Read the full stored bill text
ENROLLED ORIGINAL
1
A RESOLUTION
26-157
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
July 1, 2025
To declare an emergency with respect to the need to amend the Residential Tranquility Act of
2010 to prohibit persons targeting a residence for purposes of demonstration from using
sound amplifying devices in a residential zone between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., to
prohibit the use of unattended sound amplifying devices emitting sound while targeting a
residence, and to prohibit a person from launching or throwing objects onto the
residential property of another with the intent to cause fear, intimidate, or harass any
person living or working at that residence; and to amend the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to provide that the term
expiration date for a Council appointment to the Corrections Information Council shall be
December 7th of the year in which the term expires.
RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this
resolution may be cited as the “Residential Tranquility Emergency Declaration Resolution of
2025”.
Sec. 2. (a) The District of Columbia has observed an alarming increase in targeted
demonstrations using amplified sound devices, creating significant disruptions that extend far
beyond any single residence to impact entire communities. These demonstrations, particularly
when employing amplified sound devices, fundamentally disturb the peace and tranquility that
residents should rightfully expect in their homes. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Carey v.
Brown, “The State’s interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is
certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.” 447 U.S. 455, 471 (1980). The
Court has consistently recognized the home as “the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the
sick,” Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125 (1969) (Black, J., concurring), and maintained that
“preserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to
escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value.” Carey, 447 U.S.
at 471. “One important aspect of residential privacy” includes the “protection of the unwilling
listener” at home, especially when a particular residence is being targeted. Frisby v. Schultz, 487
U.S. 474, 484–85 (1988) (“[A] special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within their own
walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions. Thus, we have
ENROLLED ORIGINAL
2
repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own
homes and that the government may protect this freedom.”).
(b) The persistent use of amplified sound devices in residential areas poses significant
health risks to residents. Medical research has established that constant exposure to elevated
sound levels can trigger anxiety, elevated stress hormones, and adverse psychological effects.
These impacts are particularly severe for children whose cognitive development can be impaired
by chronic excessive sound exposure, and for elderly residents or residents with disabilities who
may be more sensitive to auditory disruptions. Current regulations have proven inadequate in
addressing the unique harm caused by targeted amplified sound at residences, leaving
communities without sufficient protections.
(c) The District's current law, which restricts certain activities between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m., does not align with the realities of modern life and work patterns. Many District
residents, including early morning commuters and night shift workers, require rest during hours
outside this window. Furthermore, families with school-age children, who typically require
between 9 and 11 hours of sleep, often begin their bedtime routines well before 10:00 p.m.
Further, the morning hours between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. are particularly crucial for families
preparing for school and work, a time when quiet and focus are essential. See Madsen v.
Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 772 (1994) (“We must, of course, take account of the
place to which the regulations apply in determining whether these restrictions burden more
speech than necessary. We have upheld similar noise restrictions in the past, and as we noted in
upholding a local noise ordinance around public schools[.]”). Medical research has shown that
inadequate sleep resulting from noise disruption increases risks of cardiovascular disease,
compromises immune system function, and impairs cognitive performance. Demonstrations
targeted at a residence can cause these disruptions; the limitations imposed through this
emergency legislation will help address these unique harms.
(d) The District is also facing the emerging issue of unattended sound amplifying devices
being placed near residences. These devices, when left without active supervision, create unique
enforcement challenges and can subject residents to prolonged harassment with no accountable
party present to address concerns.
(e) The District has also observed a disturbing trend of individuals throwing objects at
residential properties as a means of harassment and intimidation. This behavior not only poses
immediate safety risks and potential property damage but also creates significant psychological
distress for residents who feel targeted and unsafe in their own homes. The current legal
framework does not adequately address this specific form of harassment, leaving a critical gap in
protections for District residents facing such intimidation tactics.
(f) On July 1, 2025, the Council approved the Residential Tranquility Amendment Act of
2025, passed on 2nd reading on July 1, 2025 (Enrolled version of Bill 26-189), but the measure
has not yet undergone congressional review. Emergency legislation is necessary to provide
protection for residential tranquility and the safety of those who reside in the District. Current
ENROLLED ORIGINAL
3
enforcement mechanisms have proven insufficient to address these forms of harassment, leaving
residents vulnerable to immediate and ongoing harm. These changes represent an urgent and
necessary approach to safeguarding the well-being of District residents and addressing
challenges to residential peace and security while respecting established legal principles. The
emergency nature of this legislation is justified by the immediate need to protect residents from
escalating forms of harassment and to ensure their fundamental right to peace and security in
their homes.
(g) This legislation is guided by the precedence and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court
surrounding sound amplification and the First Amendment, according to which, “excessive”
noise and disturbance are substantial government interests that can justify narrowly tailored
regulations of constitutionally protected speech by time, place, and manner, and according to
which focused picketing solely in front of a particular residence may be proscribed. Generally
speaking, case law shows that courts are inclined to find ordinances prohibiting demonstrations
targeting particular residences as constitutional but not general ordinances banning picketing on
an entire residential street. Cf. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988); Veneklase v. City of
Fargo, 248 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Klein v. San Diego County, 463 F.3d 1029 (9th
Cir. 2006); Bell v. City of Winter Park, 745 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2014). This legislation adheres
to the case law in the lower courts and Supreme Court upholding regulations on demonstrations
that target a specific residence by emphasizing both the narrowly tailored regulation to serve
both significant and compelling governmental interests and focusing on harassing behaviors that
exceed constitutional protection.
Sec. 3. The Council of the District of Columbia determines that the circumstances
enumerated in section 2 constitute emergency circumstances making it necessary that the
Residential Tranquility Emergency Amendment Act of 2025 be adopted after a single reading.
Sec. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately.