Washington, D.C.’s effort to block President Donald Trump’s National Guard deployment is facing a significant legal hurdle, as a conservative watchdog group argues the city lacks the authority to sue the federal government at all.
In a brief filed Wednesday with a federal appeals court, lawyers for the Oversight Project urged judges to dismiss the case, contending that the district—because of its unique constitutional status—cannot bring suit against the federal government.
“To start, one cannot sue oneself,” the group’s attorneys wrote. “And that is what this case ultimately is—the United States suing itself. Moreover, it is a foundational principle of the law that a municipal corporation cannot sue its sovereign creator.”
The argument strikes at the core of a broader dispute that has grown beyond the immediate question of National Guard deployments. What began as a legal challenge to Trump’s use of military forces in the capital has evolved into a fundamental test of D.C.’s standing and scope of self-governance under federal law.
A Broader Fight Over D.C.’s Authority
The case stems from a lawsuit filed last September by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who argued that Trump overstepped his authority by deploying National Guard troops without local consent. Schwalb said the move undermined “Congress’s decision, half a century ago, to afford the residents of the District ‘the powers of local self-government.’”
The deployment in Washington was part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to send National Guard forces into major U.S. cities to support immigration enforcement amid protests and unrest. The Supreme Court later signaled that those deployments were likely unlawful under the statute the administration cited, prompting withdrawals from cities such as Chicago and Portland.
Washington, however, was treated differently because of its status as a federal district, where the president retains broader authority over the National Guard.
Appeals Court Signals Skepticism
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has already temporarily paused a lower court ruling that would have restricted the deployment, allowing the Guard to remain in place while the case proceeds.
Two judges on the panel—both appointed by Trump—suggested in a concurring opinion that D.C. may not have legal standing to bring the case at all, echoing the Oversight Project’s position.
“We have never recognized that the District possesses an independent sovereignty that can give rise to an Article III injury from actions of the federal government,” the judges wrote.
If the court ultimately adopts that reasoning, it could have sweeping implications for D.C.’s ability to challenge federal actions in court.
Implications Beyond the Guard
Oversight Project attorney Sam Dewey said a ruling in their favor would reinforce the district’s subordinate legal status and shift disputes back into the political arena.
“If the judges find our argument valid, it’s going to kind of restore the normal system, which is D.C. is entirely subordinate to the federal government and these disputes are resolved politically,” Dewey said in an interview.
Under that framework, Dewey argued, the district’s recourse would be to petition Congress or the president—not the courts.
Ongoing Deployment
Roughly 2,600 National Guard troops remain deployed in Washington, with Trump extending their presence through at least the end of 2026. The president has indicated he would like to keep the force in place even longer.
“This is actually training. I never want to take them out of D.C. I mean, maybe somebody later on will do it,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting last month.
The mission has drawn continued opposition from D.C.’s Democratic leadership, who argue it infringes on local autonomy and sets a precedent for expanded federal control over the district.
What Comes Next
Briefing in the case is expected to continue through May. The appeals court could schedule oral arguments afterward before issuing a ruling that may determine not only the future of the National Guard deployment in Washington, but also the limits of D.C.’s legal independence.
READ NEXT: Pope Leo XIV, Trump Rift Deepens As July 4 Snub Signals Break
Interesting, they only want to file a lawsuit to try & embarrass President Trump for political gain, NOT FOR ANY REAL legal REASON.
Just another attempt to impede a President that’s doing an incredible job !
Their “feelings” are hurt & they’ve got to cry about it to ANYBODY that will listen, even in a miniscule amount.
Errrrr, it is a Federal District?
If the people who are trying to obstruct Trump’s actions in D.C. would read the Constitution, they would see clearly that the federal government ( and Trump is in charge of that government ) has legal power over the D.C. area.
It’s in black and white in our Constitution!
Therefore, there is no standing what-so-ever for this complaint against Trump’s actions. It’s the law! And Trump was/is just following the law.
But, of course, the libs just want to keep bringing charges against Trump for the purpose of giving people who are unaware of the Constitution’s ‘rules’ … a so-called reason to gripe against Trump!
A great many of us are NOT unaware of the Constitution’s wording, and WE ARE VOTERS who will see to it that those trouble-makers will have to find a new job after the next election.
We WON’T forget who you are when we vote!
Go ahead, libs. All you are doing is causing more people to come closer to agreement to the way Trump is doing things.
‘Make our day’!