District of Columbia v. Trump: A Hearing Diary
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
On Friday, Aug. 15, Judge Ana Reyes held a temporary restraining order hearing in District of Columbia v. Donald J. Trump. The suit concerns the Trump administration’s effort to take control of the city’s police department by installing an “emergency police commissioner” and by rescinding policies that restrict local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
During the hearing, Judge Reyes heard argument on several aspects of an order that was issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi on Aug. 14. The judge initially indicated that she was inclined to partially block Bondi’s order. Following a brief recess, however, the parties said that they were working to re-write three sections of the order that purport to revoke local policies that apply to the Metropolitan Police Department. They asked the judge to withhold ruling on those sections until next week.
The Justice Department’s attorney, Yaakov Roth, also indicated that the government would re-write Section 1 of the order, which purports to put a federal official, Terence Cole, in charge of the local police force. Judge Reyes said that she would issue a temporary restraining order barring that section if the parties could not reach an agreement by 6:30 p.m. ET.
Shortly after the judge’s deadline, the Justice Department informed the court that Bondi issued a new order and rescinded her previous one.
At the time of this writing, a temporary restraining order has not been issued.
Lawfare’s Anna Bower covered the hearing as it happened. Read it by clicking the button below or view the thread on Bluesky.
Liveblog
HAPPENING NOW: Temporary restraining order hearing in DC v. Trump, a suit filed this morning over Trump's effort to takeover the DC police. Judge Ana Reyes just took the bench. I'm listening in for @lawfaremedia.org Follow along ⬇️
Judge Reyes starts off by explaining why we're here. At the outset, she says she WON'T rule on Trump's determination that there's an "emergency" under section 740 of the Home Rule Act. She also won't address the "federal purpose" issue. Wants to focus on AG Bondi's order.
Here's Bondi's order. Judge Reyes starts by saying that the AG orders the Mayor and the DC police department to do things directly and provides that Commissioner Cole shall have authority of the Chief of Police.
Judge Reyes observes that nothing in the Home Rule statute give Bondi power to give direct orders to MPD...
Before turning it over to the parties, Judge Reyes says: Can we all agree that I'm fortunate enough to be the first person to rule on that section of the Home Rule Act? Huzzah!
Counsel for DOJ is up to respond to her initial observations. He says the President can request services from MPD, from the mayor. He has done that by delegating to the Attorney General...
DOJ continues: The Attorney General has in turn acted on that by directing the mayor to have the MPD essentially answer to requests made by administrators (i.e., Terrence Cole, noted in Bondi's order)...AG's order makes clear the chief of police is still the chief police Reyes: Where's it say that?
DOJ essentially argues that Bondi giving title of "emergency police commissioner" to Terrence Cole is just "semantics." He's trying to argue that Cole is just a federal liaison to the police department.
Judge Reyes: But "ou can't just take control of the entire police department...." You can't just say I want you to be up at Chevy Chase and I want you guys to look around for anyone with open alcohol containers and arrest them...Those are local law enforcement issues, right?
Judge Reyes: I mean, it can't be that you have a federal purpose of making sure, oh, I don't know, the capital is safe, ...but then I can send police out to see if there are people drinking with open alcohol containers?
DOJ: If administrator Cole told the chief of police, look, I need a lot of people in Dupont Circle right now to address open alcohol. Yeah, I think he is entitled to do that under the statute and under the order. And I don't see a problem with that.
Judge Reyes: To me it's not a semantic issue. It's an issue about what exactly it is that the federal liaison (Cole) is doing and who's actually in control of the police department.
Judge Reyes: The President, in the case of a national emergency, he has the power to ask for specific services related to the federal purpose of the emergency. But he can't, I don't think, say "I just need the entire MPD to do whatever I want" and "to listen to whoever I say"
DOJ: Statute is broad and not really subject to judicial review...the purpose of the AG memo is to further operationalize the implementation of [Trump's] executive order https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/restoring-law-and-order-in-the-district-of-columbia/
Judge Reyes: I mean, why can't the executive order just actually track the language of the statute, which is to say the President is requesting of the mayor the services of the MPD to help with X, Y and Z, and Mr. Cole is going to be the liaison.
Judge Reyes: Why is it that MPD can't go out and fight street crime [without permission from feds], or that they need Mr. Cole's permission to determine how you know where to whether to send people?
Judge Reyes: Are you saying if I was the chief of police and I wanted to issue directive that everyone wear dress blues on Tuesday, I wouldn't be able to do that unless I go through Mr. Cole? I mean, that's, this is incredibly broad DOJ: They haven't identified anything like that happening
Judge Reyes: You're making the argument that the President can basically run the entire police department based on language that doesn't even allow the President to talk to the police department. He has to go through the mayor. He has to issue the order through the mayor of DC.
DOJ: In the context of an emergency application, they do have a burden of showing that this poses a real problem. Because what is the order they want to give that they can't [bc of the AG's order]? Is it wearing dress blues? What are we talking about here, and why does it need to be addressed today?
DOJ: We want this to be successful over the 30 day period. It's not a long time. We want to work with DC police/leadership in a way that doesn't create confusion and delay. And we were doing that until this suit was filed...
