Supreme Court Midterm Review for Local Governments 2017

The Supreme Court’s 2016-2017 docket is now set – and a number of cases will directly impact local governments.

photo - Supreme Court in Spring with Fountain

The Court may decide to rehear tied (4-4) cases next term, when a new Justice will presumably join the bench. (Getty Images)

This article covers cases of interest to local governments which the Court accepted after September 15, 2016 and agreed to hear this term. (Here is a summary of cases of interest to local governments which the Court agreed to hear before September 15, 2016.) The Court is still down a Justice, but has accepted as many cases as usual (about 75) on its 2016-2017 docket. In theory, all the cases discussed below will be decided by June 30, 2017.

The Supreme Court’s decision from this term most likely to receive significant media attention involves a transgender student who wants to use the bathroom consistent with his gender identity. However, Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. will not directly affect local governments.

Provocation

In Los Angeles County v. Mendez,* the Supreme Court must decide whether to accept or reject the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation” rule. Per this rule, “where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation, he may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force.”

It is undisputed that police officers used reasonable force when they shot Angel Mendez. As officers entered, unannounced, the shack where Mendez was living they saw a silhouette of Mendez pointing what looked like a rifle at them. Yet the Ninth Circuit awarded him and his wife damages because the officers didn’t have a warrant to search the shack, thereby “provoking” Mendez.

The Mendezes also argue that, putting the provocation theory aside, the officers are liable in this case because their unconstitutional entry “proximately caused” them to shoot Mendez. Many Americans own guns, so the Court argued it is reasonably foreseeable that, if officers barge into a shack unannounced, the person in the shack may be holding a gun.

Qualified Immunity

United States Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., shot and killed Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a fifteen-year-old Mexican national, who was standing on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border. At the time of the shooting, Agent Mesa didn’t know that Hernandez was a Mexican citizen.

One question in Mesa v. Hernandez is whether qualified immunity may be granted or denied based on facts unknown to the officer at the time of the incident, such as the victim’s legal status. The Fifth Circuit granted Agent Mesa qualified immunity based on the fact that Hernandez was a Mexican citizen even though Agent Mesa didn’t know that at the time of the shooting.

Given the rapid pace of police work, it is not unusual for officers to learn a variety of information after they have used force, which supports their qualified immunity claim (i.e. the person they shot had a gun, had threatened another officer or citizen, etc.). Considering this kind of after-the-fact information in the qualified immunity analysis would be favorable to officers.

But the question in this case is whether qualified immunity may be granted or denied based on facts discovered later. In some cases, officers may learn after-the-fact information that undermines their claim for qualified immunity (i.e. the person they shot stated he had a weapon but did not, had been mistakenly perceived to have threatened another officer or citizen, etc.). Considering this kind of after-the-fact information in the qualified immunity analysis would be unfavorable to officers.

Free Speech

During the fall, the Supreme Court accepted three First Amendment free speech cases. This is not good news for local governments, as the Supreme Court routinely and sometimes unanimously votes against states and local governments in First Amendment free speech cases.

Packingham v. North Carolina* is probably the First Amendment case of most interest to local governments as the Supreme Court is likely to discuss whether the statute at issue in the case is content-based or content-neutral.

The issue in this case is whether a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing commercial social networking websites, where the registered sex offender knows minors can create or maintain a profile, violates the First Amendment.

Lester Packingham was charged with violating the North Carolina statute because he accessed Facebook. In the posting that got him in trouble, Packingham thanked God for the dismissal of a ticket.

If a statute limits speech based on content, it is subject to strict (nearly always fatal) scrutiny. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (2015), the Supreme Court held that the definition of content-based is very broad.

The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the statute is a “content-neutral” regulation because it “imposed a ban on accessing certain defined commercial social networking websites without regard to any content or message conveyed on those sites.”

Waters of the U.S.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether federal courts of appeals versus federal district courts have the authority to rule whether the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulations are lawful in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense.

Per the Clean Water Act, a number of decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must be heard directly in federal courts of appeals, including agency actions “in issuing or denying any permit.”

A definitional regulation like the WOTUS regulation does not involve the issuing or denying of a permit. Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that it has jurisdiction to decide whether the WOTUS regulations are lawful.

Judge McKeague, writing for the court, relied on a 2009 Sixth Circuit decision National Cotton Council v. EPA, holding that this provision encompasses “not only… actions issuing or denying particular permits, but also… regulations governing the issuance of permits.” The definition of WOTUS impacts permitting requirements.

…and more

The work of the Supreme Court never ends. The Court has already accepted one case for next term involving a local government. In District of Columbia v. Wesby, the Supreme Court will decide whether, when the owner of a vacant house informs police he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects’ claims of an innocent mental state.

*Indicates a case where the SLLC has filed or will file an amicus brief.

lisa_soronen_new_125x150About the author: Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), which files Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Big Seven national organizations representing state and local governments. She is a regular contributor to CitiesSpeak.

What’s Next for President Trump’s Travel Ban

The executive order on refugees has had a significant impact on America’s cities – but it could also be an indicator of how the president’s executive orders will generally be interpreted throughout the legal system moving forward.

(Getty Images)

Litigation will likely continue regarding President Trump’s travel ban, which prohibits refugees and other visitors from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. (Getty Images)

On February 9, the Ninth Circuit Court refused to stay a district court’s temporary restraining order disallowing President Donald Trump’s travel ban from going into effect. The executive order prevents people from seven predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days.

