Trump DOJ places civil rights cases in limbo as Worcester PD negotiates reform deal
'We know that we're going to have leadership in those agencies that are no longer allies,' Hall said. 'We know that we are going to have a heavier burden to carry.'
Advertisement
In his first administration and on the 2024 campaign trail, Trump
Related
:
It is a track record that advocates say could have repercussions for those harmed by corrupt policing.
Just two of the 12 policing investigations launched during the Biden administration have led to settlements, and both are still in need of final approval by a federal judge. Those departments, in Minneapolis and Louisville,
Howard Friedman, a Brookline-based attorney with decades of experience litigating police brutality claims, said he thinks the new administration will not launch new police misconduct investigations, and may scuttle settlements negotiated by the Biden administration.
Advertisement
'I know that in places where they were near consent decrees, some cities were delaying agreeing because they were figuring they would get a better deal or might not have to get a consent decree under the new administration,' Friedman said.
In Massachusetts, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division is currently negotiating a settlement with the City of Worcester after an investigation found a
Worcester Police Public Information Officer Sean Murtha told the Globe his department 'is still meeting with the DOJ at this time.' Federal officials have not confirmed if those negotiations will proceed as previously planned under the Biden administration.
'As the United States Attorney I am responsible for supporting the mission of the Department of Justice which includes implementing policy consistent with federal law,' Massachusetts US Attorney Leah B. Foley said in response to questions about the Worcester investigation. 'We are reviewing the order and will comply with its directive. Additionally, we do not discuss the status of cases or internal deliberations publicly.'
The DOJ's press office in Washington, D.C., declined to comment.
Friedman said he does not expect the DOJ's new leadership to follow through on creating a consent decree in Worcester.
'The question would be, would Worcester on their own decide to make changes?' Friedman said. 'If they're not going to do it on their own, the question is what's going to happen?'
Related
:
The Biden and Obama administrations relied on the DOJ's Civil Rights Division to conduct broad investigations of police departments accused of discrimination, excessive force, or other unconstitutional law enforcement. Sometimes those inquiries, called 'pattern or practice' investigations, were launched in response to high-profile police killings, such as the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020. More commonly they uncovered lesser-known patterns of misconduct, like discrimination against Latino drivers in East Haven, Conn., and unjustified arrests of school children in Meridian, Miss.
Advertisement
Once the DOJ finds a pattern of violations, prosecutors and the targeted agency typically negotiate a 'consent decree' — a binding reform agreement, monitored and enforced by a federal judge. These agreements generally last years, grant monitors access to the inner workings of police departments, and can mandate large-scale changes in policies and training. Opponents have criticized them as expensive and burdensome for law enforcement agencies.
Obama's DOJ launched 21 pattern-or-practice investigations, according to
In contrast, during Trump's first term, the DOJ investigated just one department: Springfield, Mass. The DOJ found that officers in Springfield's narcotics bureau exhibited a pattern of excessive force, and prosecutors reached a
Pam Bondi, Trump's
In 2017, Trump's newly confirmed attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said the DOJ would 'pull back' on civil rights suits against police departments, adding he would not approve consent decrees that would 'cost lives by handcuffing the police rather than handcuffing the criminals.' In 2020, the
Advertisement
Hall and Friedman said civil rights attorneys and advocates will likely have to rely on other means for addressing police misconduct, including private lawsuits, state and local police oversight bodies, and enforcement by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
Massachusetts' 2020 police reform law gave the state attorney general the power to conduct its own pattern or practice investigations of local law enforcement agencies. Campbell took office in 2023 pledging to create a police accountability unit within her agency. As of September 2024, that unit was still ramping up operations and seeking its first director.
'That's been a slow rollout,' Hall said. 'We would love to see AG Campbell's office be more intentional and more forceful in the police misconduct and police accountability arena to help fill that void.'
Campbell's office said in a statement that the police unit's work is 'well underway,' and is being led by a deputy director while the search for a director continues.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Dan Glaun can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
India Suspends Duties on Raw Cotton Imports, Benefitting US Exporters
India will be suspending the 11 percent customs duty and agricultural cess on raw cotton imports in a move that is expected to grant some measure of relief to domestic textile and apparel manufacturers grappling with potential revenue loss from higher U.S. tariffs. The exemption, which will take effect from Aug. 19 to Sept. 30, can also be seen as a temporary concession to American exporters who have been pushing for greater market access to the South Asian nation, whose falling cotton yields have lately turned it from a net exporter to a net importer of the fiber. The United States is India's top supplier of cotton. More from Sourcing Journal India and China: US Tariffs Turn Rivals Toward Friendship in Major Geopolitical Shift No Hint of a Slowdown at Arc'teryx Parent Amer Sports Despite Tariff Impacts EU Tech Regulation Could Be Holding Up Final Trade Agreement With U.S. On Aug. 27, the Trump administration's already-high 25 percent tariff on India is poised to double, ostensibly in protest of the country's purchase of Russian oil. The Indian government was already working to address a previous White House complaint about a nearly $46 billion trade deficit by buying more energy and defense equipment from the United States. The escalated rate—and the existential threat it poses to Indian businesses that risk losing orders to rivals in more favorably tariffed geographies, such as Bangladesh and Vietnam—has further complicated matters. The United States has been India's largest overseas destination, accounting for nearly 29 percent of its textile and apparel exports, or nearly $10.3 billion worth, over the past year. Earlier this month, the Global Trade Research Initiative, a New Delhi-based think tank, said that an additional 50 percent duty could lead to a 40-50 percent decline in America-bound shipments. Rakesh Mehra, chairman of the Confederation of Indian Textile Industry, or CITI, has called the tariff a 'huge setback' to India's competitiveness. CITI has also been calling for the removal of the import duty on cotton to help domestic cotton prices be more in line with international ones. 'It is our fervent appeal to the government to urgently take steps to come to the aid of India's textile and apparel sector during these hugely testing times, given the government's strong commitment to increase the competitiveness of local industry and help our companies become major players on the world stage,' Mehra said in a statement. Mehra praised India's recent free trade agreement with the United Kingdom as a 'huge positive for India's textile and apparel domain,' one that could help the country achieve its goal of reaching $100 billion in textile and apparel exports by 2030. He said he hoped to see a similar deal manifest with the United States. 'A well-rounded [bilateral trade agreement] with the U.S., which takes proper care of India's sovereign interests and is also fair and balanced, could be a win-win proposition for both nations,' Mehra added. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall.
