Policing
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION’S
FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH
From Reconstruction through the aftermath of the Rodney King beating and beyond, the Civil Rights Division served as a federal backstop for law enforcement accountability. Through criminal prosecutions and civil pattern or practice enforcement, the Division secured reforms that protect vulnerable communities and promote constitutional policing, public trust, and public safety.
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION'S FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH
The Department of Justice has historically played a critical role in holding law enforcement officers accountable for violations of constitutional and federal law. The Civil Rights Division has long pursued criminal prosecutions of law enforcement officials who willfully violated constitutional rights. Beginning in 1994, Congress expanded the Division’s authority to include civil actions addressing systemic misconduct in state and local law enforcement agencies. Together, these criminal and civil enforcement authorities serve to remedy unlawful conduct, vindicate the rule of law, promote institutional accountability, and build public trust.
Pattern or Practice Statute: 34 U.S.C. § 12601
In 1991, footage of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King, an unarmed Black man, aired on national television, sparking public outrage. Congress then focused its attention on gaps in federal law that left systemic police abuses largely unchecked. While the Civil Rights Division could—and did—criminally prosecute individual officers for wrongdoing, it lacked the authority to force police departments to make changes necessary to prevent and address misconduct.
To fill this gap, in 1994, Congress empowered the Department of Justice to file lawsuits against state or local governments whose law enforcement agencies engage in a “pattern or practice” of conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law.
Since 1994, the Division has used that law (now codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601) to investigate roughly 85 law enforcement agencies across the country, focusing on issues like unjustified police shootings and other unlawful uses of force; discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, and gender; and illegal stops and searches. The Division has also investigated a range of other issues, from discrimination against people with behavioral health disabilities to retaliation against people exercising their First Amendment rights.
The Division has historically approached this work with diligence and integrity, recognizing that police officers have difficult and dangerous jobs while following the facts and the law to expose abuses of power. To assess an agency’s practices, investigators examined police reports, department policies, complaints, internal investigations, and body-camera video of police encounters. They participated in ride-alongs with officers, observed training, interviewed department leaders, and met with affected community members. They also collaborated with statistical experts who analyzed the agency’s data and consulted with nationally recognized law enforcement leaders who understand firsthand the challenges officers face.
Where these careful investigations revealed systemic violations of the Constitution or federal law, the Division generally released a public report describing the legal and factual basis for its findings.
In addition to (or in conjunction with) its pattern or practice authority under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the Division has addressed discrimination by law enforcement under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in their programs and activities, either through pattern or practice investigations or as standalone discrimination matters. Similarly, the Division has enforced Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to address discrimination against people with disabilities in law enforcement programs, services, and activities. Read more about the Division’s disability work.
Separately, the Division has enforced Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination by law enforcement agencies in their capacity as employers. Read more about the Division’s employment work.
Systemic Reform Agreements and Enforcement
When the Civil Rights Division’s pattern or practice investigations have revealed systemic violations of federal law, the Division has worked with the law enforcement agency to agree on reforms that eliminate the root causes of those violations. These reforms have included revising policies to conform with constitutional and federal law requirements, many of which are consistent with the principles of 21st-century policing; strengthening training to ensure officers have the tools and skills needed to serve the public effectively and fairly; improving supervision; establishing meaningful systems to investigate complaints and hold officers accountable; and collecting data to promote transparency and oversight.
Typically, these commitments have been memorialized in consent decrees or other agreements that not only protect people’s rights but also promote public trust and public safety, with compliance often independently monitored and publicly reported to ensure accountability and transparency. As law enforcement agencies implemented the resulting reforms over several years, the Division has stayed engaged to ensure they were effective. For example, the conclusions of the agreements in Seattle and Albuquerque in 2025 reflected substantial, court-recognized improvements in policies, practices, and accountability systems.
The Division has entered into and worked to enforce dozens of consent decrees and other reform agreements with law enforcement agencies since 1994. Read DOJ’s 2017 report on its pattern or practice work.
Amidst ongoing and renewed calls for police reform, working to prevent police misconduct and hold law enforcement accountable for systemic violations remains vitally important today.
Criminal Prosecutions: 18 U.S.C. § 242
In addition to its pattern or practice civil investigations, the Civil Rights Division also criminally prosecutes individual law enforcement officers under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a Reconstruction-era statute that makes it a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive someone of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Under this statute, the Department has brought some of the most consequential civil rights prosecutions in the nation’s history. During the civil rights era, the Division used its criminal civil rights authority to prosecute state and local officials involved in racially motivated violence, including in the federal case arising from the 1964 murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in Mississippi. Decades later, the Division indicted the officers who beat Rodney King in 1991, convicting two at trial. More recently, the Division secured convictions against the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd in 2020, including convictions for failing to intervene to protect Mr. Floyd against another officer’s violence.
Section 242 applies to anyone acting under color of law, including local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. Because federal law enforcement agencies conduct street-level enforcement less frequently than state and local agencies, prosecutions of federal officers under Section 242 are relatively rare and most commonly involve violations of the rights of individuals in custodial settings, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Prisons. When credible allegations of serious misconduct by federal law enforcement officers do arise, however, matters are typically referred to the Division’s prosecutors, given their unique expertise and longstanding role in investigating and prosecuting law enforcement misconduct.
These criminal prosecutions play a critical role in assuring the public that law enforcement who intentionally violate the law can be held individually accountable.
