Monthly Archives: November 2023

The Scripps Howard First Amendment Center awarded Kendall Staton, Paxton Media Regional Editor, the Champion of Open Government Award on Thursday, Nov. 2.

Staton, who joined Paxton Media earlier this year, is the editor of The News-Herald, Grant County News and Cynthiana Democrat.

Director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center Kathryn Montalbano said the center created the award for Staton based on the merits of her accomplishments and her nomination for the coveted James Madison Award. Montalbano presented Staton with the award prior to the annual State of the First Amendment Address. She told the audience Statons work dated back to her time as a student at the University of Kentucky.

As assistant news editor at the Kentucky Kernel, Kendall worked with the editorial board to share information about the hazing-related death of Thomas Lofton Hazelwood. The teamwork of Kendall and the editorial board provided the community with over seven pages of a student conduct investigation report after nine months of advocating their open records request, Montalbano read from Statons James Madison Award nomination letter. Kendalls quest to provide accurate information to the public continues into her current role. With only a couple of months under her belt as editor, Kendall has pushed through intimidation tactics from local officials pressuring her to turn a blind eye to county expenses and payroll information.

In August, Staton submitted three open records requests looking to examine the wages of public employees in Harrison County. After receiving these requests, Harrison County Schools Superintendent Harry Burchett, Harrison County Judge Executive Jason Marshall and Cynthiana Mayor James Smith asked to meet with Staton and requested she not publish the requested records or use them in a story.

Staton conducted an investigation into each record, and discovered Burchett earned the 12th highest salary of any Kentucky Public School Superintendent last fiscal year, according to the Kentucky Department of Education.

After the publication of her articles related to wages in the county and the intimidation tactics employed by the men that run the county, Kendall received accolades from the citizens of Harrison County, Montalbano read from Statons nomination letter. The emails she received from citizens stated their appreciation of the information she provided and how it increased their knowledge of how the city and county are being run.

This is the first year the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center has awarded a Champion of Open Government recognition, according to Montalbano. She is not sure if the award will be presented annually.

It is great to know I have the support of the greater Kentucky journalism community for the work we are doing over in Cynthiana. This award just shows that I am doing my job, and plan to continue doing my job for years to come, Staton said.

Original post:
Staton recognized by Scripps Howard First Amendment Center - Pmg-ky3.com

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)

In the past six weeks, Trump has filed four motions to dismiss his election interference case in DC, as well as throwing a dozen other miscellaneous motion-shaped wrenches in the works as part of a transparent attempt to get his March 4, 2024 trial date postponed.

Last week the government requested to combine its response to Trumps motion to dismiss on statutory grounds and his motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds into one document to avoid the repetition and cross-referencing that pervades the defendants separate motions. Prosecutors sought leave to exceed the 45-page limit for a single reply brief, promising that the combined document would come in well under the 90 pages to which the Government would be entitled if it filed separate opposition briefs.

Trump opposed the motion, because his lawyers are assholes. Ostensibly, he didnt want to allow prosecutors to game the system by spending 60 pages attacking his (idiotic!) constitutional arguments. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the governments request, sighing in a minute order that the discussion of each Motion therein shall not exceed 45 pages.

In the event, the governments reply is 79 pages, 15 of which are taken up with the caption and tables of contents and authorities. Because Trumps motions were gobbledygook, and no one needed to spend 90 pages refuting them.

The government first tackles the claim that the indictment must be dismissed because it failed to allege that Trump violated the statutes at issue. In the defendants telling, he had a First Amendment right to try to overturn the election by dint of fake electoral certificates. And anyway, all he did was make words, which cant be a crime because have you people even heard of the FIRST AMENDMENT?

In response, the government points out that Trump was not indicted for spewing lies about rampant election fraud. He was indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States, obstruct an official proceeding, and violate the right to vote and have ones vote counted by substituting fake electoral votes for real ones and stopping Congress certifying the winner of the 2020 election.And the First Amendment protects the right to shout ridiculous lies, but the fact that Im a broke Nigerian prince, send me cash is just words wont save you from a fraud charge.

