Criminal Justice Reform

No one should be above the law, including federal law enforcement. Yet when federal agents violate people’s constitutional rights, holding them accountable can be extraordinarily difficult. In this episode of A More Perfect District, ACLU-DC Paralegal & Intake Coordinator Ameerah Adetoro talks with Legal Director Scott Michelman about the barriers that can make it difficult to hold federal officers accountable, why accountability matters for protecting all of our rights, and what we can do to push for change.

In federal court victory, ACLU and allies secure ruling that D.C. parole system discriminates against people with disabilities

In a letter addressed to the American public, ACLU and affiliates warn prolonged deployments carry nationwide costs and risk normalizing military presence on American streets

Filed by the ACLU of D.C. and law firm Levy Firestone and Muse, LLP, this claim is one of 54 filed by the ACLU and its affiliates across 17 states under the Federal Tort Claims Act that seek justice for people harmed by federal agents

Kekai Watanabe was brutally attacked in a prison fight and his tailbone was broken. For months, prison staff at the federal prison in Hawai‘i where he was detained denied his requests for hospital care, providing him instead with over-the-counter pain medication. Mr. Watanabe sued, seeking damages for his months of pain and suffering. Doing so is his only way to hold accountable the officials who ignored his repeated requests for care. But the government now argues that he has no right to sue a federal prison official. Although state and local officers who violate the Constitution in this same way could be sued for it, there's no federal law specifically creating a right to sue federal officers for constitutional violations, and so the government argues such suits cannot proceed. Using this type of reasoning, the Supreme Court in recent years has made it extremely difficult to sue federal officers. This rule creates a major gap in constitutional enforcement, especially here in D.C., where there is a huge federal law enforcement presence. Because of the Supreme Court's hostility toward claims against federal officers, for instance, our case seeking damages for the massive, unprovoked assault on peaceful civil rights demonstrators at Lafayette Square in the summer of 2020 is proceeding on very different terms against the federal officers than against the local officers involved in the same incident: whereas against the D.C. police we have been allowed to proceed as a class action and will be able to seek punitive damages, we could proceed only on behalf of a handful of individuals (not a class) for constitutional violations by the U.S. Park Police, Secret Service, and other federal defendants like former Attorney General William Barr, and we cannot seek punitive damages for the federal offers' violations. Together with the National ACLU and the ACLU of Hawai‘i, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Mr. Watanabe at the Supreme Court. Even the Court’s restrictive recent decisions about suing federal officers acknowledge that Congress, in the Westfall Act of 1988, preserved the ability to bring some federal officer claims. When Congress legislates about a well-established legal concept, courts presume that Congress intended to incorporate that established meaning. At the time of the Westfall Act’s passage, courts permitted claims—like Mr. Watanabe’s—alleging unconstitutionally deficient prison medical care by federal officers. Therefore, to respect the instructions of Congress, the courts should continue to permit such claims today. A contrary result would be disastrous, and not just for Mr. Watanabe. One of the government’s main arguments here is that a federal-officer suit cannot proceed because federal prisons have an internal grievance process, known as the “ARP.” When appeals courts have applied this ahistorical limitation on what federal-officer suits are available, the results have been grotesque. For instance, the Eleventh Circuit recently relied on the ARP to reject a constitutional claim for fatally inadequate medical treatment of Hepatitis C in prison “even though [the plaintiff’s] estate could not use the ARP after his death.” Carrin v. Strong, 182 F.4th 1351, 1354 (11th Cir. 2026). The Third Circuit relied on the ARP to reject a constitutional claim for the failure to treat diabetic blisters that ultimately required the amputation of the plaintiff’s toe, even though the “effectiveness” of the ARP was “dubious.” Muniz v. United States, 149 F.4th 256, 258, 264 (3d Cir. 2025). And the Eleventh Circuit relied on the ARP in rejecting a constitutional claim for failure to treat an incarcerated plaintiff’s “severe but ultimately non-lethal physical injuries” even though “the district court found that he was denied access to the [ARP].” Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840, 858-60 (11th Cir. 2024). These outcomes are both unfair and contrary to what Congress directed when it acted in 1988. The Supreme Court will hear argument in this case November 9.

Anna King is a retired U.S. Army captain and an Iraq War veteran, receiving a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for her service. On May 8, 2026, she was at her home when three National Guard members walked through her gated patio and seized her, shoving her toward the ground, grabbing her arms, and applying handcuffs so tightly that they ruptured ligaments in her wrist, requiring surgery. It appears the officers who arrived at Ms. King’s home did not have a warrant for Ms. King’s arrest. In conjunction with the law firm Levy Firestone Muse LLP, we filed an administrative Federal Tort Claims Act complaint with the Idaho National Guard (which employs several of the Guard members involved) and the Department of Defense to vindicate King’s rights.

Justice-involved young people and their families need more investment in intervention, programming, and resources – not less.

This testimony addresses ACLU-D.C.'s recommendations regarding the District’s Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget for the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants (OVSJG).