Read more about the Division’s criminal civil rights prosecutions.
WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE
JANUARY 20, 2025?
Civil Rights Division political leadership has retreated from police accountability while repurposing its civil authority to pursue Second Amendment claims. Dismissing cases, closing investigations into unconstitutional policing, and declining to investigate serious uses of force abandon vulnerable communities, leave widespread misconduct unaddressed, and erode trust in the Department’s credibility and the rule of law.
WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE JANUARY 20, 2025?
Withdrawing from Police Accountability
Beginning in early 2025, the Civil Rights Division undertook a fundamental shift in its use of the pattern or practice statute, withdrawing from longstanding police accountability work while redeploying that authority toward priorities largely untethered from its traditional civil rights mission.
On April 28, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order ordering the Attorney General to “review all ongoing Federal consent decrees, out-of-court agreements, and post-judgment orders to which a State or local law enforcement agency is a party and modify, rescind, or move to conclude such measures that unduly impede the performance of law enforcement functions.” The executive order also promised to “defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials” and stated that the Trump Administration would “work to ensure that law enforcement officers across America focus on ending crime, not pursuing harmful, illegal race- and sex-based ‘equity’ policies.” Read more on the Division’s approach to racial discrimination.
Consistent with that order, on May 21, 2025, the Division moved to dismiss its lawsuits in Minneapolis and Louisville –cases that sought to remedy systemic misconduct uncovered by thorough investigations and prevent the kinds of abuses that led to the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. On the same day, the Division announced it had closed the investigations and withdrawn its public findings reports in Minneapolis, Louisville, and six other jurisdictions where the Division had found that law enforcement agencies had systematically violated people’s rights under the Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Division’s press release asserted that the findings and proposed decrees were based on “flawed methodologies and incomplete data” and lacked “a legally or factually adequate basis.” Yet in taking the highly unusual step of publicly repudiating its own investigative work and, by extension, the work of career staff who served across administrations, the Division did not identify the methodologies it deemed flawed or what data it deemed incomplete. As a result, the factual and legal basis for the reversals, if any, remains unclear.
In practical terms, the Division’s decision to withdraw from the cases and close the investigations foreclosed federal legal recourse, ended federal partnership in reforming those law enforcement agencies, and repudiated the role Congress assigned the Department: to serve as a federal backstop when state and local systems fail to protect constitutional rights. By walking away, the Division left residents in seven cities and one state without the safeguards, accountability, and deterrence Congress intended federal civil rights enforcement to provide.
In addition, the Division joined with the City of New Orleans in seeking to terminate that consent decree before completion of the court-approved two-year off-ramp adopted in January 2025. By contrast, in other jurisdictions, like Seattle and Albuquerque, the Division has permitted consent decrees to conclude when federal oversight resulted in durable institutional reforms, public accountability, and court-approved findings that constitutional policing standards had been meaningfully achieved.
The Division has walked back and walked away from criminal cases, including by moving to dismiss a case with no stated reason, and by seeking just one day (as time served) for the former Louisville Metro Police Department officer convicted by a jury for using excessive force after he blindly fired 10 shots through a covered window into Breonna Taylor’s home. Read about those cases below.
The Division has also dismissed employment discrimination cases related to policing, further narrowing the scope of its traditional civil rights enforcement in the law enforcement context.
Repurposing the Pattern or Practice Statute for Political Objectives
The Civil Rights Division has redirected its pattern or practice authority away from police accountability toward enforcement priorities closely aligned with its political objectives.
The Division has used the statute to advance Second Amendment litigation consistent with a 2025 executive order, including by creating a new Section within the Division devoted to Second Amendment enforcement. It also opened an investigation targeting a prosecutorial policy intended to address racial disparities and sought to expand the scope of an existing police consent decree to pursue matters unrelated to the decree’s original constitutional violations in ways that appear motivated by political objectives.
18 U.S.C. § 242 and the Accountability Gap Created by the Expansion of Federal Street-Level Policing
Although the Civil Rights Division lacks authority under its civil pattern or practice statute to investigate federal law enforcement agencies, the Division’s retreat from state and local police accountability has occurred alongside a marked expansion of federal law enforcement into street-level policing, particularly in connection with immigration enforcement. Federal officers have played an increasingly aggressive role in law enforcement operations, including in crowd control and protest response, raising serious concerns about excessive force and infringements on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators and journalists. Federal agencies have also quietly adopted sweeping new tactics, like authorizing immigration officers to enter people’s homes by force without a judicial warrant.
In November 2025, a federal court in Illinois issued a preliminary injunction protecting protesters and members of the press in Chicago following aggressive federal enforcement actions. Yet even as the Trump Administration has shifted federal law enforcement toward street-level policing—and deployed federal immigration officers and National Guard troops to American cities, at times with deadly consequences—the Division does not appear to be investigating aggressive uses of force by federal officers under its criminal civil rights authority.
Rather than affirmatively assuring the public that unlawful force will be independently reviewed and, where appropriate, prosecuted—or announcing the initiation of investigations—the Administration has restricted access to information needed for state-level review, offered noncredible, premature, and conflicting accounts of incidents, and publicly praised officer conduct that, at a minimum, raises serious questions about tactics, training, and supervision. The absence of visible federal accountability sends a message that unlawful force will go unchecked, weakening deterrence and eroding public trust in law enforcement—outcomes that ultimately undermine public safety. As one former Division prosecutor who explained the history and role of 18 U.S.C. § 242 prosecutions warned, “DOJ’s current abdication of responsibility puts communities at needless risk and undermines the rule of law itself.”
In January 2026, the Division reportedly declined to investigate fatal shootings by federal officers in Minneapolis of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Bystander video raised questions about the lawfulness of the force used. Although the Department eventually opened an investigation into Pretti’s killing with limited or nonexistent Division involvement, its decision not to pursue an investigation into Good’s death or other problematic incidents raises concerns about independence, credibility, and accountability in cases involving federal law enforcement. Read more about the Pretti investigation.
The federal response following these deaths not only calls into question whether the government can hold its own officers accountable, but whether it is interfering with state and local government officials who could.
Tracking the Changes
Policing Cases Shut Down Since January 20, 2025
Red Line does not include every Civil Rights Division case. Learn what Red Line tracks.
United States v. Trevor Kirk
24-cr-00527 (C.D. Cal.), Nos. 25-3607, 25-5125, 25-5200 (9th Cir.)
In a striking example of the administration’s efforts to shield law enforcement officers from accountability, DOJ intervened after a jury convicted Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk of using excessive force—a felony civil rights violation—working to dismiss its own prosecution and ultimately appealing the court’s rulings when those efforts failed.
In February 2025, a jury convicted Kirk of a felony count of deprivation of rights under color of law for using unreasonable force against a then 58-year-old Black woman he detained outside a grocery store in June 2023. Video footage shows Kirk grabbing the woman by the neck, effectively slamming her to the concrete, kneeling on her, and pepper-spraying her face. He then left her in a closed patrol car without fresh air in the dead of summer. After the incident, he allegedly submitted a factually inaccurate police report. Kirk faced a maximum sentence of ten years in prison.
Following DOJ’s successful conviction, and after President Trump took office and appointed Bill Essayli as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, DOJ added prosecutor Robert Keenan to the case.
On May 1, 2025, Keenan filed a rare post-verdict plea agreement seeking to reduce Kirk’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor with a recommended sentence of one year of probation. Members of the trial team refused to sign the agreement, according to the Wall Street Journal. The next day, four prosecutors withdrew from the case, including the chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section. Sources confirmed to the LA Times that three of those four ultimately resigned in protest.
Keenan later sought dismissal of Kirk’s felony charge altogether, accusing the government of prosecuting the case in an improper way and presenting “potentially misleading evidence.” The court struck the felony allegations from the indictment, but declined to accept the government’s sentencing recommendation, finding it did “not match the facts of this case.” As the court explained, “[p]olice officers are entrusted with protecting the public, not harming them,“ and Kirk “broke that trust.” The court sentenced Kirk to four months in prison plus a year of supervised release on June 3, 2025.
In another aggressive attempt to prevent jail time for Kirk, on July 29, 2025, Keenan filed a motion to dismiss the entire case and vacate the verdict, later arguing in court that his office had misled the jury and characterizing the force used as “just barely excessive.” The court rejected that motion on August 8, 2025, finding that the government had offered no new evidence and “did not bring this motion to ‘do justice,’” but “to ensure that [its] sentencing position, not the Court’s, takes effect.” The court added that “dismissing proceedings after adverse rulings by the Court seriously undermines the authority of the Court and is definitely against the interests of the public.”
The government appealed.
On March 23, 2026, the Civil Rights Division joined in the effort and filed DOJ’s opening brief (corrected May 13, 2026) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the case should have been dismissed. Keenan—who had since transferred to the Civil Rights Division as a Senior Counsel and was now serving as an Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General—appears on the brief. DOJ’s brief cites concerns about the “fairness of the trial” and alleged trial and indictment errors, including that the indictment “contained an irrelevant and unfair reference to the victim’s race.”
Given the absence of a party to defend the district court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit appointed Erwin Chemerinsky to do so. His June 22 brief asserts that courts have discretion to deny motions to dismiss indictments that are contrary to the public interest. That’s the case here, he argues: DOJ moved to nullify the lawfully imposed sentence against Kirk, “not because new evidence emerged, not because the prosecution lacks merit, but because the Executive Branch disagrees with the Judiciary’s sentencing decision.”
Meanwhile, in July 2026, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a $3 million payout to settle a civil lawsuit related to the incident.
United States v. City of Cleveland
15-cv-01046 (N.D. Ohio), No. 26-3617 (6th Cir.)
In May 2026, a federal court rejected the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s joint motion with the City of Cleveland to seek early termination of a consent decree addressing unconstitutional policing by the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP), despite ongoing compliance assessments and outstanding reform requirements.
In December 2014, following a comprehensive investigation opened in March 2013, the DOJ found that CDP engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. Inadequate accountability, training, policies, and community engagement contributed to the violations. DOJ’s findings followed the 2014 shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice and several other high-profile incidents. The parties negotiated a consent decree to resolve the investigative findings, which took effect in June 2015.
Despite progress towards compliance over the years, including in CDP’s use of force, in September 2025 the court-appointed monitor reported that “significant work remains” and that the parties and the monitor had not yet finalized formal assessments to measure compliance in key areas. In addition, the monitor documented outstanding requirements, including the need for CDP to assess potential bias in its enforcement activity.
The monitor also identified areas still needing adequate support from the City to function appropriately, such as the Community Police Commission (CPC), which has had final authority over police discipline since 2021 but only completed its first case review in October 2025. The CPC is a central component of the City’s framework for sustaining reforms after federal oversight ends and serves as the primary mechanism for independent community oversight and accountability.
Since September 2025, the monitor has published additional topic-specific assessments, including the first formal compliance assessment on searches and seizures, which reported that while CDP had “come some distance from where it was in 2015, the journey is incomplete.” For instance, the report identified that 15% of pat-down searches of people who were not ultimately arrested were not supported by articulated reasonable suspicion, and found that CDP still needed to analyze racial disparities in its stops, searches, and arrests. Other key areas, including discipline, the Community Police Commission, and community and problem-oriented policing, still have not yet received formal assessment. As a result, the monitoring process has not yet produced the external verification needed to evaluate whether reforms in these areas are complete and durable.
Despite these outstanding issues, on February 19, 2026, the City and the DOJ announced a joint motion to terminate the consent decree, asserting that the parties agreed CDP had achieved substantial compliance and implemented durable reforms. The motion followed an April 2025 executive order directing the DOJ to review all police consent decrees.
The motion to terminate advanced a novel argument, albeit a far-fetched one, that would significantly weaken consent decrees as a tool for institutional reform and limit the role of federal courts in ensuring compliance with court-ordered agreements. The governments argued that once the parties agree that compliance has been achieved, there is no longer a live “case or controversy” for the court to resolve, rendering the consent decree “void.” Under that theory, the parties could end a court order by merely asserting they agreed compliance had been met, without proving to the court that the agreement had been satisfied based on evidence or showing the reforms are durable.
The motion drew criticism from the Community Police Commission, civil rights advocates, and community organizations, who do not appear to have been consulted, despite the consent decree’s explicit goal of building community trust and strengthening community input into the way police services are delivered. Some called the motion premature and raised questions about future oversight, pointing out that the CPC only had one employee and lacked the support, resources, and tested processes it needed to function as required. Others pointed to the need for the City to show it can sustain reforms, referring to its previous failure to implement or maintain reforms under a 2004 agreement with the Department of Justice, which led directly to the need for the 2015 consent decree.
The court denied the motion to terminate on May 8, 2026, calling it “surely premature” and finding after a careful review of the record that “the City has a ways to go before reaching Substantial and Effective Compliance.” The court declared: “The Consent Decree is not a check list. It is a framework for systemic change.” Thus, procedures and training aren’t enough; the reforms must stick. Here, the court said, “the parties have not demonstrated that the community trust and cultural reform envisioned by the Decree have been fully realized.” The court pointed out multiple areas of noncompliance and noted that some areas had not even been comprehensively assessed yet. The court also pointed out specific issues with respect to the decree’s community engagement requirements, noting that the parties had omitted “relevant evidence of the City’s persistent conflicts with the CPC.” The court further found the parties had failed to show changed circumstances warranted termination, rejecting the parties’ alternative argument that the consent decree was now “void.”
DOJ appealed the district court’s ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 7, 2026.
United States v. Joshua Jaynes & Kyle Meany
22-cr-00085 (W.D. Ky.)
In August 2022, the Civil Rights Division announced it had charged two Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officers, former Detective Joshua Jaynes and Sergeant Kyle Meany, for their roles in the death of Breonna Taylor on March 13, 2020. As laid out in the Division’s superseding indictment filed in October 2024, the officers were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for depriving Ms. Taylor of her rights under color of law by knowingly drafting and approving a false warrant affidavit, which was used to obtain the no-knock search warrant that ultimately resulted in her death. The Division invoked two penalty enhancements under § 242 for violations that result in bodily injury or death, which made the charges felonies carrying a potential sentence of ten years or life. Jaynes was also charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1519 for conspiring to falsify a document and lie to investigators to cover up their involvement, and Meany was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 with lying to a federal investigator. Neither officer was at the scene of the shooting.
On August 20, 2025, a federal judge dismissed the most serious charges against Jaynes and Meany: the felony charges under § 242 for drafting and approving the false warrant affidavit. Though the court was “seriously troubled” by the officers’ alleged falsehoods, it concluded the penalty enhancements for § 242 violations that result in bodily injury or death did not apply to Jaynes and Meany because the legal cause of death was the force used by the officers on the scene. Without the penalty enhancements, the remaining charges under § 242 for drafting and approving the false warrant affidavit were misdemeanors. Both officers continued to face the other remaining charges, including Jaynes’ felony counts for conspiracy and obstruction, which carried a maximum sentence of 25 years, and Meany’s felony charge for obstruction, with a potential sentence of 5 years.
On March 20, 2026, the Division filed a motion to dismiss the remaining charges against Jaynes and Meany. The Division told the court it had “determined that this case should be dismissed in the interest of justice,” but provided no other explanation. The Division later told ABC News that the charges represented “inappropriate, weaponized federal overreach.” The move drew swift criticism from Ms. Taylor’s mother, who said her daughter was “killed because of their lies and negligence, and somebody should be held accountable for that.” She also expressed her “extreme disappointment” in the Department of Justice, saying that the phone call she received informing her that the charges were being dropped “while implying they have helped me” was “utterly disrespectful” and was the first time she had heard from DOJ since the change in administration, adding, “it’s clear they have not served me or Breonna well.”