The states of Washington and Minnesota sued President Trump, claiming their public universities are harmed because students and faculty of the affected countries cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or personal reasons. A wide swath of people are affected by this executive order, including refugees, legal residents, and visa holders who may have different rights and legal claims based on their status.

The government argued that the president has “unreviewable authority to suspend admissions of any class of aliens.” The Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating “there is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewablity, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the states are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the executive order violates the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, non-immigrant visa holders, and refugees. More specifically, the executive order provides no notice and hearing before restricting a person’s right to travel and “contravenes the procedures provided by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum.”

Technically speaking, no court has yet ruled on the merits of this case – instead, the courts have only temporarily prevented the executive order from going into effect based on their view that the government is likely to ultimately lose. The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to stop a likely unlawful activity until a full briefing can occur to determine if unlawful activity is in fact occurring.

In response to the temporary restraining order, the president Tweeted, “SEE YOU IN COURT.” We have every reason to believe the litigation in this case will continue, so what are the president’s options?

A run-of-the-mill case would now go back to the district court where the legal issues would be fully briefed. The district court would then issue an opinion determining definitively whether the executive order is unconstitutional. That ruling could then be appealed back to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. However, President Trump has two other options.

First, he can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the district court’s temporary restraining order while the case is being fully briefed at the district court. This request would go to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oversees emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit. Justice Kennedy could rule on this issue alone or ask the entire Court to rule (which is probably more likely). Five votes from the current eight Justices would be needed to temporarily reinstate the ban. As Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog notes, “if the government can’t get those votes – which could be difficult, given the temporary and relatively narrow nature of the court’s ruling – the ban could remain on hold while its full merits are litigated in the lower courts.”

Second, instead of going directly to the Supreme Court, President Trump could ask the entire Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s temporary restraining order while the case is being briefed at the district court.

Two other technical points about this case that could affect whether and how it is litigated are noteworthy. First, the travel ban only lasts for 90 days, so at some point very soon the litigation in this case could be moot unless the president extends the travel ban. Second, President Trump could modify the executive order to cure the due process problems the Ninth Circuit pointed out. However, this might not be enough. Washington and Minnesota raised numerous claims in addition to due process which the Ninth Circuit did not rule on for the sake of expediency. However, the Ninth Circuit went out of its way to describe, but not rule on, the states’ religious discrimination claim – which at the very least implies that the court thought this claim might be valid as well.

lisa_soronen_new_125x150About the author: Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center and a regular contributor to CitiesSpeak.

Refugee Executive Order Faces Legal Challenges

Judges in New York and Boston, among other cities, have prevented parts of the executive order on refugees from going into effect temporarily, citing possible violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

(Wikimedia Commons)

Protestors have gathered at airports across the country, such as the Metropolitan Airport in Detroit (above), to protest President Trump’s executive order barring refugees and other visitors from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. (Wikimedia Commons)

President Donald Trump’s refugee executive order has resulted in confusion and lawsuits which will continue to be resolved in the upcoming months. On Monday night, acting Attorney General Sally Yates directed Justice Department attorneys not to defend the executive order in court. President Trump quickly fired her. Dana Boente was promptly sworn in, and has instructed DOJ lawyers to “defend the lawful orders of our president.”

Cities preparing to receive Syrian refugees and others are having to change plans. Additionally, cities have been affected by protests, airports have been overrun, and 16 attorneys general have spoken out against the executive order.

While not all aspects of the executive order are entirely clear, it includes the following:

  1. People from the following countries may not enter the United States for the next 90 days: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen
  2. Syrian refugees are banned from the United States indefinitely
  3. No refugees will be allowed into the United States for the next 120 days
  4. Only 50,000 (versus 110,000 last year) refugees will be allowed in the United States in 2017
  5. Refugees with religious-based persecution claims will be prioritized where they are of a minority religion in their country of origin

Judges in New York, Boston, Virginia, and Seattle have issued temporary injunctions against various aspects of this executive order, citing a variety of legal grounds.

A wide swath of people will be affected by this executive order, including refugees, legal residents, and visa holders who may have different rights and legal claims based on their status. Adding to the complexity, the Immigration and Nationality Act appears contradictory. It gives the president of the United States broad power to ban classes of people for periods of time “as he shall deem necessary” – yet it also states that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

Numerous legal theories have been relied on and are being discussed as grounds for challenging this executive order.

Judges in New York and Boston prevented parts of the executive order from going into effect temporarily, citing possible violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Due process generally requires that a person is afforded an opportunity to be heard (for example, at a hearing before an impartial decision-maker) before they are deprived of a right. Equal protection requires that the government not treat people differently on the basis of race, ancestry, or religion.

David Cole, Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sees this executive order as essentially a Muslim-only ban on immigration which violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. While it doesn’t explicitly ban anyone on the basis of religion, the fact that it applies to seven Muslim-majority countries and creates, practically speaking, preferences for Christians, is enough to make it unconstitutional, Cole argues.

lisa_soronen_new_125x150About the author: Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center and a regular contributor to CitiesSpeak.

The Federal Government Needs to Fix the Immigration System — Not Cities

An attempt to shift the federal responsibility of enforcing federal immigration laws to local governments is an unfunded mandate that diverts critical resources from local government programs.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents work with local police officers to conduct an early morning

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents work with local police officers in Los Angeles. (photo courtesy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

This post was co-authored by Yucel Ors and Aileen Carr.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. This order would direct the federal government to strip federal grant money from sanctuary cities, which are cities deemed by the Trump Administration to willfully violate federal law by shielding aliens from removal. “The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws,” said White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

The full text of the executive order is available here. The relevant section of the executive order states:

“It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”

In response to the executive order, the National League of Cities (NLC) released the following statement:

“There appears to be a false assumption that ‘sanctuary cities’ prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from enforcing immigration laws. This could not be further from the truth. In practice, federal programs intended to partner with cities and towns on immigration enforcement are broken. The reality is that, in cities across the nation, police departments are routinely cooperating with ICE’s immigration enforcement efforts, while at the same time building constructive relationships with their communities to improve public safety. The order signed by President Trump does not clearly define sanctuary jurisdictions, so it is difficult to foresee how and which cities will be impacted by the order. Legislative efforts in 2016 to define and penalize sanctuary cities were defeated in Congress, which could have cost cities up to $137 million or more in COPS hiring grants. We call on President Trump to open a dialogue with city leaders, and work with local governments to enact real, comprehensive immigration reform that respects the principles of local control.”

NLC’s long-standing position is that measures requiring cities to use local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws are unfunded mandates that impose additional disproportionate responsibilities on local law enforcement, increase financial liability on local governments, and ultimately move us further from our foundational principles of federalism. Contrary to the president’s stated public safety goals, this action is likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of many local law enforcement efforts. Many police chiefs, mayors, and city councilmembers across the country are concerned that such policies impede efforts to preserve police-community relations and ensure that residents feel safe reporting crimes and accessing government services.

“One thing I am sure of is that Nashville is stronger and safer when we are a warm and welcoming place for all. While we cannot control border policies here in Nashville, we can pull together as a city by embracing the immigrants and refugees who are an integral part of our community.”

-Nashville, Tennessee, Mayor Megan Berry

“We value the members of our community here and we’re willing to, at some point, sacrifice money to make sure community members feel safe.”

-Beaverton, Oregon, Mayor Lacey Beaty

“Santa Fe is a city that has practiced as part of its values nondiscrimination… We do believe that every person deserves respect and dignity when they’re living in our community peacefully, when they’re contributing. And the issue of law enforcement resources needs to go towards community policing. And so the last thing that we are going to do is serve as an extension of the federal immigration services and begin to issue, through administrative warrants, detention orders.”

-Santa Fe, New Mexico, Mayor Javier Gonzalez

“For more than 150 years, Portland has been a destination for those wanting to apply their hard work to the purpose of creating a better life for themselves and their families. My own family made the trek on the Oregon Trail. We are a city built on immigration. We are not going to run from that history. We will not be complicit in the deportation of our neighbors. Under my leadership as Mayor, the city of Portland will remain a welcoming, safe place for all people regardless of immigration status. This approach is consistent with the Oregon state law and the 4th and 10th Amendments of the United States Constitution. We will not compromise our values as a city or as Americans, and we will resist these policies.”

-Portland, Oregon, Mayor Ted Wheeler

President Trump’s latest executive order is not the first federal measure in this arena – in recent years, Congress has also introduced bills that would cut federal funding to cities they deem to be sanctuary jurisdictions. The most recent bills targeted COPS and CDBG funds, but NLC was successful in efforts to defeat all of them.

Since there is no statutory definition of “sanctuary” cities or policies, and the nature of collaboration between federal and local law enforcement on immigration has evolved significantly over the last decade, there is often much confusion about this issue. Here are the facts:

  • For many years now, ICE agents have routinely worked in all cities, whether or not they have policies that limit the voluntary role cities play in federal immigration enforcement. No city or local government official provides safe harbor to an immigrant who breaks local and state laws.
  • ICE agents have full authority to take people into custody from any jurisdiction as long as they have evidence that the individual violated federal immigration laws. While cities voluntarily cooperate with ICE in all sorts of immigration enforcement efforts, they are not obligated to be a surrogate agency to ICE.
  • Cities are not permitted to have polices that may interfere with or restrict federal law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws.
  • Title 8 of U.S. Code Section 1373 also prohibits cities from restricting local law enforcement from cooperating or exchanging information with federal immigration authorities on any reasonable suspicions they have regarding persons already in their custody.
  • As long as cities are in compliance with Section 1373, the federal government should not be able to withhold funding that has been statutorily authorized and appropriated.
  • Federal agencies may require cities to demonstrate that their policies are in compliance with Section 1373 when they apply for grants and federal assistance. Cities that are not in compliance may need to change their policies prior to receiving federal assistance.
  • The Department of Justice has issued guidance on what cities need to do to comply with section 1373. City leaders can access that resource here.

The short-sighted executive order issued by the president neglects to recognize that is it the sole responsibility of the federal government to prosecute and deport criminals who violate federal immigration laws. At a time when local governments are working to strengthen police-community relations, build trust, advance initiatives to increase economic mobility, and live out their values of inclusion and equity, executive orders and legislative proposals to withhold funding from cities are particularly troubling and counterproductive. An attempt to shift the federal responsibility of enforcing federal immigration laws to local governments is an unfunded mandate that diverts critical resources from local government programs, compromises public safety, and hinders local efforts to work with immigrant communities.

Instead of trying to coerce cities and towns to enforce the broken immigration laws of the United States, President Trump should work with local governments to find a solution that respects the principles of local control, effectively enforces current immigration law, and creates a process whereby undocumented immigrants currently living in our cities may earn legalized status through payment of appropriate fees and back taxes, background checks, consistent work history, and appropriate civics requirements.

