Appeals Court to Hear Arguments on National Guard Deployment in Washington D.C.

More than 14 months after National Guard members began patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., a federal appeals court will hear arguments on whether they should be sent home. Oral arguments are scheduled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

President Donald Trump deployed the Guard in August 2025, citing a crime-fighting mission. The force, which at its peak numbered about 5,000 troops, has supported arrest operations, patrolled city streets and neighborhoods, and participated in cleanup efforts. The Trump administration has stated the deployment contributed to a decrease in crime, while city officials and activists have called it a waste of taxpayer money and a normalization of militarization.

At the core of the legal challenge, initiated by D.C.'s attorney general, is the question of presidential authority to deploy the National Guard in the nation's capital. The U.S. Constitution grants federal lawmakers authority over the District of Columbia, though the Home Rule Act of 1973 allows residents to elect local officials. The District has argued that the mobilization constitutes an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

In December, a three-judge panel had paused a lower court's ruling that the deployment was illegal. The panel suggested Trump might prevail in his argument of possessing a unique power to mobilize the Guard in Washington. The court noted factors favoring the administration, including disruption to service members and the president's interest in protecting federal functions and property in the capital. The judges also found that the District had not identified any ongoing injury to its statutory interests.

Legal experts suggest that even if the District prevails at the appeals court level, the case could move to the U.S. Supreme Court. William Banks, a Syracuse law professor, indicated that the District's argument might be slim, potentially questioning the deployment's authorization under local law. However, he noted a lack of an overarching federal principle to support the District's case, given the president's role as commander in chief and the significant leeway afforded to the president regarding the local National Guard and out-of-state units.

Margaret Hu, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, pointed to arguments from states supporting the deployment, which framed it as a response to an emergency. Hu suggested that the open-ended nature of the deployment could be a point of challenge, as some argue its indefinite duration negates an emergency justification.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded in November that Trump's military presence in Washington illegally infringed on local officials' authority. Cobb ruled that while the president can protect federal functions and property, he cannot unilaterally deploy the D.C. National Guard for crime control or summon troops from other states. Her order was put on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal by the Trump administration.

The appeals court granted a stay of that order, permitting the Guard to remain in place while the case is pending. The mobilization, extended by the Defense Department until January 2029, has continued despite the legal challenge. The federal government awarded a $292 million contract for housing for members of the Joint Task Force-D.C. While the numbers fluctuated, reaching around 5,000 during a semiquincentennial celebration, they had decreased to approximately 2,900 as of the previous week.