Most forms of local D.C. law are transmitted to Congress for a specified review or “layover” period. The length of the layover period differs based on the type of law the District has enacted (60 days for criminal legislation and 30 days for other acts). The layover period excludes Saturdays, Sundays, federal holidays, and days on which neither the House nor the Senate is in session because of an adjournment sine die or pursuant to an adjournment resolution. In practice, the start and end date of the review period is subject to the interpretation of the House or Senate Parliamentarian. Under the Home Rule Act, any Member of the House or Senate may introduce a qualifying joint resolution disapproving a D.C. law any time after the law has been submitted to Congress and before the expiration of the layover periods described above.

Date

Friday, May 2, 2025 - 3:00pm

Featured image

One Pagers

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Documents

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Share Image

D.C. DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTIONS AND RIDERS

Type

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Show list numbers

Description

D.C. Home Rule is shorthand for the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, which allows D.C. residents to elect the mayor, D.C. Councilmembers, and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners who run day-to-day affairs in the District. Before the passage of  Home Rule, federally appointed commissioners and members of Congress—never elected by D.C. residents—shared the responsibility of running the District's local laws and budget. Congressional offices fielded calls about D.C.’s potholes, trash pickup, schools, and crime, in addition to all the calls they were getting from their constituents in their home states.

Before the Home Rule era, Congress struggled to manage D.C., and D.C. residents who demanded improvements regularly reminded members of Congress of their responsibility. By 1973, after nearly 100 years of trying to manage local affairs, many members of Congress were eager to give up the responsibility—even those who had wanted to maintain power over the majority-Black District. Members of Congress expressed their desire to stop managing the District’s day-to-day affairs. They passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which itself explains that the “intent of Congress is to delegate certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia” to “relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.

Date

Friday, May 2, 2025 - 10:45am

Featured image

One Pagers

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Documents

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Share Image

D.C. DESERVES THE POWER TO GOVERN ITSELF— HERE’S WHY D.C. HOME RULE MATTERS

Type

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Show list numbers

Description

Facing the prospect of a second Trump administration, we prepared for a real threat to our civil rights and civil liberties in the District. On January 22, just two days after the president took office, the ACLU-D.C. filed our first lawsuit against the second Trump administration in which we challenged an unlawful attempt at fast-tracking deportations.

Since that day, we have filed eight additional lawsuits, advocated for D.C. democracy, trained over 250 people on their rights, and responded to over 500 civil rights and liberties violation complaints. Since day one, our message to the Trump administration has been loud and clear: no president is above the law.

We believe that our fundamental civil rights and liberties are worth fighting for. And we invite you to join us in our fight for America’s promise of equality, freedom, and justice for all.

Here are highlights of the work we’ve done to protect our civil rights and liberties in the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.

FIRST AMENDMENT

Urging D.C. Universities to Protect Campus Speech

We sent a letter to the presidents of D.C. universities, urging them to reject any federal pressure to punish international students and faculty based on constitutionally protected speech. Our letter included guidance on how to protect campus speech.

https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/amid-trump-administration-threats-aclu-dc-sends-letter-dc-universities-urging-them

Letter Urging U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. to Respect Free Speech

We sent a letter outlining our concerns that threatening legal action against people who merely criticize or challenge Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees undermines free speech. The government has the power to prosecute true threats, but it cannot use its authority to suppress disfavored opinions.

https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/aclu-dc-sends-letter-us-attorney-martin-first-amendment-concerns-letter-elon-musk

Political Targeting of Lawyers and Firms: Amicus Briefs

We joined legal organizations across ideologies to urge the court to strike down President Trump’s executive order that sanctioned law firm Perkins Coie for its past work on voting rights lawsuits and its representation of President Trump’s prior political opponents. The Constitution bars the president from such political retaliation. We urged the court to also intervene in similar executive orders aimed at destroying other law firms.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-justice-jenner-block-llp-v-us-dept-justice-wilmerhale-v

FEDERAL WORKERS

Defending Federal Employees Targeted for DEI Activities: Stáinnak v. Trump

We filed a class-action complaint on behalf of federal employees across federal agencies targeted for their participation in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities. The Trump administration cannot target dedicated federal employees because of who they are or what the administration thinks they believe.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/stainnak-v-trump-challenging-purge-dei-associated-federal-workers-discriminatory-and

Rally to Reinstate Federal Workers

We took our call to stop the political purge and reinstate unlawfully targeted federal workers to the streets and rallied outside the Office of Personnel Management. Workers and advocates shared moving accounts of their important work, their unwavering dedication, and the critical services that they provided. 

https://www.instagram.com/acluofdc/p/DIM3WQCsY8a/

Letter Urging Congress to Prevent Mass Illegal Layoff of Federal Workers

We sent a letter urging members of Congress to prevent an attempt by the Trump administration to unlawfully lay off probationary federal workers. Such mass layoffs threaten the essential services that federal workers provide to Americans, as well as the critical check that a nonpartisan civil service provides on the Executive Branch.

https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/aclu-urges-congress-prevent-illegal-mass-layoff-federal-workers

