President Trump is confronting a series of legal and political setbacks that could constrain executive power and complicate ongoing prosecutions linked to questionable appointments.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the dispute over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Portland, Oregon. The move follows a divided three-judge panel’s decision to pause U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s temporary restraining order. The panel ruled that Immergut “erred by discounting” evidence from June through September and suggested the administration may ultimately show it lawfully federalized the Guard to secure the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced the development on X, writing:
“LAWSUIT UPDATE RE: NATIONAL GUARD IN PORTLAND: The Ninth Circuit just announced they will take our case en banc. Both TROs (temporary restraining orders) remain in effect, and the National Guard still cannot be deployed in Oregon.”
In her earlier ruling, Judge Immergut emphasized that courts must give “a great level of deference” to a president’s judgment in such matters. However, she also found that the Portland protests were “generally uneventful” and did not appear to constitute a rebellion — a conclusion that shifts the appeals court’s focus from a brief emergency stay to a full inquiry into whether the administration met legal requirements for federalization.
“Based on trial testimony that this Court found credible — particularly the testimony of Portland Police Bureau command staff, who work in Portland and have first-hand knowledge of the crowds at the ICE building from June to the present — the protests in Portland at the time of the National Guard call-outs are likely not a ‘rebellion,’ and likely do not pose a danger of rebellion,” Immergut wrote.
Legal analysts say Immergut’s factual findings weigh against the government, with additional clarification expected Friday.
Separately, Trump suffered two more high-profile setbacks this week. The Senate voted in a rare bipartisan rebuke to block his proposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports. Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled that acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli — appointed by Trump — was unlawfully serving, potentially undermining prosecutions initiated under his authority.
Essayli downplayed the ruling, posting on X:
“For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing. I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California. It’s an honor and privilege to serve President Trump and Attorney General Bondi, and I look forward to advancing their agenda for the American People.”
Taken together, these developments restrict potential domestic military action, stall key trade initiatives, and raise new questions about the legality of decisions made by improperly appointed federal officials.
