National Guard Lawsuit Faces Federal Appeals Court Challenge

On Wednesday, conservative watchdog groups urged a federal appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit involving the National Guard, maintaining that the city of Washington, D.C., cannot sue because it is part of the federal government. Surveillance Project lawyers emphasized in their brief that “you cannot sue yourself,” underscoring what they term the essence of the case: the United States litigating against itself. They also pointed out that it’s a foundational legal principle that local governments are not authorized to take legal action against their sovereign originators.

This lawsuit intertwines with President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Washington last year and D.C.’s ongoing struggle for autonomy. Initially focused on the president’s decision to send troops into the capital, the legal battle has since shifted to whether D.C. has the standing to challenge these actions in federal court.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, lawyers for the Surveillance Project indicated that a favorable ruling from the appellate court would have far-reaching implications beyond just the National Guard case. The lawsuit originated last year as the Trump administration began sending troops to various cities, including D.C., with the justification of making them “safe and beautiful” while assisting immigration authorities.

Sam Dewey, an attorney associated with the Surveillance Project, stated, “If the judge decides that our case is valid, we’ll return to a situation where Washington, D.C., is entirely subordinate to the federal government.” He suggested that if D.C. wanted to challenge the federal government, it should do so politically rather than through the courts.

The legal proceedings began when D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit last September, claiming President Trump undermined the city’s autonomy by disregarding a long-standing Congressional decision that allowed residents to self-govern.

Recently, a three-judge panel paused a lower court’s injunction against the administration while considering the case. Two judges, appointed by Trump, noted in a concurring opinion that D.C. lacked the standing to bring the lawsuit, a sentiment mirrored in a recent amicus brief from the Oversight Project.

The judges remarked, “We have never recognized that the District has independent sovereignty that could lead to Article III harm from federal action.”

With the Trump administration bringing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under federal oversight in 2025, federal agents and National Guard troops were dispatched to assist in crime-fighting efforts in the capital. Trump had deployed the National Guard across the country last year to support immigration officials amid widespread protests relating to deportation policies. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that his deployment may have been illegal, particularly in cities like Portland, Oregon, which have unique statuses.

By the end of 2026, approximately 2,600 National Guard members are expected to remain in D.C., and Trump has hinted at extending that timeline, facing significant opposition from local Democratic leaders. “This is actually a drill. We’re never going to take them out of Washington, D.C. I mean, maybe someone will do it later,” Trump expressed during a recent Cabinet meeting.

Legal arguments are set to continue into May, after which the appeals court could arrange oral arguments and ultimately decide on the legality of the National Guard’s presence and activities in the district.

FOX News Digital has reached out to Schwalb’s office for further comment.