DC Statehood

Without statehood, DC cannot deliver the prevention over punishment approach that residents deserve to be truly safe.

  • 15 Minute Read

Congressional reluctance to admit DC as the 51st state is part of a history of not granting autonomy to a majority Black city. Greater interference recently has coincided with nationwide efforts to disempower Black-led cities, elected officials, and Black prosecutors.  Because it lacks the powers and autonomy that most states have, DC does not have the ability to enact and implement justice system policies that would increase safety for Black residents on the scale that is needed. Federal agencies that are not accountable to DC residents control where individuals are incarcerated, how crimes are prosecuted, and how long someone is under the justice system’s control. DC’s lack of statehood means the U.S. Congress can intervene in a range of issues, from how the District crafts its criminal penalties to how DC will allocate its revenues raised from DC taxpayers for crime prevention programs. The current U.S. Congress and administration have taken actions that have put the safety of DC residents at risk, and made it harder to expand the proven crime prevention approaches District residents have requested when responding to safety challenges.  Everyone’s safety would be enhanced if DC had the same control over its justice system as a state, and immediate steps can be taken to limit Congressional interference and allow the District to implement stronger safety policies.  

What you need to know

DC lacks the powers granted to states, and local control is subject to the consent of the federal government.

Under the 10th Amendment, states retain any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states. These include protecting public health and safety, regulating intrastate commerce, creating local governments, and managing education systems.  Because DC has never been granted statehood, it has a unique relationship with the federal government and much less local control.  When the U.S. Congress passed and President Richard Nixon signed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act  (“The Home Rule Act”) in 1973, the federal government gave DC limited control over its affairs.  The Home Rule Act did not change the fact that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over DC affairs. This means it can enact laws affecting the District, including overturning local laws passed by the District’s city council.   While DC does elect a group of officeholders who represent DC residents’ views in the U.S. Congress, none of these elected officials can currently vote in the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.  

Unlike a state, the federal government controls much of the DC justice system.

DC elected officials have control over the Metropolitan Police Department, the Department of Corrections, the Attorney General, and about a dozen entities and organizations responsible for safety, sentencing, and criminal justice policy.  But compared to most states and localities, DC does not control its entire justice system. For example, most states run their own prison systems and most elect local prosecutors (or statewide Attorneys General) responsible for criminal prosecutions.  In addition, most states, or counties within them, run their probation and parole systems, and in most states, judges are either appointed by a state elected official or by the state or its residents.  Because DC is not a state, and because the federal government has “plenary powers over the District of Columbia and its officers,” the U.S. Congress has enacted laws that have taken control of various parts of the DC justice system that would be run by a state entity elsewhere.   Several more extended essays explain the blow-by-blow, year-to-year Congressional actions that have led to the current state of the DC justice system, which is split between local and federal control.  What follows is a high-level summary of the impact of this division in authority on public safety in the District.

DC's Lack of Control has Safety implications

The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, appointed by the President, is responsible for most of the criminal prosecutions in DC.  The Office of the Attorney General is responsible for prosecuting crimes committed by juveniles, as well as some adult misdemeanors.

Associations representing prosecutors have said that their election ensures that they are accountable to the voters they serve. This accountability can lead to policies and practices that better reflect the community’s needs and values. The Council of the District of Columbia has no formal ability to review USAO-DC practices and priorities, and no role over its budget.

When someone is sentenced to prison for DC Code offenses, they are incarcerated in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities across the country, which are hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles from home. 

Researchers have said that the further someone is incarcerated from their home community and away from family and neighborhood connections, the more likely they are to recidivate. DC agencies have extremely limited oversight and access to ensure that incarcerated residents are receiving the necessary services and treatment to support rehabilitative goals. 

While DC abolished parole with other jurisdictions in the 1990s, for hundreds of DC prisoners who still qualify to complete their sentences in the community, the US Parole Commission decides whether or not someone may be paroled or revoked.  