Trump also made a bizarre argument that he was just lobbying Congress, in keeping with his God-given right to petition the government.

That argument fails because the indictment alleges not lobbying or political advocacy, but instead that the defendant engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election by targeting deceit at the federal government function, the special counsel scoffed in response.

Trumps constitutional arguments come in for similar disdain and clock in at considerably less than 45 pages. In chief, he argued that he cant be arrested because he was already impeached, and uh, you know DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

The Impeachment Clause specifies that the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. But Trump argued that hes not a party convicted, and adopting the obverse assumption, he cannot now be tried in a court of law.

But, as the government notes: impeachment is a civil remedy, and has nothing to do with criminal jeopardy; Trump was impeached for incitement, not conspiring to obstruct Congress, and those things are not the same; Congress and the Justice Department are separate sovereigns, and thus the charges are parallel, not overlapping; and, Trumps own Republican allies said that they were voting against impeachment because they thought they lacked jurisdiction to impeach an ex-president, not based on the validity of the charge.

On top of which, thats not how anyone has ever understood the Impeachment Clause to function, looking back to the days of the Founding Fathers although perhaps if theyd consumed a bucket of paint thinner and spent 1,000 hours mainlining Steve Bannons podcast, theyd have come to a different conclusion.

The special counsel requests that Judge Chutkan designate the double jeopardy claim frivolous, which would block Trump from an immediate interlocutory appeal under DC Circuit precedent.

The defendants wholly meritless double-jeopardy claim should not, therefore, divest this Court of jurisdiction in a manner that risks delaying the trial, the prosecutors concluded.

On the plus side for Trump, he did win a partial victory on his motion to extend discovery subpoena deadlines under Rule 17(c). The original cutoff was tomorrow, November 9, 2023, but Trump asked for an extension to February 9, 2024, just three weeks before the scheduled start of this trial. That was never going to happen, of course. But Judge Chutkan did give him two weeks extra to get his homework done, extending the deadline to November 27.

And thats probably the biggest win hes going to get out of this trial court.

US v. Trump [DDC Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Continue reading here:
Prosecutors Mock Trump Attempt To Get Election Case Dismissed ... - Above the Law

NICK EICHER, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: Free speech on campus.

As we know, speech rights and obligations can be complicated. Private universities are facing legal questions that are different from the questions government institutions face. Its difficult to know whats protected and whats not.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Joining us now to help sort it out is Tyson Langhofer. He serves as senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Tyson, good morning.

TYSON LANGHOFER, GUEST: Hey, good morning. Thanks for having me.

REICHARD: Glad youre here. Well, lets start with the baseline. What is the legal definition of hate speech?

LANGHOFER: There actually isn't a legal definition of hate speech, which is what really creates the problem in First Amendment context, because what might be hateful to one person may not be hateful to another person. And so we have taken the approach in America to have a very broad protection of speech so that the government doesn't get to define whose speech they think is hateful and thus prohibited and whose speech they think is okay and thus not prohibited.

EICHER: Okay, so going beyond the legal definitions which don't exist, are there uniform policies about hate speech on college campuses? Or is this just an ad hoc kind of case by case thing?

LANGHOFER: It is an ad hoc case by case thing, which is what creates the problem. So what the Supreme Court has said is that the government cannot look to the content or the viewpoint of somebodys speech in order to prohibit that speech. And so when a government official looks at somebody's speech and says, Well, that viewpoint is hateful, therefore, I'm going to prohibit it, the government or the Supreme Court has said that that is unconstitutional. And so what you see is there is no uniformity across the college campuses, because it is a subjective determination, which is what the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment prohibits.

REICHARD: You know, we've heard the chants "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" from those who are supporting Hamas, meaning Palestinian control over the entire territory of Israel's borders, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Now, some say that is not anti-semitic, it's only anti-zionist, Tyson, what do you make of that argument?

