On September 16, 2025, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general, led by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, took a decisive step in the ongoing debate over the limits of federal power by filing an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb. The lawsuit challenges the Trump Administration’s recent deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., a move the coalition asserts is both unlawful and unconstitutional. This legal action, which has drawn national attention, underscores the persistent tension between federal authority and state sovereignty, especially when it comes to the use of military force within American cities.
According to the Department of Justice news release, the attorneys general from states across the country—including California, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin—joined Torrez in the brief. Their collective argument is clear: deploying military personnel to act as local law enforcement not only violates the Constitution but also undermines the foundational principle that civilian authority should govern policing in American communities.
Attorney General Torrez minced no words in his statement: “The idea of sending military personnel into American cities to patrol our streets and police our residents goes against everything this country stands for. These federal deployments of armed troops—who have no official police powers—violate our Constitution and create needless fear in our communities. I will continue to uphold our laws and our Constitution to ensure our communities remain safe and free from unlawful federal overreach.”
The roots of this legal challenge trace back to President Trump’s decision in August 2025 to federalize the Washington, D.C. police force and deploy the National Guard throughout the city. This action, which followed earlier deployments in California, has sparked heated debate over the appropriate role of the military in domestic affairs. The coalition’s brief, filed with the District Court for the District of Columbia, urges the court to grant a preliminary injunction to halt the ongoing deployment, warning of grave constitutional and practical consequences.
The coalition’s concerns are not merely theoretical. The brief draws heavily on California’s recent experience as the first state to face a federalized deployment of its National Guard without the governor’s consent. For more than three months leading up to September 2025, federalized National Guard troops were stationed in California’s communities, a presence that, according to the attorneys general, “stoked fear among Californians, causing the public to stay home, fail to report for work, and avoid areas where the military is deployed.” The brief notes that these deployments damaged trust between local law enforcement and residents, especially as National Guard troops—who lack the training and legal authority of police officers—were tasked with civilian law enforcement duties, including participation in immigration raids during the initial weeks of their deployment.
Perhaps most alarmingly, the coalition highlights the diversion of critical resources away from essential state functions. In June 2025, as California was entering the peak of wildfire season, the majority of the state’s specialized National Guard fire crews were pulled from firefighting duties and instead ordered to patrol the streets of Los Angeles. This shift, the brief argues, left the state vulnerable at a time when every available resource was needed to combat natural disasters—a stark example of the unintended consequences that can arise when federal priorities override local needs.
“Using the military for local law enforcement, as the President has done in the District, upsets the careful balance between civilian and military authority set forth in the Constitution,” the coalition writes. They further assert that the deployment of National Guard troops infringes on the police powers reserved to states and localities, emphasizing that “the Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers—general police power is not among them.” The attorneys general also point out that National Guard troops, while highly trained for military operations and disaster response, are not prepared for the complexities of civilian law enforcement. They lack training in criminal procedure, civil rights, criminal investigation, and de-escalation—skills essential for effective and just policing.
Meanwhile, the fallout from President Trump’s actions in Washington, D.C. has extended beyond political and legal circles into the criminal justice system. As reported by The Associated Press on September 17, 2025, since the federalized takeover of the city’s police and the deployment of the National Guard, over 50 individuals have been accused of federal offenses out of roughly 2,000 arrests overall. However, at least 11 of those federal cases have already been dropped—a rate of dismissal that is unusually high and has drawn sharp criticism from the judiciary.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh did not mince words in his rebuke of federal prosecutors, warning that charges were being filed “prematurely, prior to thorough investigation,” resulting in a waste of public resources. The judge’s comments reflect broader concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the federal response, as well as the potential for overreach when military and federal authorities take on roles traditionally reserved for local police.
For many observers, the events unfolding in California and Washington, D.C. serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of blurring the lines between military and civilian authority. The coalition of attorneys general warns that such deployments risk eroding public trust, straining vital state resources, and setting a troubling precedent for future federal interventions. As the brief argues, “States need the National Guard to be available for vital natural disaster and security functions,” not to serve as an extension of federal law enforcement in local communities.
The legal battle now moves to the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the coalition hopes to secure a preliminary injunction that would halt further deployments of the National Guard for local law enforcement purposes. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the states, as well as for the rights and freedoms of Americans across the country.
As the nation watches and waits for the court’s decision, one thing is clear: the debate over the use of military force in American cities is far from over, and the stakes—for constitutional governance, public safety, and the rule of law—could hardly be higher.
