Appeals court presses Trump administration on limits of presidential power over D.C. National Guard

More than 14 months into a National Guard deployment that has put thousands of troops on Washington, D.C.'s streets, a federal appeals court opened oral arguments Wednesday by pressing the government's attorney on a pointed question: are there any limits at all on a president's power to call up the Guard in the nation's capital?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments in the case brought by D.C.'s attorney general, which challenges President Donald Trump's August 2025 order sending the Guard into the city as part of what he called a crime-fighting mission. The three-judge panel — all nominated by Democratic presidents — collectively questioned Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur before D.C. had a chance to present its own arguments.

How is the government's argument about an administration's authorities 'not federalization and therefore running up against' the Posse Comitatus Act?— Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Enacted in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act bars the federal military from being used in domestic law enforcement except where the Constitution or Congress expressly permits it. D.C.'s position is that the deployment is precisely that — an illegal use of the military for domestic policing. The Trump administration argues the president holds unique authority over the District of Columbia, which is not a state and sits under direct federal jurisdiction.

The force peaked at around 5,000 troops over the summer during the semiquincentennial celebration and has since dropped to approximately 2,900 as of last week, according to ABC News. Soldiers and guardsmen have taken part in arrest operations, walked patrols through city streets and neighborhoods, and joined cleanup efforts. The Pentagon has extended the mobilization through January 2029, and a $292 million federal contract was awarded to a private company to provide apartment housing for members of the Joint Task Force-D.C.

The case reached the appeals court after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled last November that Trump's deployment illegally intruded on local officials' authority to direct law enforcement. Cobb found that while the president has authority to protect federal functioning and property, he cannot unilaterally deploy the D.C. National Guard for crime control or call in troops from other states. She put her order on hold for 21 days to allow an appeal; the appeals court then stayed her ruling entirely, allowing the Guard to remain while the case proceeds.

In issuing its stay last December, the same three-judge panel indicated some openness to the administration's position, writing in a unanimous 32-page ruling that Trump might prevail in arguing the president 'possesses a unique power' to mobilize the Guard in Washington. The panel also weighed in on the 'disruption to the lives of thousands of service members' and the president's interest 'in the protection of federal governmental functions and property within the nation's capital,' and concluded that D.C. 'has not identified any ongoing injury to its statutory interests.'

Wednesday's sharper questioning from the bench does not necessarily signal a reversal of that posture — appellate judges routinely probe both sides — but it underscored the unresolved constitutional tension at the heart of the case. D.C. occupies a peculiar legal position: the U.S. Constitution vests authority over the district in federal lawmakers, while the Home Rule Act of 1973 allows residents to elect a mayor, a council, and neighborhood commissioners. That limited autonomy is the narrow ground on which D.C. is fighting.

There is no overarching federal principle that would bail out the district in this case.— William Banks, law professor, Syracuse University

Banks added that because D.C. holds no statehood and the president serves as commander in chief, there is a 'tremendous amount of leeway and discretion for the president' to control or delegate control of the local National Guard and out-of-state units. He said D.C.'s best chance may rest on its home rule status — raising the question of whether National Guard units can operate there without authorization under local law — though he characterized that argument as a long shot.

Some argue that the indefinite nature of the deployment means that there's no emergency justification here.— Margaret Hu, law professor, William and Mary School of Law

Hu pointed to an argument raised by states that filed briefs supporting the deployment: that Trump was responding to an emergency. The open-ended, multi-year extension of the mission, she said, could undercut that rationale and give challengers a foothold.

The Trump administration credits the deployment with helping drive down crime in D.C. — though crime was already declining before the Guard arrived, according to ABC News. City officials and activists call the deployment a waste of taxpayer money that has normalized the militarization of a major American city. Even if D.C. prevails at the appeals court level, the Trump administration is expected to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, a body that has in several instances deferred to presidential authority.

Why it matters — The case will determine whether a president can permanently station thousands of troops in the U.S. capital for domestic policing — a question with direct implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the district's elected leadership, and potentially for civil liberties in any American city.

Sources differ on Whether the deployment has reduced crime in D.C.: The Trump administration says the deployment has contributed to a decrease in crime. (abcnews.com) vs Crime was already on the decline in D.C. before the National Guard arrived. (abcnews.com)

Reported by abcnews.com, courthousenews.com, military.com, latimes.com