LANGHOFER: Well, I mean, I think that if you're advocating for the complete annihilation of a people group from a certain, you know, country, that that makes it difficult to argue that, you know, your that your argument against simply a country as opposed to, to a people group. But I mean, I think that the debate that we're having here, about what type of rhetoric that we can engage in, in a very, very politicized and highly inflammatory environment, is the very debate that the First Amendment is designed to protect. And what the Supreme Court has said, is that the highest principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence is to protect the thought that we hate. But I think that's what our First Amendment calls us to, is to protect those things. Now, obviously, there are certain limits. So if there are people calling for imminent violence against anyone, regardless of who they are, that's not protected. But if they're arguing in general for broader principles, then that is protected, even if we think that principle is hateful or wrong.

EICHER: So maybe that's the way to do it, because I intended to ask, how do you sort of make that balance between protecting free speech but also condemning ideas that justify abhorrent action? So that's the line whether it's sort of inciting or how do you make that distinction?

LANGHOFER: That's absolutely the line as the Supreme Court has drawn it. They've said there's there's very narrow areas that are unprotected speech, one of them would be a true threat. So if I'm threatening somebody in the moment and saying, I'm going to commit some act of violence against you that's not protected, you know, actually engaging or encouraging people to go engage in imminent violence that's also not protected, but advocating for principles that might lead people in the future to take some acts which are unlawful, that is protected. And that's sort of the line that we've drawn. And I think it's really important to understand that if you have a conservative originalist view of the Constitution, you have to understand that it is going to require us to allow people to say things that we vehemently disagree with, that we think are wrong and immoral, but that also protects us as Christians to engage in speech that we believe is consistent with our biblical worldview, that many people would say it is hateful or shouldn't be protected as well.

REICHARD: I have to ask this question: why are some of our most prestigious campuses inundated with these pro Hamas views? What's going on?

LANGHOFER: Well, I think when you see that they have been taught this the issue of of critical theory, where everything is intersectional. And and it's all about who we deem as the bigger victim. And there's not a broader justice, there's not an absolute, that's it's the victim, and it's based upon identity rather than actual actions. And I think that has led them to stop looking at the actual facts on the ground, and just looking at whose identity do we believe is more oppressed? And in that, in that framework, I then determine who is the victim and who we should be supporting, as opposed to looking at it broader, what is the truth of the situation, and what is just in this situation, regardless of what their identities are? Everybody should be, you know, advocating for a just result, regardless of the identity of the individual who's being victimized.

EICHER: Tyson, I know you've been paying very careful attention to this for many years. What is your assessment of what's missing from the conversation about free speech and mitigating harm on campus? What's missing?

LANGHOFER: Yeah, I think what's missing is this. There's a large and growing portion of campus which is advocating for social justice. And we want justice as well as Christians, we desire justice. But what they don't understand is that you cannot achieve justice without obtaining the truth. What is the truth, truth and justice are inextricably linked. We must arrive at truth and then we can get the justice and everybody I think can agree we want a just society. But shutting down certain viewpoints is not going to get us to truth. And it's not going to get us to justice. And I think that's what's missing is this ability to to engage with people that we very, very much disagree with, but to do it in a way that where it's a dialectic rather than a debate, right? It's the ability to learn and to listen to the other side, and explore what they're saying. All right, at the same time, of being able to give them your viewpoint and recognize they're both created an image of God and that they're both we all have that inherent human dignity and we should respect them as a person, even if we disagree with their viewpoint.

REICHARD: Tyson Langhofer serves as senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. Thanks for joining us!

LANGHOFER: Thank you for having me.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

See the original post:
The right to disagree matters | WORLD - WORLD News Group

MONTGOMERY, Ala. Flying certain flags on public property would become a criminal offense in Alabama under a newly filed bill by State Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa.

Among the first bills filed for the 2024 legislative session, Senate Bill 4 would make it a Class C misdemeanor for an individual to place, hoist, or display a flag on public property outside of 11 exceptions, including the United States flag and the Boy Scouts of America flag.

Perhaps one of the most important exceptions to the new law, according to Allen, was the inclusion of the Freedom Flag, a flag created in November of 2001 in remembrance of 9/11.

One of the reasons why we think its important for us to (include) the remembrance Freedom Flag is (that) its a very important part of American history, one that not one of us needs to forget, Allen told Alabama Daily News.

