President Donald Trump and his administration cleared another procedural hurdle Wednesday after a federal appeals court paused a lower court order that would have blocked the continued deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., while the case moves forward.
The ruling preserves current operations as appellate judges consider the legality of the deployment, marking a temporary but significant win for the administration.
The legal dispute traces back to an August memorandum signed by Trump directing the Secretary of Defense to activate the District of Columbia National Guard in response to rising violent crime and public safety concerns in the nation’s capital.
The directive also authorized coordination with state governors to deploy additional National Guard units from outside the District to support federal missions in Washington.
In September, the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against Trump and several federal entities, including the Department of War, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth the Department of Justice, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marshals Service.
The District alleged the actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and sought to block both local and out-of-state Guard units from operating in the capital, according to RedState.
U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction in November halting the deployments but stayed her ruling for 21 days to allow the administration to appeal.
The Trump administration promptly challenged the order, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals initially granted a temporary administrative stay before issuing Wednesday’s formal stay pending appeal.
Although the appellate order was issued per curiam, it was accompanied by a 27-page statement authored by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama and joined by Trump appointees Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas.
Millett’s statement outlined the historical development of the National Guard and examined the District of Columbia’s unique constitutional and statutory framework.
Millett concluded that the administration is likely to prevail on the merits because Washington, D.C., is a federal district established by Congress rather than a sovereign state.
She wrote that federal statutes and provisions within the D.C. Code support the president’s authority to deploy the District’s National Guard and request assistance from state Guard units for federal missions within the capital.
The statement also warned that allowing the injunction to take effect could trigger repeated withdrawals and redeployments of Guard forces during ongoing litigation, creating uncertainty for public safety and federal operations.
The appellate panel indicated the lower court likely erred in concluding the deployment raised serious constitutional federalism concerns.
In a separate concurring statement, Judge Rao questioned whether the District of Columbia has legal standing to bring the lawsuit at all, according to NOTUS.
Rao noted that courts have never recognized the District as possessing sovereignty comparable to that of a state and suggested that allowing the District to sue the president over alleged sovereign injury would be unprecedented.
The appeals court emphasized that its ruling does not resolve the case on the merits and does not bind the panel that will ultimately hear the full appeal.
The District may still seek further review, including a rehearing request. Judges also cautioned that the decision should not be interpreted as controlling other National Guard cases involving deployments within states.
While the litigation continues, Wednesday’s ruling allows the Trump administration to maintain its current security posture in Washington, D.C.
For now, the stay represents another court win as the administration defends its authority to address crime and public safety in the nation’s capital.