IMMIGRATION

Immigrants’ Rights and Resources Hub

We compiled an immigrants’ rights and resources hub because, regardless of your immigration status, you have guaranteed rights under the U.S. Constitution. Your rights include protections against unlawful searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, the right to speak to an attorney, and due process guarantees if detained or facing deportation. Check out our hub and feel free to share it widely.

https://www.acludc.org/en/immigrants-rights-and-resources-hub  

Fast-Tracked Deportations: Make the Road NY v. Benjamine Huffman

We sued to stop the Trump administration’s attempt to massively expand fast-tracked deportations without a fair legal process. This policy was illegal when Trump enacted it in his first term and it’s illegal now.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/make-road-new-york-v-huffman-challenging-expedited-removal-immigrants

Asylum Ban: Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Kristi Noem

We sued President Trump over his attempt to shut down asylum. No president has the authority to override the protections Congress has granted to people seeking safety at the border.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/refugee-and-immigrant-center-education-and-legal-services-v-trump-preventing-president-trump

Legal Access for Immigrant Detainees at Guantánamo Bay: Las Americas v. Noem

We sued the Trump administration to allow immigrants detained at Guantánamo Bay to access legal services. It is unprecedented and illegal for the president to ship people away and strip them of access to a lawyer.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/las-americas-immigrant-advocacy-center-v-kristi-noem-access-counsel-immigration-detainees

Halting Immigrant Transfers to Guantánamo Bay: Escalona v. Noem

We sued to stop the transfer of immigration detainees to Guantánamo Bay, which the government does not have the authority to do.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/escalona-v-noem-seeking-stop-transfers-immigration-detainees-guantanamo

Unlawful Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations: J.G.G. v. Trump

We sued over the unlawful and unprecedented peacetime invocation of the centuries-old wartime Alien Enemies Act to accelerate mass deportations and ship people to a notorious El Salvadoran prison without due process.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/jgg-v-trump-challenging-unlawful-use-alien-enemies-act-1789-deport-immigrants-without-due

BODILY AUTONOMY

Protecting Gender-Affirming Care in Federal Prisons: Kingdom v. Trump

We sued to protect access to gender-affirming care and accommodations for people held in federal prisons. The Trump administration cannot deny access to life-saving health care for people in federal custody.

https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/kingdom-v-trump-challenging-denial-gender-affirming-care-incarcerated-people-gender-dysphoria

Family Panning Funding: NFPRHA v. Kennedy

We sued on behalf of Title X family planning advocates to stop the Trump administration from unlawfully withholding funding for essential reproductive health care like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI tests.

https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/nfprha-and-aclu-challenge-trump-administration-over-unlawful-withholding-title-x

DEMOCRACY

Unlawful Barriers to Voting: League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump

We sued on behalf of a coalition of voting rights organizations challenging Trump’s unlawful executive order on voting that attempts to seize the power to set voter registration rules from Congress and the states.

https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/voting-rights-groups-challenge-trumps-recent-executive-order

Explaining Trump’s Executive Order Targeting D.C.

We created an explainer on Executive Order 14252: Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful. Despite its name, the order actually attempts to limit free speech and assembly, targets vulnerable communities, and creates a task force to micromanage D.C. that does not include any local representatives.

https://www.acludc.org/en/publications/executive-order-making-district-columbia-safe-and-beautiful-eo-14252

Explaining How Executive Orders Relate to D.C.

We created an explainer on executive orders and how they do and do not influence the District of Columbia.

https://www.acludc.org/en/publications/executive-orders-congressional-action-and-autonomy-district-columbia

Student Resistance Retreat

On March 30, we supported the Student Resistance Retreat, which brought together 100 student registrants for a day of learning, connection, and mobilization. The retreat built momentum around LGBTQ+ issues and fighting back against the Trump administration. Participants gained critical advocacy skills, learned about their rights to protest and free speech, and connected with fellow student activists. With speech increasingly under threat and misinformation about what can and cannot be shared, we have educated people about how to share information with people about their rights.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/talking-to-people-about-their-rights

Strengthening Nationwide Support for D.C. Home Rule

We expanded efforts to educate people across the country about the importance of protecting D.C. home rule as a critical component of our national democracy. By working with our nationwide ACLU network and partners, we are building a national movement for D.C. home rule.

The second Trump administration has been using deliberate tactics designed to enforce compliance through fear, force, and censorship. But we aren’t backing down. In the first 100 days of the Trump administration, the ACLU filed 107 legal actions. We are building on our legacy from the first Trump administration, during which we filed more than 400 legal actions. At the ACLU-D.C., we will continue to protect civil rights and liberties in D.C., and we’re giving this fight everything we’ve got.

Date

Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 1:00am

Featured image

Here's how we’ve taken action in his first 100 days.

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Override default banner image

Here's how we’ve taken action in his first 100 days.

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Share Image

Here's how we’ve taken action in his first 100 days.

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

43459

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Centered single-column (no sidebar)

Teaser subhead

Since day one, our message to the Trump administration has been loud and clear: no president is above the law.

Show list numbers

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of DC RSS