WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that the National Guard deployment in the nation’s capital can continue for now, staying a lower-court ruling that had ordered an end to the troops’ presence.

The three-judge panel for U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Donald Trump may prevail in his argument that the president “possesses a unique power” to mobilize the Guard in Washington, which is a federal district.

The ruling stops the implementation of U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb’s Nov. 20 opinion and order, and reaffirms that residents and visitors to Washington will routinely see Guard members well into 2026.

Cobb had ruled that the deployment illegally intrudes on local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the District of Columbia.

Wednesday’s unanimous 32-page ruling went on to say that other factors also favored the Republican administration, including the “disruption to the lives of thousands of service members,” as well as what it said was the president’s interest “in the protection of federal governmental functions and property within the Nation’s capital.”

The judges found that the district “has not identified any ongoing injury to its statutory interests.”

The ruling acknowledged that the administration has a strong case for its appeal.

The deployment began in August after Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington. Within a month, more than 2,300 National Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling the city under the command of the Army secretary. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist.

The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, sued to challenge the Guard deployments. He asked that the White House be barred from deploying Guard troops without the mayor’s consent while the lawsuit played out. Dozens of states took sides in Schwalb’s lawsuit, with their support falling along party lines.

A spokesperson with Schwalb’s office said the stay was a “preliminary ruling that does not resolve the merits. We look forward to continuing our case in both the district and appellate courts.”