City Bar Calls for 'Prompt Investigation' of Decision to Clear Protesters From Lafayette Park
The New York City Bar Association said in a statement that it had written to Congress and inspector generals to express "deep concerns" about the removal of protesters using tear gas, rubber bullets and military helicopters in Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette Square Park.
June 09, 2020 at 06:56 PM
4 minute read
The New York City Bar Association late Tuesday called on Congress and federal government watchdogs to "promptly investigate" the decision last week to forcibly remove protesters from Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette Square Park ahead of an apparent presidential photo-op outside St. John's Episcopal Church.
The City Bar said in a statement that it had written to congressional leaders and inspectors general to express "deep concerns" about the incident June 1, which took place amid protests following the killing of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis.
The organization said that it had demanded that leaders determine who had given the orders to "violently" disperse the largely peaceful crowd and whether local authorities had been notified about the operation.
The City Bar said that federal officers with the U.S. Park Police, along with possibly members of the National Guard, the U.S. Secret Service and federal agencies, had discharged tear gas, pepper agents and rubber bullets to clear a path from the White House, where President Donald Trump had been delivering a nationally televised address from the Rose Garden.
Two military helicopters had also made a low pass over the crowd, scattering glass and debris in a maneuver the City Bar said is sometimes used to disperse enemy combatants.
"The deployment of such extreme and violent measures against innocent civilians exercising rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and particularly the ostentatious militarization of the display of force, raises profound questions about actions that do not appear to be consistent with law," the statement said.
"Moreover, the president, the attorney general, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others involved have created serious confusion about what occurred by refusing to answer questions from Congress and by making statements which are contradictory, particularly about who was in charge, and what facts led to the decision to clear the square using force," the City Bar wrote.
The Park Police had claimed that protesters had hurled bottles at them over a fence that had been erected outside the White House, following incidents of violence and looting in some major U.S. cities. The City Bar said video footage of the event showed "isolated incidents" of plastic water bottles being thrown, but asked whether the "Park Police claim more than that, and, if so, on what evidence does it base that claim?"
"We believe there is a strong public interest in inquiries being conducted by Congress and the inspectors general of the relevant agencies to establish, without delay, the facts of this event and whether the actions taken were consistent with law," the statement said.
The City Bar, which has been vocal in its opposition to certain actions taken by the Trump administration, in recent months has also called for U.S. Attorney General William Barr to recuse himself from Justice Department investigations of Trump's dealings with Ukraine and demanded a congressional probe of the president's decision to abruptly remove two inspectors general from their posts. It is not clear, however, what, if any, impact either of those calls had in Washington.
"Especially in light of the broader pattern of actions undermining public confidence in the Department of Justice over the past year, we urge that the necessary congressional inquiry and individual inspectors general investigations and reports be conducted promptly and in a manner that will allow for informed public discussion about these serious threats to, and assaults on, the most basic of our nation's constitutional rights," the statement said.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Can Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250