Judge Beaton’s questions

The Biden administration and Minneapolis municipal authorities are racing to obtain court approval of a consent decree tying the hands of the Minneapolis Police Department for the foreseeable future. They want to beat the arrival of the new sheriff at the Department of Justice after January 20. With essentially the same scenario playing out in Louisville, Judge Benjamin Beaton posed a few questions to the parties by order dated December 28, 2024:

To measure these proposed [consent decree] remedies against the legal standards governing the underlying alleged violations, the Court orders the parties to prepare to address, among other considerations the parties deem relevant:

• the extent to which the City disputes the factual allegations contained in the 2023 DOJ Report;
• the consequences (whether administrative, civil, or criminal) already faced by the officers described (but not named) in the 2023 DOJ Report;
• whether the City concedes any of the seven pattern-or-practice violations alleged in the Complaint;
• caselaw from the Sixth Circuit or elsewhere supporting the legal or remedial theories advanced by the Justice Department (for example, whether any Court has imposed ADA liability on a police department for lack of a behavioral-health response unit the consent decree contemplates);
• the extent to which the proposed remedies are compelled by federal law or merely conducive to police practices less likely (in the parties’ views) to violate federal law;
• whether and how the consent decree or underlying settlement could be modified by a future Mayor, Metro Council, or Attorney General whose views on police practices or their legal implications might differ.

The Court encourages the parties to present limited documentary evidence or witness testimony to help the Court understand their positions on these questions.

I gather the parties left a few threads hanging when they appeared before Judge Beaton on Monday. He appears to be in no hurry to bless the consent decree’s minute regulatory control over the Louisville police.

Judge Beaton writes at note 12, pages 6-7: “The Court understands the parties’ position that it need not make factual findings regarding the conduct underlying the consent decree prior to approving it [citation omitted]. In the Court’s view, however, understanding the extent of any agreement on the underlying facts and the LMPD’s patterns and practices appears at least relevant to the Court’s essential determination that the consent decree is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest.”

In the Minnesota case Judge Magnuson has yet to set a hearing on the proposed consent decree. Perhaps the local police union or concerned amici with a divergent thought or two will move to be heard. Perhaps Judge Magnuson will take a cue from Judge Beaton and pose appropriate questions to the colluding parties.

The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF) and the Heritage Oversight Project have appeared as friends of the court to oppose the Louisville consent decree. The informative LELDEF press release is posted here. In the video below, LELDF president Jason Johnson explains what’s going on.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses