Whether the removal of police officers' disciplinary rights contained in their collective bargaining agreement substantially impairs that agreement in violation of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution

QUESTION PRESENTED The Contract Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits any State, including the District of Columbia, from passing a law that substantially impairs a preexisting contract. Since 1979, the Petitioner D.C. Police Union has negotiated matters pertaining to discipline on behalf of its members (Metropolitan Police Department officers, sergeants, and detectives) and has entered into numerous collective bargaining agreements that provide its members with certain disciplinary rights. In July 2020, the District of Columbia enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Emergency Act of 2020, Section 116 of which provides that “[a]ll matters pertaining to the discipline of sworn law enforcement personnel shall «**not be negotiable.” App.89a-90a. Prior to this enactment, the Petitioner and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department entered into a collective bargaining agreement in which the parties contractually agreed to certain disciplinary provisions, and also agreed that such provisions would be incorporated into the parties’ next collective bargaining agreement. Despite the parties’ preexisting contractual obligation and the challenged law’s removal of those rights, the court of appeals concluded that the Contract Clause was not violated. The Question Presented Is: 1. Whether the removal of police officers’ disciplinary rights contained in their collective bargaining agreement substantially impairs that agreement in violation of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution.