Federal judge weighs civil rights deal after Breonna Taylor

A federal court on Monday weighed whether to accept an agreement negotiated between the Louisville Metro Police Department, or LMPD, and the Biden administration’s Department of Justice. The 240-page consent decree was signed last month. The inking came more than a year after the DOJ outlined what it said were multiple civil rights violations by the LMPD for years. Separately from the consent decree, the Justice Department has charged three Louisville police officers for their alleged roles in the March 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The 26-year-old woman died after police executed a no-knock warrant at her Louisville home. In November, a jury convicted one of those officers, Brett Hankison, of one count of civil rights abuse.

What kinds of civil rights violations has LMPD been accused of? The March 2023 report said that some LMPD officers engaged in a pattern of behavior including using excessive force, conducting searches without valid warrants, and failing to properly knock and announce themselves before executing warrants. It also accused officers of discrimination, unlawful detainment, and violating people’s free speech rights at demonstrations that criticized police. The consent decree negotiated in December outlined policy changes and organizational reforms LMPD agreed to implement to stop the patterns described by the DOJ.

If there’s already an agreement, why do the federal courts need to get involved? This was the question before the court on Monday. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Beaton questioned why the consent decree requires court approval at all, rather than simply being allowed to stand on its own. He further questioned whether court approval of the agreement would open the door to judges taking responsibility for the day-to-day operations of police departments. Judge Beaton did not set a date for when he would issue his ruling, but asked attorneys to submit supplemental materials by Friday.

What were the arguments for court approval? Those arguing for court approval included representatives of the DOJ, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union. In court documents, the DOJ has argued that the consent decree should be approved by the court so the judge can ensure that the reforms are both implemented and enforced. In a legal brief, the ACLU praised the consent decree, pointing to the DOJ’s findings that police violated the First Amendment rights of demonstrators who gathered in the spring of 2020 to protest the shooting death of Taylor. The ACLU said the consent decree would, among other things, improve police transparency by mandating a specific length of time for police to retain body camera footage, and implement outside, third-party monitoring of the department.

What were the arguments against court approval? Attorneys from the Heritage Foundation filed a brief arguing that the DOJ was attempting to use the consent decree to nationalize the oversight of a local police department. The agreement would effectively replace elected officials with a federal judge and a third-party monitor, the brief argued. The brief also questioned whether a local police department could be managed by what it characterized as “786 paragraphs of legalese” issued by the federal government.

Speaking to WORLD outside the federal courthouse, Samuel Dewey, outside counsel for the Heritage Foundation, accused the DOJ of trying to subvert the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who holds a negative view of consent decrees.

“The people voted,” he said. “And in the lame duck period, you’re trying to tie the hands of the president the people voted to elect for the next four years. That’s just very counter to an American norm.”

Dig deeper: Read Sophia Lee’s report for WORLD Magazine on why the Breonna Taylor case became such a cultural flashpoint.