Former Justice Department attorneys and national gun violence prevention organizations say a Trump administration lawsuit targeting D.C.’s ban on AR-15s and certain other weapons relies on an atypical and “dangerous” use of a federal civil rights statute.
D.C.’s code, since 2009, has banned most semiautomatic rifles and certain firearms, including AK-47s and AR-15s, from being registered with the police department, ultimately making possession of those weapons illegal.
The Justice Department, in a lawsuit filedin December, claims D.C.’s police department is “preventing possession of firearms protected under the Second Amendment” — which the agency says violates a section of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that bans any unconstitutional pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers.
D.C. recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On Friday, Brady United and Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of that request, along with more than a dozen former Justice Department civil rights division officials. Among those signing on are former associate attorney general Vanita Gupta and former assistant attorney general Kristen Clarke, who served in the Biden administration. Gupta also served in the Obama administration.
In the new brief, former attorneys who have enforced the pattern-or-practice statute say the Justice Department is misinterpreting the three-decade-old measure, which they believe could undermine public safety. They say the statute, passed in the wake of the 1991 police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, was meant to address police misconduct such as excessive force and discriminatory practices, as well as restore trust among communities harmed by systemic law enforcement failures.
Brady United chief legal officer Douglas Letter said the Trump administration is using the provision to challenge D.C. police for “merely enforcing a law passed by the representatives of the people,” and not a case of discriminatory or unconstitutional conduct.
“This lawsuit by the Trump Justice Department is just an extremely bizarre use of this statute,” Letter said in an interview. “Which was designed not to be used to attack statutes and laws, but instead to get at patterns and practices of misconduct by police officers and police departments.”
In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argues the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller found that the Second Amendment protects firearms “in common use today” and that are used for lawful purposes, including self-defense.
“Indeed, D.C’s current semiautomatic firearms prohibition that bans many commonly used pistols, rifles or shotguns is based on little more than cosmetics, appearance, or the ability to attach accessories,” the lawsuit claims.
The District called the suit an unprecedented “facial challenge” to a local criminal law, which they argue is not authorized under the pattern-or-practice statute.
Former Justice Department attorneys joined in the amicus brief because they want the statute to be “interpreted correctly,” they said in the court filing.
In the brief, the former DOJ attorneys detailed the history of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act provision cited in the lawsuit and its focus on institutional failures, the Justice Department’s past enforcement of the statute and what they say is the unique “departure” of the lawsuit against the District.
The filing said a survey of cases before 2025 and spanning four presidential administrations, found the civil rights division prioritized and devoted resources to cases that would “advance meaningful reforms at an institutional level.” The filing argued the current D.C. case can’t be traced to an institutional failure on the department’s part, such as management, oversight, training, or independent choices, that would lead to such reforms because under the city’s law, officers don’t have a choice in denying registration certificates.
The former DOJ attorneys also say the Trump administration’s lawsuit comes at a time when the Justice Department “has proudly announced” it is dismissing pattern-or-practice investigations into police departments, including in Louisville and Minneapolis, related to Biden-era findings of unconstitutional discriminatory policing and excessive force.
In appeals filed by the Trump administration in other cases, current civil rights division attorneys said that Attorney General Pam Bondi has told the Justice Department “to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”
George Lyon, a D.C. and Virginia attorney specializing in firearms law who has also challenged the District’s ban, said the federal government’s approach in this case is encouraging.
He said he believes D.C. “engages in a pattern and practice of violating citizens’ civil rights in banning commonly possessed firearms.” Lyon noted a string of losses by the city in attempts to ban or strictly regulate firearms, with judges citing Second Amendment protections.
He said in this case, the people suing needed standing, or be aggrieved, by the ban, and filing under the pattern and practice rules allows them to argue that District citizens are being harmed en masse.
“The use of pattern and practice is to protect civil rights,” said Lyon, who has several suits pending in D.C. courts challenging restrictions on firearms, but is not part of this particular lawsuit. The pattern and practice application, he said, “Is pretty well established. D.C. just doesn’t like how it’s being used here.”
The AR-15 has become a staple of American culture, The Washington Post has previously reported, and a weapon of choice for mass shooters.
“By redirecting federal resources to dismantle D.C.’s common-sense laws, the Trump administration is once again showing how it prioritizes gun industry profits over public safety,” Billy Clark, Giffords Law Center senior litigation attorney, said in a statement. Gupta, the former associate attorney general, now serves on the Giffords center’s board of directors.
The post Justice Dept. suit challenging D.C.’s ban on AR-15s alarms ex-DOJ attorneys appeared first on Washington Post.
