​Congressional Report Blames Police Chief
For Manipulating D.C.’s Crime Statistics

     A congressional report released Monday accuses Washington, D.C.'s police chief of manipulating statistics to show a large drop in crime.
     The report says Police Chief Pamela Smith pressured district commanders to revise crime numbers to create the image of a safer city.
     Smith would publicly humiliate them or make implied threats to them if the statistics they submitted at regular intervals failed to demonstrate that crime was going down in their jurisdictions, according to testimony from all seven district commanders.
     They testified before the House Oversight Committee as it conducted a months-long investigation in conjunction with the Justice Department.
     Their testimony contributed to an allegation in the report that Smith created “a coercive culture of fear” among her top staff. It also said that she “propagated an ecosystem of fear, retaliation, and toxicity.”
     Smith developed a review system that gave her the ultimate choice on how crimes were classified. Some of the reports she reviewed were downgraded to lesser crimes, according to the department’s district commanders. 
     Statistics released by the Metropolitan Police Department indicated violent crime dropped to a 30-year low during her tenure. Murders were down roughly 50 percent since 2023.
     Smith resigned this month while citing family reasons. Her resignation coincided with a leaked Justice Department summary of its investigation that is reflected in the congressional report.
     Longtime D.C. police executive Jeff Carroll was named this week as the interim police chief.
     The Trump administration is using crime and allegations of mismanagement as reasons for exerting greater control over Washington's police. The House Oversight Committee is led by Republicans who have sometimes voiced support for President Donald Trump’s effort to assume more authority over Washington.
     “Every single person who lives, works, or visits the District of Columbia deserves a safe city, yet it’s now clear the American people were deliberately kept in the dark about the true crime rates in our nation’s capital,” Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the committee chairman, said in a statement. “Chief Smith’s decision to mislead the public by manipulating crime statistics is dangerous and undermines trust in both local leadership and law enforcement. Her resignation should not be seen as a voluntary choice, but as an inevitable consequence that should have occurred much earlier.”
     House Oversight Committee Democrats said Republicans politicized their investigation to support Trump.
     “Oversight Republicans tried to use this investigation to justify President Trump’s authoritarian power grab, but their plan backfired almost immediately,” Oversight Committee Democrats said in a statement.
     The district commanders who criticized Smith’s management style acknowledged that violent crime was dropping before Trump ordered the National Guard into Washington in August as part of a law enforcement surge.
     Mayor Muriel Bowser released a statement of support for Smith.
     “The men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department run towards danger every day to reduce homicides, carjackings, armed robberies, sexual assaults, and more,” Bowser’s statement said. “The precipitous decline in crime in our city is attributable to their hard work and dedication and Chief Smith’s leadership.”
     The district commanders who testified to Congress were not named in the report to protect them from retaliation.
     One commander was quoted saying, “There’s always been pressure to keep crime down. But that “the focus on statistics … has come in with this current administration.”
     Another commander said some officers were fired for raising “legitimate questions or suggestions that [were] seen as disloyal.”
     The House Oversight Committee became involved after the local police union went public earlier this year with allegations that Smith was manipulating statistics and pressuring commanders. Dozens of officers then made similar complaints to the Justice Department.
     Smith has not commented on the congressional report. She said at a press conference last week, “We’ve had some high points and we’ve had some low points.”
     She added, “It’s time. I’ve had 28 years in law enforcement.” She previously was chief of the U.S. Park Police.
     Smith’s resignation takes effect at the end of December. She denies manipulating crime numbers.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Hints at Expanding
President’s Power Over Agencies

     Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court hinted last week that they were ready to overturn previous rulings to allow the president to fire members of independent government agencies.
     The dispute over Donald Trump’s desire to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who resisted his policies is a major test of presidential power.
     The Federal Depository Library Program lists 58 independent government agencies. They include powerhouses of government authority like the Federal Reserve System, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Social Security Administration.
     The FTC argues that it is an independent agency created by Congress whose members can be removed only by a majority vote of Congress.
     The Trump administration says that as an agency, the FTC is part of the executive branch of government. The president is the head of the executive branch.
     A ruling in favor of the Trump administration would overturn a precedent that has stood since 1935.
     Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he would like to know how independent agencies could be considered responsive to the nation’s needs when its members are “not elected as Congress and the President are, and are exercising massive power over individual liberty and billion dollar industries.”
     He also said that “independent agencies are not accountable to the people.”  
     Since 1887, Congress has organized independent agencies to serve outside direct presidential control. They are supposed to operate independently to promote neutral expertise over their specialized fields while avoiding political partisanship that could result in wide policy swings.
     In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that the president cannot remove a commissioner of an independent agency except for the causes specified by Congress, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
     The plaintiff in the current Supreme Court case is FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. She is one of two Democrats Trump wants to remove from the FTC in an apparent move to reduce regulatory burdens on business and technology.
     When Trump ordered the firing of Slaughter in March, a White House statement said her “continued service … is inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” 
     A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered in July that she be reinstated. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
     A Trump administration brief filed in the case argues that Article II of the Constitution gives the president authority over government agencies as an "indispensable tool of control." 
     Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to be sympathetic to the continued independence of the agencies. She cautioned against the turmoil that could result from eliminating their authority to make policy decisions separate from the president.
     “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” Sotomayor told Trump administration attorneys. 
     Such a fundamental change would “take away from Congress its ability” to decide whether the “government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” she said.
     Chief Justice John Roberts suggested previous rulings upholding the independence of some agencies overlook how the government has changed over the years. Unlike now, the FTC in 1935 had “very little, if any, executive power.”
     Amit Agarwal, a lawyer for Slaughter, said giving the president direct control over independent agencies and their commissioners would concentrate power too heavily in the executive branch of government.
     Expanding Trump’s authority to fire commissioners would put “everything on the chopping block,” Agarwal said.
     The Supreme Court’s decision is expected in the fall. The case is Trump et al. v. Slaughter.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Case
Could Unleash Super PAC Contributions

     The Supreme Court is considering a case that could shift the way political campaigns are funded to eliminate what Republicans say is an advantage for Democrats.
     The central question is how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
     The National Republican Senatorial Committee sued the Federal Election Commission to remove restrictions on how large donations from political action committees (PACs) are given to politicians’ campaigns. 
     Republicans call the restrictions a violation of First Amendment rights by limiting their ability to appeal directly to voters, particularly through television advertising. The restrictions tend to favor small donations, where Democrats have traditionally done better.
     A Supreme Court ruling for the Republicans would unleash large corporate donors that in previous years fueled accusations that they control the policies their preferred candidates advocate in Congress.
     “Both parties will be operating under the same rules,” Justice Samuel Alito said in reference to eliminating some of the restrictions imposed by the Federal Election Commission.
     Under current rules derived from the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, candidates and their campaigns are prohibited from soliciting donations from PACs in excess of $5,000.
     The most powerful form of the organizations are Super PACs, which sometimes raise large amounts of donated money for political candidates from corporations or trade associations.
     To maintain politicians’ independence from the Super PACs, as well as to avoid bribery, the Federal Election Commission prohibits the funds from being given directly to a candidate’s campaign. The rules are known as coordinated party expenditure limits.
     Instead, Super PACs may spend money only on “independent expenditures,” such as ads advocating for or against candidates, but only if their preferred candidates do not control how the funds are spent.
     At the Supreme Court last week, the attorney for the National Republican Senatorial Committee argued that the campaign finance restrictions do not serve a legitimate governmental interest.
     The Supreme Court has defined a legitimate governmental interest as a legislative function that justifies a law, policy, or action. Typically it refers to public health, public safety or economic regulation.
     "The coordinated party spending limits are at war with this court's recent First Amendment cases," Noel Francisco, a lawyer for the Republican challengers, told the justices.
     The case for keeping the campaign finance limits was argued by attorney Roman Martinez of Latham & Watkins. He said in a court filing that “common sense and history show that donors will often use political parties as conduits” to evade restrictions on contributions.
     One of the risks is that winning politicians would reward campaign donors with government jobs or contracts as a means of ensuring continuing funding, according to advocates for the FEC rules.
     If the Supreme Court decides the Federal Election Commission rules are unconstitutional, it would continue a trend among the conservative justices to chip away at campaign finance laws. The trend started with the watershed 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which eliminated limits on how much money corporations can spend in elections.
     Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern the court's tendency to ease campaign finance limits could cause runaway money problems during elections.
     "Once we take off coordinated expenditure limits, then what's left,” she asked. “What's left is nothing. No control whatsoever."
     She mentioned Elon Musk as an example of the dangers of “quid pro quo.” The world’s richest man contributed $300 million to Donald Trump’s election campaign and later was appointed to lead the powerful Department of Governmental Efficiency.
     The original lawsuit was filed by now Vice President JD Vance in 2022, who then was a Senate candidate, along with former congressman Steve Chabot and two Republican committees.
     The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Officials Warned of Consequences
From Reducing Health Care Benefits

     The District of Columbia’s lackluster hope of getting the federal health care assistance local officials say they need for low-income persons is compelling them to take drastic steps.
     The D.C. Council is proposing budget cuts that medical personnel and advocates for the poor are warning will mean some people die and others go without needed treatments.
     They urged D.C. Council members at a hearing this month to restore benefits for more than 2,000 residents cut from the local insurance plan called the Health Care Alliance Program.
     Thousands more are expected to lose coverage next year as the city revises Medicaid policies to save money.
     Mayor Muriel E. Bowser says she has few better options as the federal government downsizes its employment and a volatile real estate market has left Washington with a $1 billion budget shortfall. 
     Adding to the concerns is the battle in Congress that is likely to result in the expiration of tax credits for the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration program was designed to broaden health insurance coverage but Republicans call it wasteful.
     The District of Columbia joined 23 states in April in suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to prevent the cutoff of $11 billion in public health grants. The lawsuit is pending in federal court.
     Advocates for the poor say the struggle over health care in Washington is a sign of the times for communities nationwide.
     “As Washington D.C. is planning cuts to dental and vision coverage, other states like Maryland, Virginia, New York, Connecticut, Indiana, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah are also facing similar challenges to their Medicaid budget,” Daniela Gonzales-Rious, health justice coordinator for the nonprofit Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc., told The Legal Forum.
     The federal government “must focus on preventive, not punitive, approaches, especially for families who have been economically disadvantaged by the political and social systems,” she said.  
     The D.C. Department of Health Care Finance recently projected Medicaid spending for fiscal 2026 will require an additional $173 million in local funding and nearly $580 million over the next four years.
     The pressure on health care expenses comes at a time Washington’s revenue is forecast to decline. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is projecting a more than $1.1 billion revenue drop over the city’s four‑year financial plan.
     To try to close the gap, the mayor’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposes changes that could result in more than 25,000 residents losing Medicaid benefits. Hardest hit would be childless adults or caregivers with incomes above 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
     People dropped from the program would be shifted to a proposed “Basic Health Program” that has fewer benefits or to private insurance they purchase on their own.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Fired FBI Agents Sue for Reinstatement
Following Botched 2020 Crowd Control

     Twelve FBI agents are suing their agency after they were fired for kneeling during racial justice protests in Washington, D.C., in the summer of 2020.
     FBI management interpreted their kneeling near the National Archives building as a sign of agreement with potentially violent protesters. They said they were only trying to de-escalate the situation but they deny having any political motivations.
     "Mindful of the potentially catastrophic consequences, Plaintiffs knew that a split-second misjudgment by any of them could ignite an already-charged national climate and trigger further violence and unrest," says the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 
     They accuse the FBI of violating their First Amendment rights to freedom of association and their Fifth Amendment right to due process. Their lawsuit seeks reinstatement and back pay.
     The letters of dismissal they received from FBI Director Kash Patel said, "You have demonstrated unprofessional conduct and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of government."
     The agents acknowledge they might not have handled the protests in an optimum manner but they also say they had no training on crowd control and lacked the proper equipment, such as riot shields and helmets. They were sent to the National Archives to protect federal property during civil disruption caused by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
     They were cleared of wrongdoing in a 2024 Justice Department inspector general’s report.
     The firings drew a rebuke from the FBI Agents Association.
     “Patel's dangerous new pattern of actions are weakening the Bureau because they eliminate valuable expertise and damage trust between leadership and the workforce, and make it harder to recruit and retain skilled agents — ultimately putting our nation at greater risk." the association said in a statement.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.