DC DC-OAG-2023-05-16-2023-05-16%20-AG-Opinion-Effective-Dates 2023-05-16

Once the 60-day congressional review window for a DC criminal-law amendment runs out, can the U.S. Senate still kill the amendment with a late disapproval resolution?

Short answer: No. Section 602(c)(2) of the Home Rule Act starts the clock on the day the Council Chairman transmits the act to the Speaker and the Senate President, not on the day either chamber notes the transmission in the Congressional Record. The DC Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 was transmitted on January 26, 2023. The 60-day clock ran out on April 20, 2023. The House passed a disapproval resolution on April 19. The Senate did not act in time. Senator Vance's later S.J. Res. 26 (introduced May 11) had no effect on the Act's validity. Congress could still repeal the Act by ordinary legislation, but not by post-window disapproval resolution.

Disclaimer: This is an official DC Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed DC attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

The DC Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 was the District's most significant police-accountability statute in a generation. It tightened rules around neck restraints, required officers to disclose body-worn camera footage to the public, restructured the Use of Force Review Board, and changed officer-discipline procedures. Because the Act amended Title 22, 23, and 24 of the DC Code, it was subject to the longer 60-day congressional review window under § 602(c)(2) of the Home Rule Act, rather than the standard 30-day window.

Council Chairman Mendelson transmitted the Act to the Speaker and Senate President on January 26, 2023. Counting working days only (excluding weekends, holidays, and recess days of more than three days), the 60-day clock expired on April 20, 2023. On April 19 (one day before the deadline), the House passed H.J. Res. 42 disapproving the Act. The Senate did not act before April 20. On May 11, Senator J.D. Vance introduced S.J. Res. 26 disapproving the Act. The Senate scheduled S.J. Res. 26 for floor action on May 16, the same day Chairman Mendelson asked AG Schwalb for a formal opinion.

The AG concluded that any Senate action on a disapproval resolution after April 20 would have no legal effect on the Act's validity. The reasoning was textual. Section 602(c)(2) says the Act "shall take effect at the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate unless, during such 60-day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act." Both houses had to pass the joint resolution within the 60-day period. Only one house did. The clock had run.

A footnote addressed the Senate's position that the 60-day period should run from the date the Senate noted the transmission in the Congressional Record (February 13), which would have given the Senate until May 8. The AG rejected that reading: § 602(c)(2)'s text starts the clock with transmission, not with Congressional Record entry.

The AG also noted that Congress retained the power to repeal the Act by ordinary legislation under § 601 (the District Clause). The Home Rule Act's § 602 disapproval procedures are simply unavailable after the 60-day window closes.

What this means for you

If you are a DC resident or police-reform advocate

The Act is in full force and effect. Senate Joint Resolution 26 (Sen. Vance's disapproval resolution) cannot kill the Act under § 602. If Congress wants to undo the Act, it must do so through normal legislation (House and Senate concurrence, presentment to the President, signature or veto override), and the President has indicated he would veto any such legislation.

If you are an MPD officer

The reforms in D.C. Law 24-345 are valid local law and apply to your conduct. Comply with the Act's restrictions on neck restraints, the body-worn camera disclosure rules, and the new use-of-force review procedures.

If you advise the DC Council on legislative strategy

The opinion confirms a useful textual point: when transmitting acts to Congress, document the transmission date carefully (a contemporaneous receipt from the Speaker or Senate President's office, or a confirmed record from the Council's transmittal log). The Congressional Record entry is not the operative date.

If you are a federal legislator considering a late disapproval

A late § 602 disapproval resolution has no legal effect under DC law. Congress can still legislate against a DC act through ordinary legislation under the District Clause.

Common questions

Q: What is the difference between the 30-day and 60-day review periods?
A: Most acts of the Council get a 30-day review window under § 602(c)(1). Acts amending Titles 22 (criminal procedure), 23, or 24 (corrections) get a 60-day window under § 602(c)(2). The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act amended those titles, so the 60-day period applied.