About the authors:

yucel_ors_125x150Yucel (“u-jel”) Ors is the Program Director of Public Safety and Crime Prevention at the National League of Cities. Follow Yucel on Twitter at @nlcpscp.

Aileen Carr is the Manager of NLC’s Race, Equity, And Leadership (REAL) initiative.

The Opioid Epidemic: How Cities Are Fighting Back

The most notable success was achieved thanks to a considerable push from city and county leaders during the last days of the Congressional session.

One of the many resources available on NLC’s opioid action web page is profile of the city of Seattle’s diversion program for low-level offenders, which allows police officers to redirect individuals engaged in drug use or prostitution to community-based public health and social services rather than to jail and prosecution. (Getty Images)

Opioid overdoses and deaths continue to be the leading cause of accidental death in America. However, city leaders can take some comfort that 2016 closes with several significant successes that should ensure progress on this public health crisis in 2017.

The most notable success, the sum of $500 million appropriated by the federal government to support opioid addiction treatment, was achieved thanks to a considerable push from city and county leaders during the last days of the Congressional session. The bipartisan votes in both houses of Congress demonstrate that the scope of this public health nightmare extends to all parts of this country – urban, suburban, and rural – and impacts all ages, incomes, genders, races, and ethnicities.

The legislative advocacy success came quick on the heels of the November 17 release of, A Prescription for Action: Local Leadership in Ending the Opioid Crisis.” This joint report from the National League of Cities (NLC) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) is the culmination of a year of work by a task force of city and county leaders.

NLC and NACo agreed to launch the joint task force in February 2016. The membership included both elected and appointed city and county officials from across the Unites States. The members brought a strong background in medicine as well as criminal justice, among other fields.

Providing a perspective on behalf of the entire 22-member task force, the two co-chairs, Mayor Mark Stodola, Little Rock, Arkansas (NLC First Vice President) and Judge Gary Moore, Boone County, Kentucky said, “Although news outlets often provide little more than a running tally of the epidemic, leaders at the local level experience the human costs of this public health crisis one life at a time. It is our duty to act with urgency to break the cycles of addiction, overdose, and death that have taken hold in so many corners of this nation.”

 

As part of the launch of the task force report, NLC and NACo created a new web portal. In addition to providing resources to cities and counties, we are encouraging local officials to make a pledge to lead on opioid action in their communities and to work in partnership with other leaders at the local, state, and federal levels. The pledge campaign announcement is included as part of an archived webinar delivered by city and county task force members on December 15, 2016.

In addition to the special web portal created for the task force, NLC maintains a collection of resources on its own website. These resources include the drug control strategy from Huntington, W.V., the Seattle-King County Police Diversion Program, and the opioid report developed by the Massachusetts Municipal Association on behalf of communities in that state.

Brooks, J.A. 2010About the author: James Brooks is NLC’s Director for City Solutions. He specializes in local practice areas related to housing, neighborhoods, infrastructure, and community development and engagement. Follow Jim on Twitter @JamesABrooks.

Research, Innovation and Cities: The Year in Review

Throughout 2016, NLC’s Center for City Solutions and Applied Research presented and spoke on a wide range of city topics to audiences from San Francisco to Shanghai and everywhere in between – making sure that, wherever possible, city voices are elevated and heard.

Photo by Jason Dixson Photography. www.jasondixson.com

NLC continues to shape the national dialogue on cities, work with city leaders on the ground, and help local officials lead. Pictured here at City Summit 2016 discussing the future of autonomous vehicles in cities: Jon Shieber, senior editor at TechCrunch; Debra Lam, chief innovation & performance officer of Pittsburgh; Justin Holmes, director of corporate communications and public policy at Zipcar; Brooks Rainwater, senior executive and director of Center for City Solutions and Applied Research. (Jason Dixson)

This year has been one of growth and success for NLC’s Center for City Solutions and Applied Research (CSAR). Throughout 2016, we released impactful research across a range of focus areas – from the nuts and bolts of governing to future transportation and workforce shifts, innovation districts, and what cities need to know about drones.

We published familiar annual titles including our State of the Cities report, which analyzes the top issues for our nation’s mayors. We released the 31st edition of our City Fiscal Conditions report, which found that cities’ fiscal positions are strengthening as they continue to recover from the great recession. We finished out the year with our City of the Future research focusing on the critical role that automation and other disruptive changes are having on the workforce. At the core of each of these research products, our primary focus is analyzing how major, timely issues will impact cities.

Coinciding with our broad research agenda, CSAR experts have been on the ground in cities across the country working hand in hand with mayors, councilmembers, and city officials to build equitable, sustainable, financially sound communities that are prepared for future opportunities and challenges. And, in response to the growing opioid crisis, CSAR worked across NLC and together with the National Association of Counties (NACo) to convene the City-County Task Force on the Opioid Epidemic, which recently published recommendations to help local officials to put an end to the epidemic.

Our Rose Center for Public Leadership continued its leading work on local land use challenges with the 2016 class of Daniel Rose Fellows. Those cities included Denver, Rochester, N.Y., Long Beach, Calif., and Birmingham, Ala. The Rose Center also launched the first-ever Equitable Economic Development Fellowship, selecting six cities to participate in its inaugural year: Boston, Houston, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and Charlotte, N.C. This fellowship builds the capacity of America’s cities to ensure that prosperity is shared across their communities.

