University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. Janet Reno PN-DC-0002
Docket / Court 1:01-cv-00090-RMU ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Policing
Case Summary
On January 18, 2001, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police ('FOP"), a national organization with a membership of more than 275,000 police officers, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Attorney General, seeking a declaration that 4 ... read more >
On January 18, 2001, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police ('FOP"), a national organization with a membership of more than 275,000 police officers, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Attorney General, seeking a declaration that 42 U.S.C. § 14141 as interpreted and enforced by the Department of Justice was unconstitutional. The FOP's complaint also sought to permanently enjoin the DOJ from undertaking enforcement actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141. The FOP averred that the DOJ currently was investigating police departments in Buffalo, New York; Charleston, West Virginia; Eastpointe, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; Orange County, Florida; Prince George's County, Maryland; Riverside California; and Washington, DC. And that it had reached consent decrees with departments in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Steubenville, Ohio. The FOP alleged that these consent decrees infringed upon the collective bargaining rights of its members with their governmental employers and affected the legal rights of police officers who did not voluntarily agree to the terms of the consent decrees.

The Attorney General responded by filing a motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The FOP filed a motion to permit discovery prior to ruling on the government's motion.

On August 14, 2001 district court judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied the FOP's motion to allow discovery, denied the FOP's denying motion to hold decision in abeyance on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss. Judge Urbina found that possible future injury to FOP members by way of the DOJ reaching additional consent decrees with other police departments was not imminent, and thus the FOP lacked standing to bring the action.

The FOP filed a notice of appeal on October 11, 2001, but the appeal was dismissed for a reason that does not appear in the record on November 20, 2001.

Dan Dalton - 12/28/2006


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Racial profiling
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Bivens
Defendant(s) U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff Description Fraternal organization that represented interests of law-enforcement officers alleging that the law that provides the US a remedy against systemic police misconduct is unconstitutional and seeking to stop the undertaking of certain enforcement actions
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Federal Enforcement of Police Reform
By: Stephen Rushin (University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program )
Citation: 82 Fordham Law Review 3189 (2014)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Panopticism for Police: Structural Reform Bargaining and Police Regulation by Data-Driven Surveillance
By: Mary D. Fan (University of Washington)
Citation: Forthcoming, 87 Washington L. Rev. __ (2012).
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  What Happens When Police Are Forced to Reform?
Written: Nov. 13, 2015
By: Kimbriell Kelly, Sarah Childress and Steven Rich (Frontline/Post)
Citation: Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2015)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
01-90 (D.D.C.) 11/21/2001
PN-DC-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief 01/18/2001
PN-DC-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Memorandum Opinion 08/14/2001 (185 F.Supp.2d 9) (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0002-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Urbina, Ricardo M. (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0002-0001 | PN-DC-0002-0002 | PN-DC-0002-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Henderson, C. David (New Mexico)
PN-DC-0002-0001 | PN-DC-0002-0002 | PN-DC-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
PN-DC-0002-0002 | PN-DC-0002-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -