logo
#

Latest news with #TrumpJusticeDepartment

Contributor: A perverse end for a tool that polices the police
Contributor: A perverse end for a tool that polices the police

Yahoo

time6 days ago

  • General
  • Yahoo

Contributor: A perverse end for a tool that polices the police

The Trump administration found a perverse way of marking the fifth anniversary of George Floyd's tragic death on May 25, 2020. Last week, it announced it would withdraw the court order to reform the Minneapolis Police Department, as well as those in a number of other cities. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Trump Justice Department's civil rights division, made clear that she was looking to end many, if not all, of the federal injunctions aimed at abusive and discriminatory police departments in the United States. It is not as if the problems of police abuse and racist policing have diminished. Statistics continue to show that Black and Latino people are more likely to be stopped by police then white people for the same behavior, more likely to be arrested and more likely to be subjected to police violence. The murder of George Floyd led to protests in all 50 states against police abuses. Legislation for reforming policing was introduced into Congress and passed by the House of Representatives, only to be blocked in the Senate. Some state and local governments adopted reforms, but the impetus for change soon faded. Read more: Thousands nationwide mark the 5th anniversary of George Floyd's murder This has long been the pattern. High-profile incidents such as the beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, and the more recent police killings of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky., and of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., generate outrage, but meaningful reforms rarely get adopted. The simple reality is that the political process doesn't change policing. Politicians find it more advantageous to be 'tough on crime' than to take on powerful police unions. Instead, what has proved to be an effective tool for police reform is the federal statute that was the basis for court ordered reforms in Minneapolis. The law adopted in 1994, allows the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate police departments and sue local and state governments for 'appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice' of unconstitutional violations. This authority has been used to institute reforms in many major city police departments, including in Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Newark and New Orleans. Read more: The LAPD is still paying for George Floyd protest tactics. Will lawsuits force change? In most instances cities settle rather than litigate, and a consent decree — a court ordered and court enforceable settlement — is entered into. Usually there is a monitor appointed to oversee the reforms. The federal court can impose sanctions on the state or local government if it does not meet the terms of the agreement. In L.A., the Justice Department investigated and planned to sue the Los Angeles Police Department after the Rampart scandal, in 2000, where police officers were found to have planted evidence on innocent people and lied in court to gain convictions. In June 2001, the city agreed to a consent decree more than 100 pages long. The decree affected almost every aspect of policing in Los Angeles and included a large number of overdue reforms. It created databases to track, among other things, police use of force and police discipline. It required police to record information with regard to every stop. It changed how use of force was to be investigated. It altered control of the anti-gang units; it was an anti-gang unit in the Rampart Division that led to the scandal. It also required regular audits of many aspects of policing. A monitor was appointed and for 12 years, until 2013, a federal judge oversaw its implementation. Read more: Ex-Minneapolis police chief reckons with his department's record before George Floyd's murder The Harvard Kennedy School did a detailed study of the process and found that the consent decree significantly changed policing in Los Angeles. Serious use of force incidents, for example, decreased by 15% while the consent decree was in effect. L.A.'s experience is typical: Consent decrees tend to work in reforming police departments. A study in 2017 supported their use after examining 23 police departments that had been under decrees, finding that "civil rights suits against these departments dropped anywhere from 23 percent to 36 percent after a federal intervention.' Another study found that consent decrees overseen by a monitor led to a 29% decrease in civilian fatalities at police hands. In Minneapolis, the city and what was then the Biden administration Justice Department only came to terms in January, after a multiyear federal investigation found the city's police engaged in rampant abuses. By canceling the consent decree process, the Trump administration is indicating that it will no longer use its authority in such situations. Read more: Preserving the George Floyd protest murals: L.A. arts and culture this week A crucial tool for police reform will be lost. An increase in police violation of rights and police violence, especially against individuals of color, seems inevitable. During the Vietnam War, Vermont Sen. George Aiken is remembered for saying that the United States should simply declare victory and withdraw. The Trump administration is following that playbook when it comes to police wrongdoing, and the consequences are sure to be tragic. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

A perverse end for a  tool  that polices the police
A perverse end for a  tool  that polices the police