CSAR’s Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) launched new programs in 2016 that support and recognize NLC members’ efforts to preserve a clean environment, promote green jobs, and tackle climate change. The SolSmart program was launched in April to help cities make it easier for their residents and businesses to go solar. SCI also announced Leadership in Community Resilience, which is working with 10 cities from around the country to help local officials, city staff, and community partners share their experiences and advance local resilience efforts.

This year our team also incorporated NLC University into the Center, working to provide more focused programming and expanded capacity for city leaders. One example of this shift can be seen in this year’s City Summit attendance in Pittsburgh, where we had a 60 percent increase over last year. Additionally, with the hiring of new staff, we are looking to expand online learning and enhance the annual Leadership Summit.

NLC continues its work to end veteran homelessness, encouraging local leaders to make a permanent commitment to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring. Through our leadership on the Mayors Challenge to End Veterans Homelessness, we facilitated on-the-ground engagement and assistance to city officials nationwide. We also continue to work together with the State Municipal Leagues on an annual research project focused on the critical intersections between city and state policy. This year we published Paying for Local Infrastructure in a new Era of Federalism, offering a state-by-state analysis of infrastructure financing tools.

CSAR also hosted a number of large events across the country. In the spring, we held the third annual Big Ideas for Cities event with a range of compelling stories from our nation’s mayors, expertly facilitated by the Atlantic’s James Fallows. In the fall we hosted the Big Ideas for Small Business Summit with economic development officials from 25 cities sharing strategies for building local small business and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Most recently, we hosted the second annual Resilient Cities Summit with the Urban Land Institute and U.S. Green Building Council, which brought together mayors from 15 cities across the country to focus on critical resilience strategies. These annual events allow NLC to elevate the voice of city leaders on issues that matter to communities across America.

Through our work on these important issues, we solidified partnerships with agencies across the federal government and worked with them on key programming, ensuring we are effectively communicating the voice of cities at every level. Some of these included: Small Business Administration for Startup in a Day, the Department of Veterans Affairs on veterans homelessness, the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the Prosperity Playbook, and Department of Energy on Net Zero Energy.

Throughout the year, our team presented and spoke on a wide range of city topics to audiences local, national, and global – from San Francisco to Shanghai and everything in between – making sure that, wherever possible, city voices are elevated and heard. We continue to help shape the national dialogue on cities, work with city leaders on the ground, and help mayors and councilmembers learn and lead – and we look forward to our work in 2017.

Read our 2016 publications:

About the author: Brooks Rainwater is Senior Executive and Director of the Center for City Solutions and Applied Research at the National League of Cities. Follow Brooks on Twitter @BrooksRainwater.

 

How Cities Can Train Police Officers Not to Shoot

American soldiers are provided with extensive training that outlines strict rules of engagement and emphasizes the use of force as a last resort. Why aren’t we providing our police officers with the same level of training?

(Getty Images)

Military standards dictate that most soldiers facing enemy combatants be given escalation of force guidelines that require them to exhaust several steps – hand signals, flags, smoke and flare use, warning shots and disabling shots – before the use of deadly force (“kill shots”) are authorized. (Getty Images)

Police shootings occur nearly every day in America. Many are justified, but many are unnecessary and avoidable. When investigations ensue, reasonable consideration is given to the fact that an officer may have been justified in the use of deadly force because they followed established protocols and training methods. However, the circumstances surrounding most police shootings in the last decade show that our officers are being provided with inadequate training.

If better training might have resulted in a better outcomes for both officers and victims of police shootings, then why aren’t officers being given the training they deserve?

Each year, nearly 45,000 law enforcement recruits enter state and local basic law enforcement training programs. Depending on state and local laws, most recruits are given approximately 600–800 hours of basic training. These training programs are often similar to military training and involve intense physical demands and psychological pressure. However, our soldiers are provided with extensive training that outlines strict rules of engagement and emphasizes the use of force as a last resort. Our police are not given the same training.

When a recruit enters the police academy, they are taught that they will be putting their lives on the line. They are told that criminals will not hesitate to shoot them, and that the job they are about to take on is one of real danger and sacrifice. What they aren’t often taught is that the vast majority of their encounters with the public will not be not life-threating, and that policing is less about using a weapon than it is about using reasoning skills to de-escalate conflict and keep the peace. The first course of action for any officer during an encounter with an individual should not be to put their hands on their weapon.

Being a police officer is an inherently dangerous occupation, but when governments place an emphasis on the extreme danger police may or may not encounter while on the job instead of emphasizing the vital role of community policing and the duty of officers to protect and serve all citizens, they cripple their officers from the start by instilling during training a warped mentality based on fear and survival. In effect, the training they are provided isn’t just inadequate – it also adds undue stress to a job that is stressful enough as it is. And unfortunately, because of this improper training, police officers then approach their duties with the mindset of warriors as opposed to that of guardians.

How a law enforcement officer is trained to protect his or her community is ultimately the responsibility of local elected officials. City leaders should know exactly how their law enforcement officers are being trained, and what that training encompasses, so that officers can effectively develop the skills needed to protect and serve their communities. While some states may have minimum training requirements for law enforcement officers, local officials should consider bolstering training regimens in areas related to effective leadership, decision-making, and nonviolent conflict resolution so that the use of deadly force is a last resort.