The world doesnt think and believe like we Americans believe; theyre trying their best to destroy us as a country, as a nation, and I just think this is very important for us to make sure that our young people understand what took place on 9/11.

Calling 9/11 a turning point in America, Allen said his hope was that by making the Freedom Flag more commonly flown on public property, younger Alabamians would be reminded of the sacrifices made since the attack on the World Trade Center.

We must be reminded so this sort of thing can be placed in the minds of our citizens and our children, that this is not ever going to happen again, he told ADN.

As to the prospect of criminalizing the act of waiving unapproved flags on public property, Allen said it was not his intention to violate the First Amendment, under which flying flags on public property has been ruled time and time again to be a protected activity.

As far as a protest or someone staying on public property waiving Trump or a Biden sign, thats their First Amendment right, Allen told ADN Tuesday. Weve got the First Amendment issue, and we sure dont want to infringe on constitutional rights.

Allen said he would consult with his legal team to ensure his proposal ultimately does not conflict with the First Amendment. As currently written, however, the bill would criminalize the flying of any unauthorized flags on public property, though would excluderoads, highways, in stadiums, arenas and athletic facilities, however, would be exempt.

Flags permitted to be flown on public property under the bill are as follows:

Similar bills have been filed in other states, including one in Florida that would have restricted the exhibition of flags on government property to the state flag, the U.S. flag, the POW-MIA flag or the firefighter memorial flag. However, that bill ultimately died in the Florida Legislatures Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, and never became law.

Other states have seen more local efforts to restrict what flags can be displayed on public property, including communities in Ohio, New York and Utah, where certain school districts have restricted the display of Pride flags outright.

Excerpt from:
New bill to criminalize flying unauthorized flags on public property ... - Alabama Daily News

The city of Flagstaff, Ariz., recently told Rob Wilson, owner and founder of Timberline Firearms & Training in Flagstaff, that he can no longer run an ad for his store and range in a local airport. This is a clear First Amendment infringement designed to cancel use of our Second Amendment rights.

Wilsons struggle to retain his American freedom is regional, but it says a lot about what is happening now in many areas of this nation.

Our ad ran thousands and thousands of times over the baggage claim belt at our local airport and there were no complaints. But this year, when we tried to run it during the summer peak season, the city of Flagstaff determined that somehow our video depicted violence. And they have a policy that prohibits depicting violence in advertising, says Wilson.

But that doesnt make sense, as the gun-safety courses he teaches as an NRA-certified firearms instructor are designed to help people handle guns safely and to, potentially, stop violent criminals who might come for them.

The city of Flagstaffs city council apparently has an issue not really with violence, however, as they have since decided to revise their policy, says Wilson. Their new policy eliminates the violence and anti-social behavior paragraph and replaces it with one that specifically targets firearms. Banning advertising of firearms sales, rentals, use, ammunition or any associated type of business is their proposed new policy.

The anti-social claim is also counterintuitive, as theres just nothing more social than going to a range, hanging out with good friends, or just meeting people and shooting. Its a very social experience.

But those reasons were seemingly dropped and a new policy is being floated that bans all gun-related advertising.

When Wilson pushed back, he says he had a meeting with the city attorney. They thought we should compromise somehow, says Wilson. They thought we should just not include firearms in our ad and then it might be okay. I said, I spent 22 years in the Navy defending our Constitution and our rights, and I am not about to let a city council and mayor just walk all over my rights now.

They city attorney indicated that Timberline Firearms & Trainings ad made them uncomfortable, says Wilson.

So he offered to take anyone from the city council onto his range for one-on-one instruction, so they can become comfortable with their own freedom. None of the council members even replied to the offer, says Wilson.

This caseand the video interview shown hereexposes how hard it can be to talk to officials who only want to cancel this American freedom.

Read more here:
This First Amendment Attack is Designed to Reduce Gun Ownership ... - America's 1st Freedom

Alexander Luzula | Assistant News Director

The Student Government Association is one step closer to simplifying its own constitutional processes and making it easier to amend the SGA Constitution. On Monday, Nov. 6, the SGA Senate passed Bill SB 04 006, known as the Amendments Streamlining Act.

