Attorney General Ellison joins multistate coalition in support of D.C.’s challenge to Trump national guard takeover
September 15, 2025 (SAINT PAUL) — Attorney General Ellison today filed an amicus brief in support of D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to the District of Columbia. Attorney General Ellison joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in asserting that the deployment of National Guard troops without the consent of D.C. is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Domestic use of the military has long been recognized as antithetical to American values. While California and D.C. were the first places subjected to unlawful federalized deployments, President Trump has made clear that this is the beginning — not the end — of the military occupation of American cities. In the brief, Attorney General Ellison and the coalition urge the District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction and make clear that the Constitution prohibits the use of soldiers as local law enforcement.
“Every single American should be deeply disturbed to see the United States military occupying major American cities against the wishes of local authorities,” said Attorney General Ellison. “Using our military for domestic law enforcement purposes like this is as unconstitutional as it is dangerous. For the sake of our democracy, we cannot allow the armed forces to be weaponized against the American people. It is essential that we peacefully stand up to this clear abuse of power from President Trump, especially given Trump’s threats to continue using our military to occupy American cities. I am proud to support D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuit challenging this unconstitutional and unconscionable action.”
The experience of California, as the first state to experience President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard without its Governor’s consent, serves as a warning of the harm caused by a continuous military presence in a state. For more than three months, federalized California National Guard troops have been deployed in California’s communities. During this time, the troops’ presence has stoked fear among Californians, causing the public to stay home, fail to report for work, and avoid areas where the military is deployed. The use of federalized National Guard troops has damaged trust between local law enforcement and the community, as troops have been tasked with civilian law enforcement and were widely present during immigration raids in the first few weeks of their deployment. These troops were diverted away from essential state functions, like fighting wildfires. In June 2025, the majority of California’s Guard’s specialized fire crews were diverted from its wildfire-fighting task force in the midst of peak fire season and instead deployed into the streets of Los Angeles.
With California’s recent experience as a lesson, Attorney General Ellison and the coalition argue that:
- 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 deployment of National Guard troops infringes on the police powers reserved to States and localities. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers — general police power is not among them.
- National Guard troops are not prepared to engage in civilian law enforcement, lacking training in criminal procedure, civil rights, criminal investigation, and de-escalation. This introduces complications and dangers to both the public and the troops engaging with them.
- States need the National Guard to be available for vital natural disaster and security functions.
Attorneys General Ellison joins the attorneys general of California, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the brief.
