The deployment of National Guard troops on the streets of Washington faces challenges in two courts on Friday — one in the nation’s capital and another in West Virginia — while across the country a judge in Portland, Oregon, will consider whether to let President Donald Trump deploy troops there.
The hearings are the latest developments in a head-spinning array of lawsuits and overlapping rulings prompted by Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities over fierce resistance from mayors and governors. Deployment remains blocked in the Chicago area, where all sides are waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes to allow it.
Here’s what to know about legal efforts to block or deploy the National Guard in various cities.
A challenge to troops in Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, set a hearing Friday to consider whether to grant District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb ‘s request for an order that would get more than 2,000 Guard members off the streets of Washington.
In August, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the city — though the U.S. Justice Department itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.
Within a month, more than 2,300 National Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling the city under the command of the Secretary of the Army. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist in patrols.
It Is unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said Guard troops are likely to remain in the city through at least next summer.
“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.
Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in the district.
Republican governors from several states also sent units to D.C. Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 troops remain. Several states told The Associated Press they would bring their units home by Nov. 30, unless extended.
West Virginia judge considers that state’s deployment
Among the states that sent troops to the nation’s capital was West Virginia. A civic organization called the West Virginia Citizen Action Group says Gov. Patrick Morrisey exceeded his authority by deploying 300 to 400 National Guard members to support Trump’s efforts there.
Under state law, the group argues, the governor may deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.
“The Governor cannot transform our citizen-soldiers into a roving police force available at the whim of federal officials who bypass proper legal channels,” the group’s attorneys, with the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, wrote in a court document.
Morrisey has said West Virginia “is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation’s capital,” and his office has said the deployment was authorized under federal law. The state attorney general’s office has asked Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Richard D. Lindsay to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacks standing to challenge the governor’s decision.
Troops in Oregon remain in limbo
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee in Portland, is in a particularly tricky legal spot.
She issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month — one prohibiting the president from calling up Oregon troops so he could send them to Portland, and another blocking him from sending any Guard members to Oregon at all after he tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Monday put her first ruling on hold, allowing Trump to take command of the 200 Oregon National Guard troops. Now she has to decide whether to dissolve her second order as well — clearing the way for the deployment.
The Justice Department has insisted she is required to immediately dissolve the second order, because its reasoning was the same as that rejected by the appeals panel. Attorneys for the state disagree, saying she must wait to see if the 9th Circuit will reconsider the panel’s ruling.
A hearing set for Friday was expected to focus on those arguments.
In Chicago, awaiting word from the Supreme Court
U.S. District Judge April Perry on Wednesday blocked the deployment of Guard troops to the Chicago area until the case has been decided either in her court or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. Perry had already blocked the deployment for two weeks through a temporary restraining order.
Attorneys representing the federal government said they would agree to extend the order but emphasized that they would continue pressing for an emergency order from the Supreme Court that would allow for the deployment.
Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked the Supreme Court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step.”
Democrats sue to stop Guard deployment in Memphis
In Tennessee, Democratic elected officials sued last Friday to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis. They said Republican Gov. Bill Lee, acting on a request from Trump, violated the state constitution, which says the Guard can be called up during “rebellion or invasion” — but only with state lawmakers’ blessing.
Since their arrival on Oct. 10, troops have been patrolling downtown Memphis, including near the iconic Pyramid, wearing camouflage uniforms and protective vests that say “military police,” with guns in holsters. Guard members have no arrest power, officials have said.
___
Associated Press writers Christine Fernando in Chicago, Adrian Sainz in Memphis and John Raby in Charleston, West Virginia, contributed.
By GENE JOHNSON and MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press
