NEW ORLEANS—Public interest law groups, including The Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Institute for Justice, Orleans Public Defenders, and Public Justice, have filed amicus briefs supporting the petitions for writs of certiorari in Brown v. Pouncy and Monroe v. Conner. The amicus briefs underscore the need for the Supreme Court to safeguard victims’ ability to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights.
The petitions to the Supreme Court were filed by the ACLU of Louisiana and Covington & Burling on behalf of Mr. Jarius Brown; and by the ACLU of Louisiana and Latham & Watkins on behalf of Mr. Anthony Monroe. Mr. Brown and Mr. Monroe are clients of the ACLU of Louisiana’s Justice Lab. As described in their petitions for cert, both were violently attacked by state law enforcement officers, but were then blocked from filing a federal lawsuit against the officers because of Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations.
Both Mr. Brown and Mr. Monroe suffered extensive injuries as a result of their incidents. Both DeSoto Parish deputies who beat Mr. Brown have since pleaded guilty to federal crimes arising from the incident. Mr. Monroe suffered a heart attack after being detained, beaten, and unlawfully arrested by Louisiana State Police officers during a traffic stop. Both incidents took place in 2019, and despite their injuries, both Mr. Brown and Mr. Monroe had their federal lawsuits blocked because of Louisiana’s statute of limitations rules.
In their amicus briefs, each organization raises legal and policy arguments supporting the need to extend the statute of limitations for lawsuits that seek to vindicate core civil rights, also known as Section 1983 lawsuits.
The Law Enforcement Action Partnership’s brief outlines that fair access to suing law enforcement officers will increase trust and accountability towards police. Institute for Justice’s brief clarifies that a one-year statute of limitations does not accommodate the substantial time it often takes to research and prepare Section 1983 lawsuits, especially in light of legal doctrines like qualified immunity. The brief filed by Orleans Public Defenders highlights that many plaintiffs may need to navigate and resolve parallel criminal proceedings, which takes time before filing a civil suit. Public Justice's brief in Brown argues that the current framework is unfair and often gives a shorter statute of limitations for Section 1983 lawsuits than for comparable state lawsuits.
Several of the amici call for the universal application of a four-year statute of limitations to Section 1983 claims. They argue that under Supreme Court precedent, the federal catchall statute of limitations — 28 U.S.C. § 1658 — should govern.
“Frustratingly so, the way people win lawsuits has much less to do with the facts of the case and much more to do with procedural rules like statute of limitations. This is how these suits are won,” said Nora Ahmed, ACLU of Louisiana legal director. “The four constitutional rights law groups who filed amicus briefs are steeped in the realities of Section 1983 lawsuits or have seen firsthand constitutional rights be violated by the government. They are the experts, and we hope the Supreme Court will consider their findings and Mr. Brown’s and Mr. Monroe’s petitions to bring final resolution to an issue that has harmed civil rights victims for decades.”
Lauren Willard Zehmer, co-counsel for Mr. Brown at Covington & Burling, added, “A Supreme Court cert petition supported by four amici briefs is rare and demonstrates the importance of the civil rights issue at stake and the urgent need for the Court's review. Plaintiffs like Mr. Brown should not be deprived of their ability to bring Section 1983 claims solely because they reside in the small handful of states with unreasonably short limitations periods. This is not only bad policy, but impermissible as a matter of federal law. The experience of the amici demonstrates how important it is for the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at its outdated precedents in light of the modern practicalities of litigating civil rights claims and intervening changes in the law."
Blake Stafford, co-counsel for Mr. Monroe at Latham & Watkins, similarly noted, “The outpouring of amicus support in these cases underscores that the time has come for the Supreme Court to address this issue. Applying an unduly short limitations period to Section 1983 claims directly undermines the federal interests animating that statute, slamming the courthouse doors shut for plaintiffs like Mr. Monroe suffering federal civil rights violations. And as the diverse array of amici confirm, this issue impacts a significant number of plaintiffs seeking to vindicate a variety of civil rights. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to resolve this pressing question.”
Brown v. Pouncy and Monroe v. Conner were filed through the Justice Lab initiative, which has challenged racially discriminatory policing practices and police violence against people of color since 2020. The Justice Lab has favorably resolved over a dozen cases against law enforcement agencies since its inception. For more information, visit aclujusticelab.org.
To hear Mr. Monroe share his story, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHHTc9qfES8
