guard isn’t over, as evidenced by a separate ruling on October 16, 2025, in Illinois. There, a federal appeals court upheld a district court decision temporarily blocking Trump’s deployment plans in that state. It’s a mixed bag, showing the judiciary remains a battleground for executive authority.

Illinois Case Heads to Supreme Court?

Speaking of Illinois, the Trump administration isn’t taking that setback lying down, having requested Supreme Court intervention to resolve the matter. It’s a bold move, and one that could set a nationwide precedent on just how far presidential power extends in times of unrest. For conservatives, it’s a chance to see if the highest court will affirm what many of us believe: that a president must have the tools to protect American communities.

Back in Portland, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has sparked debate over the balance between federal authority and local control. Critics of the decision argue it risks militarizing domestic issues, a concern not without merit when you consider the optics of troops on city streets. But when local leaders fail to maintain order, isn’t it the federal government’s duty to step in?

For Trump supporters, this ruling is a vindication of a leader willing to take tough action in the face of progressive policies that often seem to prioritize ideology over safety. The chaos in Portland has long been a flashpoint for debates over law enforcement and public order. Finally, there’s a judicial acknowledgment that the president has a role to play.

Balancing Order and Liberty in Portland

Yet, even as a conservative, it’s worth pausing to consider the genuine fears of those who see federal troops as an overreach. No one wants to live in a police state, and the line between maintaining order and suppressing dissent can be razor-thin. The challenge for the Trump administration will be ensuring that this deployment prioritizes safety without fueling further division.

At the end of the day, the Ninth Circuit’s decision on October 20, 2025, is a clear win for presidential authority, and by extension, for those of us who believe in a strong executive response to urban unrest. It’s not about crushing dissent; it’s about restoring a baseline of stability so that communities can thrive. If that’s “martial law,” then perhaps we’ve misunderstood the term.

As this story unfolds, all eyes will be on Portland to see how the National Guard’s presence plays out, and on the Supreme Court for any developments in the Illinois case. For now, Trump has the legal backing to act decisively, and for many Americans frustrated with endless cycles of disorder, that’s a step in the right direction. Let’s hope it’s a step toward healing, not further conflict.