The Trump administration can continue its National Guard deployment in DC pending an appeals court decision. Photo / Craig Hudson, The Washington Post
The Trump administration will be allowed to continue its National Guard deployment in DC at least temporarily, pending another appeals court decision, a panel of US Court of Appeals judges said Thursday.
The ruling means the deployment of troops to the nation’s capital could persist beyond December 11, the date a lower-court judge had previously set as a deadline for the administration to halt the mission. Last month, that US District Court judge handed DC a preliminary legal win in its lawsuit over the deployment, writing in an opinion that it was illegal and ordering the administration to pause it while litigation proceeds.
The Trump administration then asked the appeals court to intervene and allow the troops to remain longer – and on Thursday, judges with the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay in the case, meaning the drawdown of troops will be delayed at least until the appeals court makes an additional ruling.
The court emphasised that Thursday’s decision had nothing to do with the merits of the Trump administration’s arguments in the case and that it merely buys the judges more time. “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” they wrote.
The appeals court ruling comes the week after an attack in which prosecutors say a man targeted National Guard members, killing 20-year-old Spec. Sarah Beckstrom and critically injuring 24-year-old Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe in a busy downtown area of DC blocks from the White House. On Thursday, President Donald Trump ordered that flags be flown at half-staff to honour Beckstrom’s memory.
For Trump administration officials, the attack – allegedly carried out by a lone gunman who was resettled in the United States from his native Afghanistan after work for a CIA-backed counter-terrorism squad – only deepened their resolve to keep the troops in the capital city.
Trump called for an additional 500 troops; South Carolina’s governor said this week he would send up to 300 members of his state’s National Guard in response.
“Our warriors are strong, and we will not back down until our capital and our cities are secure,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said at a news briefing Tuesday.
For DC Attorney-General Brian Schwalb (D), who sued the Trump administration in September over the National Guard deployment, the shooting and its aftermath offered further proof that the deployment of troops was ill-advised and unsafe. DC police officers have since temporarily paired up with National Guard troops for the troops’ safety, potentially diverting officers from other public safety tasks, Schwalb said in a court filing this week.
“The deployment impinges on the District’s home rule, requires the diversion of scarce police resources, and exposes both the public and Guard members to substantial public safety risks, as Defendants themselves acknowledged at the outset of the deployment, and as the horrific attack on two National Guard members last week tragically underscored,” Schwalb wrote.
Schwalb’s office declined to comment about Thursday’s ruling. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump deployed the DC National Guard to city streets on August 11 as part of a broader crime crackdown he initiated in the city. He also took temporary control of DC police and launched a surge of federal law enforcement into DC neighbourhoods. Multiple Republican governors heeded Trump’s call for reinforcements and sent troops from their National Guards to the District. As of Wednesday, about 2300 National Guard members were stationed in the city – about 100 more than the previous day.
The National Guard members have stood watch at Metro stations and picked up trash at parks. They also carry weapons and have been instructed to use them only as a last resort.
Unlike in states, where governors control their National Guards, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the DC National Guard – a role the administration argues gives Trump vast power over the deployment and legally authorises his actions in the District. But Schwalb, in his lawsuit, has argued that the President’s power over the Guard has limits.
Schwalb also has alleged that the troops in DC have been illegally engaged in law enforcement, in violation of a federal law that prohibits military troops from engaging in domestic policing.
The Trump administration has argued that the troops have not been engaged in city law enforcement and merely deter crime through their presence, freeing up police for other tasks.
In November, US District Judge Jia M. Cobb sided with DC in a preliminary ruling, writing that Trump lacked the authority to activate the Guard for the mission. Cobb ordered the Trump administration to halt the deployment in DC while litigation continued over whether the troops should be permanently withdrawn. However, she delayed her order from going into effect until December 11 to give the Trump administration time to appeal.
In response, the administration asked an appeals court for an emergency ruling to allow the deployment to continue while litigation continues, arguing in court documents that Cobb’s order “impinges on the President’s express statutory authority as Commander-in-Chief of the DC National Guard and impermissibly second-guesses his successful efforts to address intolerably high crime rates in the Nation’s capital”.
The appeals court on Thursday did not rule on that request; the administrative stay means the deployment can continue while the appeals court considers it.
Questions of the mission’s safety implications have taken on new weight after last week’s attack, with each party in the lawsuit insisting the city would be safer if the court sided with them.
Additionally, a group of retired senior military officers and the Vet Voice Foundation – a non-partisan, nonprofit organisation representing veterans and their supporters – filed a brief in the appeals court that they said was “in support of neither party”. They argued that the use of the National Guard in DC “threatens to undermine the apolitical reputation of the military as an institution, places service members in situations for which they are not specifically trained, and pulls the Guard away from its critical missions”.
But attorneys general from 24 Republican-led states – including some that sent their troops to DC – argued that while the mission “has already produced strong results,” there is more to be done to reduce crime in the District. Violent crime is down 28% in DC compared with last year, although crime had begun to fall steeply well over a year before Trump surged federal law enforcement to the District in August.
“Danger still lingers,” the states’ attorneys general wrote in their brief, filed in support of the Trump administration. “Just last week, an Afghani national committed a heinous terror attack, shooting two National Guardsmen at close range and murdering one.”
In arguing that the Guard troops should stay, they also cited a few actions that Guard members had taken to keep the city safe.
“National Guard troops have stopped at least one fight near the metro,” they wrote, “helped provide first aid to elderly residents of the district, and aided in the successful search for a missing child.”
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.