JUST IN: Trump Scores Major Legal Victory On National Guard Deployment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Wednesday. issued a unanimous ruling allowing the ongoing presence of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C.

The three-judge panel stayed a lower court order that had directed the withdrawal of the troops, permitting them to remain while the appeal process continues. This decision extends the deployment at least through late February 2026, with further arguments scheduled.

The deployment began in August 2025, following an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the district. More than 2,000 troops from multiple states were mobilized under federal control to assist with public safety and protection of federal property.

The presence was later increased after a November 2025 incident in which two Guard members were shot. The appeals court highlighted the president’s authority over the District of Columbia as a federal enclave, setting it apart from deployments in states where governors hold primary control over National Guard units.

Challenges to the deployment emerged soon after it started. The District of Columbia government contended that the extended military presence exceeded legal limits and raised concerns under laws restricting military roles in domestic law enforcement, such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

A federal district court had partially agreed, issuing an injunction to terminate the deployment. The appeals court’s stay halts that injunction, noting that the administration had shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal based on presidential powers in the federal district.

This case aligns with a series of National Guard deployments to various urban areas during the current administration, typically justified by needs related to crime reduction, protection of federal facilities, or responses to violent unrest linked to immigration enforcement.

In Los Angeles, for instance, thousands of National Guard troops and Marines were sent in June 2025 amid protests over immigration operations. The federal government assumed control of California National Guard units despite opposition from state officials. The deployment peaked at over 4,000 Guard members but was later reduced.

Legal challenges led to court orders limiting or ending aspects of the presence, including a December 2025 ruling requiring withdrawal from active use in the city, though appeals have addressed control over remaining units.

Similar federal mobilizations occurred in Chicago, where Guard units were deployed to support federal operations and address crime concerns. State and local officials filed lawsuits contesting the federalization, resulting in judicial restrictions. Deployments or standby orders also applied to Portland, Oregon, focused on safeguarding federal buildings during unrest periods.

Additional actions included sending troops to Memphis, Tennessee, following coordination with the state’s governor to tackle elevated crime rates. Plans or requests have involved other locations, such as New Orleans, based on local crime data.

These efforts generally involve placing Guard units under federal command, sometimes without state governor approval in certain jurisdictions, and emphasize public safety or federal asset protection. Each has encountered legal review, with outcomes varying by court. Lower courts have at times imposed limits, while appellate proceedings have permitted temporary continuations in some instances. The December 17 ruling in the D.C. case supports the administration’s approach in the capital, distinct due to its federal status, as litigation proceeds nationwide.