Washington, DC Needs Stronger ‘Home Rule’

This op-ed is part of a series by contributors to SLoG Law Blog, an online publication devoted to state and local law issues.

The U.S. legislative and executive branches have extensive control over Washington, DC’s laws and policies, making the capital city particularly vulnerable to changing political climates. DC would enjoy more stability and municipal independence if its legislative “home rule” rights more closely resembled those of other major U.S. cities.

Home rule refers to a delegation of authority from states to local governments, allowing localities the power to initiate policies that best address the specific issues their residents face. In states, home rule is generally a function of a state constitutional provision, either self-executing or available through petition or other process mechanisms. All but six states provide home rule to at least some municipal levels of government, and almost all of those confer home rule to large cities. Home rule cities do not need the permission of their states to enact laws of municipal concern. Examples include local traffic, minimum wage, and licensing laws. State general law may preempt local law, but even then, some immunities exist, varying from state to state. 

As most readers know, Washington, DC is not a state, nor is it located within a state. The U.S. Constitution, in the so-called District Clause, establishes the federal district as the “Seat of Government” and exercises exclusive legislative power over it. Efforts to carve out a small enclave as the federal district, with the remaining part of DC a state, have consistently failed. It was not until 1961, with ratification of the 23rd Amendment, that Washington residents were even given the right to vote for president and vice president. In 1971, it was allowed a non-voting House of Representatives delegate.

Washington, DC’s anomalous status — not a state, not a territory, and yet subject to direct federal supervision — creates unique perils. A main one is that its weak home rule charter is both revocable and readily subject to abuse by the federal political branches.

Washington, DC was granted a form of home rule by Congress in 1973, but it was much more limited than those included in most state constitutions. The language of the Washington, DC Home Rule law requires all enacted laws of DC to be sent to Congress, where any member of either branch may introduce a resolution to disapprove it, subject to presidential action. Further oversight is required by a House subcommittee. This structure has allowed Congress to reverse action taken by Washington’s government on issues from reproductive rights to marijuana sales.

DC’s susceptibility to the federal government’s preferences has been on display increasingly over the last several years, as the city has been forced to act in ways its left-leaning citizens likely do not support. Conservative members of Congress, under both Democratic and Republican administrations have interfered with the basic municipal functions of the District. For example, in 2023, after years of work, the DC council passed a comprehensive revision to its criminal justice code. But Congress, with the required approval from then-President Joseph Biden, exercised its ability to kill the bill after Republican complaints that provisions of the new code were weak on crime.

The episode exposed the ways that Washington’s legislative process is structurally unresponsive to the city’s residents. Even after the district council passes an ordinance, the enactment (with few exceptions) must then make its required trip to Congress, where it sits for 60 days if the subject matter is non-criminal or 30 days if it pertains to criminal law. If no action is taken during that period, the law is enacted. But members of either chamber can initiate a resolution disapproving an enactment during the time period, which, if signed by the president, overrides the actions of the DC council. This was the process through which DC’s 2023 crime bill met its demise.

The override of the crime bill piqued the interest of some congresspeople: Could DC be used to workshop policy experiments? It wouldn’t be the first time. Since 1995, reproductive health care services have been restricted in DC thanks to the Dornan Amendment, which prevents Medicaid dollars from being spent on abortion in the District. And 10 years ago, DC was used as a laboratory for experiments with school vouchers as an alternative to public schools. There now appears to be interest in exploiting Washington’s weak home rule grant in other ways, both by shocking its economy and experimenting with punitive policies.

At the new administration’s insistence, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has already ordered city workers to remove the words “Black Lives Matter” on a stretch of street near the White House. In March, Bowser, acting to head off federal interference, ordered the emptying of multiple encampments for unhoused people. And she permitted DC police to accompany DOGE workers to evict employees of the non-profit U.S. Institute of Peace.

Because it is the seat of federal government, one worry is that protests at U.S. government sites in Washington could be a “test case” for violence by the U.S. military against U.S. citizens. It is a threat that non-voting Washington, DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton unsuccessfully tried to address with her proposed Washington National Guard Home Rule bill in 2019, 2021, and 2023. The bill would have given the DC mayor the ability to call on the DC National Guard during an emergency — a power that the governors of all 50 states and U.S. territories have over their respective guard troops. Currently, the president controls DC’s National Guard.

The city’s vulnerability to federal folly has been evident in other ways, as well. Historically, Congress has included routine language in its spending bills that approves the Washington budget, about 75 percent of which is funded through local revenues. But the continuing resolution Congress passed last month cuts over a billion dollars from the DC budget, treating the district as just another federal agency rather than a municipal government responsible for 700,000 residents. While the Senate acknowledged its “mistake” and voted to restore the funding, the House has not, leaving Washington in limbo. Basic services like trash pickup, public transportation, and emergency first responders all are affected. 

Washington’s anemic home rule charter has also impeded its growth: it is not permitted to issue debt and lacks the power to impose any form of commuter tax on 300,000 commuters from Maryland and Virginia (most commuter cities have such a tax). It cannot even select its own judges — judges for Washington go through the same confirmation process as federal court jurists. And, since Washington is unrepresented in Congress and therefore has low priority in the congressional committee system, judicial seats remain open for long periods of time, slowing cases and hampering the orderly working of DC’s criminal justice system.

Washington, DC also does not benefit from the interposition between its local government and a governor. A state exerting the degree of control over a city that the federal government has over DC would be unthinkable. The state government, and in particular its governor, sits between the federal government and local governments. The relationship between the federal government and individual cities is indirect, mostly a function of grantmaking and incentive programs, not regulation and veto power. Each state is also represented in both houses of Congress. Local governments in the 50 states are therefore doubly insulated from federal overreach by the 10th Amendment protections their states enjoy, as well as through representation in Congress. Washington enjoys neither.

Washington, DC, like all other major cities in the nation, should be in control of local public safety and public services. Instead, threats to Washington, DC’s self-governance have only increased. In February, a bill was introduced in both houses of Congress to repeal DC’s home rule. This would eviscerate the city’s already-limited autonomy to craft policy that meets the needs of its residents. A vibrant Washington requires more robust home rule, not less.

Meryl Justin Chertoff is the executive director of the Georgetown Project on State and Local Government Policy and Law. She was also the managing editor of SLoG Law Blog.

Suggested Citation: Meryl Justin Chertoff, Washington, DC Needs Stronger ‘Home Rule’, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Apr. 11, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/washington-dc-needs-stronger-home-rule