SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized. In re Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive Nos. 2020-5 and 2020-6 (A-26/27/28/29/30-20) (085017) Argued March 2, 2021 -- Decided June 7, 2021 RABNER, C.J., writing for a unanimous Court. In June 2020, weeks after George Floyd was killed at the hands of a Minneapolis Police Officer, the Attorney General for New Jersey issued two Directives. They call for the release of the names of law enforcement officers who commit disciplinary violations that result in the imposition of “major discipline” -- termination, demotion, or a suspension of more than five days. A summary of the misconduct and the sanction imposed must also be disclosed. In this appeal, the Court considers challenges brought against the Directives by five groups representing state and local officers. Directive 2020-5 applies to all law enforcement agencies in the State, including local police departments; Directive 2020-6 applies to the State Police and other agencies within the Department of Law and Public Safety (Department). Both Directives encompass all findings of major discipline after January 1, 2020. In addition, for the State Police and other agencies within the Department, officers subjected to major discipline dating back twenty years would be identified publicly. The Directives mark a sharp change in practice. Previously, the Attorney General fought to shield the identities of law enforcement officers disciplined for serious misconduct. Appellants and intervenors challenged the Directives on a number of grounds. The Appellate Division upheld the Directives against the parties’ facial challenge. 465 N.J. Super. 111, 128-29, 162 (App. Div. 2020). The court concluded that the Attorney General had the authority to issue the Directives and found that the Directives did not conflict with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) or other authorities relating to the confidentiality of personnel records. Id. at 140-48. The court also found the retroactive nature of the Directives did not run counter to ex post facto principles. Id. at 149. In light of the limited record before it and the fact that appellants brought only a facial challenge to the Directives, the Appellate Division declined to address any contract claims or related arguments based on promissory and equitable estoppel, id. at 153-54, leaving open the possibility of individual as-applied challenges, id. at 154-55. 1 The Appellate Division found that the Directives did not violate constitutional guarantees of due process, id. at 156-57, or equal protection, id. at 157-59. The court also rejected claims that the Directives violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), id. at 159-60, and that they impair appellants’ right to contract and violate their constitutional right to collective negotiations, id. at 160-61. Finally, the appellate court concluded the Directives are not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or against public policy. Id. at 161. The Court granted appellants’ …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals