State of Oregon v. Trump

Oregon v. Trump · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 8, 2025 · No. 25-6268

Summary

The Ninth Circuit amended its October 28, 2025 order granting rehearing en banc in State of Oregon v. Trump, appended statements by Judges Bybee and Tung, and vacated the panel opinion published at 157 F.4th 1013. Judge Bybee’s statement discusses the Domestic Violence Clause, the Militia Clause, and constitutional limits on presidential deployment of National Guard forces into a state without its consent.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Murguia, Chief Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
December 8, 2025
Docket number
25-6268
Procedural posture
The Ninth Circuit amended its prior order granting rehearing en banc, granted rehearing en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) and Circuit Rule 40-3, and vacated the previously published opinion.
Standard of review
The amended order does not decide the merits or establish the governing merits standard of review. Judge Bybee's statement proposes a burden-shifting approach and rejects categorical deference, while Judge Tung's statement contends that the President's determination of statutory exigency is committed exclusively to the political branches.
Precedential value
Published procedural order; grants rehearing en banc and vacates the prior opinion. The attached statements by Judges Bybee and Tung do not constitute a merits holding of the en banc court.
Parties
Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Peter Hegseth, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, United States Department of Defense, Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security v. State of Oregon, City of Portland
Disposition
vacated

Topics

appellate procedureconstitutional lawfederalismmilitary lawstandard of review

Practice areas

constitutional lawfederal courtsmilitary lawfederalismappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the case should be reheard en banc.
  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit's previously published opinion should be vacated upon the grant of rehearing en banc.

Holdings

  1. Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, the case is reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) and Circuit Rule 40-3.
  2. The prior opinion published at 157 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2025) is vacated.

Key quotations

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) and Circuit Rule 40-3. (at 1)
The order published at 157 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2025), is vacated. (at 1)
But otherwise, the President may not deploy the Militia without state consent. (at 48)
The import of that history is clear: whereas Congress had previously experimented with requiring a judge to certify the existence of an exigency to enable the President to call forth the militia, Congress now vests the President with exclusive discretion in determining whether that exigency exists. (at 4)

Factual background

The underlying dispute concerns the President's federalization and proposed deployment of National Guard units to Portland over Oregon's objection under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The states contend that the deployment implicates constitutional limits on federal military intervention in domestic affairs, while the federal defendants contend that the President possessed statutory authority to determine that regular forces were insufficient to execute federal law.

Procedural history

Oregon and Portland challenged the federal deployment of National Guard troops to Portland in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The Ninth Circuit previously issued an opinion published at 157 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2025). A majority of nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc, and this amended order appended statements by Judges Bybee and Tung and vacated the prior opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…