The Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act amends title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code to revise references to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, it replaces outdated phrases in three court-related provisions with the term persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
The changes apply to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, the DC Superior Court, and the DC Family Court. The bill is a targeted linguistic update, not a reform of court powers or procedures, and does not alter the underlying authorities of the courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
Strikes outdated phrases in three DC Official Code sections and inserts the term persons with moderate intellectual disabilities in place of earlier wording.
Who It Affects
The jurisdictions of the US District Court for DC, the DC Superior Court, and the DC Family Court, as well as litigants and counsel who interact with those courts.
Why It Matters
Promotes inclusive, non-stigmatizing language in law and aligns DC statutory references with contemporary disability-advocacy norms, improving clarity for practitioners and the public.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act focuses on language, not policy. It amends three provisions of title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code to replace references to individuals with intellectual disabilities that previously used stigmatizing terms.
The changes occur in the sections governing three courts: the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the DC Superior Court, and the DC Family Court. In each instance, the old phrasing is replaced with the neutral and contemporary descriptor persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.
The intention is to eliminate terms that are outdated or stigmatizing while preserving the legal function of the statutes. Because the change is linguistic, there is no stated impact on court powers, procedures, or jurisdictional authority, nor on the substantive standards that apply in these courts.
The bill therefore updates statutory language to reflect modern norms without altering how the courts operate or whom they serve.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill updates three references in the DC Official Code to use the term persons with moderate intellectual disabilities, Section 11-501(2)(D) changes US District Court jurisdiction language, Section 11-921(a)(4)(D) changes DC Superior Court language, Section 11-1101(a)(15) changes DC Family Court language, The changes are linguistic and do not modify court authorities or procedures
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
US District Court language update
This provision replaces the term originally used to describe certain individuals with the new formulation persons with moderate intellectual disabilities. The update ensures that references in the US District Court jurisdiction reflect contemporary disability terminology, reducing potential stigma in judicial references and filings. The change is narrow in scope, affecting only how a descriptor is used in this subsection without altering the court’s power or how cases are adjudicated.
DC Superior Court language update
In this subsection, the phrase previously used to refer to a particular group is replaced with persons with moderate intellectual disabilities. The update brings the Superior Court’s language into alignment with current disability-rights terminology, aiming to reduce stigma in courtroom documents and orders while preserving existing interplays of jurisdiction and procedure.
Family Court language update
This amendment substitutes the older descriptor with persons with moderate intellectual disabilities within the Family Court context. The change standardizes language across DC family law provisions and supports more respectful, inclusive terminology in petitions, orders, and related materials, again without altering the function or reach of family adjudication.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Litigants with intellectual disabilities in DC courts, who will be referenced with non-stigmatizing language in filings and orders, potentially improving their experience and perceived fairness in proceedings.
- Disability rights organizations and advocates in DC, who gain a standardized, respectful terminology baseline across major courts.
- Court practitioners and counsel who work with these provisions, who benefit from clearer, more consistent language when drafting filings and interpreting statutes.
- Judiciary staff and clerks, who gain uniform terminology to apply across documents and systems.
Who Bears the Cost
- Court clerks and administrative staff who may need to update templates, forms, and internal references to reflect the new terminology.
- Judicial education and policy staff may incur time updating guidance, training materials, and internal manuals to ensure consistent usage.
- Publishers, database maintainers, and legal information vendors may need to revise public-facing materials and codified references.
- Legislative staff may expend additional time coordinating cross-reference updates across related DC codes to maintain uniform terminology.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing linguistic modernization with the risk of partial or uneven adoption across the DC Official Code and court materials, while preserving the integrity of existing statutory references and case law.
The act is a targeted, linguistic update with three parallel changes. While it improves terminology across three DC code sections, it raises questions about consistency beyond these provisions.
Other parts of DC law may still employ older descriptors for disability-related terms, and there is no explicit transitional guidance within the bill for broader harmonization. Implementation will therefore depend on internal guidance and downstream updating of statutory materials and court forms.
A practical tension is ensuring uniform adoption across all court-related documents and databases and avoiding mismatches where other statutes still reference older language. The bill does not address definitional scope or broader policy implications of disability terminology, leaving interpretation to standard legal practice and court rulemaking.
As a result, stakeholders will watch for follow-on guidance or supplementary amendments that tackle broader codification consistency and definitional clarity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.