U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb heard arguments on Friday regarding a request from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb to issue an order that would remove over 2,000 National Guard members from Washington, D.C. streets.
Cobb, an appointee of President Joe Biden, did not render a decision during the hearing.
In August, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the district, despite the Department of Justice indicating that violent crime there is currently at a 30-year low.
Following the declaration, more than 2,300 National Guard troops were deployed from eight states and the district to patrol the area under the authority of the Army Secretary.
Additionally, Trump sent hundreds of federal agents to assist them.
Attorneys from Schwalb’s office asserted that allowing these military occupations to continue would threaten the integrity of the constitutional democracy.
In contrast, government lawyers argued that Congress has granted the president control over the operations of the D.C. National Guard.
They labeled Schwalb’s lawsuit as a mere “political stunt,” claiming it jeopardizes a successful initiative aimed at reducing violent crime in the area.
Although the emergency declaration concluded in September, over 2,200 troops remain stationed in D.C.
Court documents filed by Schwalb as part of the lawsuit indicate that the National Guard’s commanding general has been preparing for a prolonged deployment, suggesting that troops may remain until summer 2024, coinciding with America 250 celebrations.
Schwalb’s concerns extend beyond the mere duration of the deployment; he is also troubled by the activities that the Guard members are engaged in.
Documents linked to the lawsuit confirm that Guard commanders have indicated, “our soldiers are deputized federal law enforcement.”
Further records show that the U.S. Marshal Service waived certain basic training requirements for Guard members acting in law enforcement roles on D.C. streets.
While the troops are screened by their respective Guard units, critics argue that the lack of comprehensive law enforcement training violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic policing.
Schwalb’s request for a preliminary injunction follows these findings, as he reaffirmed his stance that the U.S. military should not be involved in policing American citizens on American soil.
In a statement released after the hearing, he emphasized that the presence of out-of-state military personnel, who may lack familiarity with local communities, poses a danger rather than a safety measure.
“Having armed soldiers driving military vehicles and carrying handcuffs is not just unnecessary; it’s an unprecedented federal overreach,” Schwalb stated.
He pointed out that D.C. leaders and residents did not solicit the National Guard’s assistance, further questioning the justification for their extended presence.
Although he expressed respect for National Guard members who have selflessly served, he criticized the misuse of their deployment.
Reports have surfaced that since their arrival, the National Guard has engaged in various non-policing activities, such as raking leaves and assisting with community tasks.
Schwalb called for the National Guard’s return home, emphasizing that their continued deployment is not customary, nor is it legal.
“I look forward to continuing our case in court,” he concluded.
In related developments, several states that sent National Guard troops to assist in D.C. have indicated plans to withdraw their units by November 30, unless an extension is warranted.
Among these states, West Virginia has faced criticism from civic groups claiming that Governor Patrick Morrisey overstepped his authority by deploying 300 to 400 Guard members for Trump’s initiatives.
According to state law, deployment of the National Guard out of state is restricted to specific situations, such as responding to disasters or emergencies initiated by other states.
The West Virginia Citizen Action Group has stated that the governor cannot use these citizen-soldiers as a policing force at the dictates of federal officials bypassing legal procedures.
In a separate but relevant legal challenge, a temporary decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday paused a ruling that could have permitted Trump to send 200 Oregon National Guard troops to protect federal property in Portland.
This pause allows the court time to reconsider the panel’s previous decision, with a deadline for a ruling set for Tuesday afternoon.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry has blocked the deployment of National Guard troops until a ruling is made in her court or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes.
Perry had previously issued a temporary restraining order to halt this deployment for two weeks.
While attorneys representing the federal government seek to extend this order, they also push for an emergency order from the Supreme Court to authorize deployment.
Meanwhile, a coalition of legal representatives from Chicago and Illinois is advocating for the continued prohibition of deployment, labeling such an action as a significant and drastic measure.
These ongoing lawsuits and conflicting court decisions underscore the tumultuous repercussions of Trump’s initiative to deploy the military into cities governed by Democratic officials, amidst widespread opposition from local leaders.
image source from：nbcwashington
