 |
| Brian Schwalb files suit over D.C. Guard deployment |
President Donald Trump faces a new legal fight in federal court after Washington, D.C.’s attorney general sued to stop a National Guard deployment.
Brian L. Schwalb, the District’s elected attorney general, filed the complaint Thursday. He asked a federal court for a declaration and an injunction to end the troop presence.
The suit says the deployment began after Mr. Trump declared a “crime emergency” on Aug. 11. It argues the troop placement amounts to an unlawful “military occupation.”
Schwalb’s filing names the president and several federal agencies and officials as defendants. The complaint seeks a court order stopping the federal government from keeping Guard forces under Pentagon command for local policing.
The lawsuit says about 2,200 National Guard troops have operated in the District since the August order. It lists forces from seven states and the District itself among those serving.
Schwalb argued the use of troops for local law enforcement violates federal limits on military action at home. He said no U.S. jurisdiction should face involuntary military rule.
The complaint points to the Home Rule Act and the Posse Comitatus Act as legal barriers to this deployment. It says federal control over D.C. police and the Guard undermines local authority.
The suit also highlights a question about whether some Guard members are in federal service or under state control. Schwalb says the forces were placed under Pentagon command and were deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Schwalb noted a recent federal court ruling in California that found a similar Guard deployment unlawful. He used that decision to show courts are weighing these moves closely.
The White House defended the action. A White House spokeswoman said the president has authority to protect federal property and assist law enforcement. The administration called Schwalb’s suit harmful to public safety.
Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington offered guarded support for some federal steps while also raising concerns. She said her office is preparing for the end of the declared emergency and planning coordination with federal agencies.
The suit says troop orders are extended through December for many service members. The filing said that extension suggests the deployment may not be short-lived.
Schwalb asked the court to order a stop to using the Guard for local policing and to block efforts that transfer local police authority to federal control.
The complaint lists specific harms the District says residents face. It says the deployment chills local democracy and impairs D.C.’s ability to manage its police and public safety.
Legal experts say this case raises technical questions about control of the Guard and presidential power. The lawsuit frames those questions as rights that belong to the District and its residents.
A federal judge in California recently blocked a similar deployment there. Schwalb cited that ruling to show courts may limit such uses of National Guard forces.
The District seeks both a declaration that the deployment is unlawful and an injunction to end it. The filing asks the court to rule quickly because the troop presence is ongoing.
The lawsuit also asks the court to bar federal agencies from deputizing Guard members for local law-enforcement roles. It seeks to stop any federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department’s functions.
Federal officials have said the Guard presence has helped reduce some violent crime, and the president has defended sending troops to other cities for the same purpose. The White House says those steps are lawful and necessary.
Schwalb’s complaint notes that numerous GOP-led states added troops to the District’s deployment. The filing puts emphasis on how those out-of-state forces have been integrated into federal operations.
The lawsuit does not seek criminal charges. It asks for civil relief to protect D.C.’s legal autonomy and guardrails on military involvement in local policing.
Court filings show attorneys for the District are pressing for rapid judicial review. The complaint points to specific dates and troop orders in support of their request.
The case adds to a broader set of legal challenges around the Trump administration’s use of federal force in U.S. cities. It puts the focus on how national security powers can intersect with local governance.
The District’s lawsuit will be assigned to a federal judge for initial proceedings. Both sides may seek emergency relief while the court reviews the arguments.
Schwalb said he filed the suit to protect the District’s residents and to uphold the law that limits military involvement in local matters. The filing asks the court to enforce those limits now.
As the court calendar moves, the presence of Guard troops remains in place. The legal fight is likely to continue while the District pursues the requested relief.