U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Beaton appeared skeptical of approving a police reform agreement between Louisville Metro and the Department of Justice during a hearing Monday.
The city and DOJ signed a proposed consent decree last month. The decree lays out hundreds of changes to policies and training that the Louisville Metro Police Department would have to undertake in the coming years. The agency’s progress would be overseen by Beaton, as well as an independent monitor.
In a lengthy hearing, the attorneys representing the DOJ argued the consent decree is necessary to address the pattern of unconstitutional and discriminatory policing practices outlined in a scathing report released two years ago. The DOJ found racial disparities in how LMPD officers enforced the law, as well as routine use of excessive force against residents.
Beaton, however, repeatedly asked whether some sort of other “less intrusive” arrangement could also get LMPD to comply with federal law.
“I’m concerned about the degree and involvement of a judge in the day-to-day operations of a police department,” he said.
Beaton also said he was concerned that having a consent decree could allow officials to shirk accountability and responsibility for the police department’s actions moving forward.
“It’s possible to say that, ‘We are only here because a judge made it this way,’” he said.
Beaton did not make a final ruling Monday on whether to enter the agreement as a court order, which is the first step in the consent decree process. If approved, Louisville would join a handful of cities whose police departments are under federal oversight.
Baltimore, New Orleans and Albuquerque are currently required to report their police reform progress to a federal judge and monitor. Coming into compliance with a consent decree is a process that usually takes departments years, sometimes more than a decade.
Beaton conceded that prior federal court rulings require him to err on the side of approving the agreement, but he said the fact consent decrees have become more common in recent decades “doesn’t mean that it should happen here.”
The union representing Louisville police officers, the River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 614, has also asked Beaton to allow it to become a party to the consent decree.
The union filed what's called a motion to intervene on Dec. 27. In it, the FOP argued it has the right to negotiate wages and working conditions on behalf of LMPD officers. It said the proposed consent decree would diminish officers’ bargaining power and that some of the required changes conflict with the collective bargaining agreement already in force until 2027.
The FOP said in a brief statement posted to its Facebook page that “the law requires such changes to be negotiated.”
“It is incumbent upon the FOP to proactively attempt to avoid violations of the CBA and to ensure the best interests of our members are considered,” the union said.
The union asked the judge in its motion not to approve the consent decree as-is. If the FOP becomes a party to the agreement, it could allow them to request changes to the agreement and delay the process until after Inauguration Day.
Stakeholders weigh in
The fast-approaching change in presidential administration, from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican Donald Trump, has hovered in the background of Louisville’s consent decree negotiations and, now, the court approval process.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, was allowed to participate in Monday’s hearing as amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court.” Lawyers representing the Heritage Foundation argued against quick approval of the consent decree.
In a court filing on Jan. 10, the Foundation’s attorneys argued consent decrees limit the tools officers have to enforce the law and can hinder public safety goals, like reducing homicides and petty crimes.
The think tank’s attorneys said the negotiations between the city and the DOJ were “rushed” due to the presidential election. They argued that after President Donald Trump is sworn in on Jan. 20, his DOJ is unlikely to continue pushing the court to sign off on the consent decree.
The Heritage Foundation pointed to a 2017 memo written by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that severely limited the use of consent decrees to force local governments and police departments to change their practices. During Trump’s first term, his DOJ did not enter into any new consent decrees.
Beaton asked the DOJ and the city to address the timing of the agreement at Monday’s hearing.
“The fact that the consent decree was filed … on the eve of a new administration, after the DOJ stated insulation from political change as a reason to approve, why are we here on January 13?” he said.
Paul Killebrew, deputy chief of the DOJ’s Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division, said the nearly two-year investigation into LMPD was the DOJ’s first where body camera footage was available for most of the reviewed instances, delaying its final report. He said negotiations, which took about nine months, ended “when everyone exhausted their leverage.”
He did acknowledge that the political “circumstances” surrounding the negotiations had changed.
“To my perception, we neither elongated nor hurried the negotiations because of those circumstances,” he said.
Throughout Monday’s hearing, Beaton repeatedly returned to the idea that perhaps a different legal tool, like a negotiated settlement or a contract between the DOJ and Louisville Metro, could accomplish the same reform goals. In both of those options, the city could hire an expert to oversee the process but the court system would be left out of it.
“Given the allegations and what [the city] has already done, I’m just not sure what a judge would have to offer,” he said, referring to preexisting reform efforts in Louisville.
Killebrew argued that nothing less than a consent decree would ensure “durable” reform of LMPD and prevent “backsliding.” The consent decree process allows a judge to hold the city in contempt of court if it refuses to make agreed changes.
Louisville has not admitted to the pattern or practice of misconduct alleged by the DOJ. Doing so could open the city up to additional lawsuits. Regardless, the attorney representing the city argued in favor of approving the consent decree. The city took no position on whether to allow the union to join the case.
At the end of the hearing, Beaton asked LMPD Chief Paul Humphrey to weigh in on whether things would be different if Beaton decides not to approve the consent decree. Humphrey responded that there are some reforms he doesn’t think they need a decree to implement. On others, he said the decree could ensure they stay on track.
“We are going to proceed on the path that we are on one way or the other,” Humphrey said. “This agency is not going to change its path toward improvement, regardless of whatever organizations are involved in giving us guidance on how to do that.”
It’s not clear how quickly Beaton will issue a ruling on the union’s involvement or approval of the consent decree. Beaton asked the city and the DOJ to provide him with any supplementary evidence and arguments by Friday. In Baltimore’s case, it took about three months for a judge to approve the consent decree from the time it was filed.
Reading into Beaton’s tough questioning, the Heritage Foundation was already claiming victory Monday afternoon.
Standing outside the Gene Snyder Federal Building downtown, Mike Howell, the Executive Director of the Heritage Oversight Project, said he thinks Louisville’s consent decree is “on its last legs.” Howell said the proposed agreement, particularly the part that would create a new process for enforcing some misdemeanor crimes, is an example of “woke policing” policy.
“The last thing a cop in Louisville needs is a 200-page manual from the radicals from the Department of Justice telling them how they can do their job,” he said. “I think the criminals need reform.”
Supporters of the consent decree, meanwhile, said they are hopeful Beaton will approve it.
Corey Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU of Kentucky, said it’s a judge’s job to ask difficult questions. He said trying to figure out how the judge will rule based on the hearing is just “reading tea leaves.”
Like the Heritage Foundation, the ACLU of Kentucky and 14 other community organizations in their coalition were allowed to file a friend of the court brief. Shapiro said many of these groups have been pushing for policing reform for years and have seen the “backsliding” the DOJ mentioned.
“All of the organizations who signed onto this brief have been working on these issues to no avail,” Shapiro said. “For those 15 organizations who have been working tirelessly to get accountability for the people of Louisville, this is a meaningful first step.”
A third friend of the court brief was filed by groups working with people with disabilities, mental illness and people experiencing homelessness. They include national rights groups and local nonprofits like the Coalition for the Homeless and NAMI Louisville. Their 47-page brief argued in support of approving the consent decree.
