Legal History of Washington, D.C.

The City of Washington, D.C. occupies a unique legal position, as both the seat of government for the United States, and the home of more than 700,000 residents, who are subject to a distinctive set of laws and restrictions. Keep reading as we learn more about the legal history of Washington, D.C.

Establishing Washington, D.C.

Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no permanent designated capital city of the United States. Instead, whatever city was hosting the Congress of Confederation at the time served as the nation’s capital. Thus, between 1781 and 1789, Philadelphia, Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and New York City all served as the capital for stretches of time. This situation was less than ideal, and was addressed in the Constitution of 1787, which included a “District Clause,” empowering Congress to designate a “District (not exceeding ten Miles square)” to serve as the permanent capital of the United States. The district would have a unique legal status, as the only territory directly administered by Congress.

The legislatures of Maryland and Virginia both passed measures providing for land to be ceded to the federal government. The site was a compromise between Northern and Southern states. In exchange for locating the capital in the slaveholding South, Southern states agreed to have the federal government assume the war debts held by the states (a favored Northern cause). In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, designating land from Maryland and Virginia along the Potomac River as the future site of the permanent capital. The act also designated Philadelphia as the temporary capital of the nation, and set an ambitious deadline, requiring the new capital to be ready by 1800. The federal district was designated the “District of Columbia,” with the city within it designated as “Washington.”

Growing Pains in the District

The plan was for a grand, monumental city of noble buildings and stately parks. In reality, the ten-year timeline for construction proved to be a little too ambitious. When the federal government arrived in 1800, Washington consisted of the president’s residence, a partially-completed Capitol building, and little else. Residents of the District complained of inefficient governance and a lack of resources. Lamenting Congress’s preoccupation with national affairs and lack of attention to the day-to-day work of admistering the city, the jurist Augustus B. Woodward declared “No policy can be worse than to mingle great and small concerns.”

Congress, to a limited extent, agreed. In 1801, they passed the District of Columbia Organic Act, which provided for some local governance of the District. In 1802, a charter for the city of Washington was approved, which provided for a mayor appointed by the President, and a nine-member city council which was elected by white, male property owners residing in the city. Later, in 1820, the charter was revised to allow for popular election of the mayor. However, disaster struck the District in 1814, during the War of 1812, when British forces occupied and burned virtually the entire city to the ground. Rebuilding the city was a slow process, and frustrations mounted among residents. In 1846, residents of the Virginia-side of the Potomac, bemoaning poor public services and Congressional neglect, elected to return to the jurisdiction of Virginia as the City of Alexandria, thus substantially decreasing the geographical area of the District.

1814 watercolor depiction of United States Capitol Building, following the burning of Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812. Artist: George Munger. Image source: **Wikipedia**.

The city remained small and provincial up until the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861. The war brought a dramatic increase in the city’s population, with the expansion of the federal government and local military infrastructure. The war also brought about lasting changes in the culture and demographic composition of the District. In 1862, Congress passed a law emancipating all enslaved people in the District. This, combined with the District’s proximity to the revolting states of the Confederacy, made it an attractive destination for Black people fleeing slavery in the South. They established an enduring and vibrant community in Washington, D.C., which remains a center of Black American cultural life at present.

The dramatic expansion of the city’s population during the Civil War served to further highlight the inefficiences of governance and lackluster infrastructure in the District, which, more than 60 years after its founding, still lacked paved roads or sewers. This led to Congress passing the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which, for the first time, established a single unified municipal government for the District of Columbia. This resulted in significant improvements in the day-to-day administration of the increasingly urbanized District. However, three years later, Congress abolished the elected local government in favor of direct rule, resulting in District residents being deprived of any voting representatives in Congress, or substantial say in the governance of their own city. With the arrival of the twentieth century, this unique legal status would become the source of increasing discontent from the residents of Washington, D.C.

The Home Rule Era and Quest for Statehood

Between 1873 and 1974, Washington, D.C. was governed by three unelected commisioners appointed by the President of the United States. By the 1970s, the population of Washington, D.C. was more than 70% Black. With the arrival of the Civil Rights Era, activists in the District began to agitate for home rule as a matter of racial equity. In municipal governance, “home rule” refers to the principle that cities should be empowered to craft their own charters.

1961 saw residents of the District receive some increases in their political power, as the 23rd Amendment granted the District electoral votes for President. Thirteen years later, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act in 1973, bringing back a locally elected mayor, city council, and school board to Washington, D.C. for the first time in a century. However, the District still lacked voting representation in Congress, and lacked any guarantee that home rule would not simply be rescinded by another act of Congress at a future date.

In 1978, sympathetic members of Congress proposed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment on behalf of the District. The amendment proposed that the District “be treated as though it were a State,” with representation by two senators and congresspeople proportional to its population. The bill passed with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, and was passed on to the states for ratification. However, ratification by the states stalled and, by the time of the amendment’s self-imposed seven year deadline, only 16 of the 38 necessary states had ratified the amendment.

The failure of the Voting Rights Amendment led local activists to refocus their efforts on acheiving outright statehood. In 1980, Washington D.C. voters approved a measure to hold a constitutional convention, as the first step toward achieving statehood. The proposed constitution for a new state, to be called New Columbia, was approved by the constitutional convention in May 1982.

Preamble to the Constitution of proposed State of New Columbia.

The Constitution of New Columbia is a fascinating document, reflecting the distinctive political values and identity of Washington, D.C. It enshrines a number of progressive social measures such as affirmative action “to correct consequences of past discrimination” and state-funded public daycare, and includes a detailed street-by-street description of the boundaries of the state, and a plan for governance during the transitional period between federal district and statehood.

Since 1993, bills to grant statehood to Washington, D.C. have been introduced to Congress each year, but have failed to pass. Congress continues to review all legislation passed by the D.C. Council, and the President retains extraordinary powers over the judicial system of the District. Residents of the District were reminded of this most recently with the move by the Trump Administration to assume direct control over the D.C. police force and deploy federal troops on the streets of the District, despite protests from residents of the District, both in the courts and on the street.