On March 27, 2026, the judge granted the government’s motion to dismiss and closed the case. This follows the Division’s unsuccessful attempt in June 2025 to seek a sentence of one day for Brett Hankinson, the LMPD officer convicted of using excessive force after he blindly fired ten shots through a covered window into Ms. Taylor’s home. It also follows the Division’s May 2025 withdrawal of the proposed consent decree and retraction of its investigative findings in United States v. Louisville Metro/Jefferson County Government, where the United States found LMPD routinely used excessive force and conducted searches based on invalid warrants after a multi-year investigation.
United States v. Zach Ferguson & Eric Caperton
23-cr-00006 (M.D. Tenn)
On July 25, 2023, the Civil Rights Division announced it had obtained a federal grand jury indictment charging two Lawrence County, Tennessee, law enforcement officers with federal civil rights violations under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and obstruction offenses arising from their alleged beating of a 61-year-old man during an October 2020 arrest and their attempts to hide their alleged misconduct.
On November 10, 2025, without any stated reason, the Division filed a motion to dismiss the case, just before it was set to go to trial.
United States v. City of New Orleans
12-cv-01924 (E.D. La.)
On March 17, 2011, following a comprehensive investigation, the Civil Rights Division announced its findings that the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force; conducting illegal stops, searches, and arrests; engaging in discriminatory policing based on race and ethnicity; failing to appropriately respond to and investigate sexual assault and domestic violence; and failing to provide critical police services to people with limited English language proficiency. The parties negotiated a consent decree to resolve the violations, which the court entered on January 11, 2013.
Reflecting the significant progress NOPD made under the consent decree, while acknowledging that some additional work remained, the parties negotiated a two-year “sustainment plan,” which laid out a clear path to end the decree. The remaining tasks included ensuring NOPD’s internal affairs system properly identifies and responds to officer misconduct following some high-profile missteps, demonstrating that NOPD could self-audit, and further investigating and addressing ongoing racial disparities. On January 14, 2025, the court entered the sustainment plan as a court order.
On September 4, 2025, the Division walked away from its prior commitment when it joined the City in asking the court to agree to end the consent decree without requiring NOPD to complete the sustainment plan. The Division had previously opposed the City’s motion to terminate due to ongoing noncompliance. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case in November 2025.
United States v. Hankinson
22-cr-00084 (W.D. Ky.)
On July 16, 2025, the Civil Rights Division filed a sentencing memorandum seeking a sentence of one day (as time served) for a former Louisville Metro Police Department officer, Brett Hankinson, who was convicted of using excessive force after he blindly fired ten shots through a covered window into Breonna Taylor’s home. Following a two-week trial, a jury found Mr. Hankinson guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 242 of violating Ms. Taylor’s civil rights under color of law.
The sentencing recommendation is a striking departure from the Division’s longstanding efforts to hold officers accountable for willful violations of constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
The judge rejected the Division’s recommendation and sentenced the former officer to 33 months in federal prison.
Investigation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City & the Oklahoma City Police Department
On January 3, 2025, following a multi-year investigation into the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma City Police Department (OKCPD), the Civil Rights Division announced its findings that Oklahoma unnecessarily institutionalizes adults with behavioral health disabilities in the Oklahoma City area and provides insufficient community-based behavioral health alternatives to hospitals and residential care and nursing facilities.
The Division also found that the City and its police department violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by needlessly sending police as the sole responder to most behavioral health calls, when the City could instead accommodate a behavioral health-led response.
On May 21, 2025, the Division issued a press release abruptly retracting the findings as to Oklahoma City and OKCPD.
Investigation of the Louisiana State Police
On January 16, 2025, following a multi-year investigation, the Civil Rights Division released a public report finding that the Louisiana State Police (LSP) routinely use excessive force. Poor supervision, a failure to reassess threats following vehicle pursuits, and breakdowns in accountability enabled these violations. The Division proposed a remedial framework to address the systemic breakdowns it identified. The investigation followed the death of Ronald Greene after an encounter with LSP Troopers.
On May 21, 2025, the Division issued a press release abruptly retracting the findings of its investigation.
Investigation of the Mount Vernon, New York Police Department
On December 12, 2024, following a multi-year investigation, the Civil Rights Division announced its findings that the Mount Vernon Police Department (MVPD) used excessive force, conducted unlawful strip searches and body cavity searches, and arrested people without probable cause. The Division also warned MVPD’s practices may result in racially discriminatory policing and identified concerns about how it collects evidence and conducts vehicle stops. The report set forth a proposed framework to remedy the problems revealed by the investigation.
On May 21, 2025, the Division issued a press release abruptly retracting the findings of its investigation.
Investigation of the Memphis Police Department & the City of Memphis, Tennessee
On December 4, 2024, following a 16-month investigation, the Civil Rights Division announced its findings (see press release) that the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department routinely used excessive force; conducted unlawful stops, searches, and arrests; discriminated against Black people; and discriminated against people with behavioral health disabilities by unnecessarily dispatching police officers in response to some behavioral health calls and by failing to modify their response to people in crisis. The findings report included initial reform recommendations, intended to serve as a starting point for discussions with the City regarding remedial measures. The investigation was opened several months after the release of video of Memphis police officers beating Tyre Nichols.
On May 21, 2025, the Division issued a press release abruptly retracting the findings of its investigation.
Read more about this case in Red Line’s disability section.
Policing Cases Pursued Since January 20, 2025
Red Line does not include every Civil Rights Division case. Learn what Red Line tracks.
United States v. City of Portland
12-cv-02265 (D. Or.)
