D.C. Sues Trump Administration Over Police Department Control

The District of Columbia has taken legal action against the Trump administration, contesting its recent federal takeover of the local police department. This lawsuit was filed on March 15, 2024, shortly after Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Terry Cole, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, would assume the powers of the D.C. Police Chief.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues that the Trump administration has overstepped its legal authority. He is seeking a court ruling to affirm that control of the police department should remain with the local government. Schwalb described the administration’s actions as an “affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans” living in Washington, D.C., stating that this represents “the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced.”

The lawsuit follows Bondi’s announcement that the Metropolitan Police Department must now seek approval from Cole for any operational orders. The situation raises questions about the status of current police chief Pamela Smith, who serves at the mayor’s discretion. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser criticized the federal directive, asserting there is “no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Schwalb emphasized that his office views Bondi’s directive as unlawful, directing Smith to maintain command over the police force. He stated that the members of the Metropolitan Police Department “must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor.” This legal clash highlights the tensions between the heavily Democratic District and the Republican administration.

The backdrop of this legal confrontation includes a significant increase in federal presence across the city. National Guard troops have been deployed to monitor key areas, including well-known landmarks and transportation hubs. This increased visibility has raised concerns among residents, many of whom are adjusting to the heightened security measures.

Bondi’s directive also rescinded policies previously established by the police, which aimed to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has indicated that Bondi disagreed with Smith’s orders to share information with immigration agencies, arguing that such policies promote “sanctuary” practices that restrict local law enforcement’s collaboration with federal agents.

The Trump administration’s actions represent one of the most pronounced assertions of federal authority over local governance in recent history. By citing a state of emergency, the administration seeks to bolster its tough stance on crime and immigration enforcement.

While Washington, D.C., has faced its share of challenges, including spikes in violence, the homicide rate remains lower than that of several major U.S. cities. The situation in the capital has not reached the public safety crisis depicted by the administration.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications for the District’s governance and the relationship between local and federal authorities will be closely monitored. The outcome of this case could set significant precedents regarding the authority of local governments in the face of federal interventions.