Why It Matters That a City Council in Louisiana Repealed a Ban on Saggy Pants

“There is no legitimate need for this ordinance beyond racially motivated animus.”

A young man walks down a sidewalk wearing sagging pants.Mike Brown/The Commercial Appeal/ZUMA

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

Lawmakers in Shreveport, Louisiana voted 6-1 on Tuesday to repeal a 12-year-old ordinance banning pants that sag below the waist after outcry over the death of Anthony Childs, who was stopped by police for violating the law. 

Childs was walking down a sidewalk in early February when Shreveport Police Officer Traveion Brooks attempted to stop him because of his sagging pants and exposed underwear. Brooks, in his police cruiser, pursued Childs across a field, then noticed the man had a gun. Brooks fired off eight rounds, hitting Childs three times. The parish prosecutor decided not to press charges against Brooks because the coroner ruled Childs’ death a suicide. The only shot Childs fired was into his own chest.

Laws that criminalize saggy pants have long been considered racist because of the way they single out clothes typically worn by young men of color. And Shreveport is only one of many municipalities that have banned saggy pants in the past 20 years. In the mid-2000s, a number of mostly Southern towns proposed such laws under the guise of regulating public decency. At the time, proponents of saggy pants bans relied on fear-mongering tactics, like repeating the questionable claim that sagging was tied to prison and gang culture. Cities in Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina and other parts of Louisiana still have anti-sagging ordinances on the book. As recently as last year, state lawmakers in South Carolina have proposed bills that criminalize sagging. (No statewide legislation that bans sagging pants has ever passed.)

Critics of saggy pants laws say what may start out as a saggy pants citation could be easy justification for an illegal search by police. The laws drew public pushback in 2008, when a 17-year-old in Florida was stopped for showing four-inches of underwear in violation of the city’s anti-sagging ordinance. Only then did police discover the teenager was on probation for possession-of-marijuana. He went to jail, though a judge later released him and deemed the law unconstitutional. In the aftermath of the Florida decision, a handful of cities repealed saggy pants laws, often amid pressure from advocacy groups such as the ACLU and NAACP.

“The law is clearly being used in a blatantly racially discriminatory manner that makes the City vulnerable to suit,” wrote ACLU of Louisiana legal director Katie Schwartzmann in a letter to the Shreveport city council. “There is no legitimate need for this ordinance beyond racially motivated animus.” 

According to data obtained by the Shreveport Times after Childs’ death, there have been 726 arrests for sagging in Shreveport since the original ordinance passed in 2007. Ninety-six percent of those arrested were black men. Violations of the law were punishable by a fine of up to $250 and up to 32 hours of community service

“He was targeted [for] his clothes,” said Tyren Pucker, Childs’ sister, at the city council meeting on Tuesday. “He hadn’t committed a crime. There was no probable cause or anything he had done to anybody. It was [because of] his clothes, I had to bury my brother.” 

Shreveport Mayor Adrian Perkins—who has expressed support for repealing the saggy pants ban—signed the bill Wednesday afternoon. The repeal goes into effect in one week.

“It is my opinion that while the ordinance was originally well-intentioned, it unfairly targets people of color,” Perkins said. “Just like many initiatives in the war on drugs that we now realize are discriminatory against people of color, we’ve evolved to reach that understanding. And this is in that vein.”

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