In their suit, the Councilmembers contend that the Control Board acted
"without statutory authority and over the objection of the Council of the
District of Columbia...As a result, the District of Columbia stands on the
brink of a health-care crisis that will immediately impact the lives of D.C.
General's patients, its staff, the other D.C. hospitals and the thousands of
residents, employees, and visitors to the Nation's Capital who rely on D.C.
General."

The Councilmembers contend that the Privatization Contract is unlawful and
the action of the Control Board in signing the contract and enacting the
enabling legislation without Council approval went beyond their statutory
authority and are unconstitutional. Therefore, the plaintiffs are seeking a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the
Control Board from signing the contract and passing the enabling legislation,
and to prevent the Control Board, the District government, and Greater
Southeast Community Hospital Corp. from implementing the Privatization
Contract and the enabling legislation.

In the suit, the Councilmembers state the Congress did not authorize the
Control Board to enter into contracts such as the Privatization Contract.
The plaintiffs' filing reads, "As a general matter, the types of powers
exercised by the Control Board here, agreeing to enter an $500 million
five-year contract and enacting and repealing legislation, are powers
reserved for the Council."

Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that only the Council can authorize
contracts in excess of $1 million. The law creating the Control Board "gives
the role to approve such contracts exclusively to the Council and nowhere
provides the Control Board the power to enter into such contracts without
approval of the Council."