Challenging Police Brutality in Louisiana
Police violence is a pervasive issue across the country that has led to harassment, injuries, and deaths. Racial discrimination and excessive force disproportionately impact communities of color, which often have an outsized police presence. And although investigations have repeatedly exposed patterns of racism and unconstitutional policing within law enforcement departments, they are rarely held accountable.
Victims who survive unconstitutional policing encounters must contend with a criminal legal system that, due to its own racial biases, wrongfully convicts them or forces them to plead out to fabricated resisting arrest chargesāoften preventing them from exercising their constitutional right to hold police accountable for their misconduct.
The Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of Louisianaās aims to combat these injustices. The statewide program, which has already filed more than on behalf of individuals challenging police violence, recognizes the systemic and discriminatory nature of police brutality and seeks to put an end to it through litigation and storytelling. It also , as Louisiana law bars civil rights challenges after one year following the incident, and the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey makes it very difficult for people to bring a civil rights challenge seeking money damages for constitutional violations that resulted in their conviction. The Justice Lab represents people who often face significant legal hurdles to accountability, including the use of fabricated legal charges intended to beget their silence.
Here, Anthony Monroe, a Justice Lab client who has experienced police violence firsthand and filed his case after the traditional one-year bar passed, and Alanah Odoms, the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of Louisianaās executive director, share their insight, experiences, and how theyāre fighting back.
These interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.
Anthony Monroe
Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ Client, Louisiana
The day after Thanksgiving, Mr. Monroe was leaving work after the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. He passed a slow-moving diesel truck without speeding, and noticed a Louisiana State Trooper parked on the side of the road. The state trooper began following Mr. Monroe, but he was confident he had nothing to worry about because he had done nothing wrong. Then the trooper turned his carās lights on and pulled him over.
āHe got out of his vehicle, had one hand on a flashlight and another hand on his gun. And I'm thinking something about this is not right.
āWhen I stepped out of my vehicle, thatās when the process started. He grabbed both of my hands, pulling me toward him, and made it look like I was resisting arrest. Another trooper showed up, and they threw me on the ground, [started] jumping on my back and pounding on me, with my hands behind my back.
āThey keep pressing down, and Iām screaming āOh my god, I canāt breathe.ā This isnāt supposed to be happening to me. I havenāt done anything wrong.ā
āHe'd been trained to do this. He never de-escalated the situation. He kept making the situation get worse and worse and worse ā¦ And after they brutalized me, then I got charged with resisting arrest.
āIf you've been victimized like this and brutally beaten and attacked, it takes 28 to 34 months for you to get your mind right, because the first year, youāre still having nightmares, youāre waking up with sweats, you're not being able to sleep, you're getting up and down.
āAnd the justice that I've gotten so far has been good with the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ, but not with the Louisiana state troopers. The system is geared to make money off of people.
āThe law should be blind, but itās not. You shouldn't have the freedom to abuse people like that in the United States, no matter where you live.
āI hope the law changes after they see what I've been through, and what has happened to meā¦We should be able to live in peace, every day.ā
Alanah Odoms
Executive Director of the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of Louisiana
āThe Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ justice lab is a systemic, comprehensive approach to addressing police violence. We want to hold police accountable ā and the departments that employ them ā so that they can change their policy and conduct. We have filed 50 cases in three years, in every federal jurisdiction in Louisiana.
āThis is something that we at the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ have decided to take up as a decades-long commitment because we donāt think thereās a silver bullet. There's not one case that you can file. There's not one piece of legislation that you can pass that's going to change this.
āPolice violence is an outgrowth ā and itās not just in the South. I think itās important to state the problems that are endemic to policing, which are white supremacy and toxic masculinity. Thatās why we know itās going to take a sustained approach. Itās going to take a lot of resources, a lot of really smart, dedicated people pushing in the same direction and shifting this narrative.
āWhat I want folks to know is that we actually have an opportunity to do a lot better by people if we actually change policy. We want something better for our children and for their children, just like our ancestors wanted better for us.ā
Learn More Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ the Issues on This Page
-
AlaskaMay 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Smith V. State Of Alaska (amicus). Explore Case.Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ and Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an āalienā under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as ānon-citizen U.S. nationals,ā a unique status that falls short of ācitizenā but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years. All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national." Our amicus brief urges Alaskaās Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smithās indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states. -
CaliforniaJun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Coalition On Homelessness V. City And County Of San Francisco. Explore Case.Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Franciscoās efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public. -
News & CommentaryMay 2025
Racial Justice
ādevastatedā And āhopeless.ā Researchers Speak Out On Funding Cuts. Explore News & Commentary.āDevastatedā and āHopeless.ā Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts
The National Institute of Health (NIH) abruptly cancelled millions of dollars in grants for research that it claims are related to āgender identityā or ādiversity, equity and inclusion.ā The Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ sued. -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Racial Justice
Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Department Of Educationās Unlawful Directive. Explore Press Release.Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Department of Educationās Unlawful Directive
CONCORD, N.H. ā In a victory for students, parents, and educators, a federal judge has granted a request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the U.S. Department of Educationās (ED) February 14, 2025, āDear Colleagueā letter against the plaintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffsā member. The courtās ruling blocks EDās unprecedented and unlawful attempt to restrict discussions and programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational institutions, and its threat to withhold federal funding for engaging in such efforts. The Dear Colleague Letterās directive contradicts long-standing legal protections for academic freedom and violates the constitutional rights of students and educators by imposing vague and coercive restrictions on curriculums and programs. The preliminary injunction prevents ED from enforcing the directive while litigation continues, ensuring that schools can continue their educational mission without fear of federal retaliation. āAcross the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future. Todayās ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by whatās best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment. The fact is that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon are using politically motivated attacks and harmful and vague directives to stifle speech and erase critical lessons to attack public education, as they work to dismantle public schools. This is why educators, parents, and community leaders are organizing, mobilizing, and using every tool available to protect our students and their futures,ā said National Education Association President Becky Pringle. āWhile this interim agreement does not confirm the Department's motives, we believe it should mark the beginning of a permanent withdrawal from the assault on teaching and learning. The Departmentās attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but itās also extremely dangerous -- and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward. Todayās decision is a critical step toward protecting the freedom to teach, and the freedom to learn,ā said Sharif El-Mekki, Center for Black Educator Development CEO & founder. āTodayās ruling is a victory for students, educators, and the fundamental principles of academic freedom. Every student deserves an education that reflects the full diversity of our society, free from political interference,ā said Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ Racial Justice Program. āThe federal government has no authority to dictate what schools can and cannot teach to serve its own agenda, and this ruling is an important step in reaffirming that.ā Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of New Hampshire, said, āThe court's ruling today is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship. Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school - and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand." On March 5, the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ, the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of New Hampshire, the Ķųŗģ±¬ĮĻ of Massachusetts, the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Education AssociationāNew Hampshire, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, against ED. Also joining the case as plaintiff is the Center for Black Educator Development. Plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit against ED have said theyāve felt like the āDear Colleague Letterā instigated a āwitch huntā against them. Teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping every student grow to their full potential have been in fear of losing their jobs and teaching licenses if they do not severely restrict what they and their students say and do in their classrooms. The lawsuit challenges EDās directive on multiple legal grounds. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that ED has overstepped its authority by imposing unfounded and vague legal restrictions that violate due process and the First Amendment; limiting academic freedom and restricting educatorsā ability to teach and studentsā right to learn; and unlawfully dictating curriculum and educational programs, exceeding its legal mandate. The case will now proceed as the court considers whether to permanently block the Departmentās directive. The courtās decision can be found here. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.