The ACLU is suing the Trump adminstration over its alleged “violation the civil rights of protesterswho were forcefully removed from a park near the White House by police using chemical agents before U.S. President Donald Trump walked to a nearby church to take a photo”.
If the suit is successful, what remedy could the courts impose? Would it be enforceable?
Thanks.
Why do you think this is relevant?
From the document:
They would probably argue that they where being a public nuisance, blocking traffic or any number of things.
They were in Lafayette Square, a public park that is the site of protests nearly every day of the year.
Gini Gerbasi, a former minister of St. John’s, gave an eyewitness account of what happened. She said they had set up a relief station for protestors at St. John’s Lafayette Square patio.
It’s unclear to me whether the area she was talking about is on the church property or not. If it is, then obviously it’s not public property.
Lafayette Square has been a site for protests and demonstrations almost since the presidency moved into the White House a couple of centuries ago. It’s the epitome of a public square where free speech—political speech in particular—is protected. There’s no way the government can make an argument that the location of the demonstration was inappropriate.
Lafayette Square has been a site for protests and demonstrations almost since the presidency moved into the White House a couple of centuries ago.
It’s the epitome of a public square where free speech—political speech in particular—is protected. There’s no way the government can make an argument that the location of the demonstration was inappropriate.
I cannot see any remedy coming from this.
Even if a court decides the administration was wrong then…what?
I saw the request for remedies posted above but those rely on other court cases.
And, in the end, any remedy that does not impact the perpetrators is useless and I am pretty sure they are almost completely immune to such things. What do they care if fines are paid by the government? That just means you and I have paid for the malfeasance of Trump & Co.
In the end it is a political stunt which may embarrass the Trump administration which is immune to embarrassment.
Is it worth doing…I am not sure. I guess so, if only for the record and to make a point.
What do you mean by this, and why do you think it’s significant?
I’m not an expert in civil rights law, but as I read 42 U.S.C. §1983 et seq., those officials can be found personally liable. That means the government won’t pay their fines.
It sounds like the first step is asking if they can sue others and then, only if approved, can they go sue others which is a whole new case and has to be brought on a case-by-case basis. So, did officer A d wrong? Officer B? C, D, E…and that is just in one instance. Multiply that against all instances across the US.
It can be done but it is a mountain to climb.
Well, we know the SCOTUS has been ignoring cases about qualified immunity recently even though some court watchers think they may be amenable to weakening it. As it stands now qualified immunity seems an almost insurmountable barrier and one police across the country have taken advantage of.
What in the world are you talking about? Did you read the document that Little Nemo linked to? It’s titled “complaint.” That’s how a lawsuit is initiated. They have sued, and they’ve listed whom they’re suing.
The defendants are Trump, Barr, Esper, Monahan, Murray, Walke, McConville, 100 Does and 20 Poes. The plaintiffs don’t yet know the names of the Does and the Poes, but the A.C.L.U. has sued them. Their identities will be revealed in the discovery phase of the lawsuit.
That’s what a lawsuit is for. You determine who is liable. What else would you expect?
These are civil rights claims under federal statute, not state law criminal law claims. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.
And I still don’t see the relevance of your “rely on other court cases” comment.
I need to sue to find out if I can sue?
Why do you keep saying this? They have already sued. That’s what a “complaint” is. The purpose of a lawsuit is to determine whether the defendant is liable.
See post #4.
Little Nemo has quoted the prayer for relief portion of the complaint. What about that is telling you that you have to sue to get permission to sue?
Really? Are you going with the “anyone can sue for any reason” thing here?
If the court says the people asking for some form of relief can get no relief then why they hell would they try to sue?
What do you think a lawsuit is?
You sue to find out if you are entitled to relief. You pray for relief, you discover evidence, you present your case at trial, and then the court determines whether you should get relief.
Determining whether you are entitled to relief happens at the end of a lawsuit, every lawsuit. It’s the last thing that will happen. How could you possibly do it any other way?
I’m curious now how you think it works.
What you posted is way too simplistic.