Judge Reyes: Every wants this to be successful but my job is to make sure it's within constitutional and statutory bounds....By the way, did you just get this today? DOJ: Yes Reyes: Nice job.. I wonder if some of this is just cleaning up the language [in the federal orders]
Now counsel is up to argue on behalf of DC. He begins: The statute says, clear as day, that the President shall ask the mayor. What I took my friends to suggest is he thinks the president can ask of the mayor to tell everyone to listen to me. If that's right...hard to know where to begin
DC: Having the mayor in the middle of the statute would be completely negated. The statute would have a self destruct button because they could say, from day one, that the president can cut the mayor out of it.
DC: Another problem is that it allows the president to make the effective appointment of the police chief. And the Home Rule act clearly gives that power to the mayor. Nothing in the statute refers to appointments....
DC: The notion that any time the district and the federal government disagree about the manner of policing, the federal government has a tool in its back pocket that says "Home Rule is over" as it relates to the police department...that is clearly not authorized by the statute
Reyes: If the President called the mayor and said, "I need the services of the MPD to help ICE"...I don't think that she could say no....Would that be appropriate? DC: I think that still is directing the mayor to provide a district-wide policy
DC: It would ask the mayor to provide services in a manner that violates DC law....This is not a federal preemption provision...I see nothing in this statute that involves having some ability to override commands [of DC law]
Counsel for DC mentions other provisions of the Home Rule act, says they support idea that Congress didn't intend to give power to the president to compel DC to adopt new policies or revoke policies that the federal government doesn't like
Counsel for DC says Bondi order is subject to arbitrary and capricious review under the APA. Reyes isn't sure. DC says president delegated power to her (head of an agency, DOJ) and she took final agency action so it is subject to that review.
Reyes is back to her assist ICE hypo. Reyes: What you're saying is that you're not going to answer the question of whether or not, if the President says, "I'm asking mayor for help from the police department to assist ICE", that is something he can do?
In response, DC takes position that president can't direct the provision of services that otherwise violate or are inconsistent with DC law. Reyes wonder if that negates Section 740 altogether by allowing DC council to get around it by passing laws saying MPD can't assist the President
Reyes: What relief do you want me to do? I don't think I can say the full order violates the statute. I don't think statute is as narrow as you think or as broad as DOJ thinks.
DC: I think you should enjoin in two buckets. One is installation of AG's hand picked person as chief of police to operate direct control over MPD. That's flagrantly unlawful. Should be enjoined from doing that.
DC: Second bucket is to enjoin the orders in the memo...those are directed directly to the MPD. Reyes: Well, it does say in intro that she's order mayor to implement the orders....I want to get to practical solution. I agree 2, 3, and 4 may be contrary to statute but answer isn't to say start over
Reyes: We've been going for an hour and I want to give court reporter a 15 minutes break. During recess, I want counsel to try to work something out for sections 2, 3, and 4... She warns DOJ that if they don't work something out and she enters a TRO that is then violated, that's contempt of court.
Update: We're still waiting! In the meantime: If you appreciate our @lawfaremedia.org live coverage of court proceedings, I hope you'll consider supporting our non-profit newsroom. Thanks to all who already have! ❤️🥹 www.givebutter.com/journalism
ALSO: My @lawfaremedia.org colleagues will discuss this case (and other legal happenings) during our live show at 4 pm ET. With special guest @chrismirasola.bsky.social! I'll likely join the show later on, depending on when this hearing is over
We're still waiting. Perhaps DOJ and DC are still trying to work something out with respect to sections 2, 3, and 4 of Bondi's order. Not sure. Those sections of the AG's memo purport to rescind certain local orders/policies that apply to the DC police.
I'll also note that Judge Reyes made it clear at the beginning of the hearing that she's going to have the parties back in court next week to deal with some issues she thinks she'll need to hold an evidentiary hearing on. So whatever she does today isn't necessarily the end of the matter.We're back! Judge Reyes: Alright, how am I spending my evening? Counsel for DC says that they've had productive discussions, want to continue discussions as to 2, 3, and 4. Want court to hold in abeyance (not rule yet) as to those sections. Still think section 1 unlawful, want to be heard on 5
Reyes says she'd be happy to hear argument on Sectio 5 but she doesn't see how she can enjoin that section, essentially tells police to follow existing DC law
Reyes: Ok, here's what we do. I think Section 1 of the order is plainly contrary to statute. But don't want to issue order if I don't have to. And now DOJ says that they are working on re-writing Section 1. So, if I don't hear from anyone by 6:30, I'm going to enter a TRO enjoining Section 1..
But Reyes won't issue TRO as to that section if new order comes out...
Counsel for DC says they will want to renew motion if it comes out and still not lawful.
Reyes says she'll give them phone numbers for her new clerks (who are being sworn in tonight).
She invites counsel to stick around for swearing in of her new clerks. Otherwise, Judge Reyes says, we're adjourned. Thanks for hanging in there, everyone! Happy Friday. And if you appreciate threads like this one, I hope you'll consider supporting our work: www.givebutter.com/journalism
