WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – The District of Columbia has fended off a lawsuit that challenged new rules for cops in the wake of anti-police protests over the deaths of George Floyd and others.
On Nov. 4, D.C. federal judge James Boasberg dismissed – without prejudice - the challenge of the D.C. Police Union to the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Emergency Amendment Act, which was passed unanimously by the D.C. Council during protests.
That law says disciplinary matters shall be “retained by management and not be negotiable” - a measure that will be applied to all future collective bargaining agreements.
This makes the D.C. police union the only union out of more than 40 in the district to be unable to negotiate with management regarding the discipline of its members, the lawsuit said.
But Judge Boasberg turned away the union’s allegations that it violated their Constitutional rights and the Home Rule Act.
“(S)ince the city has not yet promulgated new disciplinary procedures pursuant to Section 116 and neither party has explained how discipline will be addressed going forward, the Court has no way of making an informed comparison,” Boasberg ruled when dismissing the union’s equal protection claim.
D.C. had argued in a motion to dismiss that its cops fail to establish any violation of their Constitutional rights.
“First, plaintiff alleges that the Act violates the Equal Protection Clause, but plaintiff cannot succeed on the claim because it fails to allege that the Act treats sworn officers differently than other similarly situated public employees and ignores the legitimate rationale for the passage of the Act,” attorneys at D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine’s office wrote.
“Second, plaintiff fails to establish a bill of attainder claim because plaintiff cannot show that the Act constitutes legislative punishment.
“Third, plaintiff’s Contract Clause claim cannot succeed because the Act applies to future CBAs—not to an existing contract—and, regardless, any impairment of an existing contract is reasonable and necessary to improve police accountability.
“Fourth, plaintiff fails to establish a violation of the Due Process Clause because the Act does not deprive plaintiff of a valid life, liberty, or property interest and—even if it did—the Act is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.”