The first step in building trust between police and the communities they serve is to make sure law enforcement training provides the foundation to cultivate police officers as leaders in – and guardians of – their communities. Recently, many states and local governments have changed their laws to require recruits and officers to receive increased training in de-escalation tactics and the use of nonlethal force. City leaders across the nation are joining this movement to change similar laws in their own municipalities. Law enforcement agencies are also looking at new, innovative online training programs for line-level officers to develop leadership and decision-making skills.

This past spring, the National League of Cities released its “City Officials Guide to Policing in the 21st Century” to inform elected officials about the relevant recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing and provide guidance on how city leaders can work together with law enforcement officials to implement the principles of community policing. The report includes a section on officer training and education that highlights the need for cities to prioritize de-escalation training for officers.

Police officers make sacrifices every day to protect and serve their communities. If city leaders do not provide them with the tools they need to make the best possible decisions in the field, then cities fail to recognize and respect those sacrifices – and they continue to put both officers and the citizens they serve at greater risk every day.

Yucel-OrsAbout the Author: Yucel (u-jel) Ors is NLC’s Program Director of Public Safety and Crime Prevention. Through Federal Advocacy, he lobbies on behalf of cities around crime prevention, corrections, substance abuse, municipal fire policy, juvenile justice, disaster preparedness and relief, homeland security, domestic terrorism, court systems and gun control. He is also the author of 6 Essential Tenets for Effective Community Policing. Follow Yucel on Twitter at @nlcpscp.

The Hottest Item of the Holiday Season May Also Be Illegal

Hoverboards are anticipated to be a trending Christmas gift this year. City officials will need to anticipate how this very popular device fits into the mobility plans in their respective community. (Image via YouTube screen capture)

“You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch.” That’s what residents are singing in Great Britain this Christmas after the government interpreted the Highway Act of 1835 to ban the hoverboard (also known as the self-balancing scooter) from streets and sidewalks. In London, Mayor Boris Johnson is seeking an exemption, characterizing the law as a “ludicrous and nannying prohibition on the electric scooter-surfboard gizmos.”

And it’s not just London in this fight. On this side of the pond, what may prove to be the hottest item of the holiday shopping season may also prove to be illegal in some locales across the United States.

New York and California are the early adopters in terms of state or local actions for or against hoverboards. A new law in California will, after January 1, 2016, treat the motorized two-wheeled devices more like skateboards and bicycles than like the larger handlebar Segway or the motorized scooter. Riders will need to gear-up with personal protection such as a helmet and obey traffic laws just like bicycles. Private land and pedestrian-only zones will remain closed to the devices.

In New York State and New York City the current legal climate is imprecise but bending toward illegality. Because the state legislative language is unclear about applications to devices such as hoverboards, New York City has chosen to adhere to an outright ban. Although enforcement may be nearly impossible, those that do tangle with the NYPD can expect a hefty fine.

Across the country, especially in southern and warmer climate states, the response to the new toy de jeur is mixed. Back in September, a Harris County Texas Sherriff Deputy found himself the subject of a viral YouTube video of his arrest of a youth riding a hoverboard in a local shopping mall.

Over in Tempe, Arizona, the campus of Arizona State University is treating the hoverboard like a skateboard. Neither are allowed in “walk only” zones. If the state legislature is going to act, they will need to wait until after January 1, 2016 when they return to session.

The technical specifications of the hoverboard seem to be at the center of the debate. Many of the boards have a top speed of up to 6 or 7 miles per hour (MPH). However, the higher-end models have a top speed closer to 12-15 MPH. Accidents impacting the rider or another pedestrian can be serious. Worst case scenarios involve large adult riders hitting an infant stroller or plate glass window.

City officials who do not relish the role of Scrooge or any other infamous Christmas villain will need to anticipate how this very popular device fits into the mobility plans in their respective community. Unfortunately, governing does not get a holiday break.

Brooks, J.A. 2010About the Author: James Brooks is NLC’s Director for City Solutions. He specializes in local practice areas related to housing, neighborhoods, infrastructure, and community development and engagement. Follow Jim on Twitter @JamesABrooks.

An Interview with NLC Executive Director Clarence Anthony on Race, Equity & Leadership

Clarence AnthonyNational League of Cities CEO & Executive Director Clarence Anthony, seen here speaking at NLC’s Congressional City Conference in March. (Jason Dixson)

The tragedies that have occurred in Ferguson, New York City, Baltimore, and other communities throughout America have rightly sparked conversation about the social, cultural, racial and economic factors that affect the everyday lives of city residents – particularly minorities, at-risk youth, and the poor. What can cities do to promote equality and economic opportunity for people of all races, ethnicities, ages and economic backgrounds?

When tragedies like this occur, it not only erodes the relationship between the police and the community, it highlights the fact that there is a growing economic disparity that city leaders in America must recognize and address. High unemployment rates and low graduation rates among citizens in cities, towns and villages shows that certain neighborhoods have prospered while others have not. It’s important that city leaders understand that you have to engage with, and design initiatives for, all constituents in every neighborhood.

For example, city leaders must focus on creating vibrant downtowns while developing inclusive and affordable housing in neighborhoods. This type of approach to public policy will create more engaging cities where citizens can live, work and raise their families within the community that they call home. One way we can accomplish this is to create incentives so that the private sector will hire from within the community. When city leaders promote this type of growth, cities benefit and residents become vested in their community.

