U.S. Supreme Court Case Analyzed by BU Center for Antiracist Research Scheduled for Oral Arguments Today

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Thompson v. Clark, a case that drew the attention of the BU Center for Antiracist Research (“the Center”) because it has major implications for police accountability and racial justice. The Center filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the Court”) brief to provide the Court with information about how its decision will impact not only the parties in this case, but all who seek to deter police misconduct. The Center’s brief urges the Court to reject an “indications-of-innocence” standard, employed by many courts, which allows police officers to avoid accountability under civil rights laws for pursuing false criminal charges—often used to cover-up misconduct against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC)—where those criminal charges are ultimately dismissed. The Center’s brief recommends adopting an alternative standard that allows the victims of false charges to bring civil rights claims even when the criminal charges against them are dismissed.

The petitioner in this case, Larry Thompson, was arrested and charged with “resisting arrest” after the police entered his home late at night without a warrant to inspect his daughter on a false report of child abuse, and discovered the baby only had a diaper rash. After the “resisting arrest” charges against Thompson were dismissed, he tried to sue the police who arrested him for unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process. His claim was kicked out of court because the “indications-of-innocence” standard required him to first show that his criminal case ended with an affirmative showing of his innocence—basically, an acquittal after a trial. A dismissal generally does not satisfy the indications of innocence standard. But false criminal charges are, by their nature, not supported by evidence and thus likely to be dismissed. As a result, victims of false criminal charges, including BIPOC who have been targeted by police, are barred from seeking civil remedies for their harms. The Center’s brief, available here, urges the Court to reject the “indications-of-innocence” standard and preserve the intended purpose of federal civil rights laws to hold state actors accountable for racialized violence.

The filing of this brief marks the launch of the Center’s amicus brief practice, which provides meaningful opportunities for the Center to weigh in on cases affecting racial justice. The amicus brief practice is also one of the Center’s many initiatives that engage BU students, who assist with research support and document preparation. An audio recording of the Thompson v. Clark argument will be available on the Supreme Court’s website. Follow the Center for Antiracist Research’s social media accounts (@antiracismctr) or visit its website to get additional updates on Thompson v. Clark and the Center’s amicus brief practice.

“We felt it was important to submit an amicus brief in this case because the ‘indications-of-innocence-standard’ may be perceived as race-neutral, but it seriously impacts the rights of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color,” said Neda Khoshkhoo, the Center’s Assistant Director of Research and Policy and chair of the amicus brief practice. “Since false charges are not supported by any evidence, it stands to reason that they are particularly likely to be dismissed. Civil rights claims must be available to those targeted with false criminal charges, including when those charges are dismissed, in order to ensure police accountability and deter racialized police misconduct,” emphasized Caitlin Glass, the Center’s Interim Associate Director of Policy.

The Boston University Center for Antiracist Research represents a collaborative research and education effort across multiple disciplines to build a world where racial equity and social justice prevail. For more visit their website.