Long prison terms – in themselves – do not increase safety. Bodies like the USPC have been criticized for keeping individuals in prison who could be safely released.  The USPC has also been criticized for having  “unnecessarily harsh practices.”

People sentenced to probation and people on post-prison supervision are supervised by the federal Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).  Pretrial release decisions are also made by a division of CSOSA.  

Needlessly long and overly intensive probation or post-prison supervision make it more likely that someone will commit a new crime. Processes that exist in other jurisdictions for individuals to earn time off their supervision for good behavior have not been implemented by CSOSA. As many as 9 percent of people in the DC jail were incarcerated because their supervision was revoked by the courts, with information provided by CSOSA on residence compliance with rules.  CSOSA has faced challenges collaborating with other DC agencies, such as sharing information when a person is eligible to expunge or seal a criminal record, which is a key barrier to employment and housing.

States have broad taxation powers to raise funds for crime prevention programs within their jurisdiction.  DC  cannot tax the 500,000 people who commute to work in DC from elsewhere, or tax the large proportion of government-owned property.  States can also largely spend their local tax dollars without federal interference. The U.S. Congress controls DC’s locally enacted budget, and it can prohibit spending on certain projects or hold DC spending at lower levels, resulting in cuts.

Prevention programs have a much greater return on investment in increasing safety than responding to crimes after they have happened. Congress has limited the resources DC can spend on safety programs. With limited resources, DC has not invested in gun violence prevention strategies at the scale that is needed.  The recent decision by the House of Representatives to hold DC spending at 2024 levels through the rest of 2025 resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to local services.

While there is a committee that recommends names of potential judges, ultimately, the President makes the appointments and the U.S. Senate decides whether to confirm a new judge to the DC courts.

Because of presidential and congressional delays, DC has many judicial vacancies, which slow court processes and limit access to justice. 

While there is a DC Clemency Board, they note, “because the District of Columbia is not a state, the Clemency Board cannot grant clemency, but it can recommend clemency to the President of the United States and the [Department of Justice] Pardon Attorney.” 

The Jails and Justice Taskforce has said that increased  use of clemency would release “people who pose no risk to the community.”  By contrast, U.S. Presidents have pardoned people who may constitute a more significant public safety risk than individuals who are currently in prison from DC.

Residents lack budgetary oversight over a billion dollars in federal justice agency spending in DC.

The Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia set the budgets for the Metropolitan Police Department, the Department of Corrections, and a number of other justice and safety-related agencies, which comprise about 9 percent of the city’s overall $22 billion budget.  Through the budget process, elected representatives can scrutinize and move funds around within the overall budget to reprioritize safety issues, and residents can hold them accountable for those choices. The U.S. Congress, where DC residents lack voting representation, is responsible for setting the budget for the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, CSOSA, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the DC Courts.  Oversight opportunities for federal justice agencies operating in DC are limited to residents’ ability to review their congressional budget submissions. Unlike DC-run agencies, these federal agencies do not have to appear before the Council of the District of Columbia to justify their safety priorities. Based on the reported accounts of what is spent on the USAO-DC, the courts, CSOSA, and the USPC, and accounting for the percentage of FBOP budget spent on incarcerating DC residents, a conservative estimate of justice system agencies run by the federal government in DC represents about $1 billion in spending each year.

Opportunities to share data and coordinate safety policy with federal agencies are limited.

The Council of the District of Columbia and the U.S. Congress helped establish and fund a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, because there were reports that the dysfunction between federal and local justice agencies led to poorer safety outcomes.   The goal of the CJCC is to convene the heads of federal and locally run justice system agencies to share information on their practices,  engage in research, and exchange technical assistance and training.  But CJCC’s coordination, research, and data collection efforts are limited. Data on practices of the USAO-DC are limited to a focus on gun prosecutions. Only member stakeholders of the CJCC can request research on justice system policies, and even then, members do not have to act on the research. The USAO-DC has said that Secure DC legislation brought down crime rates, but the CJCC’s research has shown that they could not assess whether the law reduced crime. 

