Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: JUSTICE Act Fails to Ensure Accountability

WASHINGTON – On introduction of the JUSTICE Act this morning, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement:

Earlier today, Senator Tim Scott and Senate Republican leadership introduced the JUSTICE Act, their purported response to the national and global outcry for true equality and systemic change in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless other African American men and women over generations at the hands of police. 

The path towards justice, however, begins with accountability, and this bill is entirely lacking on that score. The JUSTICE Act does not end qualified immunity, does not criminalize the reckless use of excessive force, and does not expand the authority to conduct pattern or practice investigations—all of which are necessary first steps to hold law enforcement accountable when they violate federally and constitutionally protected rights. 

The Constitutional Accountability Center continues to call on Congress to pass H.R. 7085, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act—introduced recently by Representatives Justin Amash (L-MI) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and co-sponsored by members of both parties—which would ensure government accountability, encourage courts to play their historic role of redressing abuse of power, and create an incentive for governments to properly train, staff, and equip their departments.

#

Resources:

“CAC Endorses the Ending Qualified Immunity Act,” Statement of CAC President Elizabeth Wydra, June 5, 2020: https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/release-cac-endorses-the-ending-qualified-immunity-act/ 

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.