Trump stops civil rights investigations into local police departments
The Department of Justice is dismissing lawsuits against several local police departments, ending critical investigations into allegations of constitutional violations and civil rights abuses in the wake of high-profile police killings.
Justice Department officials announced on Wednesday they were pulling Joe Biden-era lawsuits targeting police departments in Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, which came under scrutiny following the killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, whose deaths galvanized racial justice protests in 2020.
The department is also ending investigations into law enforcement agencies in Memphis, Oklahoma City and Phoenix as well as Trenton, New Jersey and Mount Vernon, New York. A case against the Louisiana State Police also was dropped.
Justice Department probes into police departments in Louisville and Minneapolis — known as pattern-or-practice investigations — revealed histories of excessive force, discrimination against Black residents, and First Amendment violations.
Those investigations followed criminal trials into the officers involved in the killings of Floyd in Minneapolis and Taylor in Louisville.
The Justice Department under Donald Trump's administration is now retracting those findings.
The Justice Department now claims that the consent decrees reached with those agencies and the federal government to rectify civil rights violations 'went far beyond the Biden administration's accusations of unconstitutional conduct' and 'would have imposed years of micromanagement of local police departments by federal courts and expensive independent monitors, and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of compliance costs, without a legally or factually adequate basis for doing so.'
Trump's appointed chief of the Justice Department's civil rights division, Harmeet Dhillon, has recast the agency's mission into one that leans into the president's grievances and shifts its focus away from critical missions like police oversight and combating racial discrimination.
'Overbroad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti-police agenda,' Dhillon said in a statement Wednesday.
'Today, we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division's failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees,' she said.
This is a developing story
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Cities brace for large crowds at anti-Trump ‘No Kings' demonstrations across the US
Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades while officials enforced curfews in Los Angeles and Democratic governors called Trump's Guard deployment 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Governors and city officials vowed to protect the right to protest and to show no tolerance for violence. Advertisement Republican governors in Virginia, Texas, Nebraska and Missouri are mobilizing National Guard troops to help law enforcement manage demonstrations. There will be 'zero tolerance' for violence, destruction or disrupting traffic, and 'if you violate the law, you're going to be arrested,' Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin told reporters Friday. In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe issued a similar message, vowing to take a proactive approach and not to 'wait for chaos to ensue.' Nebraska's governor on Friday also signed an emergency proclamation for activating his state's National Guard, a step his office called 'a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' Advertisement Organizers say that one march will go to the gates of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis warned demonstrators that the 'line is very clear' and not to cross it. Governors also urged calm. On social media, Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, called for peaceful protests over the weekend, to ensure Trump doesn't send military to the state. 'Donald Trump wants to be able to say that we cannot handle our own public safety in Washington state,' Ferguson said. In a statement Friday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, urged 'protestors to remain peaceful and calm as they exercise their First Amendment right to make their voices heard.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said his administration and state police are working with police in Philadelphia ahead of what organizers estimate could be a crowd approaching 100,000 people. Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, warned that anyone coming to Philadelphia to break the law or immigration agents exceeding their authority will face arrest. He invoked civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a guide for demonstrators. 'If you are doing what Martin Luther King would have done, you're going to be fine,' Krasner told a news conference. Some law enforcement agencies announced they were ramping up efforts for the weekend. In California, state troopers will be on 'tactical alert,' which means all days off are canceled for all officers. Why is it called 'No Kings'? The 'No Kings' theme was orchestrated by the 50501 Movement, to support democracy and against what they call the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 50501 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. Advertisement Protests earlier this year have denounced Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Protesters have called for Trump to be 'dethroned' as they compare his actions to that of a king and not a democratically elected president. Why are they protesting on Saturday? The No Kings Day of Defiance has been organized to reject authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics and the militarization of the country's democracy, according to a statement by organizers. Organizers intend for the protests to counter the Army's 250th anniversary celebration — which Trump has ratcheted up to include a military parade, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $45 million that the Army expects to attract as many as 200,000 people. The event will feature hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers. It also happens to be Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. 'The flag doesn't belong to President Trump. It belongs to us,' the 'No Kings' website says. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere he isn't — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' What is planned at the 'No Kings' protests? Protests in nearly 2,000 locations are scheduled around the country, from city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, organizers said. Demonstrations are expected to include speeches and marches, organizers said in a call Wednesday. The group says a core principle behind all 'No Kings' events is a commitment to nonviolent action, and participants are expected to seek to de-escalate any confrontation. No weapons of any kind should be taken to 'No Kings' events, according to the website. How many people are expected to participate? The No Kings Day of Defiance is expected to be the largest single-day mobilization since Trump returned to office, organizers said. Organizers said they are preparing for millions of people to take to the streets across all 50 states and commonwealths. Advertisement
