A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled the Trump administration can continue its deployment of National Guard members in Washington, D.C., while litigation continues.
The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that the unique legal status of Washington may give the administration leeway.
“Because the District of Columbia is a federal district created by Congress, rather than a constitutionally sovereign entity like the 50 states, the defendants appear on this early record likely to prevail on the merits of their argument that the president possesses a unique power within the District — the seat of the federal government — to mobilize the Guard,” Judge Patricia A. Millett, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in the court’s opinion, joined by President Donald Trump-appointees Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas.
Courts will continue to consider the merits of the case. The judges emphasized that their order allowing troops to stay was “rooted in the preliminary and hurried posture of a stay motion.”
Trending
Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the District in August, triggering the deployment of National Guard troops and federal agents that has currently grown to nearly 2,600 National Guard members from D.C. and at least eight states led by Republican governors.
In November, a federal judge ordered Trump to end the National Guard deployment, although she put the order on hold for 21 days.
The Trump administration appealed and has stood behind the deployments. In late November, Trump ordered an additional 500 National Guard members to the District following the shooting of two National Guard members that resulted in the death of a 20-year-old West Virginia guardsman.
Wednesday’s appeals court ruling comes as the Supreme Court is preparing to make a ruling on Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area.
In a concurring opinion alongside the ruling on Wednesday, Rao wrote that the administration is likely to succeed upon appeal due to the lack of legal precedent suggesting the district has standing to sue the federal government.
“While Congress has provided the District with a certain degree of self-governance, we have never recognized that the District has standing to sue the President and federal officers for sovereignty-based injuries,” Rao wrote, joined by Katsas. “This lack of historical support weighs heavily against the District’s standing.”
Author
