The Trump administration has taken steps to dismantle the federal framework for addressing police misconduct, including dismissing ongoing investigations and pending consent decrees in cities nationwide. A key test of the administration’s ability to withdraw from these enforcement responsibilities is expected before the end of next week, when the Justice Department may seek termination of existing court-ordered police reform agreements.
Background on Consent Decrees
Since the mid-1990s, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has been empowered to investigate law enforcement agencies alleged to have a “pattern” or “practice” of violating federal rights. Following an investigation, the Civil Rights Division can sue a jurisdiction or negotiate a settlement, often in the form of a consent decree. These consent decrees are filed in court and become enforceable orders.
Recent Dismissals and Investigations
Four days before the fifth anniversary of George Floyd’s murder, the Justice Department dismissed pending decrees involving Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Louisville, Kentucky. These dismissals followed investigations into the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, which revealed practices beyond individual officers. The Justice Department also retracted reports finding widespread constitutional violations in six additional police departments, including Memphis, Tennessee.
Justice Department Actions and Claims
The Justice Department is now considering seeking dismissal of some or all consent decrees in over a dozen jurisdictions. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has argued that consent decrees are based on faulty legal arguments, despite federal court rulings to the contrary. The administration also claims consent decrees cause crime, despite data indicating crime rates decline in cities with these agreements.
Judicial Authority and Amicus Curiae
Judges have broad authority to ensure consent decrees are dismissed only as consistent with the law. To counter the politicization of federal police oversight, judges should scrutinize the administration’s justifications. Courts can appoint “friends of the court,” or amicus curiae, to assist in evaluating the Justice Department’s assertions, particularly when the nominal adversaries align. Federal Judge Dale Ho recently utilized this authority in a case involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
Ensuring Continued Oversight
If a judge determines a consent decree should continue, they should allow intervention by parties committed to implementing the agreement. The Justice Department may be abandoning its mission to protect against systematic civil rights violations by police, but the courts can play a crucial role in upholding these reforms.
