In President Biden’s address to Congress Wednesday, he urged the country to work with his administration to “root out systematic racism in our criminal justice system.” As we observe the president’s first 100 days, we have a suggestion that would go a long way towards addressing systemic racism in D.C.’s criminal justice system. And it doesn’t even require an act of Congress.

On February 6, 2019, then-United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, announced a new initiative: the U.S. Attorney’s Office would begin bringing certain gun cases, known as “felon-in-possession” cases, in federal court rather than the local D.C. Superior Court. On the surface, charging crimes in one court over the other may appear to be just a technical quirk of D.C.’s governance, which gives federal prosecutors authority over both federal and local crimes. But federal prosecutors’ decision to move local crimes out of local courts came with far more nefarious consequences.

When prosecutors take cases to federal court, it isn’t just a different building—it’s a different law altogether. In practice, the federal felon-in-possession law subjects individuals to harsher sentences on average than its D.C. counterpart. From July 2017 to July 2018, the median sentence for a felon-in-possession charge in D.C. Superior Court was two years—a number that fell to 16 months after the D.C. Sentencing Commission amended how it calculated sentences for felon-in-possession cases. By contrast, the average sentence in federal court is nearly 5 1/2 years—four times more than D.C. courts. Add in the fact that individuals charged in federal court are also more likely to be detained before trial, and the difference comes into sharp focus: get charged in federal court, spend more time in cells.

The U.S. Attorney’s felon-in-possession policy is an intentional maneuver around D.C. policies on incarceration. In the past few years, the D.C. Council and residents have pushed to reduce the incarcerated population, including through legislation like the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (allowing youth offenders who have served 20 years to request a sentence reduction), the Youth Rehabilitation Act (permitting judges to waive some mandatory minimums), and the Second Look Amendment Act (further expanding the category of individuals who can request a sentence reduction). These shifts reflect D.C.’s divesting from incarceration as a solution to violence. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has fought this shift every step of the way.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office was the lone dissenting vote when the D.C. Sentencing Commission voted in 2018 to change how sentences for felon-in-possession cases were calculated and thereby reduce sentences in D.C. court. D.C. judges, attorneys, and residents were all in favor. Rather than accept the clear wishes of District authorities and residents, the U.S. Attorney’s Office instead announced their new charging policy, moving cases out of D.C. courts into federal courts where they are not bound by D.C.’s sentencing guidelines and laws.

Many D.C. leaders opposed the federal government’s end-run around local policies. D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine came out strongly against the new charging policy, stating that it “intentionally sidesteps our local courts, thus denying offenders the benefits of [D.C.] reforms, and reverts to a failed federal tough-on-crime approach.” The D.C. Council called for the policy to be “immediately abandon[ed.]” But local lawmakers and community members have no authority to change the policy, because the U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate—where D.C. residents have no representation. Thus, D.C.’s years-long efforts to reduce overincarceration were ignored, in one fell swoop, by an unelected federal official.

From the outset, the effect of the policy was to impose longer sentences on Black defendants. In D.C., Black people make up around 47 percent of the District’s population but 97 percent of those charged with being a felon in possession. And the policy was even worse than it appeared, because the U.S. Attorney’s Office targeted Black residents. Despite having initially presented it publicly as a District-wide policy, federal prosecutors later stated in a court filing that it was only implemented in police districts 5, 6, and 7, three majority-Black districts in D.C. —While Black people make up only 7.53 percent of residents in police district 2, for example, they make up 92.79 percent of residents in police district 6. The move was so egregious, the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s own Black prosecutors opposed it.

In September 2020, after the geographic focus became public, the U.S. Attorney’s Office ended that focus and began applying the policy throughout the District. But the Office refused to end the policy outright, despite the outcry. Even after a change in administration, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, now led by President Biden’s appointee Channing Phillips, again refused to end the policy.

It is past time for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to end its felon-in-possession policy, one that has been tainted from the start by racially disparate effects and (initially secret) racist geographic targeting, and which continues to harm the people of D.C. Beyond that, the fact that an unelected federal official can even make these decisions about local criminal prosecutions underscores that, in D.C., a city with a plurality Black population, statehood is a racial justice issue. Days after taking office, President Biden committed to fighting mass incarceration and the “significant costs and hardships” it causes. Incarceration, his order stated, “does not make us safer.” D.C. residents and lawmakers know this. It is why they have shifted to reducing incarceration, including through legislation that federal prosecutors continue to flout by applying this policy.

The continued use of this policy subjects Black people in D.C. to harsher sentences, and does so against the explicit wishes of local leaders and residents. It is a slap in the face of their efforts and must be ended now.