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supporters of dog tether law not ready to give up
PLATTSBURGH — A woman who began campaigning in 2024 for a countywide dog tether law isn't ready to give up anytime soon despite being denied a public hearing by the Clinton County Legislature for the second time in eight months. Five out of 10 legislators voted no at Wednesday's meeting to ensure the public hearing resolution for the law did not pass. It needed six affirmative votes to pass. 'We have had hundreds turn out and support the Dog Tether Law. Unfortunately, we don't feel heard, and now we have been banned from speaking in any regular session legislature meeting, as well as we have been denied a public hearing for the second time,' Jennifer Jewett said in a statement Friday. Jewett, of Champlain started campaigning for the dog legislation in February 2024. Since then, she has been to dozens of meetings to ask the legislature to pass a county-wide dog tethering law. Jewett was hoping for the county to pass legislation that would mirror Essex County's existing tether law, which has been in place since 2016. She made some progress last fall after spending months crafting legislation she thought legislators would feel comfortable with, but they voted down allowing it to go to a public hearing. The process played out the same at Wednesday's meeting as it did last fall and a couple dozen supporters of the tether law, led by Jewett, once again saw their efforts for a law be thwarted. 'This just isn't right. We have no voice, and this is an issue that's important to a lot of people,' Jewett said. 'We were told to show that we have support. As soon as we did, we were then silenced. The public support we have gained was used against us to deny us a public hearing. We have an overwhelming amount of support. That's undeniable. Instead of the legislators doing something to fix the problem, their main goal is to silence the public, so we'll go away. 'This Tether Law fight has turned into a fight for our First Amendment rights. Why have public meetings if the public is not allowed to address the legislature? I see this happening again in the future to some other group with an important issue they need resolved. It's only a matter of time.' Legislators Francis Peryea, R-Area 2, Altona; Mark Henry, R-Area 3, Chazy; Robbie Timmons, R-Area 7, Peru; Kevin Randall, R-Area 5, Schuyler Falls; and Dave Bezio, D-Area 4, town of Plattsburgh; all voted down the resolution. Legislators Calvin Castine, R-Area 1, Champlain; Bobby Hall, D-Area 10, city of Plattsburgh; Patty Waldron, D-Area 6, Saranac; Paul Lamoy, D-Area 8, city, town of Plattsburgh; and Josh Kretser, D-Area 9, city of Plattsburgh; voted for it. 'I am very shocked and surprised,' Hall said during the vote as the 'no' tallies came in. 'To tell people that they can't come here and speak, that's wrong, guys. I'm very disappointed,' Hall said. Those against the law, which would have included banning 24/7 tethering of dogs outside, all shared a similar consensus that they have heard everything they needed about it. A public hearing on it would be redundant, Randall said. 'I believe there should be a public hearing only after we have a consensus that we are moving forward with this as a law,' he said. 'We have listened and listened and listened. We know that there are many people that take time out of their day to come here and to preach to have this law in place. Unfortunately, we do have a small portion of the population that doesn't do the right thing, and that's why you're all here — I get it — but when we're passing a law for 80,000 people in the county, we want to make sure that we get it right.' Waldron couldn't understand why half of her colleagues were against it. 'This is truly just allowing the public to be heard. As was said earlier, we have never denied a public hearing in Clinton County's history, so I'm not sure what the sticking point is, but the public deserves to be heard,' Waldron said. 'And then if people want to cast their votes one way or the other, if we have a hearing, then that's fine, but I see no reason why we should deny the public to be heard.' Kendra Babbie Durant, who has a service dog named Lola and spoke at the meeting ahead of the vote, shared how Lola was mistreated by her previous owner, including being tethered outside for long periods of time and then getting shot when Lola no longer 'had any value.' 'She wears her scars as a testament to what happens when they look away too long,' Durant said. 'She shouldn't have those scars. No dogs should, no dog should live their life how she did. Let me reiterate, Lola had been abused before she was shot. She'd been tethered outside 24/7, on an 8-foot chain, surviving in a circle. 'It doesn't stop somebody from owning a dog, having a working dog, having a regular dog, having a dog for protection,' she continued.' It doesn't stop someone from hooking their dog up when necessary. It regulates harmful conditions and bans suffering. It protects dogs from being forgotten hour after hour, chained to the ground, waiting for food, water, shelter or a kind word.' While Jewett and other supporters have not been successful in convincing the county to pass a law, several townships have, including the town of Plattsburgh last month. It's unclear where the fight for a county-wide law goes from here, but Jewett said they're not giving up.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal prosecutors now charging immigrants who don't submit fingerprints under dormant 1940s law