Cities should also examine the appointment process for city advisory boards and councils. For example, a planning and zoning commission that doesn’t reflect the ethnic, racial or gender diversity of the city is not truly representative of that city. From parks and recreation departments and advisory councils to tourist development councils and workforce boards, every policy board that advises the elected leadership should represent the diversity of that city. It can be done, but you’ve got to be very strategic and intentional, and have a real commitment to making sure that every segment of the population is represented.

These are just a few of the concrete steps that cities can take to ensure that their communities are equally represented in government. If a community is under-represented, and its needs are not served, then its residents will not be vested in the city as a whole. They won’t feel like the city is their home. And then you’ll see the tragic events that have happened in countless cities across the nation continue to occur. All of these cities have people who feel that they are not part of a community; that they are not “real” citizens with a voice in government. And they will find other ways to make their voices heard.

So there can’t be a disconnect between municipal authority and the people it represents.

You have to have that connection. You have to include them in the governance process, in the community process. I was just at a conference in Philly – Cities United – and it had a panel of young African American men, and their message was “Don’t talk at us; talk to us, and with us.” Many of them were in their mid-twenties, and public policy and programs are being designed for them – but without their input. That has to change. You have to include them in the development of the community in which they live.

The root causes of the recent tragedies are complex and nuanced. Two distinct events consistently stand out, however: the death of a young black male as a result of an interaction with police, and the violent public response that subsequently occurred. What steps can city leaders and local elected officials take to address the potential for these tragedies to occur in their cities?

There has to be an acknowledgement that there are still challenges in communities throughout America when it comes to race relations – specifically, race relations with police departments. Something must occur to strengthen trust between the minority community and police in cities throughout America. At this point, unfortunately, we are starting to see police being targeted in reprisal; community trust continues to erode. We must start a conversation of understanding and partnership – and that conversation must be led by city leaders. The elected officials who are members of the National League of Cities are exactly that type of group; they’re city leaders who strive to create a bridge between police and communities, so that real conversations can occur.

In addition, I think city leaders should start to re-examine – and implement, wherever possible – community policing policies that provide for a real understanding of the communities they serve; there must be understanding to have a relationship with the community. Once you have that relationship, you’ll be able to engage. So city leaders must be able to look at how they’re investing their resources and what kind of progress is being made throughout the community as a whole. When city leaders acknowledge that they have diversity in the community, and they create opportunities to bring people throughout the community together, that creates relationships and real conversations.

This is happening in some communities, but we need it to happen everywhere. The questions involving black males in America focus on more than just police relations – they take into consideration the high unemployment rate, the low high school graduation rate, and the level of poverty that exists in cities throughout America, among other factors. The takeaway is this: city leaders have to focus on improving engagement and relations in their communities. We have to look at how we provide creative and innovative techniques to reach the African American community so that we can achieve our goal of making true connections that are lasting and productive. It will take hard work and partnerships with our educational system and the private sector – and on the law enforcement side, those same partnerships need to develop, focusing on education and training on how to value diversity and how to communicate across cultures.

The change we need will not occur overnight; it will take patience and time to build the trust that our cities deserve. We need to spur conversation, in an effort to reach a certain level of trust and understanding between police and communities. The National League of Cities is quickly becoming a nexus of conversation about race, equity and leadership in American cities. That conversation is long overdue.

Do you see the Cities United event in Philadelphia as one of the forums for that conversation?

Yes. I think Cities United is not only a forum for that conversation, but an excellent tool to help elected officials get the technical expertise they need to deal with the larger issues involved. For example, Cities United provides consultants that help city leaders respond to the challenges faced by American cities that we’ve discussed today.

How does the National League of Cities’ lead that conversation?

Our REAL initiative is a very important tool and resource for city leaders. It’s designed to help them address racial tensions in their communities and create meaningful conversations around racial diversity and equity issues. REAL stands for Race, Equity And Leadership – and the piece that we really have to elevate is the piece on leadership, because our members are the ones who are responsible for governance in American cities.

Earlier, you posed the question, “What should city leaders do if something like this happens?” The challenges we’ve spoken about today are especially difficult challenges for any city leader to face, and it’s the responsibility of the National League of Cities to develop best practices around these issues, give city leaders the space to discuss the challenges they face with a network of peers, and then provide them with the tools they need to manage the situation if something like what happened in Baltimore or Ferguson occurs in their community.

I wish I could sit here and tell you that this will be the last time that tragedies like these will occur. But the reality is that, until a systematic strategy is in place to bring about full economic participation as well as improved relations between police and the communities they serve, these tragedies could happen in any city in America. City leaders are standing up and saying, “we need to fix these issues before something like this occurs in our community.” That’s a conversation that needs to be had. We’re going to start seeing city leaders begin to deal with the injustices, the inequality, and the creation of opportunities for all of their citizens.

And that’s what we have to do: we have to build a city in which everyone is a participant, where all citizens feel like they can raise their kids, and live and work and play in a safe and vibrant environment. You don’t call a place home when you don’t have a system of governance that supports you. Right now, I think that’s one of the biggest challenges American cities face. But if we can rise to that challenge, I think we’ll have more people out on the streets saying “Hey, this is our neighborhood; we own this.” We have to create cities that all citizens can call home.

Paul Konz headshotAbout the Author: Paul Konz is the Senior Editor at the National League of Cities.

Policing Will Change

This is a guest post by Jack Calhoun. The post originally appeared here.

