Rule 5.1.Challenge to Validity or Constitutionality of a District of Columbia Statute, Order, Regulation, or Enactment—Constitutional Challenge to a Federal or State Statute—Notice, Certification, and Intervention
Group II: Commencing an Action; Service of Process, Pleadings, Motions, and Orders · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 5.1 requires a party that questions the constitutionality of a federal, state, or District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or enactment to file a notice and serve the right attorney general, gives that attorney general a 60-day window to intervene, and preserves the underlying claim or defense even if the notice never gets filed.
(a)NOTICE BY A PARTY. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute, or the constitutionality or validity under the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act of 1973, of a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or enactment of any type, must promptly:
(1)file a notice of constitutional question or notice of question of validity stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:
(A)a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity;
(B)a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or enactment of any type is questioned and the parties do not include the District of Columbia, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or
(C)a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and
(2)serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the Attorney General of the District of Columbia if a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or other enactment is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
(b)CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT. Where a notice is required under Rule 5.1(a), the court must certify to the appropriate attorney general that a federal or state statute— or a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or other enactment—has been questioned.
(c)INTERVENTION; FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS. Unless the court sets a later time, the appropriate attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute, regulation, order, or other enactment unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
(d)NO FORFEITURE. A party’s failure to file and serve the notice, or the court’s failure to certify, does not forfeit a claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.
Comment
This rule adopts, with certain modifications and additions, the corresponding federal rule, which was adopted in 2006. Consistent with the approach taken by the federal rules, the current rule moves requirements to Rule 5.1 from Rule 24(c), which addresses the criteria and procedures for intervention.
The rule adds a notification provision for acts, orders, regulations, or enactments exclusively applicable to the District of Columbia so that the court will follow as nearly as possible the notification procedure prescribed for courts of the United States in 28 U.S.C. § 2403. In order to assist the court in fulfilling its notification responsibilities under this section, the rule requires an alerting inscription on every pleading the filing of which makes such notification necessary.
The District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, Public Law 93-198 (also known as the District of Columbia Home Rule Act), is reported primarily at D.C. Code §§ 1-201.01 to -207.71 (2016 Repl.). Individual sections of the Act are codified throughout the D.C. Code, and a listing of those sections and references to their counterparts in the D.C. Code can be found in the Disposition Table in Volume 23 (Tables) of the 2012 Replacement Edition of the D.C. Code, pp. 323-25.
Plain-English Summary
A court should not strike down a law without giving the government that passed it a chance to defend it. Rule 5.1 builds that safeguard into ordinary civil litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper puts the constitutionality of a federal or state statute in question, or challenges a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or other enactment under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the party raising the challenge must promptly file a notice identifying the question and the paper that raises it — but only when the government whose law is at stake is not already a party to the case in its own right. The same party must serve that notice on the relevant attorney general: the U.S. Attorney General for a federal statute, the D.C. Attorney General for a District law, or the state attorney general for a state statute, by certified or registered mail or to an address the attorney general has designated for this purpose.
Once notice is filed, Rule 5.1(b) puts a matching duty on the court: it must certify the challenge to that same attorney general. From there, the clock in Rule 5.1(c) starts running — the attorney general has 60 days to intervene, counting from whichever comes first, the notice or the court's certification. The rule gives the court some room to act during that window: it may reject the constitutional challenge outright, but it cannot enter a final judgment holding the law unconstitutional or otherwise invalid until the 60 days run or the attorney general has had a real chance to weigh in.
Rule 5.1(d) closes with a practical protection for the party raising the challenge. Missing the notice requirement, or the court missing its certification duty, does not forfeit a claim or defense that was otherwise raised in time. The rule is about giving government notice of a constitutional fight, not about punishing a litigant for an administrative slip.
Frequently Asked Questions
When do I have to file a notice under Rule 5.1?
You must file it promptly whenever your pleading, motion, or other paper puts in question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute, or challenges a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or enactment under the Home Rule Act — but only in the specific circumstances Rule 5.1(a) describes, most notably when the government whose law you are challenging is not already a party to the case.
Who gets served with the notice?
It depends on whose law is at issue. A federal statute goes to the Attorney General of the United States, a District of Columbia statute, order, regulation, or enactment goes to the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, and a state statute goes to that state's attorney general. Rule 5.1(a)(2) allows service by certified or registered mail or to an electronic address the attorney general has designated for this purpose.
How long does the attorney general have to intervene?
Rule 5.1(c) gives the attorney general 60 days to intervene, measured from whichever happens first: the filing of the notice or the court's certification of the challenge. The court can allow more time if it chooses.
Can the court strike down the statute before the attorney general weighs in?
Not entirely. Rule 5.1(c) lets the court reject the constitutional challenge before the 60 days run, but it bars the court from entering a final judgment that holds the statute, order, regulation, or other enactment unconstitutional or otherwise invalid until that window has closed.
What happens if I forget to file the Rule 5.1 notice — do I lose my case?
No. Rule 5.1(d) states that a party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a claim or defense that was otherwise timely asserted. The notice requirement exists to alert the government, not to trap the litigant.
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:dc constitutional challenge to statute noticedc rule 5.1 attorney general interventionnotice of constitutional question dc superior courtchallenging a dc statute in civil casedc 60 day intervention deadline