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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From 8 to 12 September 2025, in Sremska Kamenica (Serbia), the OSCE Transnational Threats Department/Strategic…
Addis Ababa, August 14, 2026 (ENA) — An Ethiopian delegation is participating in the Ministerial…
On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Hencely v. Fluor Corp.…
The National Assembly Finance and National Planning Committee has been directed to investigate the operations…
President William Ruto with his deputy Kithure Kindiki and first lady Rachel Ruto during the…
Health CS Aden Duale A press briefing dubbed ‘ask your government anything on healthcare’…