Trump Scores Big Court Victory Over Guard Deployments And Hoo Boy Democrats Hate It-lllllllllllll
On Wednesday, President Trump and his administration celebrated another legal victory as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted their request to pause a lower court’s injunction that had prohibited the Trump administration from deploying or asking for the deployment of National Guard members in the District of Columbia.
In August, President Trump released a memorandum instructing the Secretary of Defense to activate the National Guard of the District of Columbia to combat violent crime and ensure public safety in the area, as well as to coordinate with state governors to send additional National Guard units from various states to the capital.
In September, Washington D.C. initiated a lawsuit against President Trump, the Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Army, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, Gadyaces S. Serralta, claiming that the deployment of both the D.C. Guard and State Guards infringes upon the Administrative Procedure Act. D.C. then sought a preliminary injunction in the case.
Millett’s statement spans 27 pages and is quite clear. It provides a valuable overview of not just the timeline of the case but also the creation of the National Guard and the legal foundations for its use, along with the formation of the District of Columbia and its governing structure — a compelling read for those interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the historical context.
Enjoying USA Journal’s conservative views and news? Tell your friends about us!
Millett gets to the crux of the case this way:
-
Because the District of Columbia is a federal district created by Congress, rather than a constitutionally sovereign entity like the fifty States, the Defendants appear on this early record likely to prevail on the merits of their argument that the President possesses a unique power within the District—the seat of the federal government—to mobilize the Guard under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). It also appears likely that the D.C. Code independently authorizes the deployment of the D.C. Guard.
-
In sum, the Defendants are likely to show that Section 502(f)(2)(A) authorized the President and the Secretary of Defense to request that both the D.C. Guard and the State Guards undertake a federal mission in the District.
-
In sum, considering the many provisions of the D.C. Code that identify the President’s status as Commander in Chief of the D.C. Guard alongside those that enable the D.C. Guard to assist civil authorities in preserving the operations of the seat of federal government and protecting the Nation’s Capital, the Defendants are likely correct that the President acted consistently with District law in directing the deployment of the D.C. Guard.
-
In short, because of the District’s unique constitutional status as a federal territory, the Nation’s Capital, and the seat of federal government, as well as the President’s consent to receive these forces, the Defendants have demonstrated that the district court likely erred in concluding that the deployment of out-of-state guard members to the District raised a serious federalism question under the Constitution.
-
Absent a stay pending appeal, the district court’s order also risks the back-and-forth withdrawal and redeployment of guard members pending the completion of litigation.
In a separate statement, Rao even goes on to express doubt that D.C. even has proper standing to bring the litigation:
-
I write separately to highlight an additional reason the President and other federal officials are likely to succeed onthe merits of their appeal: the District of Columbia may lack Article III standing to challenge the deployment of National Guard troops in the District.
-
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. Such an injury is likely untenable as a matter of first principles and finds no support in our precedent or historical practice.
-
To begin with, a theory of sovereign injury is inconsistent with the District’s legal status.
-
While Congress has provided the District with a certain degree of self-governance, we have never recognized that the District has standing to sue the President and federal officers for sovereignty-based injuries.
-
In finding standing, the district court relied exclusively on cases involving state standing to sue federal entities, but no one suggests that the District has the same sovereignty as a State.
-
In their motion for a stay, the Defendants did not object to the District’s standing. Article III courts, of course, have an independent obligation to verify their jurisdiction. Permitting the District to sue the President and other federal officials based on a sovereign injury is unprecedented and likely at odds with the unique legal status of the District. In subsequent proceedings, this important jurisdictional question should be given further consideration.
To be clear, this isn’t the end of the line for the case. D.C. could always seek rehearing en banc. And, as Millett rightly notes in her statement, “This decision does not bind the merits panel, which will engage in a fuller assessment of these issues.” Keep in mind that this decision only relates to temporarily suspending the district court’s injunction while the appeal is resolved on its substance.
Additionally, it’s important not to overinterpret this ruling concerning the other ongoing National Guard cases, as those pertain to federalization and deployment within states, rather than a federal district such as D.C. However, a victory is still a victory, and this serves as one for the administration.
-
BANNED' - Clinton Judge Reads Her Verdict - President Donald Trump Has Been Informed That He Just Beat Gavin Newsom...
JUDICIAL RECKONING
The return of national sovereignty and administrative lethality reached a new milestone this Thursday, April 9, 2026. A blockbuster ruling in Los Angeles has left the DNC establishment and globalist elite reeling.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against California’s controversial "No Secret Police Act," blocking the state from prohibiting ICE agents from wearing masks. Judge Christina Snyder ruled the law unconstitutional, marking a decisive victory for President Donald J. Trump and the Department of Justice.