On July 24, 2026, the court denied DOJ’s motion to “enforce” the Portland police consent decree by requiring the city to provide documents relating to alleged viewpoint discrimination, finding by “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ’s Civil Rights Division brought the motion “in bad faith and with unclean hands,” and that the stated reasons for its demands for documents were “pretext.”
The 2014 consent decree resolved DOJ’s findings that the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) systemically used excessive force against people with mental illness. The decree required Portland to take steps “to ensure that encounters between police and persons with perceived or actual mental illness, or experiencing a mental health crisis, do not result in unnecessary or excessive force.” Over the years, Portland has made significant progress towards compliance with the agreement, but has not yet reached substantial compliance.
In October 2025, DOJ sought to expand the decree’s scope, sending two letters demanding 29 categories of documents to investigate alleged First Amendment viewpoint discrimination in PPB’s handling of protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. DOJ’s October 3 demand, which was posted to social media, referenced PPB’s arrest of a right-wing commentator, Nick Sortor, the night before outside the facility.
The court did not decide whether the consent decree entitled DOJ to the documents. Instead, it ruled that because DOJ acted in bad faith in making the demand, the court was barred from granting DOJ the relief it sought. The ruling rested on three grounds.
First, the case has never concerned viewpoint discrimination or the First Amendment. DOJ’s 2012 complaint alleged excessive force against people in mental health crisis. DOJ had previously opposed intervention by a coalition seeking to add excessive-force claims involving people of color as “outside the scope” of the lawsuit. The court found it “difficult to accept” that viewpoint discrimination fell within the scope of an action DOJ had defined so narrowly.
Second, the timing was “highly suspicious.” DOJ sent its October 3 letter demanding extensive access to PPB files on the same day the court heard the State and city’s motion to block the National Guard deployment in a separate case. That motion was supported by declarations from two high-ranking PPB officials. The court found this “reasonably appears to be a not-so-subtle signal” that continued PPB assistance in the Guard case could be met with burdensome and expensive federal demands.
Third, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Harmeet Dhillon, the first signatory of the October 3 letter, posted the letter that day on X, writing “Portland: It’s FO time. Buckle up.” Dhillon’s post echoed the slang “FAFO” (“f—k around and find out”). The court found this was “neither language nor tone of a good faith investigation” but instead exhibited “all the hallmarks of a threat and attempted intimidation.” The court separately noted Dhillon had reposted a comment calling for the judge in the National Guard case to be impeached and found “that too is threatening conduct by Assistant Attorney General Dhillon.”
Red Line’s review of Dhillon’s social media activity shows that the “FO time” post is not an aberration, but part of a consistent pattern throughout her tenure. In February 2026, for instance, Dhillon distributed “challenge coins” bearing the letters “FAFO” and her title, publicizing them on her own account.
Finally, the court expressly found sufficient evidence to reject the presumption of regularity that ordinarily attaches to DOJ’s official acts. The court said it “recognizes the seriousness of this conclusion and makes this finding soberly.”
Courts across the country have reached similar conclusions, questioning DOJ’s representations and finding it can no longer take the government at its word.
The unsuccessful attempt to investigate and potentially expand the scope of the Portland consent decree came despite DOJ’s contemporaneous characterization of police consent decrees as “overbroad.” It also came amidst DOJ’s withdrawal from enforcement related to police accountability. In a similar consent decree in Cleveland, the court rejected DOJ’s attempt to terminate the decree early. DOJ appealed that decision.
DOJ’s aggressive intervention in response to a conservative influencer’s arrest in Portland contrasts with its handling of journalists and protestors in other circumstances, raising questions about the DOJ’s commitment to objectively protecting First Amendment activity.
Notably, months earlier, DOJ withdrew multiple investigative findings reports addressing retaliation against protesters and journalists in other cities. For example, DOJ found that Minneapolis police officers “regularly retaliate against members of the press,” including through the use of force, and that Phoenix officers retaliated against protesters by using excessive force. DOJ withdrew both reports, dismissed the Minneapolis litigation and proposed consent decree, and closed both investigations in May 2025.
Then, in January 2026, using civil rights statutes, federal authorities pursued criminal charges against journalist Don Lemon and his producer while they were covering an anti-immigration enforcement protest in Minneapolis, further heightening concerns that DOJ’s approach to First Amendment issues may depend on viewpoint.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. Colony Ridge Development, LLC, et al.
23-cv-4729 (S.D. Tex.)
In April 2026, after a federal judge questioned why the Civil Rights Division’s proposed $68 million settlement with Colony Ridge Development, LLC included no money for the Hispanic consumers Colony Ridge had targeted with predatory and discriminatory mortgages—and instead directed millions to law enforcement, including to fund immigration enforcement by local police—the Division dismissed its case and proceeded with the settlement without any court oversight.
The Division and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced the lawsuit—the Division’s first predatory mortgage lending case—in December 2023. Then-Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Kristen Clarke described the Texas-based land developer and lender as a “one-stop shop for discriminatory lending.” The complaint alleged that Colony Ridge misled borrowers about flood risk, misrepresented that the lots came with the infrastructure necessary to connect water, sewer, and electricity, and exploited language barriers by marketing mostly in Spanish while providing key documents only in English. The company allegedly extended loans at exorbitant interest rates without verifying borrowers’ ability to repay, producing foreclosure rates above 30%, then profited again by repurchasing and reselling the foreclosed properties, sometimes at higher prices. The practices, the complaint alleged, amounted to intentional discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and other federal laws.
