In a significant legal development on Wednesday, a federal appeals court issued a stay on a lower court's injunction that would have halted the deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. This decision represents a temporary victory for President Donald Trump's administration as the case proceeds through the appellate system.
The controversy began with an August memorandum in which President Trump directed the Secretary of Defense to activate the District of Columbia National Guard due to escalating violent crime and public safety concerns. Furthermore, the directive allowed for coordination with state governors to deploy additional National Guard units from outside the District to support federal missions in the nation's capital.
The District of Columbia responded by filing a lawsuit in September against President Trump and several federal entities, including the Department of War, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The lawsuit, as reported by RedState, claimed that the actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and sought an injunction against the operation of both local and out-of-state Guard units within the capital.
U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction in November to halt the deployments but stayed her ruling for 21 days, allowing the administration time to appeal. The Trump administration quickly challenged the order, leading to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' initial temporary administrative stay, followed by the formal stay pending appeal announced Wednesday.
Accompanying the per curiam order was a 27-page statement by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, which was joined by Trump appointees Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas. Judge Millett's statement provided a detailed examination of the National Guard's history and the unique constitutional and statutory situation of the District of Columbia.
Judge Millett argued that the administration is likely to succeed on the merits of the case because Washington, D.C., is a federal district created by Congress and not a sovereign state. She noted that federal statutes and the D.C. Code support the president's authority to deploy the District's National Guard and to request state Guard units' assistance for federal missions within the capital.
Millett also cautioned that enforcing the injunction could lead to repeated disruptions in Guard forces' deployment, creating instability for public safety and federal operations. The appellate panel suggested that the lower court might have erred in its assessment of serious constitutional federalism concerns.
In a separate concurring statement, Judge Rao questioned the District of Columbia's legal standing in bringing the lawsuit, as reported by NOTUS. She pointed out that the courts have not recognized the District as having sovereignty equivalent to that of a state and suggested that granting it the ability to sue the president over an alleged sovereign injury would be unprecedented.
The appeals court clarified that its decision does not resolve the case on the merits and does not set a precedent for the panel that will ultimately hear the full appeal. The District may seek further review, including a request for a rehearing. The judges also warned that this decision should not influence other National Guard cases involving deployments within states.
As the litigation continues, the ruling allows the Trump administration to maintain the current security posture in Washington, D.C. For now, this stay represents another judicial affirmation as the administration defends its authority to manage crime and public safety in the nation's capital.
