Senior United States District Judge Paul Magnuson has granted the Trump Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the pending lawsuit brought by the Biden Justice Department against the City of Minneapolis. The Biden administration brought the lawsuit and filed a joint motion for a consent decree with municipal authorities on January 6 this year, patently to beat the incoming Trump administration.
I started writing about the lawsuit charging the Minneapolis Police Department with racial discrimination when Merrick Garland came to town in June 2023 in “Garland of thorns.” I reported on the press conference called to announce the consent decree in “Is it something I didn’t say?” I wrote about the arrival of the Trump Department of Justice in the case in “Harmeet Dhillon explains.” My many posts on the subject in between are collected here.
Judge Magnuson’s order summarily dismisses the lawsuit (order embedded below), but appends a footnote calling out the charade in a footnote that expresses some of the points I have made along the way. If you followed my comments along the way, I hope this doesn’t come as a surprise to you. Readers who get their news from the Star Tribune may be among the hardest hit by Judge Magnuson’s comments. The text of Judge Magnuson’s appended footnote is below the break.
* * * * *
The Court seriously questions whether this lawsuit presented any case or controversy to resolve because the United States and the City were not adverse. See United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302, 304 (1943). When “both litigants desire precisely the same result . . . . There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution.” Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 47, 48 (1971). Thus, the Court doubts whether the parties have standing.
Beyond whether this matter comports with Article III, the Court has grave misgivings about the proposed consent decree serving the public interest. To begin, the proposed consent decree is structured so that the legislature and City executives can blame the Court for any Minneapolis Police Department (“MPD”) shortcoming or failure in the City’s response to crime, avoiding accountability and responsibility for the City’s
problems.
Another concern regarding the proposed consent decree’s design is the omission of critical information, despite repeatedly emphasizing the need for transparency to increase citizens’ trust in the MPD. It states that the United States has “reasonable cause to believe that the City and MPD engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of rights protected by the United States Constitution and federal law.” (Consent Decree (Docket No. 2-1) ¶ 2.) Yet, the DOJ’s investigation report and the proposed consent decree do not include data reflecting the number or frequency of the City or MPD’s alleged violations of the law. Without that information, no court could evaluate whether the proposed consent decree sufficiently addresses the Complaint’s allegations.
Further, the proposed consent decree is superfluous because in July 2023, the City and MPD entered into a similar agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Indeed, as the parties concede, the state agreement includes many plans discussed in the proposed consent decree and the City is already implementing others on its own initiative.
Finally, in the Court’s view, the considerable sum of taxpayer money allocated for the proposed consent decree’s oversight and execution, including paying the monitor $750,000 per year, would better fund hiring police officers to bolster the City’s dwindling police force and promote public safety.
Dismissal order by Scott Johnson on Scribd
