D.C. Sues Trump Admin to Halt National Guard Deployment
“The deployment of National Guard troops to police District streets without the District’s consent infringes on its sovereignty and right to self-governance.”
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb has sued the Trump administration in an attempt to halt the deployment of the National Guard.
“These unprecedented, unlawful actions have subjected the District to serious and irreparable harm,” Schwalb wrote in the lawsuit. “The deployment of National Guard troops to police District streets without the District’s consent infringes on its sovereignty and right to self-governance. The deployment also risks inflaming tensions and fueling distrust toward local law enforcement. And it inflicts economic injuries, depressing business activities and tourism that form the backbone of the local economy and tax base.”
I believe Schwalb made a mistake when he complained the mayor never gave consent to send out the National Guard and said “Congress gave the President no role in policing the District.”
Well, um, the president commands the D.C. National Guard. D.C. does not have a governor.
The 1973 Home Act puts the president as commander of the D.C. militia.
The lawsuit appears similar to California’s lawsuit against Trump.
Yes, Schwalb brought up the Posse Comitatus Act.
A California district judge ruled that Trump violated the act when the administration deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles.
Therefore, Schwalb *might* have a point about Trump bringing in the National Guard from other states. The governors command their state’s National Guard for the most part:
Section 502 is the primary statute that authorizes the National Guard to operate in “Title 32 status,” one of the three different duty statuses in which members of the Guard may serve at any given moment. In “State Active Duty status,” Guard personnel carry out a state-defined mission, under state command and control, and with state funding and benefits. By contrast, in “Title 10 status,” the Guard has been “called into federal service,” or “federalized,” by the president. When federalized, Guard forces carry out federal missions under federal command and control, and with federal funding and benefits. Title 32 status occupies a middle ground between State Active Duty and Title 10 status, featuring both federal and state involvement. In this hybrid status, the Guard remains under state command and control but can perform federal missions, is paid with federal funds, and receives federal benefits. Crucially, because Guard personnel in Title 32 status are under state control, they have not been federalized and are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. That means they are not barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.
Weirdly enough, Schwalb’s lawsuit comes just days after DC Mayor Muriel Bowser instructed police to work with federal law enforcement indefinitely.
[Featured image via YouTube]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
lefty trickery
we will work with djt
actual:
stop djt
Or there’s a split between the mayor and the AG. The mayor may realize which way the wind is blowing and wants to be seen on the winning side (the side of law and order). This may be motivated by nothing more than a desire to be re-elected, but this is job #2 of every politician (job #1 being getting elected in the first place). So she put the word out yesterday “continue to cooperate” knowing that the AG was about to confuse the situation. The AG is an elected official too, so the mayor may be allowing him to sink or swim on his own.
though you might be correct
the enemies of freedom are the enemies of freedom
Sometimes even a wrong purpose can result in a person doing the right thing.
This is the corollary to “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Did he check with his boss, the mayor?
The court should order the AG to conduct a public hearing about removing the Guard and for the attendees to sign petitions afterwards in agreement.
Imagine if democrats fought this hard for law abiding Americans.
So, just fantasize about something that will never happen then?
I can’t.
“Sovereignty and right to self-governance”?
The District’s sovereignty was surrendered by the (nominally) sovereign Maryland State. It was surrendered to Congress to hold under its (Congress’) exclusive legislative control. As for “self-governance,” it has same by leave of Congress, not by any legal right.
Must be something in the water.
100%. It’s not a sovereign state, by design.
The Home Rule Act is a law. The supreme law of the USA. So yes, the district does have a legal right to self-government.
Serious and irreparable harm? To whom? The criminals?
This is great! Democrats are sure to get voters back like this! Just sue the administration for helping too much!
I’m sure this tool has security and probably a driver, Withdraw it and let him brave the mean streets alone. After a week or so let’s see if he feels the same, if he survives that is.
Did he check with the mayor, his boss?
“The deployment of National Guard troops to police District streets without the District’s consent infringes on its sovereignty and right to self-governance.”
I know Democrats are historically unable to distinguish between a right and a privilege — especially when it comes to citizens having guns — but let me clear it up for you: your self-governance is a PRIVILEGE, and you’ve undeniably abused it.
DC was never intended to be a de facto state. “DC” should become a couple disconnected islands of federal buildings and the rest of the land given back to Maryland. Not that Maryland is a whole lot better governance-wise.
Dems say that want to make a state of D.C. because they are concerned that its people aren’t represented in Congress. But they really want to make it a state to increase the number of Dems in Congress, even though the “representation” concern is easily addressed with your suggestion.
Note that when Congress gave up the portion of the District south of the Potomac, that land was ceded back to Virginia. This is the usual course when land that’s been ceded for a particular purpose is no longer needed for that purpose – it reverts to the sovereign that made the original cession.
No, he made no mistake. He meant both statements, and both are true, even if they don’t necessarily make the case he asserts they do.
He’s claiming that under the interstate Emergency Management Assistance Compact (of which DC is a member), any request for other states to send National Guard assistance to DC must come from the mayor and no one else. And it is true that she has not requested assistance.
And it is true that the Home Rule Act does not give the president a role in policing the District. The president is commander in chief of the DC National Guard, but policing the District is part of the executive power, which is vested entirely in the mayor.
So these two assertions are true, but they only go so far. The president has a 30-day emergency power, which he has used. Once it’s up he loses that power, but now the mayor has told the police to continue to cooperate, so that part is moot.
As for the national guard, he’s claiming that if they’re in “state militia” status then they can only be sent at the mayor’s request, and if they’ve been federalized then they’re covered by Posse Comitatus. He says they’re acting under federal orders, and are therefore effectively federalized whether there has been an official proclamation of this or not. We’ll see whether the court buys this.