The Trump administration filed an appeal on Tuesday night against a federal district judge’s ruling. The ruling declared the deployment of the National Guard by the federal government unconstitutional but granted a three-week stay on the execution of the ruling to allow the government to appeal.
President Trump stated that he deployed the National Guard to address the crime and violence situation in the Washington, DC area while also supporting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
On August 11, Trump signed a presidential memorandum indicating that the government of the District of Columbia had “lost the ability to maintain public order and safety in the city,” and stated that “the violent crime rate in the District of Columbia is higher than in some of the most dangerous places in the world, which is a national disgrace.”
The latest appeal notice indicates that the federal government is appealing the ruling issued by Judge Jia Cobb on November 20 to the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals. The notice does not specify the grounds for the appeal.
The lawsuit was initially brought by District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, questioning Trump’s alleged unlawful deployment of the National Guard and seeking to prohibit the federal government from deploying troops without the consent of the mayor during the litigation.
Judge Cobb heard oral arguments on October 24 and issued the ruling on November 20.
Cobb stated that Trump’s takeover of the Washington, DC National Guard violated the U.S. Constitution and constituted an illegal interference with the law enforcement authority of local officials. He pointed out that the president can only mobilize the National Guard based on specific powers prescribed by state law and cannot exercise this power arbitrarily for “any reasons he deems fit.”
In the ruling, Cobb emphasized that the court does not accept the federal government’s “arbitrary assertion of constitutional powers,” noting that interpreting the president’s authority under the Second Amendment of the Constitution too broadly would undermine the role of Congress in managing the District of Columbia and its National Guard.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly defines the president’s powers. The judge stated that the president did not use the authority under the Second Amendment to deploy the Washington National Guard and exercise the power to deter crime arbitrarily. Cobb said, “Historical practice shows that the president’s authority should be understood in this way.”
During the hearing, Mitchell Reich, counsel for the District of Columbia government, stated that there is no statute authorizing the federal government to enforce laws in Washington, DC, therefore alleging the deployment of the National Guard by the federal government as unlawful.
Reich mentioned that Congress holds the ultimate authority over the legislation and administration of the District, including jurisdiction over the National Guard, and has established detailed regulations regarding the militia, outlining when the president can deploy the National Guard. The president can only use the National Guard to respond to riots and similar disturbances and must request permission from local authorities in advance. However, the federal government has not completed this procedure.
He pointed out that the federal government mistakenly believes that the president has almost unlimited power and can deploy the Washington National Guard as auxiliary law enforcement officers in the District.
During the same hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton stated that the National Guard primarily carries out protective missions and does not engage in law enforcement activities.
Hamilton highlighted that when the National Guard temporarily detains individuals, it is done for protective purposes rather than law enforcement. He explained that the detentions are aimed at “eliminating threats” and are in line with their duty to protect.
This information was published in the English edition of Epoch Times.