The Division and the CFPB sought a court order halting the discriminatory conduct, compensating affected borrowers, modifying or cancelling unfair contracts, and imposing civil penalties payable to the CFPB’s victims relief fund. “Our goal at the end of the day,” AAG Clarke said, “is to ensure that victims are compensated for their loss.”
On March 14, 2024, the State of Texas filed a parallel lawsuit alleging that Colony Ridge used false, misleading, and deceptive sales, marketing, and lending practices to target foreign-born and Hispanic consumers. Like the federal lawsuit, Texas’s complaint sought civil penalties, modification or cancellation of unfair contracts, and compensation for affected consumers.
On February 10, 2026, the Division announced it had coordinated with Texas to reach a $68 million settlement resolving both lawsuits and asked the court to approve it. Not a dollar was marked for borrowers who lost their homes. Instead, Colony Ridge agreed to spend $20 million on law enforcement—including to fund immigration enforcement by local police—an outcome untethered to the claims or statutes the case was built on. Colony Ridge also agreed to launch a home-purchase discount program for police officers and to invest $48 million in infrastructure improvements to its own properties. The only provision addressing past borrowers requires Colony Ridge to develop a proposal to address harm to defaulted borrowers’ credit. A rescission option was created for future borrowers, but the agreement offered no additional relief for existing borrowers locked into predatory contracts.
This settlement departed sharply from the Division’s past fair lending resolutions, which historically centered on compensating victims. A ProPublica analysis found that only 6% of the Division’s housing and civil enforcement settlements since 2018 lacked compensation for victims—and none funded police or immigration enforcement.
In another break from prior practice, the settlement requires Colony Ridge to screen future buyers for compliance with §§ 5.251–5.253 of the Texas Property Code, a 2025 law that Texas said prohibits “future sales to buyers from certain designated countries, such as China and Iran.” The Division previously opposed laws of this kind, filing a statement of interest in a case challenging a similar Florida law on the grounds that it discriminated based on national origin and violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
The CFPB was absent from the proposed settlement, obtained no civil penalties for the CFPB’s victims relief fund, and stipulated to dismiss its claims with prejudice
The proposed settlement drew sharp criticism. On March 3, 2026, a coalition of fair housing and civil rights organizations filed an amicus brief urging the court to reject the agreement and noting that the lawsuit was the “only realistic prospect for many customers to get back the money they lost to Defendants’ predatory scheme.”
At a hearing, the court pressed the Division on the policing provision and questioned whether the agreement did enough to address the harm alleged: “I thought I was dealing with . . . folks who had been defrauded, with allegations of above-market interest rates, improper foreclosures. . . . Now, all of the sudden, I’m being asked to OK increased law enforcement?” Rather than revise the agreement to address the court’s concerns, the Division dismissed the case and proceeded with the February 2026 settlement without court oversight. Texas and Colony Ridge likewise stipulated to dismiss Texas’s case.
By moving forward without awaiting a decision—and without addressing the court’s questions on the record—the Division placed the implementation and enforcement of the agreement beyond the reach of judicial oversight. It also evaded accountability for leaving families who lost their homes without the compensation the complaint was brought to secure.
United States v. District of Columbia & the Metropolitan Police Department
25-cv-04458 (D.D.C.)
On December 22, 2025, following President Trump’s February 2025 executive order on the Second Amendment, the Civil Rights Division announced it had sued the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) over D.C.’s ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms. The Division alleged that D.C.’s ban on such weapons, MPD’s enforcement of that ban by denying certificates of registration (as required by law) and by arresting people who possess unregistered firearms, and D.C.’s prosecutions for possession of unregistered firearms constitute a “pattern or practice” that violates the Second Amendment. The Division seeks an injunction to prevent the District of Columbia from arresting and fining “law-abiding citizens” for possessing AR-15s and other firearms and to require the District to register them.
This lawsuit is brought under 34 U.S.C. § 12601—the statute enacted to address systemic police misconduct in the aftermath of Rodney King’s beating by Los Angeles police officers. Where there is a “pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution or federal law, the statute allows the Division to file a lawsuit seeking changes that will eliminate that pattern or practice.
On March 18, 2026, the District of Columbia and MPD moved to dismiss the case, arguing that 34 U.S.C. § 12601 cannot be used to facially challenge a federal criminal law’s constitutionality and even if it could, the government’s evidence is insufficient to show a pattern or practice.
On March 27, 2026, sixteen former Civil Rights Division attorneys who collectively served from 1994 to 2025, including former leaders of the Division and career supervisors of the Special Litigation Section, filed an amicus brief supporting D.C.’s motion to dismiss along with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The brief outlines the history of the pattern or practice statute and explains that it was not meant to support facial challenges to state or local laws but instead to remedy institutional shortcomings within police departments that allow misconduct to occur. It also describes the Division’s historical practices in diligently investigating law enforcement agencies and enforcing the law.
The case is ongoing.
Investigation of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (Minnesota)
On May 5, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced an investigation into the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (HCAO) to determine whether a new policy adopted in April 2025 violated the law by directing prosecutors to identify and address race and age disparities when making decisions about how to resolve cases. The Division initially opened the investigation under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the police pattern or practice statute. Though the Division’s letter assured the county attorney that the Division had not yet reached any conclusions, it preemptively referred to the policy at issue as “discriminatory.”
