A Useless Justice Department Forces Chicagoans to Pursue Police Reform on Their Own

Mayor Rahm Emanuel backpedaled from a federal consent decree after Trump took over.

Chicago police officers outside department headquarters.Paul Beaty/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Back in January, after the Department of Justice released a scathing report on unconstitutional abuses by Chicago police officers, Mayor Rahm Emanuel agreed to negotiate a consent decree that would put a federal court in charge of overseeing police reform in the city. The report was the culmination of a lengthy investigation of police practices sparked by the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald by a Chicago cop in 2014.

But Emanuel, who previously served as chief of staff for President Barack Obama, reneged on the agreement in June. Instead, he announced, he would seek a less stringent agreement with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a deal that would not be legally binding. Groups have been suing the city ever since to force it to adhere to the spirit of Emanuel’s original agreement.

Sessions, who is determined to roll back Obama-era oversight efforts, has criticized consent decrees as “handcuffing the police.” Given the DOJ’s disinterest in policing the police, three separate lawsuits are demanding that Emanuel hammer out a consent decree directly with community members. Here’s a quick rundown.

Black Lives Matter Global Network: The local BLM chapter was the first to take legal action, filing a federal lawsuit against the city in June. Citing the department’s documented pattern of using violence against people of color, the suit calls for a court-enforceable pact with members of BLM, the local NAACP chapter, and other groups. “The city has proven that it would rather pay for its officers’ continued use of excessive force than remedy the underlying problems giving rise to the abuses in the first place,” the lawsuit stated. “Absent federal court supervision, nothing will improve.” In August, the city’s lawyers tried to get the suit dismissed, arguing that the department had already corrected the problems in question, instituting a new use-of-force policy and equipping more officers with body cameras and Tasers. (A recent analysis by the Chicago Reporter notes that the CPD has implemented only six of the DOJ’s 99 reform recommendations.) Attorneys for BLM are still weighing their response.

The Illinois attorney general: One week after the city asked for a dismissal of the BLM suit, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a new lawsuit. The department’s reforms to date were “insufficient,” it said, to correct a “decades-long policy” of abuses. “Real, lasting” change will require court oversight, Madigan said at a press conference. At the same conference, after repeatedly arguing that reform could be accomplished without court oversight, Emanuel did an about face, saying the city would negotiate a consent decree with the AG’s office. But city attorneys have yet to drop their challenge to BLM’s nearly identical lawsuit. Madigan has said she’s reached out to lawyers for BLM to ensure that appropriate stakeholders are included in the negotiations. Christy Lopez, a former DOJ official who oversaw police reform efforts under Obama, told Mother Jones that Madigan’s suit is an example of how states can step in to replace a disengaged Justice Department. (California is the only other state where the attorney general is pursuing legal action against a police department for abuses.)

The ACLU: On Wednesday, the ACLU of Illinois, filed a third lawsuit—this one on behalf of people with disabilities—a category of people who are not mentioned in the other suits, but who are disproportionately affected by police abuses, says ACLU attorney Karen Sheley. The goal is to make sure people with disabilities also have a say, so “reform is executed in the fullest way possible” in any consent decree that comes out of the negotiations. Up to half of people killed by police nationwide have a physical or mental disability, the lawsuit says. In Chicago, it notes, people with disabilities are also disproportionately affected by nonlethal uses of force, such as Taserings. The ACLU plans to to connect with Madigan about including disability rights advocates in the negotiation process.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate