Blog Post | 114 KY. L. J. ONLINE | October 16, 2025
A Consent Decree without a Court: Concerns Over Louisville’s Local Police Reform
By: Caroline Shackleton, Staff Editor, Vol. 114
After a nearly two-year investigation of Louisville’s policing initiated after Breonna Taylor was killed in her home by LMPD officers, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published its finding that Louisville Metro and the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of violating constitutional and federal law.[1] The investigation ultimately found that Louisville Metro and LMPD engaged in misconduct that deprived residents of their constitutional and statutory rights.[2] This misconducted included the repeated use of excessive force, unlawful stops and arrests, and racial discrimination.[3] Though most officers were committed public servants, misconduct took a toll on the department and the community—Louisville needed change.[4]
Federal statutory law authorized the DOJ to enter into a consent decree with Louisville Metro and LMPD to “enact significant, systemic reforms” to the city’s policing practices.[5] A consent decree is a court-enforceable agreement that resolves a dispute between parties without litigation.[6] In the context of policing, it requires a police department to reform unconstitutional and illegal practices to comply with federal and constitutional law.[7] A federal judge will enforce the agreement, imposing consequences like sanctions for noncompliance and ending the agreement only when the parties meet the agreed upon terms.[8] An independent monitor is also appointed to assess implementation and track progress, but only the judge can compel action and enforce the agreement.[9]
In December of 2024, a year after the DOJ published its findings, Louisville and the DOJ entered into a consent decree, setting forth a “blueprint for reform” to address years of systemic unconstitutional and illegal conduct that Louisville could not fix through incremental changes.[10] The consent decree outlined specific policies, training, and programs the city needed to implement to protect residents, improve public safety, and support officers in lawfully doing their jobs.[11]
The collaboration, however, was short-lived. In May 2025, the DOJ filed to dismiss the case, releasing Louisville Metro and LMPD from a once legally binding agreement to reform.[12] Yet, the city did not abandon reform efforts. In response, Mayor Greenburg introduced the “Community Commitment: Louisville’s Consent Decree,” an agreement between Louisville Metro, LMPD, and citizens of Louisville that incorporated the objectives of the original consent decree and aimed to ensure constitutional policing, accountability, transparency, and public trust.[13]
While Louisville’s Community Commitment reflects a willingness to reform, the structure of the new agreement may undermine its effectiveness. Quite notably, unlike the original consent decree, a court is not involved in the Community Commitment.[14] The new agreement designates no neutral authority with power over the parties to enforce the agreement.[15] Thus, it is unclear what exactly will compel Louisville Metro and LMPD to follow through with the agreement.[16]
If the city diverts resources elsewhere or the community’s sentiment changes, it is not a given that Louisville Metro and LMPD will remain committed to the agreement. This concern is even more troubling given that if a party consistently fails to meet their goals, there is no way for a court, or any external authority, to impose consequences.[17] Instead, the responsibility for addressing non-compliance falls on the parties who failed to act, guided by an independent monitor or mediator to help resolve the dispute.[18] This creates an inherent conflict of interest: those who violate the agreement are also tasked with deciding how, or whether, to hold themselves accountable. Without court regulation and enforceable consequences, the agreement’s implementation will rely on the parties’ voluntary compliance and the public’s pressure to continue reform efforts, which does not guarantee that Louisville Metro and LMPD will follow through.
Another potential limitation on the agreement’s effectiveness is the five-year time frame the city gives itself—which is almost certainly too short for lasting reform.[19] Understandably, the parties likely faced financial constraints influencing how long they could commit to reform. However, sustainable large-scale reform can take decades.[20] Consent decrees typically end only after full compliance, not based on time alone.[21] Ending an agreement like this too soon poses the risk of backsliding into misconduct, which could undo years of the city’s hard work to reform.[22] Even though reform of this type is expected to ebb-and-flow non-linearly, a strict timeline may not promote sustained compliance.[23] Thus, if the parties view the five-year mark as the finish line rather than a check point, it’s possible the city will revert to unconstitutional practices and policies, costing the city even more when they make reform efforts again.
