H.J. Res. 115 is a single-section joint resolution that declares, pursuant to section 740(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, that the emergency the President declared on August 11, 2025 in the Executive Order titled “Declaring a crime emergency in the District of Columbia” is terminated.
The text is narrow: it does not create new authorities or funding, it simply rescinds the specified emergency determination.
The resolution matters because it uses a statutory mechanism Congress reserved for itself to reverse an emergency declaration affecting D.C. governance. Practically, the measure aims to block the Executive Order’s asserted use of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes and to frame the federal withholding of locally raised D.C. revenues as part of the rationale for termination — facts the resolution advances but does not enforce beyond ending the emergency.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adopts a congressional termination of the President’s August 11, 2025 crime-emergency declaration by invoking section 740(b) of the D.C. Home Rule Act (codified at sec. 1–207.40(b), D.C. Official Code). Its operative language is a single clause: the emergency “is hereby terminated.”
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the District of Columbia government (Mayor and Council), the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), federal agencies that relied on the Executive Order’s emergency authority, and the Office of the President and Department of Justice which issued or implemented the order. Indirectly, D.C. residents and organizations using MPD services are implicated to the extent federal-local arrangements change.
Why It Matters
The measure tests Congress’s statutory check on presidential emergency actions in the District and clarifies — at least politically and legislatively — that Congress can withdraw an emergency determination that alters local policing authority. For compliance officers and agency counsel, it signals how a terse legislative fix can prompt operational, funding, and litigation consequences without creating new operational authority.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.J. Res. 115 is short and focused: it declares that the President’s August 11, 2025 emergency — the Executive Order captioned “Declaring a crime emergency in the District of Columbia” — is terminated under the specific authority Congress retains in the D.C.
Home Rule Act. The resolution’s operative text cites the statute and contains a single, self-contained command to end that particular emergency determination.
The bill opens with factual findings (the “Whereas” clauses) asserting that the President failed to identify special emergency conditions justifying the federal use of MPD, that section 740 of the Home Rule Act does not authorize federalization of MPD, that violent crime in D.C. has declined to a 30-year low, and that the federal government has prevented D.C. from spending $1 billion of locally raised revenue. Those clauses perform political and evidentiary work: they frame why the sponsors seek termination but do not themselves alter legal authority beyond the single termination clause.Legally, the resolution relies on the mechanism established in sec. 740(b) of the Home Rule Act, which gives Congress a statutory route to terminate emergencies affecting District governance.
The resolution does not attempt to create new D.C. law, instruct the Mayor on how to respond, or authorize funding. Because the text cancels only the emergency determination named in the Executive Order, practical effects will depend on how the Executive Branch had operationalized the Order — for example, whether any MPD personnel were directly federalized, whether other statutory authorities were invoked alongside the EO, and how federal agencies interpret the termination.In short, H.J.
Res. 115 is a legislative undoing of a specific presidential emergency finding. Its immediate legal footprint is narrow — a statutory termination — but the real-world implications for intergovernmental policing arrangements, ongoing deployments, and withheld local funds are uncertain and may prompt administrative adjustments or litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution terminates the President’s August 11, 2025 Executive Order declaring a crime emergency in the District of Columbia.
It acts under section 740(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (cited in the bill as sec. 1–207.40(b), D.C. Official Code).
The bill contains explicit findings that the President did not identify special emergency conditions and that violent crime in D.C. has declined to a 30-year low.
The text is a single operative section and does not provide replacement authorities, funding, or operational instructions to local or federal agencies.
Sponsors are Rep. Jamie Raskin, with Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Robert Garcia listed as cosponsors; the resolution was introduced in the House on August 15, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and political rationale for termination
The bill’s preamble sets out factual and legal claims: it says the President failed to identify emergency conditions justifying use of MPD, argues that section 740 does not allow federalization of MPD, cites crime statistics, and notes that the federal government has withheld $1 billion of D.C. local revenues. These clauses have rhetorical and evidentiary purpose; they do not themselves change legal authorities but signal the sponsors’ reasons for invoking the termination power.
Operative termination of the specified emergency
This single short section declares, pursuant to the D.C. Home Rule Act, that the President’s August 11, 2025 emergency determination is "hereby terminated." The language is categorical and directed at one named Executive Order; it contains no conditional language, transition provisions, or implementation steps. Practically, agencies must interpret whether the termination requires immediate operational changes or merely removes the statutory basis for some federal actions.
Reliance on sec. 740(b) of the D.C. Home Rule Act
The resolution explicitly cites sec. 740(b) (codified as sec. 1–207.40(b) of the D.C. Official Code) as its authority. That citation matters because section 740 is the discrete provision Congress created to govern emergencies that affect District governance; using it anchors the resolution in a specific congressional power rather than in general appropriations or oversight authority. The choice of statutory basis narrows legal challenges and clarifies the legislative intent to use the Home Rule Act’s built-in check.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- District of Columbia Mayor and Council — The resolution removes the presidential emergency determination that, according to the bill, authorized federal-directed use of MPD services, restoring clearer local control over policing arrangements and removing an asserted basis for federal commandeering of MPD.
- Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — As a local agency, MPD’s chain of command and deployment decisions are less likely to be subject to an asserted federal emergency directive, reducing the risk of federal operational control under the named EO.
- Civil liberties and local-government advocates — Groups that opposed the Executive Order benefit politically and legally from Congress formally rescinding the emergency, which they can point to when litigating or lobbying on local policing and civil-rights issues.
Who Bears the Cost
- Executive Branch (White House, DOJ) — The termination removes a specific emergency tool the Administration cited, constraining the President’s ability to use that EO to mobilize federal/local policing resources in the District.
- Federal agencies that relied on the EO for deployments — Agencies that planned operations premised on the emergency determination may need to curtail deployments or repackage authorities under other statutes, producing operational disruption and resource reallocation.
- District residents in the short term (contingent) — If federal assistance or supplementary resources were already in the field because of the emergency, their immediate withdrawal or reconfiguration could create temporary gaps in services or response capabilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a choice between two legitimate objectives: protecting D.C.’s local self-government and limiting presidential emergency powers on one hand, and preserving the Executive Branch’s flexibility to respond quickly to public-safety crises in the nation’s capital on the other. Ending the emergency reasserts local control but risks removing a rapid federal tool for crisis response; there is no mechanical way in the text to reconcile those aims.
Two implementation and legal frictions stand out. First, the resolution cancels only the named emergency determination; it does not address other statutory authorities the federal government might have invoked to place federal officers or to coordinate with local police.
Practically, that means agencies may reinterpret or rely on separate laws to continue some activities, and courts will likely parse whether the termination compels immediate withdrawal of personnel or simply ends the legal basis for future actions under that EO.
Second, several of the resolution’s factual premises — the crime-rate decline and the $1 billion withholding of local revenues — are contestable and raise enforcement questions that the bill does not resolve. The clause about withheld funds, for example, describes a fiscal fact but does not alter appropriations law or release any withheld money.
Those gaps create fertile ground for litigation and administrative disputes over what the termination actually requires agencies to do and whether the preamble’s assertions can be used as evidentiary support in court.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.