Creating Space For Community Representation in Police Reform Litigation

Creating Space for Community Representation in

Police Reform Litigation

AYESHA BELL HARDAWAY*

Input from affected communities is an essential component of the

reform process aimed at remedying unconstitutional police practices.

Yet, no court has ever granted a community organization’s motion to

intervene as a matter of right in police reform, consent decree cases initi-

ated by the Department of Justice. Judicial opinions in those cases have

truncated the Federal Civil Rule 24 analysis when evaluating the inter-

ests of impacted communities. Thus, the most success achieved by a few

community organizations has been permissive intervention or amici sta-

tus. The models used by the Department of Justice to elicit the community

perspective have been frustrating and have failed to incorporate commu-

nity voice with equal weight and authority in the process. This Article

identif‌ies a uniform standard for courts to utilize in public law cases

when community organizations seek intervention and proposes an alter-

native approach to the composition and structure of organizations so

that the voices and input of those affected by police brutality are included

in a meaningful way. The solution proposed by this Article involves

applying an adequate representation analysis more suitable for the

dynamic relationship between the federal government and marginalized

communities. The right to intervene can be attained by those impacted by

police violence while alleviating practical and representative concerns

articulated by the judiciary in prior reform cases.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525

I. DOJ-INITIATED POLICE REFORM LITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531

A. PASSAGE OF THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW

ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532

B. THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITY INPUT IN DOJ INVESTIGATIONS

AND REFORM EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534

* Assistant Professor of Law, Social Justice Law Center Director, Case Western Reserve University

School of Law. © 2021, Ayesha Bell Hardaway. My sincere gratitude to Sunita Patel, Bill Quigley,

Alexis Karteron, Jonathan Adler, Andrew Pollis, Avidan Cover, Jessie Hill, and participants of the Lutie

Lytle Black Women Law Faculty Workshop and Writing Retreat for their insightful feedback. Special

thanks to Sarajean Petite and Shannon Doughty for their research assistance. I also extend an abundance

of gratitude to The Georgetown Law Journal members for their superb editorial assistance.

523

1. First Wave—Cursory Community Engagement . . . . . . . 535

2. Second Wave—More Detailed Community Engagement 537

3. Third Wave—Community Police Commissions . . . . . . . 539

II. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540

A. HISTORY OF FEDERAL RULE 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541

B. FEDERAL RULE 24 AND STANDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544

C. FEDERAL RULE 24 AND ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION. . . . . . . . . . 544

D. RULE 24 IN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546

III. EFFORTS BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN POLICE

REFORM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548

A. INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

REBUFFED BY FEDERAL COURTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548

B. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS’ EFFORTS TO GAIN PARTY STATUS

AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW

ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

1. Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552

2. Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

3. New Orleans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555

4. Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559

5. Albuquerque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560

6. Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

7. Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

IV. HOW COURTS HAVE MISSED THE MARK AND A PATH FORWARD . . . . . . . 567

A. CONTROLLING CASE LAW SUPPORTS INTERVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

B. WHY THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD BE REBUTTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

1. Shared General Interest in Consent Decree Is Not

Enough—Adequate Representation of Impacted

Community Interests Should Require More. . . . . . . . . . 569

2. The Federal Government Is Unlikely to Make the

Arguments of Impacted Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

524 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 109:523

3. History Demonstrates the Federal Government’s Neglect

of Impacted Communities and Their Experiences . . . . . . 573

C. THE FRAMEWORK FOR A PATH FORWARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574

1. Signif‌icant Interest Demonstrated by Community

Engagement and Efforts to Reform Questionable Police

Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576

2. Specious Intervention Attempts by Anti-reformists Do

Not Meet the Intervention Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577

3. Collaboration and Joint Legal Representation of

Community Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

INTRODUCTION

Courts overseeing police reform consent decrees have presumed that the

federal government adequately represents the interest of communities

impacted by police violence. This presumption is derived from judicial

interpretations of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

governs when a third party can successfully intervene in existing litigation.

1

Those interpretations, however, are not rooted in the origins or purpose of

that Rule. Courts managing Department of Justice (DOJ)-initiated consent

decrees have failed to acknowledge the unique relationship between the

federal government and communities impacted by police violence. They

have, instead, relied heavily on the traditional legal theory that the govern-

ment speaks for its citizens. This misapplication not only frustrates the pur-

pose of Rule 24 but also undermines the legitimacy of police reforms.

1. (a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is

so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the

movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION.

(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

(2) By a Government Off‌icer or Agency. On timely motion, the court may permit a federal

or state governmental off‌icer or agency to intervene if a party’s claim or defense is

based on:

(A) a statute or executive order administered by the off‌icer or agency; or

(B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or

executive order.

(3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the interven-

tion will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.

FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)–(b).

2021] CREATING SPACE FOR COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION 525