SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Justice is Priceless': DOJ Sues Ferguson Over Refusal to Change Discriminatory Policies
'Residents of Ferguson...have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer.'
Feb 11, 2016
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday filed a civil lawsuit against Ferguson, Missouri, less than a day after the city rejected an agreement to reform its discriminatory criminal justice system.
Ferguson's black residents still face "ongoing and pervasive" civil rights violations, largely stemming from the city's continued use of law enforcement to generate revenue, according to the lawsuit, filed by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Federal and local officials spent months negotiating a consent decree that would have prohibited police officers from making arrests without probable cause or using tasers as punishment, among other stipulations, but the Ferguson City Council unanimously rejected the final agreement on Tuesday over its cost--despite the DOJ's earlier warnings that it would respond to such a move with a lawsuit.
"Residents of Ferguson have suffered the deprivation of their constitutional rights--the rights guaranteed to all Americans--for decades," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday. "They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer."
Brittany Packnett, a prominent organizer with the Black Lives Matter movement, on Wednesday tweeted that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division is "one of the only gov't institutions to have kept its promise to Ferguson. They are playing no games. Thank you."
Ferguson's city council voted Tuesday that they would only accept the agreement if it made seven changes, including getting rid of a provision that would have required the city to abide by the deal even if it dissolved its police department and handed law enforcement duties to an outside agency.
At a public hearing Tuesday, council members said the decree was too expensive to undertake. The DOJ countered that the agreement included stipulations that capped fees and provided free federal aid, while activists said, "Justice is priceless."
DOJ Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who heads the department's Civil Rights Division, said Wednesday, "The Ferguson City Council has attempted to unilaterally amend the negotiated agreement. Their vote to do so creates an unnecessary delay in the essential work to bring constitutional policing to the city, and marks an unfortunate outcome for concerned community members and Ferguson police officers."
Jamira Burley, senior campaigner with Amnesty International USA, said in a statement, "This lawsuit sends a strong message that discrimination and other abuses by the Ferguson Police Department will not be tolerated."
Following the 2014 shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, and the subsequent non-indictment of the officer who killed him, the DOJ conducted a months-long investigation into Ferguson's criminal justice system, concluding in March 2015 that it was broken at every level and created a culture of "racial animosity" in the St. Louis suburb.
Wednesday's lawsuit echoed much of those findings, stating that the city's use of law enforcement to raise revenue is the reason it never attempted to "decrease or eliminate police misconduct, including discriminatory policing, unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests, and the use of unreasonable force."
Lynch said Wednesday that the response to Brown's shooting "uncovered a community in distress, in which residents felt under assault by their own police force." The violations were "expansive and deliberate," she said. "They were not only egregious--they were routine."
"We intend to aggressively prosecute this case and I have no doubt that we will prevail," Lynch said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
black lives mattercivil rightsconstitutional rightsfergusonhuman rightsmichael brownmissourius department of justice
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday filed a civil lawsuit against Ferguson, Missouri, less than a day after the city rejected an agreement to reform its discriminatory criminal justice system.
Ferguson's black residents still face "ongoing and pervasive" civil rights violations, largely stemming from the city's continued use of law enforcement to generate revenue, according to the lawsuit, filed by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Federal and local officials spent months negotiating a consent decree that would have prohibited police officers from making arrests without probable cause or using tasers as punishment, among other stipulations, but the Ferguson City Council unanimously rejected the final agreement on Tuesday over its cost--despite the DOJ's earlier warnings that it would respond to such a move with a lawsuit.
"Residents of Ferguson have suffered the deprivation of their constitutional rights--the rights guaranteed to all Americans--for decades," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday. "They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer."
Brittany Packnett, a prominent organizer with the Black Lives Matter movement, on Wednesday tweeted that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division is "one of the only gov't institutions to have kept its promise to Ferguson. They are playing no games. Thank you."
Ferguson's city council voted Tuesday that they would only accept the agreement if it made seven changes, including getting rid of a provision that would have required the city to abide by the deal even if it dissolved its police department and handed law enforcement duties to an outside agency.
