The Department of Justice just hit the brakes on a pair of misguided lawsuits targeting police in Louisville and Minneapolis. On May 21, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced the dismissal of these Biden-era legal pursuits, signaling a shift away from what many saw as politically charged overreach. It’s a move that’s raising eyebrows and questions about federal priorities.
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, now under Dhillon’s leadership, scrapped lawsuits filed after the 2020 deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. Those tragedies sparked nationwide protests, riots, and costly vandalism, leaving cities reeling. The Biden administration’s response was to sue the Louisville and Minneapolis police departments, but the cases were shaky from the start.
Federal judges weren’t buying what the Biden DOJ was selling. They had “serious questions” about the claims, like how Louisville’s policing supposedly targeted Black residents disproportionately. Dhillon didn’t mince words, asking, “How often have officers unlawfully tased, punched, or kicked suspects?”—questions the previous administration apparently couldn’t answer.
The lawsuits, launched after the 2024 election, leaned heavily on emotion rather than evidence. Kristen Clarke, the former head of Biden’s Civil Rights Division, had pushed a defund-the-police agenda, which colored the investigations. Her approach seemed more about optics than accountability, leaving judges skeptical.
Back in 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr took a different tack, refusing to greenlight investigations into Louisville and Minneapolis. He saw no clear case for federal intervention, a stance that Dhillon’s team now appears to echo. Sometimes, restraint is the wiser path.
Beyond dismissing the lawsuits, the DOJ is closing investigations into six other police departments. Phoenix, Trenton, Memphis, Mount Vernon, Oklahoma City, and the Louisiana State Police are all off the hook. It’s a clean sweep of what critics call federal overreach into local law enforcement.
The DOJ isn’t stopping there—it’s reevaluating all pending federal consent decrees. These court-ordered agreements, meant to reform police practices, often linger for over a decade, costing taxpayers millions. Dhillon noted, “Many of these have lasted for twelve, thirteen, fourteen years, some even longer than that, with no end in sight.”
Consent decrees sound noble, but can become bureaucratic quagmires. District Court Judge Benjamin Beaton put it bluntly: they “shift policymaking and accountability from City Hall to the U.S. Courthouse.” Local governments get handcuffed, while court-appointed monitors rake in millions without fixing the root issues.
Dhillon’s team is now asking whether these decrees are still necessary. “We are undertaking a review of all pending federal consent decrees,” she said, aiming to cut the red tape strangling cities. It’s a refreshing pivot toward practicality over performative justice.
The Louisville and Minneapolis lawsuits were just the tip of the iceberg. Many consent decrees remain active, tying up police departments nationwide. The DOJ’s review could free up resources for actual community safety, not endless legal battles.
Critics of the Biden-era lawsuits argue they were more about scoring political points than delivering justice. The protests following Taylor’s and Floyd’s deaths demanded change, but suing police departments without clear evidence risks alienating the very communities seeking reform. Actions, it turns out, have consequences.
The DOJ’s shift doesn’t erase the pain of 2020’s tragedies. Breonna Taylor and George Floyd’s deaths exposed real issues in policing, and those deserve an honest reckoning. But federal overreach isn’t the answer—local solutions, grounded in evidence, are.
Dhillon’s approach suggests a return to federal restraint, letting cities tackle their challenges. Police reform shouldn’t mean handing the reins to Washington bureaucrats or court-appointed overseers. That’s a recipe for resentment, not progress.
The dismissed lawsuits and closed investigations mark a turning point. The DOJ is signaling that it’s done with what many saw as a progressive agenda dressed up as justice. Taxpayers, local officials, and police departments may all breathe a little easier.
Still, the review of consent decrees is just beginning. If Dhillon’s team can trim the fat from these costly mandates, it could set a precedent for smarter, more accountable governance. For now, the DOJ’s move is a bold step toward restoring balance in a polarized debate.
