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