State of Oregon v. Trump

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 25-6268
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 8 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF OREGON and CITY OF No. 25-6268 PORTLAND, D.C. No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM Plaintiffs - Appellees, District of Oregon, Portland v. ORDER DONALD J. TRUMP, In his official capacity as President of the United States; et al.,

Defendants - Appellants.

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

On September 28, 2025, Secretary Hegseth issued a memorandum

authorizing the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard

service members (Memorandum). Plaintiffs, the City of Portland and the State of

Oregon, filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and moved for

a temporary restraining order to enjoin the implementation of the Memorandum.

State of Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-CV-1756, Dkt. 6 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2025) (Dist.

Ct. Dkt.). On October 4, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and issued a

temporary restraining order enjoining implementation of the Memorandum. Id. at

Dkt. 56. That same day, Defendants filed a notice of appeal, id. at Dkt. 57, and an emergency motion under Circuit Rule 27-3, seeking an administrative stay of the

district court’s October 4 order, and a stay of that order pending appeal. Dkt. 11-

12.

On October 5, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a second motion

seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from deploying

members of the California National Guard to Oregon. Dist. Ct. Dkt. 58, 59. The

district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and entered a second temporary restraining

order enjoining the “deploy[ment] [of] federalized members of the National Guard

in Oregon.” Id. at Dkt. 68. Defendants have not appealed or challenged the

second temporary restraining order, and it is not before us.

In this order, we address only the emergency motion for an administrative

stay of the district court’s October 4 temporary restraining order. In a separate

order we have set argument on the motion for a stay pending appeal for October 9,

2025. Dkt. 18.

An administrative stay is intended to “minimize harm while an appellate

court deliberates” and lasts “no longer than necessary to make an intelligent

decision on the motion for stay pending appeal.” United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct.

797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

418, 427 (2009) (explaining that the authority to enter an administrative stay

“allows an appellate court to act responsibly”). Given its limited nature, an

2 25-6268 administrative stay “does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of

the motion for a stay pending appeal.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th

Cir. 2019). And we “defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay

pending appeal is considered.” Nat’l Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th

Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted).

“When considering the request for an administrative stay, our touchstone is

the need to preserve the status quo.” Id. That inquiry necessarily depends “on the

facts of this case.” Id. at 701. We ask what real-world effects would result “if an

administrative stay is put in place.” Id.; accord Doe #1, 944 F.3d at 1223

(examining the practical effects of “granting the temporary stay request”).

In the circumstances here, granting an administrative stay will best preserve

the status quo. Prior to the October 4 temporary restraining order, Oregon National

Guard members had been federalized but not deployed. The Memorandum

authorized federalization of the Oregon National Guard members. An

administrative stay of the October 4 temporary restraining order will maintain the

federalization of Oregon National Guard members, because that order prohibits

implementation of the Memorandum. Additionally, the second temporary

restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the

deployment of National Guard members in Oregon. Thus, the effect of granting an

administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members

3 25-6268 have been federalized but not deployed.

Administrative Stay GRANTED.

4 25-6268