ACLU Responds to Reintroduction of George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, Calls on Congress to Address Police Brutality
WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) reintroduced the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This Saturday marks the tragic 4-year anniversary of the murder of George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, at the hands of a white police officer. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would seek to address the racial profiling and use of force that so often results in deadly police encounters.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomes the reintroduction of this important legislation; however, the ACLU calls on Congress to strengthen and improve portions of the bill to provide the federal interventions necessary to address police misconduct and brutality.
Nearly four years since George Floyd’s murder, systemic racism and disproportionate use of lethal force continue to plague America’s approach to policing. Police killed in 2023, more than any previous year on record. So far this year, there have where police did not kill someone. Black and Brown individuals, LGBTQ+ individuals, and individuals with disabilities are still more likely to be killed or harmed by police in America.
Cynthia W. Roseberry, director of policy and government affairs at the ACLU’s Justice Division, issued the following statement in response to the reintroduction of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
“Today’s reintroduction signals a commitment by some members of Congress to address the crisis of police violence in this country. Everyone deserves to be kept safe, especially from police misconduct. Congress must go further to provide strong federal intervention that protects the rights of individuals against the often unchecked power of the police.
“The court-created doctrine of qualified immunity continues to prevent victims of police violence from holding officials liable for preventable deaths while protecting officers who engage in the most egregious conduct. Officers who are under internal investigation or who have been fired from law enforcement jobs are still able to hide behind a veil of secrecy and seek employment as police officers in other jurisdictions. A publicly available registry of police misconduct is essential to prevent dangerous officers from evading accountability.
“The Pentagon continues to transfer equipment used on battlefields to police departments across the country; equipment that we have seen used against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights, resulting in unnecessary injuries. Inaccurate and invasive biometric and facial recognition technology are increasingly being used by police without adequate discussions about their technological shortcomings, the risks they create for vulnerable communities, or their detrimental impact on privacy. Federal law must prohibit the use of these unreliable and dangerous technologies by the government and policing agencies.
“Finally, allocating federal dollars towards programs that provide mental health services and alternative crisis response show promising results for reducing police violence while filling the gaps in our mental health and substance use addiction systems. Police are not equipped to answer every emergency call. Congress should invest in models that provide the right response to the right situation. Federal investments that support the economic, healthcare, education, and housing needs of communities will result in safer communities. Federal legislation on policing is long overdue. The ACLU calls on Congress to act swiftly to guarantee the civil liberties and safety of all of us.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.