Firefighters work to extinguish street fires in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, Calif., August 1965. The historic Watts riots occurred after neighborhood residents watched two white officers scuffling in apprehending a suspected black drunk driver. (image courtesy atlantablackstar.com)

Author’s note: After the grim and disheartening days in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York City, and other cities across the nation, there is hope. There are cities that once faced the same climate we are seeing in Baltimore today that are now making strides and developing programs that are saving lives and transforming the relationships between the police and those they police – a move from a volatile combination of resentment and violence to one of authentic collaboration and caring. Watts serves as a shining example.

“It’s not been a change – it’s a transformation. I grew up in Watts. I got jumped into a gang when I was 13 – only way I could get to school safely. Otherwise, I got beat up every day. We hated the cops. Man, nobody talked to the cops. Nobody trusted the cops; if you talked to the cops, you could get hurt. Sold drugs… did time in prison… and now? Well, just let me say it this way: I’ve never seen moms and grandmothers sitting on their front steps waving to cops. They do now, in Watts. I’ve never seen kids running up to cops to get a hug – happens all the time. And guess what? I have a say in helping hiring these cops!”

So spoke Michael Cummings, Executive Director of We Care Outreach Ministries at a breakout session I ran for the Council on Foundations annual meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday, April 28th. Michael, who also co-facilitates the Children’s Institute Project Fatherhood, and who helped organize the Safe Passage Haven program for Jordan High School, plays a key role in the Advancement Project’s remarkable report “Relationship-Based Policing: Achieving Safety in Watts.” Things haven’t changed in the three target housing projects – Jordan Downs, Nickerson Gardens and Imperial Courts – they’ve been transformed. Cummings reports a dramatic drop in homicides – in some areas zero homicide, zero – in this, one of the most violent pieces of real estate in the nation.

“The cops stay with us for five years, and they get two stripes. They don’t get the stripes if they don’t stay. Yes, they arrest. But they are really part of us in the community. They help coach the Watts Bears. They take the kids to the Clippers’ and Dodgers’ games. They’re on the ground. They’ve even helped with providing food in emergencies, and helping kids get jobs.

The Advancement Project’s relationship-based policing, called “the Community Safety Partnership” (CSP), “imagines a new way of operating for the police where their legitimacy in the community is built on procedural justice, authentic relationships with community members, and sustained commitment to improve the health and well-being of the community, not just a focus on crime statistics.” CSP has targeted Watts’ highest crime areas, areas “plagued” by other issues: poor school retention, unemployment, few usable green spaces, limited access to healthy foods, and chronic mistrust. (See Advancement Project’s Urban Peace Program, Community Safety Partnership and Relationship-Based Policing: Achieving Safety in Watts).

LAPD Chief of Police Charlie Beck established CSP in partnership with former Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) CEO Rudy Montreal and the Advancement Project. CSP vision stresses both “safety” and “peace” along with “long-term community development” and “a healthy quality of life.” It would do this through a combination of support programs and “the presence and sustainable relationships between LAPD officers, residents and other community leaders.” Safety and relationships with law enforcement are conjoined with community capacity development.

To ensure sustainability, and to avoid being viewed as just another program or short-term initiative, CSP planners, who intended that CSP be seen not as “an isolated tactic of a few officers, but an established practice endorsed by the highest ranks of LAPD,” carefully screened and selected 35 officers out of 400 applicants. CSP officers received promotions, were rigorously trained with 25 community stakeholders, and, in order to forge lasting relationships in a notoriously mistrusting community, pledged a five-year commitment. Promotions and raises (“incentive structures”) are not solely based on traditional enforcement measures such as an increase in arrests, but on other measures such as diversion of youthful offenders and helping students travel safely to school. “These new cops had to get to know the community,” said Cummings. “We showed them around. We had lunch with community leaders. Took them to schools and had them meet with the principals and teachers. Yeah, they have to help us keep the crime down – but, now that they know us, they’re worried about us, how we’re doing, helping kids have a good future.”

(image courtesy advancementprojectca.org)

(image courtesy advancementprojectca.org)

The Advancement Project’s 2012 report, “A Call to Action: Los Angeles’ Quest Toward Community Safety,” concludes that CSP has been instrumental in:

  • Reducing violent crime by more than 50% in three Watts housing developments
  • Notable decreases in gang membership and activity
  • Plummeting homicide rates

CSP is seen as the first step in a $1 billion effort to redevelop the housing developments via mixed-income homes, stores and parks, support of construction jobs, and newly-created small businesses.

The overly-militarized “warrior” culture of policing will change. Officers, with the community, will eventually be seen as co-producers of safety. If found guilty, officers in Ferguson, Cleveland, Baltimore, North Charleston and other cities must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Race-biased, culturally insensitive policing must end. But the most good that can emerge from the events claiming headlines daily is not just a change in the ethos of policing in America, but that the public will see and act upon the real issues, now glaringly evident – seethingly evident – in cities across the nation: issues of unemployment, poor schools, families with no fathers, absence of jobs paying livable wages, chronic exposure to violence, the obscene availability of guns, sub-standard housing, and hopelessness.

These should be the lessons we all learn from the grim events in Baltimore – and from the hope in Watts.

Jack CalhounAbout the Author: John A. “Jack” Calhoun is an internationally renowned public speaker and frequent media guest and editorial contributor. He currently serves as Senior Consultant to the National League of Cities and Founder and CEO of Hope Matters. For more than 20 years, Mr. Calhoun was the founding President of the National Crime Prevention Council, prior to which he served under President Carter as the Commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth and Families.