Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal of a district court preliminary injunction concerning the deployment of the District of Columbia and out-of-state National Guard units in the District. The court concluded, at the preliminary stage, that the defendants were likely to prevail on their argument that the deployments were authorized under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) and District of Columbia law. The court dissolved its prior administrative stay and expressly limited its ruling to the preliminary stay posture, declining to address the Posse Comitatus Act and federal command-and-control issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal defendants were entitled to a stay pending appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction and Section 705 stay.
- Whether, on the preliminary record, the defendants were likely to prevail on their argument that 32 U.S.C. § 502(f)(2)(A) authorized the Title 32 deployments.
- Whether the D.C. Code likely independently authorized the President's deployment of the D.C. National Guard.
- Whether the District's asserted harms and the public-interest considerations favored or opposed a stay.
- Whether the District of Columbia may lack Article III standing to challenge the deployments based on an asserted sovereign injury.
Holdings
- The defendants satisfied the stay factors on the preliminary record, and the court granted a stay pending appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction and Section 705 stay.
- On the preliminary record, the defendants were likely to establish that § 502(f)(2)(A) authorized the President and Secretary of Defense to request that the D.C. Guard and State Guards undertake the federal mission in the District, subject to consent by the relevant State governors or the D.C. Guard's commanding general.
- The defendants were likely to establish that the President acted consistently with D.C. law in directing the deployment of the D.C. National Guard.
- The defendants were likely to establish that the EMAC did not foreclose State Guard deployments separately authorized under federal law.
- At the preliminary stage, the District had not established an ongoing sovereign injury because that injury depended on prevailing on the merits of its statutory-authority claims.
Key quotations
“This decision does not bind the merits panel, which will engage in a fuller assessment of these issues.” (3)
“A stay pending appeal is an “extraordinary” remedy.” (11-12)
“To obtain such exceptional relief, the stay applicant must (1) make a “strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits” of the appeal; (2) demonstrate that it will be “irreparably injured” before the appeal concludes; (3) show that issuing a stay will not “substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding”; and (4) establish that “the public interest” favors a stay.” (12)
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is granted.” (27)
Factual background
President Trump directed the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the D.C. National Guard and coordinate deployment of additional National Guard units from several States to address violent crime and public safety in the District. More than 2,000 Guard members operated in the District under Title 32, supporting local and federal law-enforcement agencies. The District challenged the deployments, asserting that federal officials lacked authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, the D.C. Code, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, the Posse Comitatus Act, and the Constitution.
Procedural history
The District of Columbia filed suit challenging the deployment of the D.C. National Guard and National Guard units from several States. The district court granted preliminary relief and a Section 705 stay on November 20, 2025, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, and administratively stayed its own relief for 21 days. The defendants appealed, this court entered an administrative stay on December 4, 2025, and the court granted a stay pending appeal.