State of Oregon v. Trump | Docket

State of Oregon v. Trump

Defendants-Appellants moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2) to dismiss two consolidated appeals. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion, dismissed the consolidated appeals with each party bearing its own costs, denied an earlier dismissal motion as moot, and issued the mandate.

Docket

Court

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court level

appellate

Jurisdiction

Federal

Date filed

February 17, 2026

Parties

CITY OF PORTLAND · appelleeDONALD J. TRUMP · appellantSTATE OF CALIFORNIA · appelleeSTATE OF OREGON · appelleeUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE · appellantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY · appellantPETER HEGSETH · appellantKRISTI NOEM · appellant

Judges

Murguia · majority, author

Status

published

Disposition

DISMISSED, with each party bearing its own costs; earlier motion to dismiss denied as moot.

Opinion type

combined

Format

order

Source

View PDF

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF OREGON; CITY OF PORTLAND; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. 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, Defendants - Appellants.

Nos. 25-6268, 25-7194 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM District of Oregon, Portland

ORDER

MURGUIA, Chief Judge:

On January 27, 2026, Defendants-Appellants moved to dismiss the consolidated appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2). Case No. 25-6268, Dkt. 112; Case No. 25-7194, Dkt. 25. Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a response (Case No. 25-6268, Dkt. 114; Case No. 25-7194, Dkt. 26), and Defendants-Appellants filed a reply (Case No. 25-6268, Dkt. 115; Case No. 257194, Dkt. 27).

Page 2DefendantsAppellants’ motion to dismiss is granted. The consolidated appeals (Case Nos. 25-6268 & 25-7194) are DISMISSED, with each party bearing its own costs. DefendantsAppellants’ earlier motion to dismiss (Case No. 25 -6268, Dkt. 91) is denied as moot. This order constitutes the mandate of the court.