Published on

'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.'

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Ferguson residents have had their constitutional rights violated 'for decades.' (Photo: Getty)

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."


Never Miss a Beat.

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

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.

Our pandemic coverage is free to all. As is all of our reporting.

No paywalls. No advertising. No corporate sponsors. Since the coronavirus pandemic broke out, traffic to the Common Dreams website has gone through the roof— at times overwhelming and crashing our servers. Common Dreams is a news outlet for everyone and that’s why we have never made our readers pay for the news and never will. But if you can, please support our essential reporting today. Without Your Support We Won't Exist.

Please select a donation method:

Share This Article