Plaintiffs in a lawsuit over a delayed memorial to law enforcement who responded to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol told a federal court this week that their case should not be dismissed, arguing that the recently installed plaque fails to comply with the law requiring its display.
In a filing submitted after the court asked whether the case had become moot, the plaintiffs, former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and D.C. Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges, said staff for the Architect of the Capitol installed the long-delayed plaque on March 7 in a temporary location inside the Capitol that is not accessible to the public.
According to the filing, the plaque was placed "at the end of a hallway" near a ground-floor entrance on the building's West Front that is closed to visitors.
Plaintiffs argued that the location violates a 2022 law directing the Architect of the Capitol to display the memorial on the Capitol's "western front," which they say refers to the exterior terraces where the public can see it.
They said that the hidden placement undermines the purpose of the memorial, which Congress mandated to honor the law enforcement officers who responded to the unrest.
The plaintiffs also noted that the plaque's installation came roughly three years after the statutory deadline.
The lawsuit, filed in June 2025 by several Capitol Police officers and advocacy groups, seeks to compel the Architect of the Capitol to install the plaque in a visible public location on the building's exterior.
The plaintiffs argue that congressional leaders, particularly in the House, had delayed or blocked its installation for years.
The disagreement over the plaque is tied to broader political disputes over how the Jan. 6 protest should be remembered.
The protest occurred as supporters of President Donald Trump entered the Capitol in an effort to voice their objection to Congress's certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Debate over the memorial intensified after Trump, in his current term, issued pardons to most of the Jan. 6 defendants who had been convicted or charged with lower-level offenses such as trespassing or unlawful entry.
Critics say those pardons and opposition to the plaque reflect efforts to downplay the violence against police officers that day, while supporters argue that the charges against many of the defendants were inflated.
In the new filing, plaintiffs said the plaque's current placement effectively keeps it "hidden from the public" and does not satisfy the legal requirement for a memorial on the Capitol's western exterior.
They also argued the case cannot be dismissed because government officials themselves have acknowledged the installed plaque may not meet the statute's requirements.
Court filings from the government previously suggested the law could require listing thousands of individual officers, rather than the law enforcement agencies currently named on the plaque.
Without continued court oversight, the plaintiffs said, the memorial could remain out of public view indefinitely. The court has not yet ruled on whether the case will proceed.