Louisville consent decree: 5 key takeaways from the first federal court hearing

Asserting that he would not be “a rubber stamp,” U.S. Western District Court Judge Benjamin Beaton pressed U.S. Department of Justice and Louisville Metro Government officials on Monday over the proposed consent decree that would bind Louisville’s police force to a reform roadmap.

He also heard from the union representing Louisville Metro Police officers — which opposes the consent decree and is seeking to intervene in the case — as well as several groups that filed “friends of the court” briefs supporting or opposing the agreement.

City officials and the DOJ reached the proposed 242-page consent decree agreement in December after nine months of negotiations. Those negotiations came after a wide-ranging DOJ investigation launched in the wake of the 2020 police killing of Breonna Taylor found a number of unconstitutional policing practices.

The agreement cannot go into effect without the approval of a federal judge.

Beaton did not lay out a precise timetable for the next steps in the consent decree at the hearing on Monday, but asked parties involved to file additional documentation they wanted considered by Friday.

Here are five takeaways from the first court hearing over the consent decree:

DOJ refuses to hand over data

At the conclusion of Monday’s hours-long consent decree hearing, Beaton said he was surprised by multiple things.

He was most surprised, he said, by “the reluctance of the Justice Department to be forthcoming with information that underlies” serious allegations it brought against LMPD.

Earlier on Monday, Beaton had asked DOJ attorneys how many instances they had counted where LMPD used excessive lethal force so he could get a better idea of how the DOJ came to its conclusion that LMPD has a pattern or practice of excessive force — one of the key findings of the DOJ’s scathing 90-page March 2023 report on the department.

“I’m not going to provide that information,” said Paul Killebrew, an attorney with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, adding the consent decree case still could go to trial and that he needs to “maintain leverage” in case it does.

Without those numbers, Beaton said, “I don’t know how I can conclude and announce to the public that” the reforms were a reasonable response to the alleged violations of federal law alleged by the DOJ.

Beaton said it was “beyond comprehension” that there “would be some hidden set of information” years after the DOJ investigation started.

Killebrew held firm, refusing to give even a ballpark number on the number of excessive uses of lethal force, saying he would “look foolish” if the case went to trial and the DOJ presented a different number.

Judge questions whether consent decree is necessary

Beaton also repeatedly pressed the DOJ on why a consent decree is necessary versus a traditional settlement.

Reforming LMPD, Killebrew responded, was “not writing on a clean slate.”

Instead, the department had seen “half-measures,” as well as other reforms that failed before they were completed.

Those included attempted reforms that were bound to settlements following the 2020 police killing of Taylor and the controversial 2018 traffic stop of a Tae-Ahn Lea, a Black teenager.

Beaton described consent decrees as having an “intrusive role,” adding later that normally, “judges are not involved running a police department day-to-day.”

Beaton also questioned Louisville Metro Government and the DOJ on whether the consent decree would conflict with the collective bargaining agreement for LMPD officers, as the union representing police officers has claimed it would.

In court filings, the Fraternal Order of Police River Lodge 614 laid out a number of ways the consent decree could conflict with the collective bargaining agreement, including potentially resulting in officers receiving more than the maximum 40-hours of in-service training allowed by the contract each year and by prohibiting members under investigation for misconduct from reviewing “non-public evidence.”

City still does not believe LMPD violations are routine

While Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg has said he accepts the findings of the March 2023 DOJ report, his counsel disputed key determinations during Monday’s hearing (and in separate court filings) that the misconduct described a pattern or practice or was a regular occurrence.

Beaton repeatedly asked Megan Metcalf, Greenberg’s deputy general counsel, whether city government agreed with the DOJ’s assessment that LMPD had a “pattern or practice” of violations like excessive use of force, discriminatory policing or violating the First Amendment rights of citizens.

While conceding that officers may have been involved in events described by the DOJ, Metcalf said they did not constitute a pattern or practice and were not regular or frequent occurrences.

In one instance, while discussing the DOJ’s determination that LMPD had a pattern or practice of discriminating against Black people in traffic stops and searches, Beaton asked LMPD Chief Paul Humphrey whether the department’s traffic stop studies showed a “disparate impact.”

Humphrey said they did.

Metcalf, however, denied LMPD had a pattern or practice of policing that disproportionately affects Black people. And asked by Beaton how a “disparate impact” differs from a pattern or practice, Metcalf responded that she was “not prepared” to answer the judge’s question at that time.

Conservative think tank weighs in

The Heritage Foundation, the Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank that authored the controversial Project 2025 presidential policy recommendation blueprint, was among the parties filing a “friend of the court” or “amicus curiae” brief hoping to influence the judge.

The group opened their more than 40-page brief by saying the consent decree amounted to a “federal takeover” of LMPD and was “lawless on multiple levels.”

Much of the group’s argument focused on the opposition to consent decrees during Donald Trump’s first administration.

“There is no reason to think President Trump will change his approach,” the group wrote.

The Heritage Foundation echoed a number of points made by the FOP and challenged some of the DOJ’s findings.

Jason Johnson, who helped negotiate Baltimore’s consent decree when he was former deputy commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department, filed a declaration of support for Heritage’s brief. In it, he drew parallels between how events played out in Louisville and Baltimore, which finished negotiations in the final days of the Obama administration.

“It was apparent that many of the Justice Department’s representatives had a policy agenda in mind and little understanding of the mechanisms of police work,” he wrote, adding that pressure to finalize negotiations “increased dramatically” after Trump was elected president in November 2016.

Both Johnson’s declaration and the Heritage brief challenged the effectiveness of consent decrees, pointing to higher crime and lower trust in police in cities like New Orleans and Baltimore.

ACLU leads other groups in support

Late Friday, additional groups filed briefs with the court.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky spearheaded 15 local community organizations in a motion supporting the approval of the decree, saying it was “necessary” to address “unlawful policing in Louisville.”

The groups, which include The 490 Project, VOCAL-KY, the Fairness Campaign and the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, said LMPD “is unable or unwilling to implement needed reforms” outside of the consent decree.

In a proposed amicus brief, the groups said the consent decree would boost transparency, improve the citizen complaint process and give LMPD needed oversight.

Meanwhile, a coalition made up largely of local and national groups that work with people with behavioral health issues or as behavioral health and disability advocates filed a motion to become an amicus curiae supporting the consent decree’s approval.

In a proposed amicus brief, the groups argued that Louisville Metro Government discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities by dispatching police instead of health professionals and has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“An individual experiencing a physical health emergency, like a heart attack or a diabetic crisis, would not expect the police to respond to a call to help them,” read part of the brief. “Further, that person would not expect to be treated as a threat — handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car — without even having received medical attention.”

The coalition of more than a dozen groups and individuals includes the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that pushed for the passage of the ADA, and the Center for Public Representation, a Massachusetts-based disabilities advocacy group.

Reach reporter Josh Wood at [email protected] or on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @JWoodJourno