South Carolina Governor Faces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Deployment to Washington, D.C.
The South Carolina Public Interest Foundation and a Navy veteran have filed a lawsuit in South Carolina’s Supreme Court challenging Governor Henry McMaster’s deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., arguing the move exceeds his legal authority under state law.
The complaint, filed on January 7, 2026, seeks to block McMaster’s second deployment of South Carolina guardsmen to the nation’s capital which saw 300 troops sent to D.C. in late November 2025. The plaintiffs argue that state law strictly limits when and where the governor can deploy the National Guard, and that the current deployment violates those restrictions.
The Deployment in Question
Governor McMaster first authorized the deployment of 200 South Carolina National Guardsmen to Washington D.C., in August 2025, responding to President Trump’s executive order declaring a “crime emergency” in D.C. That initial deployment lasted over a month before ending in late September.
On November 26, 2025, McMaster announced via social media that over 300 guardsmen would return to Washington “as previously scheduled.” According to the complaint, these troops were deployed under what’s known as “Title 32” status, a hybrid arrangement where the federal government pays costs but troops remain under state authority and are considered state actors.
Notably, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser never requested assistance from any state. The complaint points out that at the time of President Trump’s executive order claiming crime was “out of control” in the District, violent crime was actually at a 30-year low.
Legal Arguments: What Does State Law Allow?
At the heart of the lawsuit lies South Carolina Code Section 25-1-1840, which specifically limits when the governor can deploy National Guard troops. The statute permits deployment only in cases of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, riot, imminent danger of those events, or natural disasters.
Plaintiffs argue that none of these conditions exist in Washington, D.C requiring South Carolina’s military assistance. Without meeting these statutory requirements, they contend, the governor lacks legal authority to send troops beyond state borders.
The complaint emphasizes a fundamental principle of state sovereignty: “the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory.” South Carolin’s National Guard exists as a vital state resource reserved for specific, limited purposes prescribed by state law, not as a force available for deployment wherever federal officials might request assistance. While the National Guard can assist other states through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) during disasters, the plaintiffs note this deployment is explicitly a Title 32 deployment, not an EMAC activation, making that legal argument inapplicable.
Historical Context and Constitutional Concerns
The complaint draws on South Carolina’s own legal history to frame the issue. In 1935, when the then Governor deployed the militia to address disputes over control of the state highway department, the state Supreme Court scrutinized the action, warning that unchecked military deployment could “lead to anarchy and revolution.”
That court characterized the “substitution of military for the civil law in any community” as “deplorable and calamitous,” justifiable only when civil law fails to function due to “actual warfare.”
The lawsuit also invokes the founding debates over military power. The plaintiffs note that George Mason argued during Constitutional Convention and that the Constitution should forbid marching state militias “beyond the limits of the adjoining state” without legislative consent. While Alexender Hamilton and James Madison dismissed such fears as “exaggerated and improbable,” the current deployment, the plaintiffs argue, proves those concerns were prescient.
South Carolina’s own Constitution reinforces these limits, declaring that “(t)he military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority.”
What’s at Stake
Beyond the immediate legal questions, the lawsuit raises broader concerns about executive authority, the separation of powers, and federalism. The complaint argues that allowing the governor to deploy National Guard troops anywhere federal officials request, regardless of state law requirements, would fundamentally undermine legislative authority and the rule of law.
There are also practical concerns. South Carolina’s National Guard serves critical functions within the state, particularly during natural disasters and extreme weather events. Deploying hundreds of guardsmen t Washington reduces the state’s capacity to respond to emergencies at home.
The plaintiffs seek several forms of relief: a declaration that the November 2025 deployment exceeds the governor’s authority, a permanent injunction vacating that deployment, and an order preventing future deployments in response to President Trump’s executive order and memorandum without proper legal authority.
Looking Forward
The case comes as federal courts have also grappled with the legality of the multi-state National Guard deployment to Washington. A federal district court previously found problems with the deployment, though an appeals court stayed that ruling. Significantly, South Carolina itself acknowledged in that federal litigation that governors deployed troops “pursuant to their Governors’ orders under Title 32 status” and weren’t required to accept the federal request.
That acknowledgement may prove important. As one federal court noted, if a governor unlawfully agrees to a Title 32 deployment, “the remedy would be a suit against the governor for violating state law”, precisely what this lawsuit seeks to accomplish.
The South Carolina Supreme Court now faces the question of whether the state’s chief executive has overstepped statutory boundaries in deploying military forces beyond the state’s borders. The outcome could have lasting implications for executive authority and the proper use of state military resources.