Los Angeles Times

time6 days ago

  • Politics
  • Los Angeles Times

A perverse end for a tool that polices the police

The Trump administration found a perverse way of marking the fifth anniversary of George Floyd's tragic death on May 25, 2020. Last week, it announced it would withdraw the court order to reform the Minneapolis Police Department, as well as those in a number of other cities. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Trump Justice Department's civil rights division, made clear that she was looking to end many, if not all, of the federal injunctions aimed at abusive and discriminatory police departments in the United States. It is not as if the problems of police abuse and racist policing have diminished. Statistics continue to show that Black and Latino people are more likely to be stopped by police then white people for the same behavior, more likely to be arrested and more likely to be subjected to police violence. The murder of George Floyd led to protests in all 50 states against police abuses. Legislation for reforming policing was introduced into Congress and passed by the House of Representatives, only to be blocked in the Senate. Some state and local governments adopted reforms, but the impetus for change soon faded. This has long been the pattern. High-profile incidents such as the beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, and the more recent police killings of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky., and of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., generate outrage, but meaningful reforms rarely get adopted. The simple reality is that the political process doesn't change policing. Politicians find it more advantageous to be 'tough on crime' than to take on powerful police unions. Instead, what has proved to be an effective tool for police reform is the federal statute that was the basis for court ordered reforms in Minneapolis. The law adopted in 1994, allows the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate police departments and sue local and state governments for 'appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice' of unconstitutional violations. This authority has been used to institute reforms in many major city police departments, including in Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Newark and New Orleans. In most instances cities settle rather than litigate, and a consent decree — a court ordered and court enforceable settlement — is entered into. Usually there is a monitor appointed to oversee the reforms. The federal court can impose sanctions on the state or local government if it does not meet the terms of the agreement. In L.A., the Justice Department investigated and planned to sue the Los Angeles Police Department after the Rampart scandal, in 2000, where police officers were found to have planted evidence on innocent people and lied in court to gain convictions. In June 2001, the city agreed to a consent decree more than 100 pages long. The decree affected almost every aspect of policing in Los Angeles and included a large number of overdue reforms. It created databases to track, among other things, police use of force and police discipline. It required police to record information with regard to every stop. It changed how use of force was to be investigated. It altered control of the anti-gang units; it was an anti-gang unit in the Rampart Division that led to the scandal. It also required regular audits of many aspects of policing. A monitor was appointed and for 12 years, until 2013, a federal judge oversaw its implementation. The Harvard Kennedy School did a detailed study of the process and found that the consent decree significantly changed policing in Los Angeles. Serious use of force incidents, for example, decreased by 15% while the consent decree was in effect. L.A.'s experience is typical: Consent decrees tend to work in reforming police departments. A study in 2017 supported their use after examining 23 police departments that had been under decrees, finding that 'civil rights suits against these departments dropped anywhere from 23 percent to 36 percent after a federal intervention.' Another study found that consent decrees overseen by a monitor led to a 29% decrease in civilian fatalities at police hands. In Minneapolis, the city and what was then the Biden administration Justice Department only came to terms in January, after a multiyear federal investigation found the city's police engaged in rampant abuses. By canceling the consent decree process, the Trump administration is indicating that it will no longer use its authority in such situations. A crucial tool for police reform will be lost. An increase in police violation of rights and police violence, especially against individuals of color, seems inevitable. During the Vietnam War, Vermont Sen. George Aiken is remembered for saying that the United States should simply declare victory and withdraw. The Trump administration is following that playbook when it comes to police wrongdoing, and the consequences are sure to be tragic. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo the latest to be targeted by Trump's Justice Department
Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo the latest to be targeted by Trump's Justice Department

Yahoo

time21-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Yahoo

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo the latest to be targeted by Trump's Justice Department

Basil Smikle, Columbia University Professor and Andrew Weissmann, former top prosecutor at the Justice Department join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with reaction to the latest episode of the weaponization of the Trump Justice Department with the DOJ opening an investigation into former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, just months after the same department dismissed federal charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who is a political opponent of Cuomo in the next NYC mayoral election.

