An “” — that is the term that Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Democrat from New York, used to describe , the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, which creates a new federal crime for targeting law enforcement officers.
“There is no profession more widely protected under federal and state law than working in law enforcement,” as the U.S. House Judiciary Committee the bill last week on the eve of Police Week. Protect and Serve, , is a “one-sided approach that presents the strong risk of creating a perception of bias against community-based policing concerns.”
So how did this bill the U.S. House of Representatives this week by a vote of 382 to 35? And how did it pass with the support of some of its critics in Congress?
The only explanation is that elected officials are by the police in the same way that many communities and people throughout this country are of the police. Police departments and wield a tremendous amount of power, so it’s a constituency that few members of Congress are brave enough to go against, especially when “” rules the day.
But just how tone deaf is Congress?
There is a national conversation right now about the approximately fatal police shootings every year. And there is a discussion about Black people and other people of color being their everyday lives. This disconnect between federal lawmakers and these constituents is evidenced by the of the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, , which also creates a new federal crime for targeting law enforcement, with an important distinction. It essentially makes that offense a and law enforcement a for hate crimes purposes.
The ACLU and more than 40 coalition partners oppose this legislation.
Giving hate crimes protections to police is “profoundly inappropriate” as “hate crimes laws are intended to extend protection to historically persecuted groups,” the ACLU and coalition partners explain in our letter of opposition to S. 2794. Hate crime laws were enacted to address the experiences of people who have lived through a history of systemic discrimination based on a personal characteristic, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
Law enforcement, however, is not a historically persecuted group. As Radley Balko , police officers “are about as far removed from a vulnerable group as one can imagine.”
The idea of making law enforcement a protected class for hate crimes purposes is deeply troubling, but the problems with the Senate bill don’t stop there. The bill will criminalize all types of interactions with law enforcement that cause — or attempt to cause — bodily injury. As :
“[T]hink about a demonstration where police push into a protest line, resulting in pushing and shoving. It would now get pretty easy to start handing out assault charges against the protestors. A politically ambitious U.S. attorney who wants to, say, could get a lot of mileage out of this bill.”
And it seems Congress wants to get a lot of mileage out of these “empty gestures” during Police Week. This time last year, the House passed another empty gesture bill, the , which duplicated existing law that imposes the death penalty for crimes committed against law enforcement, which the ACLU opposed. Last May, the House also passed the , which the ACLU also objected to given its expansion of police powers and arrest authority for federal probation officers.
Congress has got to stop advancing these police union bills with no questions asked while police reform efforts go nowhere. In 2016, the bipartisan, U.S. House was formed because as they put it “our nation’s conscience has been rocked by a series of tragic events that has resulted in the loss of too many lives.” The working group that “more must be done to end excessive force” and “strengthen police accountability.”
Almost two years later, the working group has not advanced a single piece of meaningful police reform legislation, of which there is no shortage. Many of these very same members supported the Protect and Serve Act. The working group has not even offered the , a long-promised bipartisan bill of interest to both advocates and law enforcement. The working group has been called out but to no avail.
So again, here we are, another Police Week, and the only nod to improving the relationship between police and community from Congress was a House resolution that passed Tuesday night. The nonbinding resolution, , expressed that “Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public they serve.”
In the hierarchy of empty gestures, this has to rank near the top.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.