DC sues over federal takeover of Metropolitan Police

By Alvin Wu
Domestic Affairs
DC sues over federal takeover of Metropolitan Police

D.C. Metropolitan Police officers conduct a patrol as part of President Donald Trump's federal takeover of local law enforcement in the district. U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE/X

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 (ZFJ) — D.C. officials are suing federal authorities over their federalization of the district’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

Washington officials contend that the federal government is exceeding its authority under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, which allows the president to take temporary control of the MPD under a state of emergency.

On Thursday, Aug. 14, MPD Chief Pamela A. Smith issued an executive order that directed police officers to share information about people not in their custody (such as during traffic stops) with immigration authorities. The order also directed officers to provide transportation to immigration agents and their detainees.

Smith’s order, in line with the district’s sanctuary laws, ordered officers not to arrest people solely on the basis of outstanding immigration warrants or to share information on people in MPD custody with immigration agents.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has been delegated authority over the MPD under presidential executive order, was unsatisfied with Smith’s order for continuing to follow the district’s sanctuary laws.

On the same day, Bondi appointed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrence C. Cole as the “emergency police commissioner” of the MPD, giving him all the powers of the regular police chief. She also rescinded Smith’s order and directed the department to fully comply with federal immigration law as well as fully enforce any laws concerning unlawful occupancy of public spaces.

Bondi’s order prompted D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb to file suit in federal court. He argues that Section 740 only allows the president to request the services of the MPD from the D.C. mayor for “federal purposes,” such as protecting federal property or personnel.

Schwalb further contends that Section 740 neither allows the president to seize command of the MPD nor dictate local enforcement of local laws.

U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes heard the case on Friday, Aug. 15. The transcript of the proceedings is not presently available for ZFJ review, but reporting from The Associated Press states that Reyes suggested that the president can compel the mayor to provide the police but can’t control the MPD.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a new order from Bondi with the court on the same day as the hearing. In it, instead of appointing him “emergency police commissioner,” Bondi appoints Cole as her “designee” and directs the mayor to provide all assistance with immigration enforcement “as deemed necessary and appropriate by Administrator Cole.” She kept the provision about enforcement of local laws related to unlawful occupancy of public spaces.

“At my direction, @DCPoliceDept will now fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities,” wrote Bondi on X. “@POTUS remains in control under the law to determine what is necessary and appropriate.”

The D.C. attorney general’s office has withdrawn its application for a temporary restraining order against Bondi’s original order. The original civil complaint stands, and the case remains ongoing.

“The outcome of today’s hearing is a win for Home Rule and upholds the District’s right to operate its own local police force,” Schwalb wrote on X.

“There is still a long road ahead, but together, we will keep fighting to defend the District’s self-governance and protect the rights and safety of DC residents.”

The case is District of Columbia v. Donald J. Trump (1:25-cv-02678-ACR) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

References