Capitol Police Plaque Lawsuit Dismissed, Why a Judge Rejected the Jan. 6 Officers’ Case

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, over how Congress-mandated recognition for responding officers was installed at the Capitol.

Former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges sued the Architect of the Capitol and Thomas Austin to compel installation of a plaque honoring the officers who responded to the attack.

On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that Dunn and Hodges did not show the concrete injury required for Article III standing. Because the court found it lacked jurisdiction, it did not decide whether the plaque’s design or location complied with the federal law behind it. The case is over at the district-court level unless the plaintiffs appeal.

Quick Facts: Dunn v. Austin Capitol Police Plaque Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Case	Dunn et al. v. Austin et al.
Case number	No. 1:25-cv-01844 (DLF)
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Judge	Dabney L. Friedrich
Plaintiffs	Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges
Defendants	Thomas Austin and the Architect of the Capitol
Lawsuit filed	June 12, 2025
Subject	Installation and placement of a January 6 law-enforcement plaque
Main legal theories	Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim and request for mandamus relief
September 30, 2026 ruling	Dismissed for lack of Article III standing
Class action / settlement / claim form	None

Why Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges Sued the Architect of the Capitol

Section 214 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 expressed Congress’s gratitude to officers who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021. It directed the Architect of the Capitol to obtain an honorific plaque listing the names of the responding officers and place it at a permanent location on the western front of the U.S. Capitol within one year of enactment.

That deadline passed without the plaque being installed. Dunn and Hodges filed suit in June 2025 seeking an order requiring the Architect to comply with the law.

What Congress Required Under Section 214 and What Was Installed

The statute called for a plaque listing the names of responding officers, placed on the Capitol’s western front, and set a process for congressional committee leaders to compile and confirm those names.

The plaque installed in March 2026 does not list individual officers’ names. It identifies the law-enforcement agencies and organizations that sent personnel, and a QR code links to a list of individual names. It was placed inside the Capitol, which the plaintiffs said was not the publicly accessible location the law required and was off the normal public tour route.

On March 7, 2026, Judge Friedrich asked the plaintiffs whether the case might be moot after reports that the plaque had been installed. Dunn and Hodges argued it was not, because the location and the way officers were recognized still did not satisfy the law.

Why Judge Dabney Friedrich Dismissed the Capitol Plaque Lawsuit

The judge dismissed for lack of Article III standing. A plaintiff in federal court generally must show an injury that is:

1. Concrete and particularized;
2. Actual or imminent;
3. Fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and
4. Likely to be redressed by the requested court order.

The ruling concluded Dunn and Hodges did not establish a sufficient legally cognizable injury, so their personal interest in how January 6 officers were memorialized was not enough to bring the case in federal court.

Did Judge Friedrich Rule the Capitol Plaque Was Lawful?

No. The ruling rests on standing and jurisdiction. The judge did not decide that the plaque complied with Section 214 or that the Architect of the Capitol followed every requirement. The plaintiffs’ statutory-compliance arguments were never decided on the merits, and the dismissal is not a finding that their allegations were false.

Was the Dunn and Hodges Capitol Plaque Lawsuit a Class Action?

No. It was brought by two individual plaintiffs. There was no class, settlement, administrator, claim form, compensation fund or filing deadline, and nothing for members of the public or other officers to claim. The lawsuit also did not concern who was responsible for the January 6 attack. It asked only whether the government had carried out Congress’s directive about the plaque.

What Happens After the Dunn v. Austin Dismissal?

Dunn and Hodges could appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In civil cases where the federal government is a party, the notice of appeal is generally due within 60 days of entry of judgment, so check the docket for the exact date. An appeal would not mean the dismissal will be overturned.

Keep three things separate: the district court’s September 30 dismissal, any notice of appeal, and any later appellate ruling. As of the September 30 ruling, no appellate decision has changed the dismissal.

What the Dismissal Means for Other January 6 Officers

The ruling does not establish that every officer has been denied recognition under federal law. It also does not mean every officer would lack standing in a different lawsuit. Standing depends on the plaintiff, the alleged injury and the relief sought.

Capitol Police Plaque Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Development
March 2022	Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act with the plaque requirement
March 2023	One-year installation deadline passed
June 12, 2025	Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges filed Dunn v. Austin
December 9, 2025	Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment
March 7, 2026	Judge Friedrich asked whether the plaque’s installation affected the case
March 2026	Plaque installed at the Capitol
September 30, 2026	Judge Friedrich dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing

FAQs: Capitol Police Plaque Lawsuit Dismissal

Why was the Dunn and Hodges plaque lawsuit dismissed?

Judge Dabney L. Friedrich dismissed Dunn v. Austin, No. 1:25-cv-01844 (DLF), because Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges lacked Article III standing, so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who filed the Capitol plaque lawsuit?

Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 12, 2025.

Who was sued in the Capitol plaque lawsuit?

Thomas Austin and the Architect of the Capitol.

What did Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges want?

An order compelling the Architect of the Capitol to install the January 6 plaque as Congress’s 2022 law directed.

Did the court find the government violated the law?

No. The case was dismissed for lack of standing without reaching the merits.

Is there a Capitol plaque lawsuit settlement or claim form?

No. The case was dismissed, and it was not a class action or consumer settlement.

Can January 6 officers claim money because of the plaque lawsuit?

No. The case created no compensation program or damages fund.

Where is the January 6 plaque?

It was installed inside the U.S. Capitol in March 2026. Its design and placement were the subject of the plaintiffs’ complaints.

What law required the January 6 plaque?

Section 214 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022.

Can Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges appeal?

Yes, they may seek review in the D.C. Circuit, subject to the appeal deadline. An appeal would be a separate development from the September 30 ruling.

Bottom Line on the Capitol Police Plaque Dismissal

The September 30, 2026 ruling ended the district-court case brought by Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges over the January 6 plaque. It was based on standing, not on a finding that the plaque met every requirement of Congress’s 2022 law, and there is no claim process or financial recovery.

Following other January 6-related litigation? Read our coverage of a separate lawsuit by the same two officers: Jan. 6 Officers Sue To Block Trump’s $1.8B Anti-Weaponization Fund

Sources and Court Records for the Capitol Police Plaque Lawsuit

1. Dunn et al. v. Austin et al., No. 1:25-cv-01844 (DLF), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, docket and filings.
2. Judge Friedrich’s March 30, 2026 memorandum opinion on the statutory background and original claims.
3. Verdict News report on the September 30, 2026 dismissal and its Article III standing analysis.
4. Section 214 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022.
5. March 2026 Washington Post reporting and docket entries on the plaque’s installation and placement.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Anyone considering a legal claim should consult a qualified attorney about their own facts and deadlines.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the D.D.C. docket in No. 1:25-cv-01844, Judge Friedrich’s March 30, 2026 opinion, Section 214 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, and news reports of the September 30, 2026 dismissal, as of October 2, 2026. Last Updated: October 2, 2026.