DOJ: Lawsuit should proceed over town’s police fines

Featured Legal News

The Justice Department is urging a federal judge to let a class-action lawsuit go forward against an Alabama town accused of policing for profit with excessive fines and aggressive enforcement of local laws.

The U.S. attorney’s office this week filed a statement of interest in the civil lawsuit against Brookside. The lawsuit was filed by four people who paid hundred of dollars in fines and said they were humiliated by what they described as a scheme to boost town revenue.

Brookside is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. The Justice Department argued that it should proceed against the police department and local officials.

“Courts, prosecutors, and police should be driven by justice—not revenue,” an assistant U.S. attorney wrote in the court filing.

The Justice Department said the United States has an interest in enforcing federal laws regarding the imposition and enforcement of unlawful fines and fees. “The United States also has an interest in addressing practices that punish people for their poverty, in violation of their constitutional rights.”

Al.com reported in January that Brookside, which has a population of 1,253, saw revenue from fines and forfeitures jump 640 percent between 2018 and 2020 and grew to make up half the city’s total income.

Lawyers for the town, in seeking to dismiss the case, wrote in a court filing that, “very little is necessary to show that the fines and fees imposed by the Town of Brookside and/or the Brookside Municipal Court are rationally related to a governmental interest.”

Institute for Justice, a group representing the plaintiffs in the case, welcomed the Justice Department action.

“The Justice Department’s statement recognizes that Brookside’s abusive system of policing for profit violates the Constitution, and that the town should be held accountable,” Jaba Tsitsuashvili, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement.

Related listings

  • Ex-cop Kueng gets 3 years for violating Floyd’s rights

    Ex-cop Kueng gets 3 years for violating Floyd’s rights

    Featured Legal News 07/27/2022

    Former Minneapolis police Officer J. Alexander Kueng was sentenced Wednesday in federal court to three years in prison for violating George Floyd’s civil rights during the May 2020 killing.Kueng’s co-defendant Tou Thao was scheduled to be...

  • Georgia abortion law challenge now focused on ‘personhood’

    Georgia abortion law challenge now focused on ‘personhood’

    Featured Legal News 07/17/2022

    Lawyers for the state of Georgia urged a federal appeals court to allow the state’s 2019 abortion law to take effect now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to an abortion.Ruling in a case out of Mississippi, ...

  •  Biden vows ‘strong’ climate action despite dual setbacks

    Biden vows ‘strong’ climate action despite dual setbacks

    Featured Legal News 07/13/2022

    President Joe Biden is promising “strong executive action” to combat climate change, despite dual setbacks in recent weeks that have restricted his ability to regulate carbon emissions and boost clean energy such as wind and solar power.T...

USCIS to Begin Accepting Applications under the International Entrepreneur Rule

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it is taking steps to implement the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), in accordance with a recent court decision. Although the IER was published during the previous administration with an effective date of July 17, 2017, it did not take effect because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule on July 11, 2017, delaying the IER’s effective date until March 14, 2018. This delay rule was meant to give USCIS time to review the IER and, if necessary, to issue a rule proposing to remove the IER program regulations.

However, a Dec. 1, 2017, ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Venture Capital Association v. Duke vacated USCIS’ final rule to delay the effective date. The Dec. 1, 2017, court decision is a result of litigation filed in district court on Sept. 19, 2017, which challenged the delay rule.