Trump Suggests Federal Takeover
Of Washington, D.C., Government
President Donald Trump suggested a federal takeover of the District of Columbia last week.
He said he appointed his chief of staff to meet with the city's mayor to discuss federal intervention.
Trump says local leaders are ineffective and that the city is home to too much crime.
Trump made the comments during a cabinet meeting. He did not explain what legal authority he could invoke to take over the operation of Washington.
"We could run D.C.,” Trump said. “We're looking at D.C. We don't want crime in D.C. We want the city to run well."
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has so far declined to comment.
On previous occasions, she and other local government leaders have strongly opposed more federal control over Washington. They instead have advocated for statehood for the city.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s Democratic delegate to Congress, said during a street-naming ceremony in April, “D.C. is not a blank slate for Congress to fill in as it pleases.”
She said Washington’s residents pay more federal taxes per capita than any state.
“There are more than 700,000 D.C. residents who live here permanently, who elected me to serve them in Congress, and who are worthy and capable of self-government,” she said.
Before the federal government could take control of the District of Columbia, Congress might need to repeal the 1973 Home Rule Act. It empowers residents to manage local issues by electing a mayor and city council members.
Until Congress approved the Home Rule Act, local governance was handled by a congressional subcommittee.
The self-governance came with a condition, namely that Congress retained the right to review the city’s budget and local legislation. Federal lawmakers also retained a right to veto the budget or legislation.
In 2023, Congress used its veto authority for Washington twice. The first time was to halt a law that would allow non-citizens to vote in local elections and a second time to block an overhaul of the criminal code.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Justice Dept. Whistleblower Program Offers
Big Rewards for Antitrust Information
The Justice Department last week announced a whistleblower program that would give potentially large rewards to anyone who reports antitrust crimes.
The crimes typically involve organized deception that hurts consumers, taxpayers and free market competition.
Whistleblowers who provide the Justice Department with original information leading to criminal fines or recoveries of at least $1 million would be eligible for rewards between 15 percent to 30 percent of the recovery amount.
The exact amount would be a matter of discretion for the Justice Department’s antitrust division.
The whistleblower program is initially targeted at antitrust crimes involving the U.S. Postal Service. It could be expanded to a broader array of antitrust violations later.
“Antitrust crimes and related offenses that harm free market competition often occur in secret, making detection a formidable challenge,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney General Abigail Slater in a statement. “The new Whistleblower Rewards Program will create a new pipeline of leads from individuals with firsthand knowledge of criminal antitrust and related offenses that will help us break down those walls of secrecy and hold violators accountable.”
The whistleblower program appears to be a slight deviation from Trump administration policies that have generally favored deregulation of industry enterprises.
The whistleblower program announced last week sets a slightly different course than previous antitrust regulation and enforcement directed primarily at corporations.
It sets a priority on shutting down cartel activities that could include drug smuggling, sometimes under the guise of legitimate businesses.
The program builds on a Justice Department policy change in May that expands antitrust definitions to include immigration violations, tariff evasion and activities supporting terrorism and drug cartels.
It also advances Trump’s pledge of cutting government waste and fraud. The program is being coordinated with the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, a multiagency effort established in 2019 to prosecute antitrust violations in government procurement.
“This newly established program is an example of [the Justice Department’s] commitment to root out illicit behavior in all industries, which includes industries where the [U.S. Postal Service] procures goods and services either directly or indirectly,” said Postal Service assistant inspector general Robert Kwalwasser.
Corporations found guilty of antitrust violations could face fines as high as $100 million. Individuals could be fined up to $1 million.
In cases with severe repercussions for the community or industries, the fines could be higher.
Corporate attorneys are sending notices to clients this week warning them to prepare for a likelihood of increased antitrust enforcement as a result of the Whistleblowers Rewards Program.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
FBI Report on Sex Trafficker Prompts
Elon Musk to Accuse Trump of Cover-Up
The Justice Department is enduring the wrath of tech billionaire Elon Musk over a new FBI report on the 2019 jailhouse death of financier and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The FBI concluded that Epstein committed suicide in jail, despite conspiracy theorists who said he was murdered to keep him quiet about his list of high-profile clients.
The FBI also said there was no client list of men who had sex with young women hired by Epstein.
Musk said President Donald Trump was on the client list but was using his influence over the Justice Department to cover it up.
Musk initially led the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency effort to downsize the government and cut expenses. He resigned in April to return to managing his Tesla and SpaceX corporations.
Last month, Musk posted on X that it was time to drop “the really big bomb.”
“[Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk wrote on X.
Trump acknowledged knowing Epstein but denied having sex with women through arrangements made by Epstein.
He wrote on social media last year, “I was never on Epstein’s Plane, or at his ‘stupid’ Island. Strong Laws ought to be developed against A.I. It will be a big and very dangerous problem in the future!”
After the FBI report last week said there was no client list, Musk posted on X saying, “What a farce.”
He claimed to be quoting a Justice Department pledge that “We will release the Epstein list” before the FBI reported “There is no Epstein list.”
“This is the final straw,” Musk posted.
White House media spokesperson Karoline Leavitt denied a cover-up over an Epstein client list during a press conference last week. She said that if the Justice Department had found wrongdoing, it would have led to criminal charges against the offenders.
