The House on Tuesday approved two Republican-backed bills that would overhaul how youth who commit crimes are prosecuted in the District of Columbia, moving to lower the age at which offenders can be treated as adults and to impose adult-equivalent sentencing requirements that would supersede local D.C. policy.
The first measure, called the DC Crimes Act, passed 240-179 with 30 Democrats joining Republicans. It would reduce the age of a youth offender in the federal district from 24 to 18 and require that criminal sentences be at least as long as adults’ mandatory minimums. It also would require the D.C. attorney general to post public statistics on youth criminal acts. The D.C. Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act cleared the House 225-203, with eight Democrats supporting the bill; one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, opposed both measures and was the lone Republican to vote against them.
Supporters framed the bills as a response to rising violent crime in the capital and said Congress has the constitutional authority to act because the District is not a state. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer said on the floor that the stricter guidelines would target “serious crimes, including murder,” and noted that D.C.'s current definition of a juvenile, he said, is “seven years higher” than in other cities.
Opponents—both D.C. officials and Democrats in Congress—responded that the measures usurp local self-governance established under the Home Rule Act of 1973 and encroach on criminal justice policymaking that has been studied by local experts. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat, said the actions amount to an expansion of federal power and warned they could be a precursor to similar incursions in other cities. Darby Hickey, senior policy counsel with DC Justice Lab, called Congress' intervention “fundamentally against American values” because it undermines the principle that residents elect local representatives to make laws.
Other D.C. advocates also criticized related Republican proposals to reshape local institutions, pointing to a plan to eliminate the Judicial Nomination Commission and replace its bipartisan membership with presidential appointees. Misty Thomas Zaleski, executive director of the Council for Court Excellence, said the commission has worked successfully in a bipartisan fashion for 50 years and argued that Congress is not the expert on “multifaceted problems that exist in the district.”
The debate over these bills comes as the district’s autonomy has been tested by a federal law enforcement and national guard presence in Washington. Thousands of National Guard troops and federal officers have patrolled the city following an emergency order issued by President Donald Trump that has since lapsed. The city filed a lawsuit challenging the intervention. Late Tuesday, the administration filed a response asking a court to deny a temporary injunction sought by the district and to dismiss the case in part on the grounds that the mayor had acknowledged the success of the measures. Twenty-three states filed briefs supporting the administration in the litigation, while 22 states backed the district.
Passage in the House does not guarantee the bills will become law. Senate consideration is uncertain and would likely require some Democratic votes to advance. D.C.'s shadow senator, Ankit Jain, said local leaders will press Senate Democrats to oppose the legislation and warn that targeting the district could be a model for challenging laws in other Democratic-run cities.
There are also budgetary tensions between Congress and the District. Earlier this year the House cut $1.1 billion from D.C.'s budget, prompting Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to call for restoration of the funds and to say the money “never should have been ripped away.” The House is expected to take up two more D.C.-related criminal justice bills on Wednesday.
Civil liberties and criminal justice groups urged caution about federal intervention in local policymaking and called for further study of juvenile justice practices. Proponents argued that the changes are necessary to hold serious offenders accountable. With the measures now heading to the Senate and legal challenges proceeding over federal actions in the city, Washington's governance and the balance between local control and congressional authority remain at the center of a contentious national debate.