an hour ago
Lawyer argues Meta can't be held liable for gunmaker's Instagram posts in Uvalde families' lawsuit
LOS ANGELES -- A lawsuit filed by families of the Uvalde school shooting victims alleging Instagram allowed gun manufacturers to promote firearms to minors should be thrown out, lawyers for Meta, Instagram's parent company, argued Tuesday. Nineteen children and two teachers were killed in the May 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The families sued Meta in Los Angeles in May 2024, saying the social media platform failed to enforce its own rules forbidding firearms advertisements aimed at minors. The families, who were present at last month's hearing, did not appear in court, with a lawyer citing the back-to-school season. Many plaintiffs attended the hearing virtually, he said. In one ad posted on Instagram, the Georgia-based gunmaker Daniel Defense shows Santa Claus holding an assault rifle. In another post by the same company, a rifle leans against a refrigerator, with the caption: 'Let's normalize kitchen Daniels. What Daniels do you use to protect your kitchen and home?' The lawsuit alleges those posts are marketed toward minors. The Uvalde gunman opened an online account with Daniel Defense before his 18th birthday and purchased the rifle as soon as he could, according to the lawsuit. He also owned various Instagram accounts and had an 'obsessive relationship' with the platform, at times opening the app more than 100 times a day, plaintiffs' lawyers found in an analysis of the shooter's phone. Meta attorney Kristin Linsley argued that the families provided no proof that minors, including the Uvalde gunman, even read the Daniel Defense posts on Instagram. She also said the posts didn't violate Meta's policies because they weren't direct advertisements and did not include links to purchase any products. Katie Mesner-Hage, representing the victims' families, said the defense's claim is 'fundamentally unfair,' as the plaintiffs don't have access to Meta data that would indicate whether the shooter encountered those posts. She added that if the content had landed on the shooter's feed, as the plaintiffs allege, then Meta 'not only knew about it, they designed the system so it would be delivered to him.' 'They knew more about him than anyone else on the planet,' she said. Linsley said content advertising firearms for sale on Instagram is allowed if posted by 'brick-and-motor and online retailers,' but visibility of those posts was restricted for minors under Meta's advertising policies from the end of 2021 to October 2022. 'This is not a playbook for how to violate the rules. This is actually what the rules are,' Linsley said. The plaintiff's team, however, showed a fake profile they created for a 17-year-old boy earlier this month, through which they were able to search Daniel Defense's Instagram account and see a post that included a picture of a gun, as well as a link to the gun manufacturer's website. When the link was clicked, the gun-maker's website opened, and the team was able to select a firearm and add it to their cart, all within Instagram's app — an experiment that refutes Meta's assertion that posts relating to firearms aren't visible to users under 21, Mesner-Hage said. Linsley said in her rebuttal that the experiment was done this year and not in 2021 to 2022, which is when the policy she described was in effect. The families have also sued Daniel Defense and video game company Activision, which produces 'Call of Duty.' Linsley said the Communications Decency Act allows social media platforms to moderate content without being treated as publishers of that content. "The only response a company can have is to not have these kinds of rules at all," Linsley said. 'It just gets you down a rabbit hole very quickly.' Mesner-Hage argued Meta is not protected by the act because social media platforms don't just host speech, but help curate it through its algorithms. Daniel Defense, she said, didn't have to pay for ads to get free access to Meta's analytical data through its business account on Instagram. That data shows the company which age bracket and gender engaged most with a specific post. 'Daniel Defense is not on Instagram to make friends. ... They're on there to promote their product,' Mesner-Hage said. 'It's not a paid advertisement, but I would struggle to describe this as anything other than an advertisement.' The lawsuit alleges that firearm companies tweaked their online marketing to comply with Meta's policies, including by avoiding the words 'buy' or 'sell' and not providing links to purchase, and that the social media company did not protect users against such strategies. Last month, lawyers for Activision also argued that legal proceedings against them should be thrown out, saying the families allegations are barred by the First Amendment. The families alleged that the war-themed video game Call of Duty trained and conditioned the Uvalde gunman to orchestrate his attack. Lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the judge to allow them to amend their lawsuit with the new information they presented Tuesday before ruling on the defense's motion. The defense claimed that was unnecessary, as the case would not have merit even with the amendments. The judge has yet to rule on Activision's motion and did not immediately rule on the Meta case.
