A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by two police officers who sought to force the installation of a memorial plaque honoring law enforcement personnel who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021, attack.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled Wednesday that former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges had not demonstrated the concrete injury required to establish legal standing. In her decision, Friedrich cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent in a separate case involving President Donald Trump’s proposed White House ballroom.
Dunn and Hodges filed the lawsuit late last year, arguing that the Architect of the Capitol had failed to follow a 2022 congressional mandate requiring the installation of a plaque recognizing officers who responded to the Capitol attack.
The officers argued that the government’s prolonged failure to install the memorial had caused them psychological and reputational harm. They described these effects as “psychic injuries” resulting from the government’s failure to comply with the law.
Although Friedrich acknowledged that the officers had a particularly personal connection to the memorial, she concluded that their interest alone was insufficient to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution.
Judge Recognizes Officers’ Personal Connection to the Memorial
In her ruling, Friedrich acknowledged that Dunn and Hodges were among the officers Congress intended to recognize through the memorial. Their involvement in defending the Capitol gave them a much closer connection to the issue than members of the general public.
However, she explained that having a strong personal interest in a government decision does not automatically establish a legally recognizable injury.
Friedrich wrote that the officers were “not ‘just any person,’” referencing language from Roberts’ dissent in the ballroom litigation. She nevertheless emphasized that the intensity of a person’s interest does not determine whether they have legal standing.
The judge also noted that the officers had not provided sufficient factual allegations showing that the government’s failure to install the plaque had caused or significantly worsened their mental health conditions.
Roberts’ Ballroom Dissent Becomes Part of the Ruling
One notable aspect of Friedrich’s decision was her reliance on Roberts’ dissent in the case concerning Trump’s proposed White House ballroom.
In that separate dispute, Roberts addressed questions surrounding who could challenge government action in court and what kind of personal interest was sufficient to establish standing.
Friedrich drew on that reasoning to explain why the officers’ personal connection to the memorial, despite its significance, did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for their lawsuit.
Her reference connected two otherwise separate legal disputes involving challenges to government decisions.
Plaque Remains Without Permanent Installation
Congress approved the memorial plaque in 2022 to recognize the law enforcement officers who protected the Capitol during the January 6 attack.
According to the court documents, the plaque is currently displayed in a non-public area of the Senate wing while officials determine its permanent location. The displayed plaque also does not include the names of all the officers.
Dunn and Hodges argued that the delay undermined the recognition Congress intended to provide to those who responded to the attack.
Friedrich, however, found that their complaint did not establish that the government’s actions had made existing public perceptions of the officers worse. She noted that the lawsuit suggested the missing plaque had failed to improve those perceptions rather than demonstrating that its absence had directly caused additional harm.
The ruling centers on the constitutional requirements for bringing a lawsuit, rather than deciding whether officials fulfilled Congress’s instructions concerning the memorial.
For the two officers, the decision means their legal effort to compel the plaque’s permanent installation has been dismissed at this stage.
