'Making sure that history is not rewritten': Cops ask federal judge to 'compel' Capitol architect to 'follow the law' and install years-delayed Jan. 6 memorial plaque

The plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit are imploring a federal court to "compel" the architect of the U.S. Capitol Complex to "follow the law" and install a memorial plaque honoring police officers who protected the national legislative seat of government on Jan. 6, 2021.

In June of this year, former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges sued Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin. The lawsuit aims to force Austin, who was appointed by Congress in June 2024, to hang the plaque in question – in line with the mandates of a law passed by Congress in 2022.

Then came an intervention from convicted and pardoned rioters who insisted any such plaque should be "inclusive" and "recognize the experiences" of the pro-Donald Trump mob responsible for the riot.

While Dunn and Hodges previously rubbished the arguments made by the parties seeking inclusivity on the plaque, they are now pushing back against a motion to dismiss filed by the Capitol architect himself.

"Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges were among the officers who protected the Capitol from rioters on January 6, 2021," the latest motion begins. "For their bravery, they and their fellow officers were to be honored with a plaque at the Capitol, to be installed by March 15, 2023. Years since that deadline passed, the plaque is not installed, and Officers Dunn and Hodges seek to have the Architect of the Capitol comply with the law and ensure that history is not forgotten."

In early December, Austin argued the plaintiffs lacked standing, had filed a defective complaint by asking for relief that is not legally available to them, and were generally barking up the wrong tree.

"The Act states that the list of names to include on the plaque shall be compiled by certain committees and subcommittees of Congress and that the names on the list so compiled 'should be included on the plaque,'" the architect's motion to dismiss reads. "The list that ultimately has been provided to the Architect consists of approximately 3,648 names. The Act does not confer any private right of action to any individual who may be included on the list of names or impose any duty on the Architect to them."

Dunn and Hodges insist they do have standing to sue.

"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 to the motion to dismiss filed this week reads.

To hear the architect tell it, Dunn and Hodges are claiming injuries that stem from the Jan. 6 riot itself and therefore are "not plausibly traceable to the Architect's alleged failure to install the plaque."

The plaintiffs, however, say the proof is in the pudding because the plaque has not been hung and their injuries have been "compounded by their government's refusal to recognize their service."

"Success in this case will directly redress the harms that Plaintiffs have experienced," the opposition motion goes on. "If the government finally acknowledges Plaintiffs' sacrifice, the psychic injuries caused by the government's failure to follow the law will be lessened. And because people take their cues to some degree from national political leaders, the reputational harm to plaintiffs—to say nothing of the threats and accusations that follow from that reputational harm—will diminish."

Dunn and Hodges say the architect has not even come up with a plausible reason for why the plaque is not hanging.

From the opposition motion, at length:

Defendants argue that if their violation of the law is to be evaluated under rational basis review, Plaintiffs must foreclose the possibility of every permissible reason for their treatment in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Defendants then try to manufacture a permissible reason by submitting an affidavit from an employee of the Architect. In that affidavit, the employee claims that a memorial plaque would need to include the names of approximately 3,648 people. In their brief, Defendants then speculate—though, notably, the affidavit does not say—that this explains why they have not complied with the law.

In other words, the defendants want a very limited review where the courts traditionally grant great latitude to the government. Such frameworks of review tend to result in victories for the government if a "rational basis" can be argued for the disputed action at issue.

Here, Austin seems to be angling toward the idea that the plaque would be quite cumbersome to produce – though the plaintiffs say the architect has not even gone so far as to conclusively make that argument. Dunn and Hodges reject this notion out of hand.

"Plaintiffs have explained that Defendants have broken the law, and have done so because of a political effort to rewrite the history of the attack on the Capitol," the opposition motion continues. "There is no rational explanation for Defendants' failure to follow the law and the disparate treatment Plaintiffs and their fellow officers have experienced, and Defendants have been unable to manufacture one."

Rather, Dunn and Hodges say, the architect's "failure" is as obvious as the plaintiffs' "connection to the memorial is direct." And, to that end, any exacerbated injuries stemming from Austin's failure are "clear."

The motion ends with a broadside request for the court to force compliance with the law honoring law enforcement.

"The effort to compel Defendants to follow the law and install the January 6 memorial plaque is about making sure that history is not rewritten, and that the horror—and heroism—of that day is not forgotten," the opposition motion concludes. "It is also about making sure that Officers Dunn and Hodges, along with all the other women and men who protected those inside the Capitol that day, are afforded the recognition they deserve. So that the harm to them is remedied, and that history is not erased, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants' motion be denied."