PSJD Public Interest News Digest – June 5, 2020

Sam Halpert, NALP Director of Public Service Initiatives

Photo: Harris and Ewing Collection, Library of Congress

Interested public. I compile this digest each week (well, most weeks) to bring you public interest law news. This week, the news is that public protests and the forces of the law are in perilous tension. After Minneapolis law enforcement slowly murdered a Black man in their custody in broad daylight and in full view of multiple witnesses and cameras, people across the United States have been moved to protest against systemic racial oppression. Law enforcement officers have responded with brutal violence while many mayors demonstrated bipartisan disinterest in police accountability. The President of the United States has placed the District of Columbia under military occupation and threatened sovereign U.S. states with similar treatment rather than consider meaningful reforms. Retired and serving members of military leadership have begun to remind soldiers of their Constitutional oaths while the U.S. Attorney General deploys heavily-armed, unmarked forces in downtown DC.

The legal community, in response, has begun bringing lawsuits. Lawyers across the country have committed to serving protestors pro bono. The Supreme Court of the United States weighed whether to revisit the doctrine of “qualified immunity” for law enforcement. The Supreme Court of Washington issued a challenge to the legal community:

As lawyers and members of the bar, we must recognize the harms that are caused when meritorious claims go unaddressed due to systemic inequities or the lack of financial, personal, or systemic support. And we must also recognize that this is not how a justice system must operate. Too often in the legal profession, we feel bound by tradition and the way things have “always” been. We must remember that even the most venerable precedent must be struck down when it is incorrect and harmful. The systemic oppression of black Americans is not merely incorrect and harmful; it is shameful and deadly.

Finally, as the New York Attorney General says “she’s prepared to legally challenge President Donald Trump’s threat to send in the military”, at least one legal commentator (Elie Mystal of the Nation) questioned the relevance of a legal response to a military encounter:
If the military is told to occupy New York City or Los Angeles, they’ll go. If they’re told to secure the streets, in violation of the constitutional right to peaceable assembly, they’ll do it. If they’re told to round up and arrest protesters, or members of the press, they’ll do it. They won’t even have to open fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians—the threat that one of them might is more than enough to vitiate any pretense of constitutional democracy…People have to think [] about how to stop a man who is above the law, using all the peaceful tools (always the peaceful tools) available to us.

These stories are in the links below.

Take care of one another,

Sam

The President of the United States is not a dictator, and President Trump does not and will not dominate New York state. In fact, the president does not have the right to unilaterally deploy U.S. military across American states[.] We respect and will guard the right to peaceful protest, and my office will review any federal action with an eye toward protecting our state’s rights. Rest assured: We will not hesitate to go to court to protect our constitutional rights during this time and well into the future.