After George Floyd’s death, here are three bills introduced in the week after nationwide police accountability protests began
Following the May 25 death of an African-American man George Floyd at the hands of a group of Minneapolis Police Department officers, protests against police brutality and racism have spread nationwide, particularly the following weekend. Mr. Floyd’s death was caught on video, and police officer Derek Chauvin was charged with second degree murder for murdering Mr. Floyd, by placing his knee on his neck for almost nine minutes. The three officers who watched Chauvin murder Mr. Floyd have been charged with second degree aiding and abetting and second degree manslaughter.
Some protests turned violent, with participants looting and destroying buildings or stores, with many cities implementing curfews. Often this occured after police escalated their responses to protesters with further brutality and the use of chemical irritants.
Over the subsequent week, several bills were introduced in Congress explicitly in response. Here are three of the most interesting ones.
It’s likely that other policy reforms will be introduced in the coming weeks and months. It’s also possible that other major policy proposals will be attached as amendments to other pieces of legislation, particularly so-called “must pass” bills such as the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), rather than introduced as standalone bills.
Note: this list doesn’t include “resolutions,” which differ from bills in that they express messages from Congress but usually without explicitly proposing public policy changes. Among the related resolutions introduced in the week following protests were ones “recognizing racism as a national crisis,” “condemning all acts of police brutality,” and “declaring unconditional war on racism.”
George Floyd Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act
Named after the 46-year-old man killed in May who sparked the protests, the George Floyd Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act would institute several reforms to police departments nationwide, including:
- Mandating all local, state, and federal law enforcement bodies report data to the Justice Department on uses of deadly force involving police officers.
- Giving federal grants to law enforcement agencies which devise new programs for oversight or hiring, such as bringing on more diverse officers and agents.
- Creating a federal task force to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of law enforcement agencies.
- Creating a set of federal minimum standards for police departments, standards which do not currently exist.
The Senate version was previously introduced in December 2019 as bill number S. 3063, by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). The House version was introduced on June 4 as bill number H.R. 7100, by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX18).
What supporters say
Supporters argue this legislation contains several needed reforms to repair the damaged relationship between law enforcement and the people they serve, particularly among people of color.
“Transparency and integrity from police departments across the nation is not too much to ask,” Rep. Jackson Lee said in a series of tweets. “The American public watched in horror as an officer kneeled on George Floyd’s neck, pinning him to the ground while he repeatedly pleaded for his life.”
“This egregious behavior can no longer be tolerated. We demand accountability and transparency from all U.S. police departments,” Rep. Jackson Lee continued. “The [bill] incentivizes states and police departments to do just that.”
“A pattern of deadly police misconduct that disproportionately affects minority individuals has undermined the relationship between law enforcement and our communities… Congress must address the urgent issue of reforming our police agencies,” Sen. Cardin said in a press release. “We need to ensure that every citizen’s rights are preserved while giving police the tools to re-engage with the people they are sworn to serve and protect.”
GovTrack Insider was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition
What opponents say
Opposition could likely come from either side of the political spectrum.
On the right, some have posited a so-called “Ferguson effect,” a notion claiming that law enforcement are often afraid of taking necessary actions towards public safety, for fear of national publicity and protests. The veracity of this claim has been disputed.
On the left, the emergent “defund the police” or “dismantle the police” movements argue that mere reform of police departments is insufficient to enact truly meaningful or consequential change. Indeed, Minneapolis City Council lawmakers appear to have the votes to disband the police department this week or next.
Odds of passage
The House version has attracted 86 cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
The partisan cosponsorship means odds of passage are low in the Republican controlled Senate. The Senate version currently has one Democratic cosponsor. A previous 2018 Senate version attracted two Democratic cosponsors but never received a vote.
Eric Garner Excessive Force Prevention Act
Named after an African-American New York City killed in 2014 after asphyxiation by white police officer Daniel Pantaleo, the Eric Garner Excessive Force Prevention Act would make chokeholds or other oxygen-hindering maneuvers illegal under federal civil rights law.
The House version numbered H.R. 4408 was previously introduced in September 2019 by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY8). The Senate version numbered S. 3895 was introduced on June 4 by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the chokehold and other similar physical moves have no place in our society, and we see the results with examples such as Garner, Floyd, and others.