“They committed to an exhaustive investigation,” Leavitt said. “That’s what they did.”
She acknowledged that some material was not released publicly but it consisted mostly of graphic child pornography.
Epstein owned a New York investment firm when a federal investigation identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had allegedly sexually abused. He was arrested on July 6, 2019, on federal charges for sex trafficking minors in Florida and New York.
He died in his Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019. The medical examiner ruled his death a suicide by hanging.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Supreme Court to Decide Liability
Of Transit Agencies After Accidents
The Supreme Court plans to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state agency in a case with broad implications for transit agencies in the Washington, D.C. area.
New Jersey Transit was sued by two men who were hit and injured by commuter buses in separate accidents.
In one case of a collision between a bus and a car in Philadelphia, a Pennsylvania court ruled the agency benefits from the same sovereign immunity as any other state agency.
In a separate case of a man hit by a bus in Manhattan, a New York court disagreed. It said New Jersey Transit could be sued like any other common carrier.
The Supreme Court is being asked to resolve the differences of opinion.
A Supreme Court ruling against the transit agency would significantly increase liability risks and insurance costs for public transit nationwide. The most likely result could be higher fares for passengers.
In 2023, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) listed its total liability for litigation and claims at nearly $209 million.
Key issues before the Supreme Court are when transit agencies have “sovereign immunity” and when they are the “alter ego” of their local governments.
New Jersey Transit is a regional public transportation system based in Newark. Although it operates primarily in New Jersey, it also has rail and bus operations that extend to Philadelphia, Pa., and New York’s Penn Station as well as the surrounding areas.
Similarly, the Washington area is served by WMATA with extensions into Maryland and Virginia. The region’s other multi-jurisdiction transit agencies include Virginia Railway Express, Maryland Area Rail Commuter and Maryland Commuter Bus.
Each of the states and the District of Columbia shares regulatory oversight of the transit agencies.
The alter ego doctrine is a legal concept that determines which of two affiliated organizations should be liable in lawsuits.
In general, when one entity exercises significant control over the other's operations, policies, and decision-making, they are considered alter egos of each other and share legal liabilities. The control can be determined by the degree they share money and management.
If they are not alter egos, each entity is separately liable in lawsuits.
In the Pennsylvania case, the state Supreme Court said New Jersey Transit operated like the alter ego of the state, thereby giving the transit agency the same sovereign immunity as the state. The court dismissed the lawsuit of Cedric Galette, who was injured while he was a passenger in a car that collided with a New Jersey Transit bus in August 2018.
In the New York case, the courts said the transit agency was independent from the state based on its separate budget and the high degree of autonomy of its management. As a result, the lawsuit by Jeffrey Colt against New Jersey Transit was allowed to continue. He was injured by a bus in 2017.
So far, WMATA has been able to limit its legal liability by successfully claiming it has sovereign immunity. Its interstate compact extends that immunity into Maryland and Virginia.
The exceptions to sovereign immunity for WMATA come from its proprietary functions of operating the transit system. If, for example, a passenger was injured through negligent equipment maintenance by a transit worker, the agency still could be sued in tort.
The Supreme Court case set to be heard next fall will decide whether the liability of transit agencies’ can be extended or restricted under sovereign immunity.
The case is Cedric Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. Firefighters Sue Over Rule
Limiting Rights to Facial Hair
A group of Washington, D.C., firefighters is suing the city’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department over its clean-shaven policy.
They say the policy that limits rights to beards and mustaches discriminates against Black men based on religious beliefs or some medical conditions.
DCFEMS says the policy is intended for safety, not discrimination. Firefighters are required to wear tight-fitting sealed masks that allow them to breathe with the assistance of oxygen tanks in the presence of smoke or other airborne toxins.
Facial hair could prevent the tight fit needed for the masks to be effective, according to DCFEMS officials.
The 17 firefighters who are suing say facial hair represented a minimal risk that should not exclude them from their duties. They also say that each of them has passed the fitness tests required for their jobs.
The religious beliefs referred to either Orthodox Judaism or Islam, both of which encourage facial hair among men.
The medical condition mentioned in the lawsuit is pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). It is most common in Black and Asian men with tight curly hair.
PFB can cause ingrown hairs that lead to skin inflammation and infections. Allowing men with PFB to grow beards alleviates the symptoms.
Firefighters have complained previously about the clean shaven policy. It led DCFEMS to revise its policy in 2021 to allow a thin covering of facial hair.
The firefighters in the new lawsuit say the policy still is too restrictive. Some of them who refused to abide by the policy were reassigned to administrative jobs that left little opportunity for promotion.
“It felt like DCFEMS was forcing me to choose between my career or my health,” said Durell Herman, a D.C. firefighter who has served for nearly two decades and suffers from PFB, in a statement. “This isn’t just a career for me, it’s my calling. Being sidelined, not for something I did wrong, but for a medical condition I can’t control, was devastating.”
Khalid Bullock, a D.C. firefighter with over a decade of service was reassigned after requesting a religious accommodation.
“They pulled me out of all firefighter and EMS duties for almost two years,” he said in a statement. “The schedule was brutal, and it took me away from my kids.”
He added, “I wasn’t being punished for poor performance. I was being punished for my beliefs.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.