Cuomo investigation highlights a pivotal problem with the Trump Justice Department
Cuomo investigation highlights a pivotal problem with the Trump Justice Department

Yahoo

time21-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Yahoo

Cuomo investigation highlights a pivotal problem with the Trump Justice Department

The Trump Justice Department is reportedly investigating Andrew Cuomo, after Republicans accused the Democrat of lying to Congress about his handling of the pandemic response as New York governor. But the investigation combines two of the worst aspects of the Trump 2.0 DOJ thus far: the unserious leadership of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., that opened the investigation and the Eric Adams dismissal debacle. Cuomo is running for New York City mayor, making him of a rival of the current mayor, Adams, who's running for re-election as an independent after being initially elected as a Democrat. Adams, of course, was charged in a federal corruption case during the Biden administration. The reason he's free from those charges now is that the Trump administration moved to dismiss them. Notably, the Trump DOJ moved to dismiss Adams' case 'without prejudice,' which would have let the government revive the case later, if (for example) it became displeased with Adams' cooperation on immigration enforcement. But the presiding judge saw through that gambit and dismissed the case permanently. That failed bid to gain political leverage through the courts colors the Cuomo investigation. Bringing a criminal case against him could benefit Cuomo's mayoral rival, Adams, who's been willing to align with the Trump administration and knows first-hand that it will use the justice system to achieve its political ends. And what if the administration wants to make Cuomo the next Adams? That is, what if the government wants to use a criminal case to gain political leverage over the next possible mayor of the city? The courts are wise to the Adams gambit, so the Trump DOJ wouldn't be able to carry out the same scheme it failed to execute in Adams' case. But there are all sorts of ways the government can gain leverage even at the investigatory stage, given how valuable it can be for a prospective defendant not to face charges in the first place. And then there's the D.C. office that opened the investigation during the tenure of Ed Martin, who was too extreme for even this Congress to confirm to the top prosecutor job. The president replaced Martin on an interim basis with Jeanine Pirro, who joined the office from Fox News, where she spoke out against Cuomo. She may well have had good reason to do so, regardless of whether he committed any crime. Cuomo isn't an entirely sympathetic figure in Democratic circles, either. But that's not the point. The point is that any charges that come out of this investigation will need more scrutiny than usual. Any presumption of good faith from this administration has long passed. Responding to the investigation news, a Cuomo spokesperson called it 'lawfare and election interference plain and simple — something President Trump and his top Department of Justice officials say they are against.' The spokesperson added that Cuomo 'testified truthfully to the best of his recollection about events from four years earlier, and he offered to address any follow-up questions from the Subcommittee — but from the beginning this was all transparently political.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on

Federal judge slaps hold on new Oklahoma immigration law
Federal judge slaps hold on new Oklahoma immigration law

Fox News

time21-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Fox News

Federal judge slaps hold on new Oklahoma immigration law

A federal judge in Oklahoma has put a two-week hold on a 2024 state law coming into force that criminalizes illegal immigrants living in the state, a decision that was welcomed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) but drew a strong rebuke from the state's attorney general, who blasted the decision as "outrageous." Federal District Judge Bernard Jones on Tuesday ruled that House Bill 4156 may not be enforced for at least 14 days while a court challenge proceeds. The law creates the crime of "impermissible occupation" and empowers state and local law enforcement officers to arrest immigrants suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. A first offense under the law is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $500, and a second offense is a felony that could result in up to two years in prison. The law also requires a person to leave the state within 72 hours of conviction or release from custody. The bill was signed into law in April 2024 but was held up from taking force due to a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration challenging its constitutionality in that it violates the federal government's immigration authority, which led to a pause in enforcement. However, the new Trump Justice Department decided to drop the federal government's case in March. That led to two unnamed undocumented immigrants and the ACLU representing a local advocacy group filing a new lawsuit, which prompted Jones to issue another temporary injunction on Tuesday. Jones said that their case is likely to succeed in court, adding that he will consider a longer-term injunction of the law after a court hearing in early June. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond blasted the delayed enforcement, writing on X that "it is outrageous that Oklahoma is once again prohibited from enforcement of HB 4156." He said it was critical to the state's efforts to shut down illegal marijuana grows, fentanyl distribution and other illegal activities. Drummond also blasted the judge for allowing the case to proceed despite two of the plaintiffs being anonymous because to reveal their identities would "expos(e) them to federal authorities" for federal lawbreaking, he said, quoting the judge. "In the name of federal law, the court is protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences," Drummond said in a statement. "This is perverse, contrary to the rule of law and we will be evaluating all options for challenging the ruling." Tamya Cox-Touré, the executive director for the ACLU of Oklahoma, said the decision was a victory for immigrants' rights. "But the damage of HB 4156 and the national rhetoric repeated by local politicians has already created an environment of fear in our state," Cox-Touré said. No matter what someone looks like, sounds like, or what their immigration status may be, they should feel safe in their own communities. We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of immigrants and their families."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store