DC Council to vote on youth curfew measures

WASHINGTON - The D.C. Council is set to vote Tuesday on a series of youth curfew measures, including a citywide curfew for anyone under 18. 

What we know:

Lawmakers say the proposals are aimed at curbing what officials have described as "teen takeovers" that have disrupted neighborhoods and, at times, turned violent.

Since July 2025, the city has relied on emergency legislation, extensions and executive orders to keep temporary curfews going. 

The Council is expected to vote again Tuesday on extending the emergency curfew through the summer, along with a separate vote on legislation that would make the curfew permanent.

READ MORE: DC expands juvenile curfew zones across four neighborhoods

Councilmembers remain divided on their strategy on how to address the large gatherings of teens that have drawn concern from residents. 

Supporters of the curfew say designated juvenile curfew zones give police the ability to break up large groups and respond to information about planned events. 

Opponents have raised concerns about over‑policing and profiling.

Last month, the Council delayed a vote on extending the temporary curfew after it became unclear whether the measure had the nine votes needed to pass. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson says Tuesday’s vote is still uncertain.

The Juvenile Curfew Amendment Act of 2026 would establish a permanent citywide curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. year‑round and extend the law to include 17‑year‑olds. It would also allow police to create extended juvenile curfew zones like those used in Navy Yard, Hill East, U Street and The Wharf. Those extended curfews could begin as early as 8 p.m.

READ MORE: Video of officer accused of pulling girls off bike in Navy Yard draws criticism

Under the proposal, minors would be prohibited from gathering in groups larger than eight, and extended curfew zones could remain in effect for no more than four consecutive days.

Permanent legislation requires seven of the Council’s 13 votes to pass. If approved, it would still need a second vote and would be subject to congressional review.