DC's Lawsuit Over National Guard Deployment Faces Legal Hurdle

Conservative watchdog argues DC cannot sue itself as part of federal government

Apr. 9, 2026 at 11:51am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A serene, cinematic painting depicting a lone National Guard soldier standing guard on an empty Washington, D.C. street, the scene bathed in warm, golden light and deep shadows, conveying a sense of tension and uncertainty over the federal government's control of the district.The federal government's deployment of National Guard troops in the nation's capital has sparked a legal battle over the balance of power between Washington, D.C. and the U.S. government.Chicago Today

A conservative watchdog group has urged a federal appeals court to dismiss Washington, D.C.'s lawsuit challenging the deployment of National Guard troops in the city, arguing that the district cannot sue itself since it is part of the federal government. The case stems from D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb's lawsuit last September, which argued that former President Trump encroached on the city's independence by deploying the National Guard without regard for Congress's decision to grant D.C. local self-government powers.

Why it matters

The case sits at the intersection of Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Washington and D.C.'s long-running fight over self-government. If the appeals court agrees with the conservative watchdog's argument, it could have broader implications by affirming that D.C. is entirely subordinate to the federal government and that disputes must be resolved politically rather than through the courts.

The details

The Oversight Project, a conservative watchdog group, filed an amicus brief urging the appeals court to dismiss D.C.'s lawsuit. The group argues that 'one cannot sue oneself' and that a municipal corporation like D.C. cannot sue its 'sovereign creator,' the federal government. Two Trump-appointed judges on the appeals court panel have already expressed skepticism about D.C.'s standing to sue, writing that the district does not possess 'an independent sovereignty' that would give rise to an injury from federal government actions.

  • In September 2025, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration's National Guard deployment.
  • The appeals court temporarily paused a lower court's injunction against the administration while it continues to examine the case.

The players

Oversight Project

A conservative watchdog group that has urged the federal appeals court to dismiss Washington, D.C.'s lawsuit challenging the deployment of National Guard troops in the city.

Brian Schwalb

The Attorney General of Washington, D.C. who filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration's National Guard deployment, arguing it encroached on the city's perceived independence.

Donald Trump

The former president who began deploying National Guard forces to cities across the country, including Washington, D.C., as part of an effort to support immigration authorities.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“'To start, one cannot sue oneself. 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.'”

— Oversight Project lawyers

“'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.'”

— Sam Dewey, Oversight Project lawyer

“'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.'”

— Two Trump-appointed judges

What’s next

Briefing in the lawsuit is set to stretch through May, and the appeals court could schedule oral arguments after that before making a decision on the legality of the National Guard's presence and activities in Washington, D.C.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between Washington, D.C.'s desire for greater autonomy and the federal government's authority over the district. The outcome could have significant implications for how disputes between D.C. and the federal government are resolved in the future.