If enacted, the new legislation would repeal Article XII of the current SGA Constitution and expand student rights by allowing students to submit amendment proposals by filing petitions with either 250 student signatures or 15% of voters in the previous general election, as well as the traditional method of the Senate initiating a bill and passing it with the support of two-thirds of the legislature. The bill also lowered the required number of senators needed to overturn a veto from a unanimous vote to three-fourths.

The legislation would also lower the necessary approval from voters from to of all voters.

The new legislature will also make sure that this and future amendments are enacted immediately, as opposed to the current standards of waiting until the next legislative year.

The bill was passed by a unanimous 30 yeas, with no opposition or absences.

President Alexander Sutton is expected to sign the bill on Thursday, Nov. 9, after which it will be put to a referendum on Tuesday, Nov. 28. Students will be given the chance to vote from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

If two-thirds of the electorate approves the legislation, the amendment will be presented to the Interim Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Charlie Andrews. If Andrews approves of the measure, it will be enacted immediately.

Essentially, this is a constitutional amendment about constitutional amendments, said President Sutton in a statement sent to PantherNOW.

This amendment marks the first amendment successfully passed by the Senate since the current constitution was enacted in February 2021, and is an important milestone for student rights at FIU, according to Sutton.

I think its very monumental and historic that were seeing the first referendum of the student body on the constitution since it was put into effect, said Sutton. I would strongly encourage all of the students to vote yes on this constitutional amendment so we can finally put democracy back into our student body constitution.

See original here:
SGA Amendment to Make Amendments Easier Passes; Will Move to ... - PantherNOW

In July 2016, protests unfolded in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after local police shot and killed Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man. It was the first of two high-profile police shootings of black men within several days, capturing the nations attention and fueling large demonstrations. One such protest was organized by DeRay Mckesson, a civil-rights activist.

Americans have a right to protest government abuses. But according to a recentdecision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Mckesson may be held liable for damage caused byother protestors. A police officer alleged Mckesson negligently organized the protest, and the court held the First Amendment does not protect Mckesson from liability. This is a dangerous rule that exposes protest leaders to liability for the rogue act of a fellow demonstrator and thereby threatens to chill First Amendment-protected protest.

Thats why FIRE is filing anamicus curiae friend of the court brief inMckesson v. Doe, asking the Supreme Court to accept the case and reverse the Fifth Circuits ruling. A rule that exposes non-violent protest leaders to liability for the acts of otherswhether it be a rogue protestor, an unruly counter-protestor, or even a police officer using force at the sceneis a threat to our American tradition of protecting the power of speech and assembly to bring about change.

But to the extent the lower courts had any doubts about what rule to apply, they were resolved this summer inCounterman v. Colorado, where the Supreme Court confirmed that negligence is an insufficient basis for imposing liability on speech.

During the protest, Mckesson and other demonstrators occupied a stretch of highway near a police station. As officers began arresting demonstrators to clear the highway, someone threw a rock that struck and injured a police officer. Unable to identify the rock-hurler, the officer instead sued Mckesson for damages. The officer alleged that, even though Mckesson didnt throw the rock, as the organizer, he was nevertheless responsible for the officers injuries.

This isnt the first time the issue has come before the high court. InNAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, decided in 1982, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shielded civil rights leaders from liability for their nonviolent boycott to bring about political, social, and economic change. Observing that First Amendment activity and violence often exist at mass protests, the Supreme Court concluded that civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. Only if a demonstrator (1) authorizes or directs unlawful activity, (2) incites imminent and likely lawless action, (3) or gives specific instructions to carry out violence could they be liable for the resulting consequences, the Supreme Court reasoned.

This case should have been decided underClaiborne Hardware. But to the extent the lower courts had any doubts about what rule to apply, they were resolved this summer inCounterman v. Colorado, where the Supreme Court confirmed that negligence is an insufficient basis for imposing liability on speech. Under the First Amendment, the Court said, only intentional speech can give rise to any sort of liability. This crucially important requirement gives speech breathing room against both criminal and civil liability.