Federal officials have begun carrying out President Donald Trump's orders to enforce a World War II-era criminal law that requires virtually all non-citizens in the country to register with and submit fingerprints to the government. Since April, law enforcement in Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Texas and Washington, D.C., have charged people with willful 'failure to register' under the Alien Registration Act, an offense most career federal public defenders have never encountered before. Many of those charged were already in jail and in ongoing deportation proceedings when prosecutors presented judges with the new charges against them. The registration provision in the law, which was passed in 1940 amid widespread public fear about immigrants' loyalty to the U.S., had been dormant for 75 years, but it is still on the books. Failure to register is considered a 'petty offense' — a misdemeanor with maximum penalties of six months imprisonment or a $1,000 fine. In reviving the law, the Trump administration may put undocumented immigrants in a catch-22. If they register, they must hand over detailed, incriminating information to the federal government — including how and when they entered the country. But knowingly refusing to register is also a crime, punishable by arrest or prosecution, on top of the ever-present threat of deportation. 'The sort of obvious reason to bring back registration in the first place is the hope that people will register, and therefore give themselves up effectively to the government because they already confessed illegal entry,' said Jonathan Weinberg, a Wayne State University law professor who has studied the registration law. But the Trump administration also has another goal. It says one purpose of the registration regime is to provoke undocumented immigrants to choose a third option: leave the country voluntarily, or, in the words of the Department of Homeland Security, compulsory 'mass self-deportation.' Those efforts, alongside the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and a more aggressive approach to immigration raids, are meant to achieve a broader, overarching campaign promise: the largest deportation program in the history of America. 'For decades, this law has been ignored — not anymore,' the department said in a February announcement that it would enforce the law. The department called 'mass self-deportation' a 'safer path for aliens and law enforcement,' and said it saves U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions about its enforcement policies. The Alien Registration Act was passed in 1940, amid fears about immigrants' loyalties. A separate provision of the statute criminalizes advocacy for overthrowing the government. For about two decades, that provision was used to prosecute people who were accused of being either pro-fascist or pro-Communist. The registration provision, though, remained largely dormant, and had not been enforced in 75 years. It applies to non-citizens, regardless of legal status, who are in the U.S. for 30 days or longer. Certain categories of legal immigrants have already met the requirement. Immigrants who have filed applications to become permanent residents are considered registered by DHS, for example. And even some undocumented U.S. residents are already registered: U.S. residents who have received 'parole' — a form of humanitarian protection from deportation — are also considered registered. Still, DHS estimates that up to 3.2 million immigrants are currently unregistered and are affected by the new enforcement regime. The administration has created a new seven-page form that non-citizens must use. The form requires people, under penalty of perjury, to provide biographical details, contact information, details about any criminal history and the circumstances of how they entered the U.S. After DHS issued regulations to enforce the registration requirement in April, the administration announced that 47,000 undocumented immigrants had registered using the new form. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's move to revive the registration requirement in March. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, initially expressed skepticism toward the administration, saying in a recent hearing that officials had pulled a 'big switcheroo' on undocumented immigrants. But McFadden in April refused the plaintiffs' request to temporarily block the policy, saying the Coalition likely lacks the legal standing to sue because it has not shown that it would be harmed by the policy. The group has appealed McFadden's decision. In the meantime, the administration has begun to prosecute people for failure to register for the first time in seven decades. The prosecutions so far have stumbled. On May 19, a federal magistrate judge in Louisiana consolidated and dismissed five of the criminal cases, saying prosecutors had no probable cause to believe the defendants had intentionally refused to register. Judge Michael North wrote that the Alien Registration Act requires 'some level of subjective knowledge or bad intent' behind the choice not to register. The prosecutions, the judge wrote, are impermissible because most people are simply unaware of the law, and the government 'did not provide these Defendants — as well as millions of similarly situated individuals here without government permission — with a way to register' since 1950. But North also pointed out that the government may have an easier path to proving probable cause in the future, given that DHS created a new registration form in April. And government attorneys have appealed the five dismissed cases. The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana declined to comment on recent charges filed under the law. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said the office 'is aggressively pursuing criminals in the district and will use all criminal justice resources available to make D.C. safe and to carry out President Trump's and Attorney General Bondi's direction to support immigration enforcement." The other federal district attorneys whose offices filed charges did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle LaPointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, an immigrants' rights advocacy group, said these initial cases are the 'tip of the iceberg.' LaPointe is among the attorneys representing the Coalition in its lawsuit against the administration. 'I don't expect them to abate just because there were some dismissals,' LaPointe said, pointing to North's statements about future charges. 'They have already stated that they intend to make prosecution of the few immigration-related criminal statutes a priority for DOJ, and it's very easy for them to at least charge, even if they're not always gonna be able to sustain their burden to secure a conviction.' Weinberg, the Wayne State law professor, agreed that the administration will likely continue attempting broad enforcement. 'If they bring a whole lot of prosecutions and end up losing all, they may step back,' Weinberg said. 'If they bring a whole lot and win a few, they'll say, 'Well, that's the basis on which we can move further'' and appeal — potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, he noted.
