In May, former President Donald Trump traveled to Wisconsin, a battleground state crucial to his victory in 2016 and his defeat in 2020. The stakes are high. He made some big promises.
“We’re going to give the police power back,” he told the rally crowd in Waukesha, “and we’re going to give them immunity from prosecution.”
there are some problems. As president, Trump will be limited in his ability to shield anyone, including police, from prosecution because most lawsuits are in state courts where his authority does not apply. While some officers do face federal charges — and he can lobby the Justice Department to refuse to charge any officers — those prosecutions tend to be in addition State charges.
Take Derek Chauvin, who was convicted in a Minnesota court of murdering George Floyd. After the trial, he pleaded guilty to federal charges. President Trump could certainly pardon him, but that would have no material impact on the time Chauvin spends in prison because his state sentence (22.5 years) and federal sentence (21 years) will run concurrently.
While Trump’s pledge lacks legal knowledge, it’s worth considering that those with the most power should be held to a minimum standard.
While in office, Trump made clear that he would oppose legislation that would limit qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that bars victims from suing states if state and local government employees allegedly violated the law in a manner that has not been specifically found to be unconstitutional in prior precedents. and local government employees. That’s why, for example, two California men couldn’t sue police officers who allegedly stole more than $225,000 from them during the execution of a search warrant because there had been no previous court ruling that the theft was illegal in that case. (Federal police, on the other hand, are largely protected by absolute immunity.)
A common objection to qualified immunity reform is that without the reform, police would be bankrupted by lawsuits. But a study by UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that 99.98 percent of damages paid to plaintiffs were the government or its insurance companies, not the police themselves. It’s hard to know whether Trump is aware of the situation, as he promised in December to “compensate [police] Any and all liability is disclaimed.
but one thing yes Be clear: Trump wants to see law enforcement held to a lower standard than the public they serve. The former president has arguably never been a proven conservative, but he does need to please them. It is difficult to make a conservative case for ensuring that law enforcers are also above the law.
This article originally appeared in the print edition under the headline “Trump promises police ‘immunity from prosecution.'”