The Community Commitment shouldn't be dismissed outright, however. Its existence signifies that the parties are motivated to reform—if they weren’t, they could have abandoned the project when the DOJ dismissed the consent decree. The agreement’s thorough detail demonstrates a serious, localized effort for Louisville Metro and LMPD to address the city’s systemic issues. And generally, localized reform efforts may be more sustainable and better tailored to community needs than federally mandated changes because they can be more flexible.[24]
Nonetheless, the structure of the Community Commitment raises significant concerns that the parties must consider as they develop and implement reform that essentially uproots Louisville’s current policing. The positives could mean nothing if there is no way to actually enforce the agreement and compel Louisville Metro and LMPD to follow through with the Community Commitment.[25] And consequently, competing interests, shifts in leadership, or changing public demands could undermine the agreement’s staying power.[26] The agreement may prove a success and guide other cities in their localized reform efforts, but without judicial enforcement and a flexible timeline, Louisville’s police reform could remain stagnant. Still, although the agreement may be imperfect, it may lay the groundwork for meaningful, sustainable, and effective change.
[1] Justice Department Secures Agreement with Louisville Metro Government to Reform Louisville Metro’s and Louisville Metro Police Department’s Unconstitutional and Unlawful Practices, U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Dec. 12, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-agreement-louisville-metro-government-reform-louisville-metros.
[2] C.R. Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Investigation of the Louisville Metro Police Department and Louisville Metro Government 1 (2023).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 86; U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 1.
[6] Ana Rocío Álvarez Bríñez & Lucas Aulbach, Louisville Officials Reach Agreement with DOJ on Consent Decree. What’s a Consent Decree?, Courier J. (Dec. 12, 2024, at 1:34 ET), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2024/12/12/what-is-a-consent-decree-and-what-cities-other-than-louisville-have-them/76945109007/.
[7] Id.; Consent Decree, Legal Info. Inst., Cornell L. Sch. (July 2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consent_decree; Sam McCann, Everything You Need to Know About Consent Decrees, Vera (Aug. 30, 2023), https://www.vera.org/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-consent-decrees.
[8] McCann, supra note 7.
[9] Id.; Álvarez Bríñez & Aulbach, supra note 6.
[10] Álvarez Bríñez & Aulbach, supra note 6; U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 1.
[11] Louisville Metro Police Dep’t, Community Commitment: Louisville’s Consent Decree 2-4 (2025).
[12] Mayor Greenberg Announces Community Commitment – Louisville’s Consent Decree, LouisvilleKy.gov (May 21, 2025), https://louisvilleky.gov/news/mayor-greenberg-announces-community-commitment-louisvilles-consent-decree.
[13] Id.
[14] Louisville Metro Police Dep’t, supra note 11, at 2–5.
[15] Id. at 11–34.
[16] Samuel Walker, “Not Dead Yet”: The National Police Crisis, a New Conversation About Policing, and the Prospects for Accountability-Related Police Reform, 2018 Univ. Ill. L. Rev. 1777, 1822–83 (2018).
[17] Id.; Louisville Metro Police Dep’t, supra note 11, at 26.
[18] Louisville Metro Police Dep’t, supra note 11, at 26.
[19] Louisville Metro Police Dep’t, supra note 11, at 13–14.
[20] See McCann, supra note 7.
[21] Matthew Barge, Barry Friedman & Maureen McGough, Monitoring Law Enforcement Consent Decrees: An Introduction & Starter Toolkit, 112–113 (2024).
[22] Id. at 113–114.
[23] See Matthew Spencer, Restructuring Alternative Dispute Resolution Options to Improve Police Accountability, 13 Ala. C.R. & C.L. L. Rev. 145, 153 (2021).
[24] Id. at 148, 169–73.
[25] See Walker, supra note 16 at 1839.
[26] See id. at 1820–21.