When the federal government has intervened in DC policies, it compromised residents' safety.

The U.S. Congress has compromised residents’ safety by changing and overturning laws enacted by DC’s local elected officials. When the U.S. Congress prohibited DC from implementing a tax and regulation system for marijuana sales, as many states have, there were increased sales in the illegal gray market, leading to more crimes.  When the U.S. Congress and former President Biden overturned DC’s efforts to modernize its criminal code, they prevented the District from implementing evidence-based approaches to sentencing. For example, as a result of Congressional action, DC continues to enforce mandatory minimums that have not been shown to increase safety.  The U.S. Congress can add budgetary “riders” to spending bills that impact DC’s efforts to increase safety directly.  Recent riders have included efforts to halt DC from spending local tax dollars to prevent syringe exchange programs that directly reduce HIV transmission, and to allow people with a license from another state to carry a concealed weapon in DC.

Proposals to make DC a state have not been enacted.

The U.S. Congress has considered multiple ways to change DC’s political status.  These plans have included reincorporating part of the District into the State of Maryland, allowing District residents to vote in Maryland for representatives to the House and Senate, defining the District as a congressional district for voting representation in the House of Representatives, and providing voting rights to the District by means of a constitutional amendment. Congress has also considered admitting the District or parts of it into the Union as the 51st state.  Since 2019, the U.S. Congress has had the opportunity to consider House Resolution (H.R.) 51,  legislation that would confer statehood on most of the District of Columbia, while retaining a small federal enclave under congressional control.   While the House of Representatives passed H.R. 51 in 2020 and 2021, it was not enacted by the U.S. Senate and did not become law.  Since then, H.R. 51 has been reintroduced in each subsequent Congress, but has not been made law.  

Proposals to increase DC control over the federally run justice system have not been enacted.

Short of statehood, other initiatives to increase local control over prosecution and corrections have been developed, but not enacted or implemented.  The Jails and Justice Taskforce recommended that people with two years left on their sentence in the FBOP be relocated to the DC jail to complete their term of incarceration.  This proposal has not been acted upon, but there is now legislation to establish a pilot program to allow some DC residents in the FBOP to finish the last six months of their sentence at the DC Jail.  The First Step Act recommends, but does not require, that individuals sentenced to the federal system serve their sentence within 500 miles of their place of residence, and recommendations to require that change have not been implemented.  Legislation has been repeatedly introduced and has not been taken up by the U.S. Congress, to require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide information to DC agencies on the people in their custody and their release dates. In 2021, there was an effort to remove the US Parole Commission from the decision-making process governing DC individuals still eligible for parole, but these efforts failed to materialize.  In 2023, DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced legislation to require federal officials in charge of CSOSA and the US Parole Commission to live in DC, but this legislation was not enacted.   

This presidential administration has taken actions that may reduce residents' safety.

On his first day in office, President Trump pardoned more than 1,000 individuals who were defendants facing charges for, had been convicted of, or who had pleaded guilty to crimes that occurred during the January 6th storming of the U.S. Capitol. These pardons included people charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents, and defendants charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. In January, the President pardoned two  MPD officers convicted of conspiracy, obstructing justice, and second-degree murder for the death of Karon Hylton-Brown in a car chase – a policing practice repeatedly shown to compromise residents’ safety. In March, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force, a body charged with “preventing crime, punishing criminals, [and] preserving order.” The Taskforce does not include a single elected or locally controlled DC agency. Still, the order says the Taskforce may require local agencies, like MPD, to follow its direction, a rule that could redeploy policing resources away from the most pressing public safety concerns.

Congressional decisions and those by the Administration may reduce DC residents' safety.

