Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges filed a federal civil lawsuit in June 2025 against Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin, seeking a court order to compel installation of a bronze memorial plaque honoring law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The lawsuit alleged that Austin failed to meet a statutory deadline set by a 2022 law signed by President Biden, which required the plaque to be permanently displayed on the Capitol’s western front by March 15, 2023.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and is before U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee. After the plaque was quietly installed in March 2026 in an area blocked from public view, the officers argued the case was not resolved and the litigation must continue. As of June 2026, the lawsuit remains active on two tracks: the plaque placement dispute and a separate action over Trump’s $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- What: Officers sued to force installation of a plaque honoring Jan. 6 defenders, mandated by a 2022 federal law.
- Who: Plaintiffs Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges vs. Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin.
- Status: Ongoing — plaque installed March 2026, but officers argue location violates the law.
- Injuries: Psychic harm, reputational damage, threats of violence compounded by government refusal to recognize service.
- Settlement: None — plaintiffs seek court order, not monetary damages.
- Eligibility: Case brought by the named officers; not a class action.
- Key date: March 15, 2023 — statutory deadline for plaque installation that was missed by over two years.
Jan. 6 Capitol Plaque Lawsuit Timeline and Updates
December 2022 — Congress Passes the Plaque Law
Congress passed a law directing the Architect of the Capitol to install an honorific plaque naming law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, 2021. President Biden signed it into law. The statute required permanent display on the Capitol’s western front, the site of the day’s worst violence, by March 15, 2023. More than 140 officers were injured during the riot. Five officers connected to the defense of the Capitol died in the following weeks.
March 2023 — Deadline Passes With No Action
The statutory deadline came and went. The plaque had been physically completed and placed in storage on Capitol grounds. No instructions to install it were issued by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. No explanation was offered. The delay drew no major public attention at the time.
2024 — Plaque Remains in Storage as History Is Rewritten
By 2024, the plaque had sat in storage for over a year past its legal installation deadline. The political context had shifted sharply. Trump’s allies had begun recasting January 6 as a “day of love” and calling for the prosecution of the officers who defended the building. Republican House members did not commemorate the three-year anniversary with public statements. Meanwhile, bills were introduced in Congress to name Dulles International Airport after Trump, make his birthday a federal holiday, add his face to Mount Rushmore, and put his likeness on the $100 bill. The contrast was pointed and deliberate.
Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin testified at a House subcommittee hearing in April 2024 that the plaque had been made but that modifications to the House side of the building must be directed by the Speaker. He had not received those instructions. Speaker Mike Johnson did not respond to requests for comment on a timeline.
January 2025 — Trump Returns, Mass Pardons Issued
On inauguration day, January 20, 2025, President Trump signed a blanket pardon covering 1,583 January 6 defendants, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes. Dunn and Hodges both faced ongoing death threats, including being named on a public “retribution list” maintained by right-wing activist Ivan Raiklin. The pardons intensified the political environment surrounding the plaque dispute. In January 2026, the White House published a website framing the Capitol riot as the fault of congressional Democrats and the police present that day.
June 2025 — Lawsuit Filed Against Architect of the Capitol
On June 12, 2025, Dunn and Hodges filed a 29-page federal civil lawsuit against Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Their attorney, Brendan Ballou, a former federal prosecutor who had handled January 6 criminal cases before resigning from the Justice Department earlier that year, argued the agency had failed to complete a required legal duty.
The complaint stated directly: “Four years since Congress passed the law, and three years since the deadline for its installation has lapsed, the memorial has not been put up.” The lawsuit argued the failure to hang the plaque violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It contended that while Congress had installed memorials for officers killed in other tragedies, it had specifically withheld this honor to erase the history of January 6. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich.
August–November 2025 — Rioters Seek to Join, Motion to Dismiss Filed
Convicted and pardoned January 6 rioters attempted to intervene in the case, arguing that any memorial plaque should be “inclusive” and “recognize the experiences” of the pro-Trump mob. Dunn and Hodges rejected that argument in court filings. In early December, Austin’s office filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue and that the Act did not create a private right of action for individual officers to enforce. Austin’s lawyers also argued that the plaque had not been installed in part because the list of names to include had grown to approximately 3,648 entries, making the physical plaque logistically complicated.
December 2025 — Officers Push Back on Motion to Dismiss
Dunn and Hodges filed an opposition brief arguing they had clear standing. The filing stated that “plaintiffs have suffered injuries because the office of the Architect, an agency within the United States Congress, has failed to follow the law.” Their opposition emphasized that the injuries were not merely from the January 6 attack itself, but from the government’s ongoing refusal to acknowledge their service. “If the government finally acknowledges Plaintiffs’ sacrifice, the psychic injuries caused by the government’s failure to follow the law will be lessened,” the filing stated. Ballou’s brief called out Austin for failing to even articulate a rational reason for the delay.
