Legal Defense and Educational Fund Submits Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Malicious Prosecution Case


NEW YORK, June 12 (TNSPol) -- The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund issued the following news on June 11, 2021:

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) filed an amicus brief in Thompson v. Clark, a U.S. Supreme Court case that will determine whether a plaintiff filing a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil action for unlawful seizure pursuant to legal process--commonly referred to as malicious prosecution--under the Fourth Amendment must show that their criminal prosecution ended in a manner not inconsistent with innocence, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Laskar v. Hurd, or that their criminal prosecution ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates actual innocence, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Lanning v. City of Glens Falls. LDF's amicus brief argues that the Second Circuit's rule undermines the ability of plaintiffs to seek remedy for baseless arrests and prosecutions - an issue that particularly impacts Black and Brown people, who are disproportionately likely to be unjustifiably arrested and detained by law enforcement.

"Section 1983 was passed in part to provide a legal remedy to individuals who were unlawfully subjected to criminal legal proceedings initiated by law enforcement," said LDF John Payton Appellate and Supreme Court Advocacy Fellow Mahogane Reed. "Section 1983's remedial mandate is equally--if not especially--pressing today, as state officials continue to use the legal process to oppress Black people and other people of color. The Second Circuit's Lanning rule undermines the reach and efficacy of Section 1983 and strips people subjected to unjustified arrests and criminal prosecutions of a primary means for vindicating their civil rights."

"The presumption of innocence in our legal system is no less true when the charges against an individual are dropped," said LDF Assistant Counsel Ashok Chandran. "To require civil plaintiffs to affirmatively prove their innocence ignores both this presumption and the reality of criminal proceedings: that the vast majority of arrests lead to charges that are dismissed or never even brought--particularly when the person arrested is Black. And many of these decisions are made without any explanation. To uphold Lanning would make it nearly impossible for victims of malicious prosecution, who are disproportionately Black, to get justice."

Read LDF's amicus brief here (https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/20210611163908209_2021-06-11-Thompson-Amicus-Brief_FINAL.pdf).


Related Businesses
    - - Customer

    Copyright © 2024 by CreditRiskMonitor.com (Ticker: CRMZ®). All rights reserved.  You are not permitted to use this report or the information contained herein for any purpose not expressly permitted by CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. Except as expressly permitted by CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc., you are not permitted, in whole or in part, to copy, alter, correct, adapt, translate, enhance, lease, sell, sublicense, assign, distribute, publish, otherwise make available to any third party, or prepare derivative works or improvements of this report or any of the information contained therein. You are not permitted to reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, decode, or adapt the software, algorithms or other processes used to prepare this report, or otherwise attempt to derive or gain access to the source code of same. You agree not to remove, alter, obscure, combine or otherwise change any disclaimers, trademarks, copyrights, other intellectual property rights, proprietary rights, or other symbols, notices, marks, or serial numbers on or relating to any copy of the report or on marketing or other materials that CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. may provide to you. You will not use this report in any manner or for any purpose that infringes, misappropriates, or otherwise violates any right of any party, or that violates any applicable law.  
    The FRISK® scores, agency ratings, credit limit recommendations and other scores, analysis and commentary are opinions of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. and/or its suppliers, not statements of fact, and should be one of several factors in making credit decisions.  Any reliance you place on the information in this report is strictly at your own risk. Except as expressly provided by CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc., no warranties or representations of any type, including without limitation of results to be obtained, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are made concerning any part of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc.’s service, including without limitation the FRISK® scores.  The information published above has been obtained from sources CreditRiskMonitor considers to be reliable.  CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. and its third-party suppliers do not guarantee or validate the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in this report, the underlying information input to create the FRISK® scores, and specifically do not assume responsibility for not reporting any information omitted or withheld.  By using this website, you accept the Terms of Use Agreement
    Contact Us: 845.230.3000
    Fundamental financial data concerning public companies may be provided by Refinitiv (click for restrictions)
    Thursday, April 25, 2024