A U.S. appeals court agreed to reconsider a ruling that would allow President Donald Trump to send National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, stalling the deployment again just as the state’s lawsuit challenging the plan heads to trial in a lower court.

The decision Tuesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco extends a temporary block on Trump’s deployment of troops to Portland, where he claims federal property and personnel are at risk from out-of-control protesters. Oregon says Trump is wildly exaggerating the situation and that federal agents’ aggressive tactics are making the situation worse.

A federal court judge in Portland is slated to hold a three-day trial starting Wednesday on a lawsuit seeking to block the president’s plan to send in the military.

The appeals court’s chief judge announced the agreement by the court to rehear an earlier 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel in a two-sentence order with no explanation. It comes as Trump continues to tout his plans to bring state National Guard troops under federal control and send them into Democratic-led cities that he claims are impeding the activities of U.S. immigration agents. Similar lawsuits are challenging Trump’s deployments to Los Angles, Chicago and Washington, DC, with mixed success.

Oregon last week asked for a so-called en banc review by a full complement of the appeals court judges. The state argued that the majority on the three-judge panel had issued a ruling Oct. 20 that got the law fundamentally wrong.

In a filing, the state said the opinion incorrectly took into account violent protest incidents that took place as long as three months before Trump’s Sept. 27 order for troops to be deployed to Portland, as well as violent incidents at facilities in Dallas and Chicago.

Such decisions should only be based on events that are recent and local, Oregon argued.

“By greenlighting the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard for reasons divorced from space, time, or facts in Portland, the panel majority affronts Oregon’s sovereignty and erodes the rule of law,” the state said in a court filing.

The Trump administration argued against the review, saying in a separate filing that the president was justified in considering events from months earlier and in other cities as part of a pattern of conduct.

The 2-1 ruling at issue was handed down by a majority that consisted of two Trump appointees, Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget Bade, and a third judge, Susan Graber, appointed by Bill Clinton, who wrote a blistering dissent.

In a twist, Graber was the first to call for an en banc review, something the losing party typically requests. In her dissent, she said the majority had issued a ruling based on “conjecture” and “propaganda” rather than facts.

“I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur,” Graber wrote. “Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”

Trump filed the appeal to challenge a temporary order issued Oct. 4 by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland. Immergut, a Trump appointee, ruled there were no facts to support the president’s claims on social media that Portland was ravaged by war and that anarchists and professional agitators were trying to burn down federal property and other buildings.

The case is State of Oregon vs. Donald Trump, 3:25-cv-01756, US District Court, District of Oregon (Portland).

____

(With assistance from Robert Burnson.)

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.