According to a letter HCAO’s counsel sent to the Division on February 13, 2026, the Division moved slowly in conducting this investigation. After HCAO sent a letter responding to a June 2025 request on July 3, 2025, the Division apparently did not respond to HCAO’s letter until December 9—more than five months later.
HCAO’s February 13, 2026, letter described recent clarifications to the policy and explained that its “purpose is to ensure that prosecutorial decision-making is not based on race or any impermissible ground and is instead based on the individual circumstances of each case.” That purpose, it explains, “grew out of the findings of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division that ‘MPD unlawfully discriminates against Black and Native American people when enforcing the law.’” The Division retracted those findings, along with findings in seven other jurisdictions in May 2025, shortly after opening this investigation.
HCAO’s letter also pushed back against the Division’s December 2025 attempt to support the investigation based on federal funding HCAO received under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The Department of Justice’s grant solicitation letter specifically identified “advancing racial equity” and “reducing disparities” for people of color in the criminal justice system as top priorities in granting funding. As HCAO points out, those are “the very things that DOJ now points to as grounds for this investigation.”
HCAO’s letter suggests it never produced the documents that the Division requested, including its internal policies and copies of all plea offers, along with other documents related to each case.
On February 26, 2026, the Division closed its investigation. In the letter Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted on X, the Division asserted that the prior policy “clearly violated the Constitution” and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and said it was closing the investigation due to the changes in the policy described in HCAO’s February 13 letter.
Following the closure, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office called the investigation a “stunt,” saying the Division “caved” and “never had authority to investigate.” The office posited that the Division’s “best strategy was to announce an investigation, grab headlines, then close the investigation and claim victory. This was a political attack from the beginning.” The office maintains that the policy was always constitutional.
Investigation into the Killing of Alex Pretti
On January 24, 2026, federal agents in Minneapolis shot and killed Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital who was filming federal immigration enforcement with his cell phone. Bystander video raises questions about the lawfulness of the shooting. Statements made by top federal and White House officials about the shooting conflicted with the video, prompting a backlash.
Two days after the shooting, the federal government reportedly acknowledged it would conduct only a limited, administrative, “use of force review” following the shooting, but would not be conducting a more comprehensive criminal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 242 as would be typical. Four days later, amid public pressure, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the FBI would conduct an investigation and that “to the extent it needs to involve lawyers at the Civil Rights Division, it will involve those.” He added that “I don’t want the takeaway to be that there’s some massive civil rights investigation that’s happening.” This approach diverges from decades of Department practice, in which Division prosecutors conduct such investigations jointly with the FBI.
Given the rush to judgment reflected in early official statements, the delay in announcing an investigation, and the limited or nonexistent role of the Division in that investigation, concerns remain about the independence, consistency, and credibility of the federal response to the Alex Pretti shooting. Those concerns are heightened by the fact that the Department failed to open a criminal investigation into the killing of Renee Good by a federal officer just two weeks earlier, even as bystander video raised questions about the lawfulness of the shooting.
United States v. The Virgin Islands & the Virgin Islands Police Department
25-cv-00050 (D.V.I.)
On December 16, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced it had sued the Virgin Islands Police Department for alleged delays and conditions imposed during its gun permitting process, in violation of the Second Amendment.
This lawsuit is brought under 34 U.S.C. § 12601—the statute enacted to address systemic police misconduct in the aftermath of Rodney King’s beating by Los Angeles Police Department officers. It follows President Trump’s February 2025 executive order regarding the Second Amendment.
United States v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD)
25-cv-09323 (C.D. Cal)
On September 30, 2025, the Civil Rights Division announced it filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) alleging that the delay in processing concealed carry permits violates the Second Amendment.
This is the first pattern or practice lawsuit the Division has brought to enforce the Second Amendment under 34 U.S.C. § 12601—the statute enacted in the aftermath of Rodney King’s beating by LAPD officers to address systemic police misconduct. It follows President Trump’s February 2025 executive order regarding the Second Amendment.
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey
Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450, 24-2506 (3d Cir.)
On June 13, 2025, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit urging the court to invalidate a state ban on AR-15–style rifles and similar firearms as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This filing reflects the Division’s emerging practice of using amicus advocacy to challenge state firearms regulations and advance an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in federal appellate courts.
Barnett v. Raoul
Nos. 24-3060, 24-3061, 24-3062, 24-3063 (7th Cir.)
On June 13, 2025, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief urging the Seventh Circuit to strike down Illinois’s ban on AR–15 style rifles and similar firearms as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The filing represents a notable expansion of the Division’s Second Amendment advocacy, aligning the Department with efforts to invalidate state-level restrictions on assault weapons through appellate litigation. It follows President Trump’s February 2025 executive order regarding the Second Amendment.
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
Born in Reconstruction. Federal civil rights accountability at its core.
EMPLOYMENT
Equal opportunity at work is essential to economic security, dignity, and full civic participation.
POLICING
The Constitution and federal law exist to protect people from abuses of power—including by those sworn to uphold it.
DISABILITY
Federal civil rights laws guarantee people with disabilities equal participation in community life.
VOTING
The right to vote is foundational to democracy and equal participation in civic life.
HOUSING & GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Where people live and access services shapes opportunity.
EDUCATION
Rooted in Brown v. Board of Education, federal civil rights laws guarantee equal access to education.
LGBTQI+
Protections for LGBTQI+ people in work, education, healthcare, and public life grounded in equality and dignity.
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
Protecting access to reproductive healthcare by safeguarding patients, providers, and facilities.