On Sept. 4, the Office of the Attorney General of Washington filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the deployment of over 2,300 National Guard troops in Washington.
The lawsuit, filed by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, along with several other lawyers representing the District, argued that the “deployment of National Guard troops… without the District’s consent” violated the boundaries of Washington’s “sovereignty and right to self-governance.”
The deployment came after President Trump’s invocation of Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The law, passed in 1973, states that the president is granted authority over the Metropolitan Police Department in case of an emergency.
The lawsuit outlines several potential harms to the city, including eroding public trust and escalating tensions between local police and federal troops. Schwalb repeatedly warns about possible economic fallout, especially for restaurants, hospitals and the tourism industry, as both residents and visitors may be deterred by the militarized environment.
The lawsuit aims to push back against the administration’s agenda of enforcing mass deportations and reducing crime in heavily Democratic cities. On Sept. 2, Trump threatened in a press conference to send troops to Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans and other cities where he claimed that Democratic policies were leading to too much crime.
In response to the District’s lawsuit, the White House released a statement saying that the president is “well within his authority” to mobilize troops. The White House added that the lawsuits are simply aiming to “undermine the President’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in [Washington].”
However, Schwalb contested the occupation, saying that troops in Washington were illegally conducting police work, violating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the use of the U.S. military to perform domestic law enforcement duties unless authorized by Congress.
The lawsuit followed a case decided a few days earlier by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled that troops deployed to California violated the act. The lawsuit argued that “no American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation.”
However, many legal scholars note that the law is somewhat ambiguous, especially in situations involving the National Guard under federal command, which has historically been deployed during emergencies.
Despite claims by the Trump administration of a “crime emergency,” Sidwell students are raising questions, not only about the necessity of the National Guard, but also about Trump’s social media claims about making crime “disappear.”
Sophomore Emmett Bailen observed that some of the National Guard troops seem “bored,” adding that he has “never seen any National Guard troops apprehend anyone.”
The lawsuit has also created friction between Schwalb, who opposes the troop presence, and Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, who supports the additional law enforcement even though she said crime was already at a historic low before the mobilization.
Bailen suggested that Bowser is trying to avoid attention, which will hopefully lead the Trump administration to turn its attention elsewhere.
Bailen stated that the best way to contest the occupation for DC residents, particularly Democrats, is to use a law-based approach to “fight back, especially when [Democrats] don’t have control of Congress or the White House.”
Instead of turning the situation into a political quarrel he suggested utilizing the judicial system.
Upper School Science Teacher Laura Barrosse-Antle added that the broader issue is whether the executive branch should be legally allowed to deploy the military domestically.
“One of the important issues is whether or not it is legal, or should be legal,” she said. “The fact that this pattern has repeated in L.A. and D.C. is alarming to me.”
Agencies such as ICE, Homeland Security, and the FBI are also now active in Washington, contributing to an already volatile scene in the District.