At a public hearing Tuesday, council members said the decree was too expensive to undertake. The DOJ countered that the agreement included stipulations that capped fees and provided free federal aid, while activists said, "Justice is priceless."
DOJ Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who heads the department's Civil Rights Division, said Wednesday, "The Ferguson City Council has attempted to unilaterally amend the negotiated agreement. Their vote to do so creates an unnecessary delay in the essential work to bring constitutional policing to the city, and marks an unfortunate outcome for concerned community members and Ferguson police officers."
Jamira Burley, senior campaigner with Amnesty International USA, said in a statement, "This lawsuit sends a strong message that discrimination and other abuses by the Ferguson Police Department will not be tolerated."
Following the 2014 shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, and the subsequent non-indictment of the officer who killed him, the DOJ conducted a months-long investigation into Ferguson's criminal justice system, concluding in March 2015 that it was broken at every level and created a culture of "racial animosity" in the St. Louis suburb.
Wednesday's lawsuit echoed much of those findings, stating that the city's use of law enforcement to raise revenue is the reason it never attempted to "decrease or eliminate police misconduct, including discriminatory policing, unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests, and the use of unreasonable force."
Lynch said Wednesday that the response to Brown's shooting "uncovered a community in distress, in which residents felt under assault by their own police force." The violations were "expansive and deliberate," she said. "They were not only egregious--they were routine."
"We intend to aggressively prosecute this case and I have no doubt that we will prevail," Lynch said.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday filed a civil lawsuit against Ferguson, Missouri, less than a day after the city rejected an agreement to reform its discriminatory criminal justice system.
Ferguson's black residents still face "ongoing and pervasive" civil rights violations, largely stemming from the city's continued use of law enforcement to generate revenue, according to the lawsuit, filed by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Federal and local officials spent months negotiating a consent decree that would have prohibited police officers from making arrests without probable cause or using tasers as punishment, among other stipulations, but the Ferguson City Council unanimously rejected the final agreement on Tuesday over its cost--despite the DOJ's earlier warnings that it would respond to such a move with a lawsuit.
"Residents of Ferguson have suffered the deprivation of their constitutional rights--the rights guaranteed to all Americans--for decades," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday. "They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer."
Brittany Packnett, a prominent organizer with the Black Lives Matter movement, on Wednesday tweeted that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division is "one of the only gov't institutions to have kept its promise to Ferguson. They are playing no games. Thank you."
Ferguson's city council voted Tuesday that they would only accept the agreement if it made seven changes, including getting rid of a provision that would have required the city to abide by the deal even if it dissolved its police department and handed law enforcement duties to an outside agency.
At a public hearing Tuesday, council members said the decree was too expensive to undertake. The DOJ countered that the agreement included stipulations that capped fees and provided free federal aid, while activists said, "Justice is priceless."
DOJ Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who heads the department's Civil Rights Division, said Wednesday, "The Ferguson City Council has attempted to unilaterally amend the negotiated agreement. Their vote to do so creates an unnecessary delay in the essential work to bring constitutional policing to the city, and marks an unfortunate outcome for concerned community members and Ferguson police officers."
Jamira Burley, senior campaigner with Amnesty International USA, said in a statement, "This lawsuit sends a strong message that discrimination and other abuses by the Ferguson Police Department will not be tolerated."
Following the 2014 shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, and the subsequent non-indictment of the officer who killed him, the DOJ conducted a months-long investigation into Ferguson's criminal justice system, concluding in March 2015 that it was broken at every level and created a culture of "racial animosity" in the St. Louis suburb.
Wednesday's lawsuit echoed much of those findings, stating that the city's use of law enforcement to raise revenue is the reason it never attempted to "decrease or eliminate police misconduct, including discriminatory policing, unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests, and the use of unreasonable force."
Lynch said Wednesday that the response to Brown's shooting "uncovered a community in distress, in which residents felt under assault by their own police force." The violations were "expansive and deliberate," she said. "They were not only egregious--they were routine."
"We intend to aggressively prosecute this case and I have no doubt that we will prevail," Lynch said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.