Judge Denies Trump Admin’s Attempt To Pause DC National Guard Case Due To Shutdown

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 1: Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. Congress could not agree on a budget to fund the government at midnight, causing the first ... WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 1: Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. Congress could not agree on a budget to fund the government at midnight, causing the first shutdown since 2018. (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images) MORE LESS

D.C. District Court Judge Jia Cobb on Thursday denied the Trump’s administration’s lobbying for a freeze of Washington D.C.’s attempt to eject a couple thousand National Guard from the district. 

“As both Parties note in their filings, the Court’s order staying certain proceedings in light of the lapse of appropriations does ‘not extend the United States’ deadlines to respond to motions for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions,'” Cobb wrote in her order. “Plaintiff also opposes Defendants’ motion for a stay of the proceedings, citing ongoing irreparable harm to the District.”

The DOJ lawyers had pointed to the shutdown as restraining their ability to file.

“Absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys and many employees of federal defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,’” the administration wrote in a brief. 

The shutdown began on October 1, after last-ditch votes on both the Republican and Democratic continuing resolutions failed. Three Democratic senators crossed over to vote for the Republican bill, too few to overcome the filibuster and offset Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) no vote. The Senate is out of session for Yom Kippur until Friday, ensuring that the shutdown will last at least until then. 

The Trump administration is weaponizing the shutdown against blue states, with Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought tweeting about state projects from which the federal government will now withhold money. 

D.C., like California and Oregon, has challenged the presence of armed federal law enforcement, but has less autonomy due to its sub-state status. A few hundred of the Guard in the district came from mostly red states. Many of them have been turned to “beautification” projects including spreading mulch and picking up trash, costing the taxpayers an estimated $201 million. 

“More than 2,300 armed National Guard troops are currently patrolling the District unlawfully,” the district wrote in its filing. “That unprecedented deployment is inflicting irreparable harm to the District’s sovereignty, its economy, and public safety.”

Read the dueling filings here:

12
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. There’s an obvious solution for the Trump administration. If they can’t pay the lawyers, and they can’t pay the troops, then maybe the troops shouldn’t be patrolling the streets.

  2. Who is the Mango Mussolini Whisperer?? Donnie isn’t very bright, in fact he is pretty stupid and not clever in the machinations of government. Is he being advised by Stephen Miller? Steve Bannon? A lawyer? A MAGA Repub from within? Who plants these nefarious ideas into his Orange Head?

  3. Avatar for noonm noonm says:

    Nobody seems to be asking that if they are authorized to make this delay request, why they can’t also be authorized to comply with other preliminary injunctions?

    Also, isn’t the whole justification behind having National Guard troops in DC because it’s for ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property’? Aren’t the Federal Government attorneys implying that the deployment of the Guard to DC is not an emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property? That kind of undermines their whole case.

  4. “I tied my shoes together, so I don’t have to turn in my homework today!”

  5. Avatar for msm msm says:

    I’m pretty sure it’s the Supreme Court. Kavenaugh seems to be twisting himself into a pretzel justifying why Trump can discriminate against minorities. How long before it’s legal to burn somebody’s house down?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

6 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for ealleniii Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for msm Avatar for benthere Avatar for wintermoon Avatar for noonm Avatar for coprophagoussmile Avatar for bcgister Avatar for Fire_Joni_Ernst Avatar for marciaann

Continue Discussion