Today the ACLU-DC filed three Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of Cathy Young, the mother of D’Quan Young, who was shot by Metropolitan Police Department officer James Lorenzo Wilson III on May 9, 2018 in Brentwood. Ms. Young has repeatedly asked MD for details surrounding the death of her son and has been stonewalled for nearly three years. This is the third FOIA request she will file for this information.

D’Quan’s aunt, Michelle Young, talked to us about the information the family still seeks about his death.

Q: The details and circumstances surrounding D’Quan’s death at the hands of an MPD officer are still very unclear. Can you tell us what you still don’t know and are trying to find out?

A: I don't know what we don't know. There are different camera views that MPD has that we haven't been able to get access to or see. The [DC Auditor’s] Deadly Force study that they did on four cases the Metropolitan Police Department detailed [video] viewpoints the family wasn’t able to see. There are things that we learned in that report that we did not know. We didn’t know the report was going to come out. We didn’t know our rights were to have access to some of the information that was coming out.

You only have the viewpoint of the police officer. You don’t know if D’Quan actually shot, you don’t know if D’Quan was running. There should be video of him lying on the ground other than what you see on the bodycam. You don’t know what happened after that.

Did [Officer Wilson] do CPR? Did he help him or assist [D’Quan]? There were reports that someone said [to D’Quan] “that’s what you deserve.” Was it the officer who said that?

We never heard the 911 tape. The police officer, if he did feel threatened, why didn’t he call for backup?

Why did MPD take the stance when it first happened that it was all on D’Quan? And they never really wanted to admit anything could have been done differently. And that’s all we asked: how could this be handled differently? What was the truth? What really happened?

Q: You said there’s also body-worn camera footage that you didn’t see.

A: There’s a lot of footage that went to the FBI that we did not see that came from the Brentwood Recreation Center. If you watch the footage on MPD’s website that they released, that footage that shows some of Brentwood’s camera but it doesn’t show all. From my understanding, there are other cameras in the neighborhood at that project that may have caught [something]. All I know is there are other angles, because in the audit report, it shows other angles.

We weren’t privy to if there’s video of the officer actually shooting, firing his gun, which I do believe there’s footage of that.

Q: How would you describe how you’ve been treated by MPD when you tried to get more answers about what happened to D’Quan?

A: Silence. When Cathy went up to [police service area] 5D to get the police report, I think some police officers thought something was not right with the case, and they offered their condolences. But if you read the incident report, it said, you know, “Suspect A ran into Police B and Suspect A pulled a gun and Police B shot him,” and that was it. We were told, don’t worry about it, the incident report will get updated later.

Other than that, it was just silence, from MPD, the Council. I think everyone was trying to distance themselves from the case, maybe because there was too much unknown at the time it happened.

Q. What are you looking to learn through the FOIA?

A: It would just set the scene for what that night was like. The 911 call. What was actually said, what did the neighbors say? What did the police officer say? The [surveillance] camera footage. The bodycam footage. There were officers that came to scene, and they had on bodycams, but you can only see what MPD wanted you to see.

The FOIA to me is important because it’s the first step, and it a step that… blocked [us] from taking any other action without getting any other information. It kind of left you hanging to know whether or not [the shooting] was justified.

It’s the first step that anyone should have the rights to know about their loved ones…it’s our right to have our questions answered.

Q: How have so many unanswered questions affected you and your family as you still try to process your grief over the death of D’Quan?

A: it’s hard to complete the grief process. When you think you are almost over it, you get a phone call. So it’s almost like you’re living the trauma all over again. So then you have to ask yourself: what is it I should have done differently when it happened? Should I have immediately filed a lawsuit? Was it ever about that? So you start second-guessing yourself when you have a loved one who’s deceased. How could you have served him better? Can you hold the city accountable?

We’re talking almost three years later about the same things. We haven’t moved on. What do you do next? Where do we go from here?

My biggest question from when it started was this gentleman’s background. Had [D’Quan and Officer Wilson] crossed paths before? Was there more to it than just a chance meeting? I don’t know if that was looked into. I don’t know.

MPD’s Internal Affairs Division found Officer Wilson’s use of force was justified, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia declined to bring charges against Officer Wilson. However, a March 2021 report commissioned by the D.C. Auditor of four officer-involved shootings from 2018-2019 concluded Officer Wilson “violated MPD’s policy requiring de-escalation.”

OCTOBER 2021 UPDATE: The D.C. Office of Unified Communications, the Office of the D.C. Auditor, and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) all responded to Ms. Young’s FOIA request, and, while Ms. Young has received some of what she requested, she has not obtained all of it. In particular, MPD, though producing some of the documents Ms. Young sought, has failed to provide significant portions of the requested records more than five months that have elapsed since it received the request. The ACLU-DC intends to continue its efforts to press MPD to fulfill Ms. Young’s FOIA request.