A federal judge in Washington on Oct. 24 grappled with a challenge to President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital.

Meanwhile, in a separate challenge to West Virginia’s deployment of its National Guard troops to the District of Columbia, a state judge in Charleston, West Virginia, adjourned a hearing to next month at which point he will continue to take evidence in the case.

Trump has said the troops are needed to deal with rampant crime and violence in Washington and support immigration law enforcement efforts there.

On Aug. 11, Trump signed a presidential memorandum, in which he said the local D.C. government “has lost control of public order and safety in the city.”

“It is a point of national disgrace that Washington, D.C., has a violent crime rate that is higher than some of the most dangerous places in the world,” the document states.

Although the federal Posse Comitatus Act restricts the ability of the federal government to use military resources for domestic law enforcement, a president may take over, or federalize, state National Guard troops on an emergency basis in certain circumstances.

However, the D.C. National Guard is in a unique position because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave and not a state. The president is the commander-in-chief of the D.C. National Guard.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb heard two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments on Oct. 24 on the District of Columbia’s federal lawsuit that was filed Sept. 4.

The legal complaint states that more than 2,200 National Guard troops from seven states and the District of Columbia are now patrolling Washington streets. The U.S. Department of War has ordered the troops to carry out “core law enforcement activities.”

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice has deputized the troops to participate in other law enforcement activities such as searches, seizures, and arrests. The president placed the troops under the control of U.S. military leadership, even though they are “in state militia status—and thus are legally required to be under the sole command of their governors,” the complaint said.

City leaders argued in the complaint that the president’s deployment of National Guard units to police Washington streets without the Washington mayor’s consent violates the Home Rule Act, which is a federal statute, along with a congressionally approved compact regulating the interstate mobilization of state National Guard troops.

D.C. government attorney Mitchell Reich said during the hearing that the Trump administration’s deployment is unlawful because no statute authorizes the federal government to carry out law enforcement activities in Washington.

He said that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, or authority, over Washington and has enacted a highly detailed militia code that spells out when the president may deploy the D.C. National Guard. That code states that the president may use the Guard to deal with riots and similar disturbances and requires that before he does so, civil authorities must request assistance, which they have not done, Reich said.

The federal government’s position is that the president has “essentially unbounded authority to deploy the [D.C. National Guard] as a parallel police force in the District of Columbia,” he said.

Reich said this interpretation of the law “flies in the face of every principle of statutory interpretation and would overthrow the system of home rule and local control of law enforcement that Congress enacted.”

The attorney said Trump’s deployment violates both the Posse Comitatus Act and Section 275 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which generally prohibits federal military units from engaging in domestic law enforcement.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General Eric Hamilton told the court that “the first 10 weeks of this mission have been a success” and that the lawsuit “is a deeply unfortunate political stunt.”

The mission is being carried out under Section 502(f) of Title 32 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the National Guard to be called to perform training and other missions at the request of the president or the secretary of defense, Hamilton said.

The National Guard now in Washington “are not federalized Guardsmen,” he said. “These are still state Guardsmen under the state chain of command.”

Cobb asked Hamilton what limits Title 32 places on the president’s authority.

“I don’t have any additional specificity beyond what Congress has said,” Hamilton replied.

“Congress has chosen broad language for this Title 32 authority for Guardsmen who remain in a state status, where they are under the state chain of command, but there’s some federal funding that is coming in.”

“These Guardsmen are not doing law enforcement,” the federal attorney said.

The judge told Hamilton she was “having a little trouble with” his argument that the Guardsmen are not involved in law enforcement.

“Isn’t patrol activity law enforcement activity if you’re armed and patrolling?” she said. Cobb said Hamilton began his presentation by saying the point of the deployment was to assist in reducing crime, which she said sounds like a description of what local police already do in D.C.

Hamilton said the National Guard serves a protective function, and the troops are not involved in “core law enforcement activities.”

The judge asked Hamilton if he would concede that by detaining people in certain circumstances a guardsman is “effectuating an arrest.”

The lawyer replied that when a guardsman temporarily detains someone, “they’re doing it for protective purposes … they aren’t doing it to enforce a law.”

Hamilton said a Guardsman will detain someone “to neutralize what was a threat, and this is consistent with their ability to provide protection.”

Reich said during his rebuttal that in the oral argument Hamilton “could not identify any limits to the president’s power.”

Cobb could rule on the lawsuit at any time.

In West Virginia, Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Richard Lindsay declined on Oct. 24 to rule on the lawsuit brought by West Virginia Citizen Action Group against Gov. Patrick Morrisey. Lindsay ordered that the hearing be continued to Nov. 3.

The judge said he wanted to give the state more time to develop arguments about why Morrisey had authority to deploy the West Virginia National Guard to Washington.

“I want that issue addressed,” Lindsay said.

The group argues that the governor exceeded his authority by sending 300 to 400 members of the state National Guard to Washington.

West Virginia law only permits the governor to send National Guard troops out of state for specific reasons, such as to respond to a natural disaster or at the request of another state, according to the group.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Oct. 24, 2025, in The Epoch Times.