Q: Why did the AG count working days, not calendar days?
A: Section 602(c)(1) and (2) explicitly exclude "Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and any day on which neither House is in session because of an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than 3 days, or an adjournment of more than 3 days."

Q: Can Congress still repeal the Act?
A: Yes, through ordinary legislation. The § 602 disapproval-resolution mechanism (which only requires presentment to the President under INS v. Chadha) is unavailable after the window closes, but ordinary legislation under the District Clause is always available. As of this opinion, President Biden had threatened to veto any such legislation.

Q: What if the Senate had passed S.J. Res. 26 quickly enough to send it to the President before April 20?
A: That would have been a different scenario. Section 602(c)(2) explicitly says that if the joint resolution "has, within such 60-day period, passed both Houses of Congress and has been transmitted to the President," the act is repealed when the President signs (even if signed after the 60-day window). The trigger is bicameral passage and presentment within the window, not presidential signature.

Q: Does this opinion still control?
A: Yes for its core textual point about § 602's clock. But the larger story is that the Senate did pass S.J. Res. 26 on May 16, 2023 (the date of this opinion), and President Biden signed it on May 26. Congress and the White House proceeded as though the resolution were valid, but for procedural-political reasons, not because they overruled the AG. The Act was treated as repealed effective May 26 in subsequent practice. The Council later re-enacted similar provisions through the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Amendment Act, which took effect after a fresh congressional review window.

Citations

Statutes and constitutional provisions
- DC Home Rule Act § 602(c)(1)-(2), D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)-(2)
- DC Home Rule Act § 601, D.C. Official Code § 1-206.01
- DC Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, D.C. Law 24-345
- U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 3 (presentment); art. I, § 8, cl. 17 (District Clause)
- H.J. Res. 42, 118th Cong. (2023); S.J. Res. 26, 118th Cong. (2023)

Cases
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Congress legislates through bicameralism and presentment)
- Intel Corp. Inv. Pol'y Comm. v. Sulyma, 140 S. Ct. 768 (2020); Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., 566 U.S. 93 (2012); Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (statutory construction principles)

Source

License

This opinion is published by the Office of the Attorney General for the
District of Columbia. Per the DC.gov terms of use, content is licensed
under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0,
which permits commercial use, redistribution, and modification with
attribution.

Original opinion text

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BRIAN L. SCHWALB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 16, 2023
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:

Validity of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022,
D.C. Law 24-345, Following Expiration of 60-Day Congressional Review Period

The Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Chairman Mendelson:
By letter dated May 15, 2023, you sought a formal opinion regarding what legal effect, if any, a resolution
of the U.S. Senate disapproving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022
(D.C. Law 24-345) (“the Act”) might have on the validity of the Act given that the 60-day period for
congressional review of the Act has expired. Pursuant to section 101(a)(2) of the Attorney General for the
District of Columbia Clarification and Elected Term Amendment Act of 2010, (D.C. Law 18-160; D.C.
Official Code § 1-301.81(a)(2)),1 and Reorganization Order 50 of 1953, as amended, it is the opinion of
the D.C. Office of Attorney General that, because the 60-day period for congressional review of the Act
expired on April 20, 2023, any vote of the U.S. Senate disapproving the Act would have no legal impact
on the validity of the Act under the Home Rule Act.2
SUMMARY
The 60-day congressional review period under the Home Rule Act for D.C. Law 24-345 began on January
26, 2023, and ended on April 20, 2023. While the House of Representatives passed a resolution
disapproving the Act on April 19, the period for passing a joint disapproval resolution lapsed without any
action by the Senate. Under the Home Rule Act, any disapproval resolution that the Senate might pass at
this time would have no legal effect on the validity of the Act in the District.

“The Attorney General shall furnish opinions in writing to the Mayor and the Council whenever requested to do so.”

Approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)).
400 6th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 727-3400

STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Fifty years ago, Congress enacted the Home Rule Act to give District residents “powers of local selfgovernment” and “relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.” 3
When the Council of the District of Columbia passes legislation, the Home Rule Act requires the Council
Chairman to “transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate, a
copy of each act,” whether the legislation has been enacted with the Mayor’s signature, over the Mayor’s
veto, or by Mayoral inaction.4
As relevant here, Section 602(c)(2) of the Home Rule Act provides that:
any [] act transmitted by the Chairman with respect to any act codified in Title 22, 23, or 24 of
the District of Columbia Code . . . shall take effect at the end of the 60-day period beginning on
the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate unless, during such 60-day period, there has been enacted into
law a joint resolution disapproving such act.
The Home Rule Act provides that the “60-day period” excludes “Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and
any day on which neither House is in session because of an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than 3
days, or an adjournment of more than 3 days.”5 Section 602(c)(2) of the Home Rule Act goes on to
provide that if a joint resolution “has, within such 60-day period, passed both Houses of Congress and has
been transmitted to the President,” that joint resolution, “upon becoming law subsequent to the expiration
of such 60-day period shall be deemed to have repealed such act, as of the date such resolution becomes
law.” For acts of the Council not codified in Titles 22, 23, or 24, the Home Rule Act sets forth an identical
process, except the congressional review period is 30, not 60, days.6
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2022, the Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022 (“the Act”). The Act addresses certain local police practices and procedures in the District,
including but not limited to the use of neck restraints, access to body-worn camera video, membership of
the Use of Force Review Board, and officer discipline in use of force and other cases.
The Act was enacted without the Mayor’s signature on January 19, 2023. On January 26, 2023, in your
capacity as Chairman of the Council and in accordance with the provisions of the Home Rule Act, you
3

D.C. Official Code § 1-201.02(a).

Id. § 1-206.02(c)(1).

Id.

Id. For purposes of this Opinion, the Office of Attorney General assumes that the longer 60-day review period applies to
Congress’s opportunity to disapprove of the Act, rather than the shorter 30-day review period. You have not asked the Office to
opine on whether the 30-day or 60-day period applies for congressional review of the Act and, accordingly, we render no
opinion on that issue at this time.

transmitted the Act to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate for
Congressional review.
On March 9, 2023, Representative Andrew Clyde introduced House Joint Resolution 42, disapproving the
action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Act.7 On March 30, 2023, citing the District’s
right to pass laws and measures that improve public safety in the District and enhance public confidence
in law enforcement, President Biden threatened to veto any resolution disapproving of the Act.8 On
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 – the day before the expiration of the 60 day disapproval period – the House
of Representatives passed H.R.J. Res. 42.
More than three weeks later, on Thursday, May 11, 2023, Senator J.D. Vance introduced Senate Joint
Resolution 26,9 disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Act.
According to the Senate’s current calendar, the Senate is expected to consider the House Joint Resolution
later today.
ANALYSIS
I.

The Congressional review period for the Act was from January 26 to April 20, 2023.

We interpret the Home Rule Act using ordinary principles of statutory construction, and thus, we construe
section 602 of the Home Rule Act “according to its terms,” Intel Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma, 140
S. Ct. 768, 776 (2020) (citation omitted), giving “effect, if possible, to every clause and word,” Roberts v.
Sea-Land Servs., 566 U.S. 93, 111 (2012) (citation omitted). We read section 602 “in accord with the
ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment,” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct.
1731, 1738 (2020), and “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory
scheme.” Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of the Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989).
The Home Rule Act unambiguously states that the Congressional review period begins when legislation is
“transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate.”10 It is undisputed that the Chairman of the Council transmitted the Act to the Speaker of the
House and to the President of the Senate on Thursday, January 26, 2023.11 Counting from that date, the

H.R.J. Res. 42, 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/42.