The court affirmed the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, stating California cannot discriminate against federal officers while exempting its own law enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi praised the ruling, emphasizing the administration’s zero-tolerance stance on harassment of federal agents.
This decision reflects the 2026 mandate: a legal framework prioritizing the safety of American officers over the sanctuary policies pushed by Governor Gavin Newsom. It signals a sweeping rollback of state overreach in immigration enforcement.
Meanwhile, in Texas, a federal jury delivered historic terrorism convictions against nine members of a radical antifa cell. The group was found guilty for a violent 2025 attack on an ICE detention facility that left a police officer shot in the neck.
Ringleader Benjamin Song faces potential life imprisonment after evidence proved the attack was a coordinated assault using explosives and rifles—not the “noise demonstration” the defense claimed. Prosecutors called the verdict a landmark affirmation of Trump’s domestic terror designation.
With Kash Patel at the FBI and Todd Blanche at the DOJ, the dismantling of extremist cells has accelerated. Federal agencies continue to secure detention centers like Prairieland against those attempting to destabilize the republic.
Governor Gavin Newsom attempted to spin the court ruling as a “win,” citing the upheld “No Vigilantes Act.” But the truth remains: the centerpiece of his anti-ICE agenda—the “No Secret Police Act”—has been effectively struck down.
The defeat exposes the weakening foundation of California’s sanctuary policies. While Sacramento prioritizes the “civil rights” of illegal aliens, the Trump administration is defending the constitutional rights of federal officers.
The week closes as a sweeping administrative triumph for the Trump-GOP platform. From Los Angeles courtrooms to Texas jury boxes, real results—not rhetoric—are forging the 2026 midterm shield.
With 5% GDP growth and a secure border, the nation is reclaiming its stability and sovereignty. America moves forward with vigilance, resolve, and a renewed commitment to law and order.
God bless the USA—and the leaders who refuse to bow to the swamp or the radical mob.
oFar Left 'Squad' Member Learns Her Fate As Her Primary Election is Called
Washington D.C. — The far-left “Squad” took another massive hit Tuesday night as Missouri Democrat Rep. Cori Bush was soundly defeated in her primary by challenger Wesley Bell, who led by double digits with 54.9% to Bush’s 41.8%.
Bush, one of the most extreme voices in Congress, joins Rep. Jamaal Bowman as the second Squad member to lose her seat this cycle. Her defeat is a clear rejection of the radical socialist, anti-police, pro-Hamas agenda she has pushed since entering Congress in 2021.
Bush rose to prominence after participating in the Ferguson riots and has spent years promoting false narratives about Michael Brown while calling for defunding the police — even as violent crime soared in her St. Louis district. She has repeatedly aligned herself with pro-Hamas protesters, blamed Israel for the October 7 massacre, and faced controversy over allegedly funneling thousands of campaign dollars to her husband for “security services” while demanding less police protection for her constituents.
Republicans celebrated the win with well-deserved mockery. Pro-Trump comedian Terrance K. Williams posted:
“A ‘BLACK JOB’ IS SOMETHING CORI BUSH DOES NOT HAVE. OH HAPPY DAY! She is the second Squad member to lose her seat! I can’t wait until they are all gone.”
Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, who served with Bush on the House Judiciary Committee, sarcastically noted:
“I will miss Cori Bush missing every committee meeting.”
Students for Trump co-founder Ryan Fournier added:
“The Squad’s Cori Bush has LOST her primary. Join me in saying GOOD RIDDANCE! Hamas might be hiring, Cori!”
Even actor Michael Rapaport, a vocal Israel supporter, celebrated:
“Tonight at the rally they said let’s bring back ‘JOY’ to politics and boom CORI BUSH is done with Politics…. I feel JOY all of a sudden.”
This is the second straight blow to the radical Squad. Jamaal Bowman lost his primary earlier after endorsing pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses. Both Bush and Bowman blamed their defeats on pro-Israel funding from AIPAC rather than admitting the truth: their extreme, anti-American, and anti-Israel positions have become toxic to voters.
The radical left’s Squad is crumbling because the American people are rejecting their agenda of defunding police, embracing socialism, supporting radical Islamists, and putting foreign interests above American citizens. Voters want secure borders, safe streets, strong economy, and leaders who put America First — not performative radicals who miss committee meetings and push policies that hurt their own districts.
Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, the Republican Party is becoming the party of working Americans, law and order, and common sense. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party continues its death spiral — hemorrhaging voters, losing favorability, and watching its most extreme members get rejected at the ballot box.
Cori Bush’s defeat is not just a loss for one radical congresswoman. It is a rejection of the entire Squad’s toxic ideology. The American people are waking up and choosing sanity over socialism, strength over weakness, and America First over America Last.
More Squad members are on the ballot soon. The trend is clear: radicalism is losing, and the America First movement is winning.