In March 2025, Congress approved a continuing resolution on federal appropriations that broke with 20 years’ precedent and treated local DC tax dollars as federal money, which was only possible because of DC’s lack of statehood. This resolution required DC to revert to the previous year’s spending levels, which essentially cut the DC budget for the remainder of the 2025 fiscal year. The U.S. Senate passed legislation and the President has called on the House of Representatives to address the budget crisis.  The DC Fiscal Policy Institute has said this could result in “deep cuts to child care, housing, firefighters, schools, [and] libraries,” services that play a critical role in crime prevention.  

The lack of statehood is part of a Congressional history of targeting Black cities.

The official website on behalf of the government of the District of Columbia on this topic says that the lack of statehood is a “racial justice and democracy” [issue]….Washington, DC is a historically Black city….The District’s lack of representation is a wider oppression and disenfranchisement of Black Americans.”   During an 1890 debate on restoring DC suffrage, Senator John Morgan, a former Confederate General urged Congress “to burn[…] down the barn to get rid of the rats, . . . the rats being the negro population and the barn being the government of the District of Columbia.” One hundred and thirty years later, when the House of Representatives held an oversight hearing over DC policies and practices, Rep. Gary Palmer referred to DC public schools as “inmate factories,” and a U.S. Senator invoked a racist stereotype in arguing against statehood, asking, “[w]ould you trust Marion Barry [as a governor]?” A way to view U.S. Congressional actions that have resulted in the kind of half-federally run justice system that does not deliver safety outcomes is that these policies would never be considered, or tolerated, if the individuals impacted by them were White.  Black residents make up more than eight out of ten individuals arrested, and more than nine out of ten people sentenced, and incarcerated in DC – and nine out of ten victims of gun homicides. 

Recent interventions against DC autonomy coincided with the recent targeting of Black law enforcement and elected officials.

Before 2023, it had been two decades since the U.S. Congress successfully voted to overturn a DC law. After 2023, the U.S. Congress has twice endorsed overturning a criminal justice law.  This year, the House of Representatives passed bills to overturn DC legislation that repeals local laws governing DC elections and police officer discipline. This increase in Congressional interference in DC affairs coincided with interventions by federal or state governments on locally elected Black officials and majority Black cities, or on lawmakers seeking to address the most harmful aspects of the justice system.   The Governor of Florida sought to remove two Black elected prosecutors in Orlando and Tampa, and lawmakers in Missouri and Pennsylvania. Texas has sought to curb the powers of locally elected prosecutors whose policies seek to reform the justice system.  In Jackson, Mississippi, where 80 percent of city residents are Black, the Governor and legislature expanded the state-controlled Capitol Police jurisdiction from its boundaries around state buildings to almost the entire city. The governor of Jackson also created a judicial district where the governor can appoint a judge with jurisdiction over cases that municipal courts would normally adjudicate. The African American Intellectual History Society has said that Chicago, Atlanta, and Baltimore are also Black-led cities where state (or federal lawmakers) have recently sought to curtail local authority.

There are organizations working towards statehood and increased local control of the justice system.

The government of the District of Columbia has worked to make the case for statehood, and more than 100 local and national organizations support the effort.   When DC’s criminal code revision was overturned, the Council for the District of Columbia led opposition to the U.S. Congressional action, as they did with a prior effort to overturn DC’s police reform legislation.  In 2025, a number of organizations like Free DC, 51 for 51, and  DC Vote, are actively working to either support statehood or to reduce the federal government’s interference with the District’s self-government. Public safety issues continue to be prominent concerns in their communications.

WHERE TO LEARN MORE

Our Solutions

The U.S. Congress and the President should support DC’s efforts towards gaining statehood.

As DC works towards statehood, the U.S. Congress and the Administration should also:

  • Maintain new and existing laws enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia
  • Eliminate all riders from DC budget bills and commit to not enacting any new ones
  • Accept all recommendations from DC bodies to appoint judges, and confirm them without delay
  • Allow DC to tax commuters and transfer remaining criminal legal system functions to local control
  • Transfer all local prosecution powers from USAO-DC to the Office of the Attorney General

Last Updated on July 31, 2025

special thanks

★

Back to prevention
Back to library home