U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb presided over arguments on Friday concerning the request from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb to remove over 2,000 National Guard members currently deployed in Washington.
Judge Cobb did not issue a ruling following the arguments.
In August, President Donald Trump declared a crime emergency in D.C., despite the Department of Justice stating that violent crime rates are at a 30-year low.
This executive order led to the deployment of more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states as well as the District itself, operating under the command of the Army Secretary.
Additionally, hundreds of federal agents were deployed alongside these troops.
In the lawsuit filed by Schwalb, attorneys emphasized that allowing such military occupations to persist would fundamentally alter the nature of the nation’s constitutional democracy.
Government lawyers countered, asserting that Congress has granted the president authority over the D.C. National Guard’s operations, and labeled Schwalb’s lawsuit as a frivolous “political stunt” that could jeopardize efforts to curb violent crime in the capital.
Although the declared emergency ended in September, there are still over 2,200 troops present in the District.
Schwalb’s lawsuit indicates that these troops might remain deployed until the summer of 2024, citing evidence gathered during the discovery process that suggests preparations are underway for them to winter in D.C.
Moreover, documents reveal that the Guard’s commanding general plans for the troops’ extended stay amidst celebrations for America 250.
The nature of the National Guard’s activities has also raised concerns; according to court documents, commanders have stated that Guard soldiers have been deputized as federal law enforcement officials.
However, court records indicate that the U.S. Marshals Service waived essential law enforcement training and experience requirements for these Guard members, who are still screened by their respective units.
In addition to being armed, these troops are reportedly training in the use of handcuffs.
Schwalb asserts that these actions contravene the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military personnel from engaging in law enforcement activities on American streets.
After the preliminary injunction hearing, Schwalb reiterated his position in a statement: “The U.S. military should not be policing American citizens on American soil.”
He expressed that the presence of out-of-state military personnel, who lack familiarity with local communities and accountability to local residents, does not enhance public safety.
Furthermore, his statement criticized the utilization of the National Guard for tasks outside their intended military expertise, such as raking leaves and collecting trash, indicating that such activities do not justify their continued deployment.
Schwalb called for the troops to return home to their families, arguing that their presence reflects unprecedented federal overreach and is neither normal nor lawful.
Several states involved in the National Guard deployment plan to withdraw their units by November 30, unless directed otherwise.
Among these states is West Virginia, where a civic organization has accused Governor Patrick Morrisey of exceeding his authority by sending 300 to 400 Guard members to assist Trump’s initiatives.
According to state law, the deployment of National Guard to assist federal officials is permissible only in specific scenarios, such as responding to natural disasters or emergencies declared by other states.
The West Virginia Citizen Action Group contends in court documents that the governor cannot use National Guard troops as a federal police force at the whim of the administration.
On the broader legal front, a temporary federal appeals court decision on Friday paused a ruling by a three-judge panel, which had permitted President Donald Trump to send 200 Oregon National Guard troops to safeguard federal property in Portland.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced it requires additional time to deliberate whether to reassess the panel’s earlier decision, which will not be implemented until a resolution is reached by 5 p.m. on Tuesday.
In Chicago, a similar confrontation has unfolded following Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops, where U.S. District Judge April Perry temporarily halted this deployment pending the outcome of proceedings in her court or an intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The judge had previously issued a temporary restraining order to pause the military deployment for two weeks.
Federal government attorneys agreed to maintain the order but indicated they would pursue an emergency directive from the Supreme Court for deployment approval.
Chicago and Illinois legal representatives have also requested the Supreme Court to continue blocking National Guard deployment, labeling it as a “dramatic step.”
These unfolding events represent a significant array of legal challenges and overlapping judicial decisions in response to President Trump’s controversial deployment of military forces into cities governed by Democratic leaders, against the backdrop of firm resistance from local officials.
image source from：nbcwashington