“The overwhelming majority of all police officers are hardworking individuals who are on the job to protect and serve,” Rep. Jeffries said in a 2015 press release upon the bill’s original introduction. “Yet it is undeniable that our country is in the midst of an epidemic of police violence that has badly damaged the relationship between law enforcement and communities throughout America, including in New York City,”
“The chokehold is a poster child for violent police tactics,” Rep. Jeffries continued. “It is an unreasonable measure. It is an unnecessary measure. It is an uncivilized measure. The [bill] will make it an unlawful measure.”
“George Floyd and Eric Garner should be alive. These are just two of the countless men and women lost to our severely failed criminal justice system in America,” Sen. Gillibrand said in a press release. “Institutional and systemic racism have devastated black communities since the founding of this country — we see the pain, we hear the calls for justice and accountability, and Congress must act.
What opponents say
Officials, such as some police officials, counter that — while any death by police is tragic — a nonlethal chokehold or similar move is sometimes necessary and shouldn’t be taken off the table.
Christophe Rouget, a police union official who briefed lawmakers for their deliberations in March about the proposal to ban suffocating techniques, said if officers don’t draw pistols or use stun-guns then immobilizing people face-down is the safest option, stopping suspects from kicking out at arresting officers.
“We don’t have 5,000 options,” police union official Christophe Rouget told the Associated Press, in an article which noted that “Immobilizing people face-down [can be] the safest option, stopping suspects from kicking out at arresting officers.”
“These techniques are used by all the police in the world because they represent the least amount of danger,” Rouget continued. “The only thing is that they have to be well used. In the United States, we saw that it wasn’t well used, with pressure applied in the wrong place and for too long.”
Odds of passage
Months after namesake Garner’s death, a 2015 House version attracted 21 Democratic cosponsors but never received a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber. A subsequent 2018 version received a smaller 17 Democratic cosponsors, but again didn’t receive a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber.
Now with Democrats now controlling the House, plus the issue receiving much more attention, the September 2019 version has attracted 97 cosponsors, all Democrats. 68 of them have signed on since George Floyd’s death. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
The Senate version has attracted three Democratic cosponsors, and awaits a potential vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.
Restoration of Civil Rights Act
The Restoration of Civil Rights Act would implement several reforms to lawsuits or prosecutions involving American policing and law enforcement, including:
- Eliminating the “qualified immunity” defense for law enforcement. In theory, qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for money damages for constitutional violations under federal law, so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law. In practice, it’s been increasingly interpreted by courts to allow immunity from a wide range of lawsuits, including excessive force by police. (The defense is actually not an issue with the officers involved with George Floyd’s death, yet still ranks among the top police reforms sought by many criminal justice advocates.)
- Explicitly granting the right to sue a state or state official for a federal constitutional violation. Such lawsuits are mostly banned by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, although a few limited exceptions currently exist.
- If a local U.S. attorney working on behalf of the Justice Department in a certain jurisdiction refuses to prosecute a case, the bill allows another Justice Department attorney from another jurisdiction to potentially prosecute it instead. This issue came up in 2019, when New York prosecutors declined to prosecute police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner.
It was introduced in the House on June 4 as bill number H.R. 7115, by Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX33).
What supporters say
Supporters argue the legislation includes several reforms to better represent victims in lawsuits involving law enforcement.
“George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery are just the latest victims of rogue policing that has taken numerous lives of black and brown people across our country for many years,” Rep. Veasey said in a press release. “This legislation seeks to end this unjustified police violence and save lives by eliminating qualified immunity — a move that will eliminate the shield officers have from accountability in instances of police brutality and excessive force.”
What opponents say
While GovTrack Insider was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition to the bill in totality, likely because it’s so new, certain elements such as the qualified immunity provision have engendered opposition individually.
In the 1982 case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in an 8–1 decision that qualified immunity was a necessary provision to prevent a range of ills, including chilling law enforcement and excessive court costs.
“Claims frequently run against the innocent, as well as the guilty — at a cost not only to the defendant officials, but to society as a whole,” Justice Powell wrote in the majority opinion. “These social costs include the expenses of litigation, the diversion of official energy from pressing public issues, and the deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of public office. Finally, there is the danger that fear of being sued will dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties.”
As a result, Powell contended, some level of qualified immunity was necessary: “If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘know’ that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful.”
Odds of passage
The bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, although some of its provisions will likely be incorporated into more comprehensive legislation introduced by House Democrats.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee, though odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Another similar bill that would only limit qualified immunity, without the additional reforms of this bill, was introduced on June 4 as bill number H.R. 7085, by Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI3).
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
