Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 11, 2009, the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division ("DOJ") began an investigation of the administration of juvenile justice for children facing delinquency charges before the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County ("JCMSC") and the conditions of confinement at the detention center operated by JCMSC. The investigation was conducted pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. In its April 26, 2012 findings report, the DOJ concluded that JCMSC failed to protect the rights of children appearing before it on delinquency matters by neglecting to (1) provide constitutionally required due process, (2) administer justice in a non-discriminatory manner, and (3) provide reasonably safe conditions of confinement.
JCMSC processes more than 11,000 delinquency matters each year arising in the city of Memphis and other communities in Shelby County, Tennessee. The DOJ investigation included a comprehensive review of JCMSC's policies and practices, including observing delinquency hearings; reviewing documents, case files, and statistical data; and interviewing court personnel, probation counselors, detained youths, and attorneys. The DOJ ultimately concluded that JCMSC failed to provide timely and adequate notice of charges to children appearing on delinquency matters; failed to protect children from self-incrimination during probation conferences; failed to hold timely probable cause hearings; and failed to provide adequate due process protections before transferring children to adult criminal court. The DOJ also concluded that JCMSC administered justice in a discriminatory manner and that black children were disproportionately represented in almost every phase of the Shelby County juvenile justice system. Finally, the DOJ concluded that JCMSC used dangerous and excessive restraint techniques to detain children. Rather than diverting children or releasing them to a parent or guardian, JCMSC subjected children to dangerous and excessive restraint chair techniques and pressure point control tactics and failed to protect them from self-harm.
On December 17, 2012, the parties entered a settlement agreement. The agreement mandated that JCMSC immediately develop and implement specific policies and training and review mechanisms to guarantee due process and equal protection and to ensure reasonably safe conditions of confinement. Two monitors and a facility consultant were appointed to assess compliance with the settlement agreement. The parties agreed that these individuals would conduct compliance reviews four months after the date of the agreement and every six months thereafter until the agreement was terminated. The parties agreed that the agreement would terminate when JCMSC achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions of the agreement and maintained that compliance for 12 consecutive months. As of July 2018, the monitors and consultant have issued eleven reports covering due process compliance, the most recent in June 2018, and ten reports covering equal protection compliance, the most recent in December 2017. The most recent due process report, although highlighting several remaining areas of concern, concluded that JCMSC had achieved substantial compliance with all but nine requirements of the agreement and appeared to be making progress with complying with the remaining ones. The most recent equal protection report, on the other hand, indicated that racial disparities at each stage had stayed the same or even widened over time. Although the report said that JCSMC appeared to be making serious efforts to address these disparities, it also noted a continuing failure on its part to take the findings of past compliance reports into account, and a continuing lack of changes in existing procedures and policies, especially at the referral, detention, and non-judicial stages.
On October 19, 2018, the Department of Justice terminated the agreement and closed the matter. In a letter to the Shelby County Attorney, it explained that in the nearly six years that the agreement had been in effect, the County had "transformed its system." In particular, on the due process front, the Department cited the new juvenile unit and increasing independence of the Public Defender's Office, provision of counsel at probation and transfer hearings, procedures for written notice to counsel and notice of charges for juveniles, and new procedures for probable cause determinations and Brady and Giglio disclosures. As to equal protection, it noted data collection, revision of court policies and procedures, implementation of objective decision-making tools, increase in diversion, and a new Summons Review Team. Finally, it cited improvements to the juvenile detention facility including new policies and procedures on use of force, including increased review, prohibition on restraint chair and pressure point control tactics, and suicide prevention efforts. In light of this "substantial compliance" with the agreement, the Department terminated the agreement and restored control over the juvenile justice system to the relevant elected local officials.
This matter is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nate West (11/2/2014)
Alexander Walling (7/23/2018)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Gayle, Winsome (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Glos, Bernard (Illinois)
Lieber, Michael (Florida)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:46 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Tennessee
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Closing Date: Oct. 18, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Shelby County, Tennessee (Shelby), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Order Duration: 2012 - 2018
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Issues
General:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Policing:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in detention facilities
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race: