The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overruled a lower court ruling on Wednesday, allowing US President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard in Washington DC to continue for now.
The three-judge panel reversed US District Judge Jia Cobb’s November 20 decision, which disallowed Trump from deploying troops to DC to help control crime in the city. Cobb’s opinion and order state that the District was unable to perform its duties with the intrusion of the National Guard troops, holding that “the balance of equities and public interest weigh in the District’s favor.”
The appeals court disagreed with Cobb’s decision, stating that the president may prevail in his argument that he “possesses a unique power” to deploy troops in the nation’s capital. The court’s reasoning centered on the fact that DC is a federal district, stating:
Because the District of Columbia is a federal district created by Congress, rather than a constitutionally sovereign entity like the fifty 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 under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). It also appears likely that the D.C. Code independently authorizes the deployment of the D.C. Guard.
This action was initially brought by DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb in August after Trump deployed around 2,300 regional National Guard members to patrol the city. In the months since, Trump has also deployed National Guard troops to other major US cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and Memphis. The court’s ruling calls into question the constitutionality of Trump’s deployment of troops in US cities other that the nation’s capital in the future.
A spokesperson for Schwalb said in a statement that this was not the end of the fight against the deployment, stating, “This is a preliminary ruling that does not resolve the merits. We look forward to continuing our case in both the District and appellate courts.”