## Facts

- The United States, through the Department of Justice, investigated the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) after the City invited a comprehensive civil-rights review.
- DOJ reviewed documents, conducted on-site observations, and issued findings concluding that NOPD engaged in patterns or practices of unconstitutional searches and seizures, excessive force, and discriminatory policing.
- DOJ also identified deficient policies, training, supervision, misconduct investigations, and discipline as contributors to unlawful policing.
- The United States sued the City under the federal pattern-or-practice statute (then 42 U.S.C. § 14141), the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI, seeking equitable relief.
- On July 24, 2012, the parties jointly moved for entry of a negotiated consent decree establishing detailed, department-wide reforms and court supervision, including an independent monitor.
- After public notice and objections (including intervention attempts), the parties submitted a modified version intended to improve clarity and incorporate court-requested and public-suggested edits.
- On January 11, 2013, the district court approved and entered the consent decree (as amended) as a final, binding judgment; later, the City sought to stay and then vacate the decree, and those efforts were denied.
- The Fifth Circuit later affirmed entry of the decree and denial of relief from judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had authority to enter and enforce a consent decree to remedy alleged patterns or practices of unconstitutional and unlawful policing under the pattern-or-practice statute, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI.
2. Whether the proposed consent decree was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest so as to warrant entry as a final judgment.
3. Whether objections concerning scope, cost, and particular provisions (including regulation of secondary employment/“paid details”) required rejection, narrowing, or later vacatur of the decree.

## Decision

- The district court approved the consent decree (as amended) and entered it as a final judgment enforceable by the court.
- The court found it had jurisdiction and statutory authority to grant equitable relief addressing alleged patterns or practices including excessive force, unlawful searches and seizures, and discriminatory policing.
- The court concluded the decree was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest despite objections about cost, breadth, and operational intrusions.
- The court denied a stay and later denied attempts to vacate the judgment.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the City had consented and failed to show a post-agreement change in circumstances sufficient to justify vacatur; it rejected arguments based on affordability, legality of secondary-employment provisions, and alleged defects in the negotiation process.

## Legal Principles

- The United States may seek declaratory and equitable relief against a law-enforcement agency for a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.
- A federal court may enter a detailed, operational consent decree against a municipality when the relief is reasonably directed to remedying the alleged violations and falls within statutory authority.
- A consent decree must be evaluated for fairness, adequacy, reasonableness, and consistency with the public interest; a court may consider public objections without adopting all proposed changes.
- A municipality that has agreed to a consent decree generally cannot later withdraw based solely on reassessment of costs or policy preferences; relief from judgment requires a sufficient change in law or fact.
- Consent-decree remedies may include court-appointed monitoring, reporting requirements, and reforms affecting policies, training, supervision, accountability systems, and related practices (including secondary employment) when tied to the remedial objectives.

## Conclusion

The federal court entered a comprehensive consent decree requiring structural reforms to NOPD to address alleged patterns or practices of unconstitutional policing, and appellate review upheld the decree and rejected later efforts to avoid or unwind the City’s negotiated obligations.


United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 2:12-cv-01924 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2013)