Law-fare has been used by the Democrats for years. But the losses for them are adding up.
Now a federal appeals court handed President Trump an important victory that changes everything.
Appeals Court Upholds Trump’s Authority in D.C.
A federal appeals court has affirmed President Trump’s broad powers over the nation’s capital, allowing him to maintain National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C., to bolster security amid rising threats.
The ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia puts on hold a lower court injunction ordering the troops to stand down.
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee to the court, said both federal and city law appear to allow Mr. Trump expansive powers to call up the guard on his own, even if the city’s elected leaders oppose it.
“Given the special security needs of the District as the seat of federal government and the nation’s capital, defendants have likely shown that the D.C. code affords the president authority for this deployment,” Judge Millett wrote.
The deployment has involved more than 2,000 soldiers from the city’s own guard as well as South Carolina, West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama and South Dakota.
On Mov. 26, a gunman ambushed two members of the West Virginia National Guard.
Sarah Beckstrom was slain and Andrew Wolfe was grievously wounded.
An Afghan migrant brought in during President Biden’s chaotic 2021 airlift out of Kabul has been charged with the attack.
The ruling does not address the exact duties the guard is performing and whether they are doing — or are allowed to do — traditional police work.
But it does give Mr. Trump permission, for now, to keep the troops in place. Under the current schedule, they are to remain through the end of February, though the mission could be extended.
The D.C. Circuit will revisit the issue more fully later, but Wednesday’s ruling means that, barring intervention from the full appeals court or the Supreme Court, the troops can remain until that final judgment.
Positive Impact on Crime and Legal Backing
Trump’s decisive action has coincided with falling crime rates, countering Democratic-run city policies that hinder federal immigration enforcement.
In Washington, the deployment began in August as part of Mr. Trump’s summer focus on crime in major cities — particularly those run by Democrats where sanctuary policies limit cooperation with the feds on immigration enforcement.
Troops have policed streets around the city’s core, patrolled at subway stations and taken over patrols in the city’s extensive network of national park lands, freeing up U.S. Park Police officers to do other missions.
Reports of major crimes have dropped in the wake of the deployment, though city officials contend the numbers were already trending down before Mr. Trump’s involvement.
Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, ruled Nov. 20 that the deployment was illegal under city law. She said the provisions giving the president power to call up the guard seem to be limited to training and ceremonial duties.
Judge Millett, though, said that was a misreading. She said the section repeatedly cites “other duty” in addition to training.
And she said the law was rewritten in 2006 to give the guard an expanded purview in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Judge Cobb had stayed her own ruling to allow for an appeal, so the troops have been in place continuously despite the adverse decision last month.
Judge Millett was joined in her ruling by Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees.
Broader Deployments and Ongoing Challenges
Trump’s leadership extends similar protective measures to other high-crime areas, facing resistance from local officials.
Mr. Trump also has deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and sought to send them to the Chicago area and to Portland, Oregon. Each of those has faced court challenges.
The Los Angeles deployment has been allowed to continue while that case develops.
The Portland and Chicago deployments have been put on hold, with the Supreme Court pondering the matter.
The attorney general’s office for the District said in a statement that it will keep pursuing the case.
“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,” the office said.
Jude Rao wrote a separate opinion, joined by Judge Katsas, questioning whether the city — which, despite having some home-rule powers, is a subunit of the federal government — even has the power to sue the president.
She said that issue wasn’t challenged in the district court, but she said it needs to be addressed.
“Permitting the district to sue the President and other federal officials based on a sovereign injury is unprecedented and likely at odds with the unique legal status of the District,” Judge Rao wrote. “In subsequent proceedings, this important jurisdictional question should be given further consideration.”
