By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday filed a sweeping civil rights lawsuit against the District of Columbia, accusing city officials of violating the Second Amendment by continuing to ban common semiautomatic firearms more than 17 years after the Supreme Court ruled such prohibitions unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court under the Trump administration, names the District’s Metropolitan Police Department and outgoing Police Chief Pamela Smith as defendants. At its core, the complaint argues that D.C.’s firearm registration system operates as a de facto ban on many rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are widely owned and lawfully used across the country.
DOJ: D.C. Is Still Evading Heller
According to the Justice Department, District law prohibits residents from registering — and therefore possessing — large categories of semiautomatic firearms, including popular AR-15–style rifles such as the Colt AR-15 series. The bans are triggered not by criminal misuse, but by cosmetic features like pistol grips, detachable magazines, or barrel shrouds.
The DOJ argues this approach directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.
“The United States of America brings this lawsuit to protect the rights that have been guaranteed for 234 years and which the Supreme Court has explicitly reaffirmed several times over the last two decades,” the complaint states.
Because all firearms in D.C. must be registered with MPD, the DOJ says the city’s refusal to register entire classes of common firearms effectively criminalizes possession by law-abiding citizens, exposing them to jail time and fines simply for exercising a constitutional right.
A Rare Federal Intervention
Unlike Heller, which was brought by an individual plaintiff, this case marks a rare moment where the federal government itself is suing a local jurisdiction for a “pattern or practice” of civil rights violations. The lawsuit was filed under authority granted by a 1994 federal crime law and handled by the DOJ’s newly created Second Amendment Section within the Civil Rights Division.
Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the case as a matter of equal constitutional treatment.
“Washington, D.C.’s ban on some of America’s most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment,” Bondi said in a statement. “Living in our nation’s capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon added that the lawsuit reflects a renewed commitment to enforcing rights recognized in Heller — rights the DOJ argues the District has resisted for nearly two decades.
What the DOJ Is Asking the Court to Do
The Justice Department is seeking declaratory judgments that D.C.’s bans are unconstitutional, along with permanent injunctions blocking enforcement. If successful, the court would require the District to allow registration of firearms protected under the Second Amendment and prevent arrests or penalties for possession of those arms.
The case could force D.C. to register thousands of firearms that are currently prohibited under local law.
Broader Political and Legal Context
The lawsuit comes amid broader tensions between the District and the Trump administration over crime, policing, and federal authority in the capital. It is also the second Second Amendment–related lawsuit the DOJ has filed this month, following similar action against the U.S. Virgin Islands over restrictive gun permitting practices.
While mainstream coverage has focused largely on public-safety concerns and D.C.’s high crime rates, the DOJ’s filing emphasizes a different narrative: that local officials have spent years skirting Supreme Court precedent by replacing outright bans with administrative barriers.
Supporters of the lawsuit argue that D.C. has treated constitutional compliance as optional, maintaining some of the strictest gun laws in the nation while nominally claiming to follow Heller. Gun-control advocates, by contrast, are expected to argue that loosening firearm restrictions could worsen violence in an already troubled city.
What Happens Next
As of publication, neither MPD nor the D.C. Attorney General’s office had offered substantive comment, citing pending litigation. The case is in its early stages but is widely expected to draw national attention and could eventually reach higher courts, especially given recent Supreme Court rulings expanding Second Amendment protections.
If the DOJ prevails, the case could reshape not only D.C.’s gun laws but also strengthen legal challenges to similar “assault weapon” bans across the country — reinforcing that constitutional rights do not stop at city limits, even in the nation’s capital.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.