Summary#

B26-0866, the Prearrest Diversion Task Force Recommendations Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2026, would amend the 2001 Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia Establishment Act. Its stated goal is to change deadlines for the Prearrest Diversion Task Force’s recommendations; it does not set up a new diversion program.

• It replaces a deadline in subsection (g) with “no later than June 2025.”
• It replaces a deadline in subsection (h) with “no later than July 31, 2026.”
• The bill says it applies as of October 28, 2026—after both replacement deadlines.
• It is an emergency act: it would take effect after mayoral approval or a Council override of a veto, and would last no longer than 90 days.

What it means for you#

• People who may be affected by prearrest diversion: The title identifies certain misdemeanor offenses and categories of people as the subject of the task force’s recommendations. This bill changes deadlines, but does not itself change who qualifies for diversion, create a right to diversion, or change criminal penalties.
• The task force: The bill changes dates in two parts of the law. The parent Act was not supplied, so the exact tasks attached to each deadline could not be verified.
• General public: The amendment does not itself establish a new service or explain how diversion decisions would be made.

Money#

No publicly available information on the cost is included in the supplied material.

• The bill adopts a Budget Director’s fiscal impact statement, but that statement and any cost estimate were not supplied.
• The bill does not itself state a spending amount, fee, fine, or new funding source.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the parent Act, so the exact requirements in subsections (g) and (h) are unclear.
• The bill’s stated applicability date is after both deadlines it sets. The material does not explain how those already-passed dates would work.
• The material does not explain the reason for the specific replacement dates beyond the bill’s reference to congressional review.
• It is unclear whether the emergency amendment would be followed by a permanent change. The bill itself lasts no longer than 90 days.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it replaces deadlines tied to another law’s applicability date with specific calendar dates.
• Setting updated dates may be a way to adjust the task force’s schedule in response to congressional review, as the bill title indicates.
• The bill changes deadlines rather than creating a diversion program whose operations or eligibility rules are not described here.

Case against#

• The replacement dates are already past when the bill says it applies. That could leave the task force’s timing unclear.
• The supplied text does not explain what the task force must deliver by each date, so readers cannot tell whether the new deadlines are workable.
• The emergency act lasts no longer than 90 days. The bill does not explain what happens to the deadlines after that period.