January 2026 — Senate Unanimously Votes to Display the Plaque
In January 2026, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution directing the Architect of the Capitol to display the plaque in a publicly accessible location in the Senate wing of the Capitol until a permanent location on the western front could be established. The resolution was led by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina). The House did not act. Speaker Johnson’s office had previously argued the underlying 2022 law was “not implementable,” pointing to the language requiring names of individual officers when the produced plaque instead listed law enforcement agencies.
March 7, 2026 — Plaque Installed at 4 A.M., Not on Public Tour Route
At approximately 4 a.m. on a Saturday morning, March 7, 2026, staff from the Architect of the Capitol’s office quietly installed the bronze plaque near the entrance to the Capitol’s West Front. No media outlets were present. No official announcement was made. The plaque read: “On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.”
The plaque was placed inside a pair of doors along the west front, past a sign reading “Authorized Personnel Only.” The U.S. Capitol Visitor Center confirmed to The Washington Post that the location is not on the public tour route. Senator Tillis described the placement as potentially temporary. Hodges posted on X that the installation was “a fine stopgap” and that the lawsuit would persist.
March 11–12, 2026 — Officers Argue Hidden Location Violates the Law
Judge Friedrich asked Dunn and Hodges whether the plaque’s installation mooted their complaint. They said it did not. “Unfortunately, this litigation must continue,” the officers wrote to the court. Their attorney Ballou filed a brief arguing the midnight installation in a restricted corridor was no different from the basement storage the plaque had been kept in for years. “Honor is a social, that is, public, recognition,” Ballou wrote. “Hidden from all visitors, the current location is no different than the basement the plaque was kept in for years.” A federal judge ordered the Trump administration and the Architect of the Capitol to respond to the ongoing lawsuit. Dunn stated publicly: “The law says it needs to be placed on the west front of the Capitol, and we’re going to push for that until it is where everyone can see it.”
May 2026 — Officers File Second Lawsuit Over Anti-Weaponization Fund
On May 20, 2026, Dunn and Hodges filed a second federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This action targeted the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, formally announced by the Department of Justice on May 18, 2026, as part of a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The officers argued the fund was designed to pay January 6 rioters and would constitute payment to individuals who engaged in insurrection, in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Named defendants include Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. That litigation is separate from the plaque case but involves the same plaintiffs and the same attorney, Brendan Ballou, now leading the Public Integrity Project.
What the 2022 Law Actually Required
The Public Law 117-103 that Congress enacted in 2022 was not ambiguous. It directed the Architect of the Capitol to install a permanent honorific plaque on the western front of the U.S. Capitol Complex. The western front is not a symbolic choice. That is where the mob gathered and where the most brutal confrontations between rioters and officers took place. The law set a deadline of March 15, 2023, one year after enactment.
The statute also specified that names of officers should appear on the plaque. The Architect’s office generated a list of approximately 3,648 names of officers who responded that day. Speaker Johnson’s office later argued the plaque, which listed law enforcement agencies rather than individual names, did not comply with the law. That argument was used to delay indefinitely rather than to produce a technically compliant plaque.
The Senate’s January 2026 resolution added a second directive: display in a publicly accessible location in the Senate wing. The installation at 4 a.m. in a hallway past an “Authorized Personnel Only” sign satisfied the letter of neither the original law nor the Senate resolution, according to the officers’ court filings.
The Standing Question: Can Officers Sue Congress for This?
The Architect of the Capitol is a legislative branch agency. That matters legally. The motion to dismiss filed by Austin’s office raised a core jurisdictional argument: the 2022 law does not give private citizens, even the officers named in the plaque, a right to sue to enforce it. Without a private right of action built into the statute, federal courts may lack authority to order the executive agency to act.
The Dunn-Hodges team countered on two grounds. First, they argued the Architect’s failure was traceable to their specific harm: not the January 6 attack itself, but the government’s ongoing refusal to recognize their service. That is a separate and continuing injury. Second, they invoked the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that Congress’s willingness to honor officers killed in other tragedies while withholding recognition from January 6 defenders constituted unconstitutional disparate treatment.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, has not ruled on the motion to dismiss as of the most recent publicly available filings. The judge’s decision on standing will determine whether the case proceeds at all.
What the Architects of Delay Understood
There was no bureaucratic confusion here. The Architect of the Capitol explicitly told a House subcommittee in April 2024 that the plaque was physically ready. He had not received instructions from the Speaker to install it. Speaker Johnson knew the law. He knew the deadline. He chose not to issue instructions. His office eventually offered a procedural objection about names versus agencies on the plaque. That argument arrived years after the deadline, not as a reason for the delay but as a rationalization for it.
The 4 a.m. Saturday installation in March 2026 follows the same pattern. It was not a compliance effort. It was a gesture designed to moot the lawsuit without actually complying with the law. Installing a plaque at 4 a.m. in a hallway marked “Authorized Personnel Only,” with no announcement and no ceremony, is the institutional equivalent of putting a filing in a drawer and calling it published. Hodges saw it clearly. “They are not yet within full compliance of the law,” he wrote on X the same day.
What This Means for Officers Who Defended January 6
The plaque lawsuit is not primarily about a piece of bronze on a wall. Dunn said it himself: “The law says it needs to be placed on the west front of the Capitol, and we’re going to push for that until it is where everyone can see it, not just people that work in the building.” The western front of the Capitol is one of the most publicly visible and symbolically loaded locations in American civic life. That is precisely why the law specified it.
For Dunn and Hodges personally, the stakes extend further. Both face ongoing threats. Both have been named on public retribution lists. The Trump pardons restored gun rights for many January 6 defendants. The Anti-Weaponization Fund, if it pays out, would deliver financial windfalls to individuals who attacked them. Against that backdrop, a plaque hidden in a staff corridor is not a minor administrative matter. It is the government’s official posture toward the officers who were attacked on its behalf.
Plaintiffs navigating cases where government agencies have been accused of defying their own statutory mandates may also find parallels in the DOJ grant cancellations lawsuit, where federal agencies similarly ignored legal deadlines and congressional directives. The Mark Kelly Pentagon lawsuit raised comparable First Amendment and institutional accountability arguments when a federal agency took action to silence an elected official’s speech rights.
What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers
The Capitol plaque lawsuit is not a consumer case. No product was defective. No wages were stolen. What was stolen, or at least withheld, was official recognition of service rendered at personal cost. The legal mechanism used to withhold it was bureaucratic inaction dressed as compliance.
The lesson applies well beyond government memorials. When a law sets a deadline and that deadline passes without action, delay is not neutral. It is a choice. The choice to delay the plaque was made by people who understood the law, knew the deadline, and decided that political considerations outweighed legal obligations. Courts exist, in part, to reverse that calculation.
What Dunn and Hodges have done, at personal and professional risk, is force a judicial answer to a question that should not have needed one: does the government have to follow laws that apply to itself? The answer is not yet final. But the question is now on record, in a federal docket, before a judge who will have to answer it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Capitol plaque lawsuit about?
Officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges sued the Architect of the Capitol to force installation of a Jan. 6 memorial plaque required by a 2022 law. The plaque was installed in March 2026 in a non-public location, and the lawsuit continues.
Who filed the Jan. 6 plaque lawsuit?
Former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges filed the lawsuit in June 2025, represented by attorney Brendan Ballou, a former federal prosecutor.
What does the 2022 law require?
The law directs the Architect of the Capitol to permanently display an honorific plaque on the western front of the U.S. Capitol, naming officers who defended the building on January 6, 2021. The deadline was March 15, 2023.
Was the plaque ever installed?
Yes, at approximately 4 a.m. on March 7, 2026, in a hallway past an ‘Authorized Personnel Only’ sign. The officers say this location violates the law because it is not publicly accessible.
Who is the defendant in the lawsuit?
Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin is the named defendant. The Architect’s office is represented by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, appointed by Trump.
Why did Speaker Mike Johnson delay the plaque?
Johnson’s office never provided a public reason for the delay. In 2026, the office argued the law was ‘not implementable’ due to a technical dispute over whether the plaque listed officer names or agency names. Critics say this was a post-hoc rationalization.
What is the legal argument for standing?
Dunn and Hodges argue the government’s failure to install the plaque caused them a continuing, distinct injury: refusal to officially recognize their service. They also cite Equal Protection because Congress honored officers in other tragedies while withholding recognition for Jan. 6 defenders.
What is the Anti-Weaponization Fund and how does it relate?
On May 20, 2026, Dunn and Hodges filed a second lawsuit against the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, which they say will pay January 6 rioters in violation of the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on compensating participants in insurrection.
Did the Senate act on the plaque?
Yes. In January 2026, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution directing the Architect to display the plaque in a publicly accessible location in the Senate wing until a permanent location on the western front is established.
Is this a class action lawsuit?
No. The suit was filed by two named individuals, Dunn and Hodges. It seeks a court order requiring the plaque’s lawful installation, not monetary damages.
Who is Judge Dabney Friedrich and why does it matter?
Friedrich is a Trump appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She has not ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. Her decision on standing will determine whether the case proceeds on the merits.
What happens if the lawsuit is dismissed?
If dismissed on standing grounds, the plaque’s permanent placement would depend on political action, not judicial compulsion. The Senate resolution would remain the only active directive, but the House side of the Capitol would not be covered by it.
Leave a Reply