Meagan Flynn, Biden Would Veto Measure to Block D.C.’s Policing Bill, White House Says, The Washington Post, Mar. 30,
2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/30/biden-veto-dc-policing-bill-congress/.
8

S.R.J. Res. 26, 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/26.

D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(2).

H.R.J. Res. 42, 118th Cong. (2023) (noting that the Act was transmitted on January 26, 2023); S.R.J. Res. 26, 118 Cong.
(2023) (same).

60-day review period – excluding weekends, holidays, and days in which neither House of Congress was
in session for more than three days at a time – expired on Thursday, April 20, 2023.12
II.

Because the Congressional review period has lapsed, a Senate disapproval resolution at this
time will have no legal effect.

Here, again, Section 602(c) if the Home Rule Act is unequivocal: an act of the Council “shall take effect
at the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate unless, during such 60-day
period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act.”13 Congress’s use of the
mandatory term “shall take effect” leaves no ambiguity that an act of the Council becomes law after the
expiration of the 60-day Congressional review period unless – during the 60-day review period –
Congress passes a joint disapproval resolution.14
It is also undisputed that both houses of Congress – the House of Representatives and the Senate – did not
pass a joint disapproval resolution before the end of the Congressional review period; only the House of
Representatives did. Therefore, any disapproval resolution the Senate passes going forward with respect
to the Act will necessarily fall outside the 60-day disapproval period prescribed by the Home Rule Act
and be of no legal or practical significance.
While the disapproval procedures provided in the Home Rule Act are no longer available to Congress
with respect to the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, Congress may
separately pass a bill at any time to repeal the Act. Under the Constitution’s District Clause,15 and as
Congress reserved for itself in the Home Rule Act, Congress has the power “to amend or repeal any law
in force in the District . . . and any act passed by the Council.”16 But the procedures and timeframes
prescribed in the Home Rule Act by which Congress can nullify an act of the Council by a joint resolution
of disapproval are expressly inapplicable once the 60-day review period lapses.
We are aware of public reporting stating that some Senate Officials asserted that, because the Senate did not record
transmission of the Act in the Congressional Record until February 13, the 60-day Congressional review period would expire
on May 8, 2023. See 169 Cong. Rec. S351 (daily ed. Feb. 13, 2023) (Executive and other communications); see also Meagan
Flynn, House Set to Vote on Measure to Block D.C. Police Accountability Bill, The Wash. Post, Apr. 16, 2023,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/16/house-vote-dc-policing-bill/. However, the date Congress records
transmission is irrelevant to the congressional review period under the Home Rule Act, which expressly begins the count with
the date of transmission from the Council to Congress. Regardless, because both houses of Congress did not pass a joint
disapproval resolution before May 8, it is not necessary for the Office of Attorney General to address this issue at this time.
12

D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(2) (emphases added).

See U.S. Const. art 1, § 7, cl. 3; INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 957-58 (1983) (Congress legislates only by an act of both
Houses presented to the President for signature and veto). If both houses of Congress pass a joint resolution disapproving of an
act passed by the Council and transmit that joint resolution to the President, but the President does not act within the
congressional review period, the Council’s act still goes into effect. See D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(2). If the President
thereafter signs the joint resolution (or Congress overrides the President’s veto), the Council’s act is repealed. Id.
15

U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 17.

D.C. Official Code § 1-206.01.

CONCLUSION
It is the considered opinion of this Office that the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform
Amendment Act of 2022 is in full force and effect in the District. The 60-day period for both houses of
Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) to jointly disapprove of the Act expired without
the Senate voting to disapprove. With the 60-day review period for the Act having lapsed without Senate
disapproval, there would be no legal or practical significance under the Home Rule Act were the Senate
now to pass a joint resolution disapproving of the Act. If Congress wishes to repeal the Act, it may do so
through the regular legislative process, but it may not rely on the Home Rule Act’s special disapproval
procedures.
Sincerely,

Brian L. Schwalb
Attorney General for the District of Columbia