FIREs brief points out that the Fifth Circuits decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Courts decision inCounterman. The Supreme Court should therefore summarily accept the case and reverse, ordering the Fifth Circuit to re-evaluate the case under this recent precedent. Whatever reasons the Court of Appeals had for misapplying the First Amendment before, the Supreme Court has clarified that Americans can not be held liable for negligent speech.

See more here:
Civil rights leaders cannot be held liable for acts of rogue protestors - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The Justice Department announced today that it has opened a civil pattern or practice investigation into the City of Lexington, Mississippi, and the Lexington Police Department (LPD). Lexington is a town of approximately 1,600 people, located about an hour outside of the states capitol in Jackson, Mississippi.

The investigation will seek to determine whether there are systemic violations of the Constitution and federal law. The investigation will focus on the police departments use of force and its stops, searches and arrests. It will assess whether those activities are reasonable, non-discriminatory and respect the right to engage in speech and conduct protected by the First Amendment. The investigation will include a comprehensive review of LPD policies, training and supervision, practices for the collection of fines and fees and systems of accountability.

No city, no town and no law enforcement agency is too large or too small to evade our enforcement of the constitutional rights every American enjoys, said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division. We are opening this investigation to determine whether the Lexington Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing, excessive force or First Amendment violations. This investigation should send a clear message to small and mid-size police departments that they are not exempt from the obligation to provide fair, effective and non-discriminatory policing. We will leave no community behind, including underserved regions in the Deep South, in our quest to ensure lawful and constitutional policing in America.

Police officers are trusted with the important duty to keep our communities safe. When police officers fail to respect constitutional rights, they violate that trust, said U.S. Attorney Todd W. Gee for the Southern District of Mississippi. Our office is committed to ensuring that everyone in Mississippi is treated fairly and lawfully by the police. Todays announcement reflects that commitment. We will conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of LPD, and we will take decisive action to address any unlawful conduct.

Before this announcement, officials from the Justice Department notified Lexington officials, who have pledged to cooperate with the investigation. As part of this investigation, the Justice Department will conduct outreach to community groups and members of the public to learn about their experiences with LPD.

The Special Litigation Section of the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division and the U.S Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Mississippi will jointly conduct this investigation pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives people of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. If the Justice Department has reasonable cause to believe that the law enforcement officers of a state or local government have engaged in a prohibited pattern or practice, the department is authorized to bring a lawsuit seeking court-ordered changes to remedy the violations. In this investigation, the department will assess the law enforcement practices under the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the non-discrimination provisions of the Safe Streets Act.

Individuals with relevant information are encouraged to contact the Justice Department via email at Community.LexingtonMS@usdoj.gov or by phone at (833) 610-1232. Individuals can also report civil rights violations regarding this or other matters using the reporting portal of the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, available at http://www.civilrights.justice.gov. Individuals can also report civil rights violations to the U.S. Attorneys Office at USAMSS.civilrights@usdoj.gov or (601) 973-2825.

Todays announcement marks the 11th pattern or practice investigation into law enforcement misconduct opened by the Justice Department during this Administration. The department has ongoing investigations into the Phoenix Police Department; the Mount Vernon (NY) Police Department; the Louisiana State Police; the New York City Police Departments Special Victims Division; the Worcester (MA) Police Department; the Oklahoma City Police Department; the Memphis (TN) Police Department; and the Trenton (NJ) Police Department. The department recently completed investigations in Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, and secured agreements in principle with both jurisdictions to negotiate consent decrees to address the violations found.

Additional information about the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division is available on its website at http://www.justice.gov/crt. Additional information about the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Mississippi is available at http://www.justice.gov/usao-sdms. Information specific to the Civil Rights Divisions Police Reform Work can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/crt/file/922421/download.

The Justice Department will hold a public community meeting on Nov. 8 at 5:00 p.m. CT at St. Paul COGIC Fellowship Hall, located at 17214 Highway 17 South, Lexington, Mississippi. Members of the public are encouraged to attend to learn more about the investigation.

Continue reading here:
Justice Department Announces Investigation of the City of Lexington ... - Department of Justice