The Capitol plaque lawsuit has brought renewed attention to the events of January 6th, 2021, and how the nation remembers them. Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol that day have filed a lawsuit demanding that the Architect of the Capitol install a plaque honouring the bravery of officers who protected democracy.
Although the plaque was created in 2022 under federal law, it remains in storage due to political delays. This lawsuit is not just about a piece of metal on a wall—it’s about accountability, remembrance, and respect for those who stood in harm’s way.
Background of the Capitol Plaque Lawsuit
In June 2025, two police officers, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, filed a federal lawsuit to compel the installation of a plaque mandated by Congress. The Capitol plaque lawsuit claims that the government has failed to follow the law requiring a memorial for officers who defended the Capitol during the January 6th attack.
Congress passed the law in 2022, directing the Architect of the Capitol to design, produce, and display a plaque within one year. The plaque was meant to be a permanent reminder of the officers’ courage in protecting the Capitol and its occupants when rioters attempted to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
However, despite being completed, the plaque remains in storage. The officers allege that congressional leaders, particularly from the House of Representatives, have failed to authorise its installation.
What the Law Says About the Plaque
The 2022 legislation was straightforward: it required the Architect of the Capitol to display a memorial plaque within the Capitol building itself. The plaque, according to reports, bears the inscription:
“On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honours the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended the symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.”
The officers argue that the Architect’s inaction violates this law and undermines Congress’s own directive. In their view, the refusal to install the plaque is not an oversight—it’s an unlawful delay driven by political motives.
What the Lawsuit Demands
Through the Capitol plaque lawsuit, Dunn and Hodges are asking a federal judge to order the Architect of the Capitol to install the plaque immediately. Their complaint claims that the delay not only violates the 2022 law but may also infringe on the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
The officers argue that failing to honour those who defended the Capitol sends a dangerous message—that the bravery of law enforcement can be ignored or erased when it becomes politically inconvenient. Their lawsuit is both a demand for compliance with the law and a plea to preserve the historical record of what truly happened on January 6th.
Who Filed the Lawsuit and Why
Both plaintiffs in the Capitol plaque lawsuit were on the front lines during the Capitol riot.
- Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer, became a national figure after publicly describing the chaos, violence, and racial abuse officers endured that day.
- Daniel Hodges, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department, was brutally assaulted by rioters—video footage showed him being crushed in a doorway and screaming in pain as the mob pushed against him.
In their lawsuit, they describe the emotional and physical toll of that day. They say they filed the case after years of being ignored, facing continued harassment and even death threats. They explained that they had asked “nicely” for action, but when nothing changed, they turned to the courts to ensure the law was followed.
Political Context and Controversy
The Capitol plaque lawsuit also highlights how deeply political the events of January 6th remain. Democrats argue that House Republican leadership, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, has refused to authorise the installation because they wish to move away from the political fallout of the insurrection.
The Architect of the Capitol, Thomas Austin, testified before a House subcommittee in April 2025 that his office had not received final instructions from the Speaker’s office to install the plaque. “We have not received final instructions to install the plaque,” he said under oath.
Supporters of the officers believe the refusal is an attempt to “rewrite history.” The lawsuit directly accuses congressional leaders of ignoring the sacrifices of officers for political reasons.
Why the Case Matters
The Capitol plaque lawsuit isn’t just a dispute over a memorial. It raises broader questions about how America acknowledges one of the darkest days in its democratic history.
For many Americans, January 6th was a direct attack on the rule of law. Police officers were beaten, sprayed with chemicals, and attacked with makeshift weapons as they tried to protect lawmakers. More than 100 officers were injured. For those officers, the plaque symbolises national gratitude and recognition of their role in defending democracy.
Ignoring that law, they argue, sends the wrong message about justice and accountability. It also raises concerns about whether political leaders can choose to disregard a federal mandate simply because it is inconvenient.
The Legal Road Ahead
The Capitol plaque lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under case number 1:25-cv-01844. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Brendan Ballou of Lichten & Liss-Riordan. The Architect of the Capitol has not yet filed a formal response to the complaint.
Legal experts note that the case could hinge on how much discretion the Architect has in following congressional directives. If the court finds that the Architect was bound by law to install the plaque and failed to do so without valid reason, it could order immediate compliance.
Alternatively, if the court finds that the delay was the result of political or procedural discretion, the officers may face a longer legal battle.
Reactions from Political Leaders and the Public
Public reaction to the Capitol plaque lawsuit has been divided along familiar political lines. Supporters of the officers and many Democrats see it as a necessary step to hold Congress accountable and to honour law enforcement properly.
Some Republicans, however, view the lawsuit as politically motivated. They argue that the Capitol should remain neutral and that the plaque’s message could be interpreted as partisan.
Police unions and several advocacy groups have expressed support for the officers, noting that the plaque represents unity and gratitude—not politics.
What This Means for the Officers and the Nation
For Dunn and Hodges, the Capitol plaque lawsuit is about more than just a piece of metal on a wall—it’s about ensuring that the sacrifices of their fellow officers are formally recognised. They say that installing the plaque would bring some measure of closure and validation for those who risked their lives that day.
For the nation, the lawsuit forces a reckoning with how America chooses to remember January 6th. Whether one sees the riot as an act of political protest gone too far or as an insurrection against democracy, the facts remain: officers stood between lawmakers and a violent mob. Honouring them is not about politics—it’s about truth.
Final Thoughts
The Capitol plaque lawsuit may seem small in scope, but its implications are vast. It’s a test of whether the rule of law still compels government officials to act, even when politics stand in the way. It’s also a reminder that healing and unity require acknowledgment of what truly happened.
As the case unfolds, the nation will be watching—not just to see whether a plaque finally hangs in the Capitol, but to see whether justice, gratitude, and historical truth can still triumph over division.