The Litigation

Ethical Society of Police v. Bondi: Preserving and Restoring a Storied Civil Rights Agency

On October 24, 2025, the Washington Litigation Group filed a complaint in a Boston federal court to preserve and restore the Community Relations Service. The complaint was filed on behalf of eleven civil rights organizations from whom CRS’s conciliation and mediation services were abruptly withdrawn due to DOJ’s impending closure of CRS.

In light of the Justice Department’s decision to abolish CRS and hostility to its mission—in defiance of the laws that Congress has passed, the plaintiffs asked the Court to stop the unlawful dissolution of this critical civil rights institution and the planned execution of the reduction-in-force (RIF) action by DOJ against 13 CRS employees who received RIF notices on September 29, 2025.

The eleven plaintiffs comprise a diverse coalition of civil rights and community organizations. Leaders of the plaintiff organization have submitted detailed descriptions of the harms they have endured after CRS withdrew services that they relied on.

CRS’s component head in 2025 has also submitted a declaration and a supplemental declaration in support of the plaintiffs.

The case is before Judge Indira Talwani in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Why This Litigation?

On Inauguration Day 2025, CRS had 57 employees in 30 field offices and the headquarters office throughout the United States.

Without any analysis or justification, the Justice Department announced the elimination of CRS in late March.

Between March and September, without waiting for Congressional approval, DOJ conducted the elimination of CRS. CRS stopped serving all communities, and closed all its offices. During this process, 42 left CRS. On September 29, DOJ issued RIF notices to all 15 remaining employee except one. All who received RIF notices left DOJ by October 31, 2025.

In this litigation, DOJ insists that only one employee is sufficient to fulfill all of CRS’s statutory mandates. That is not possible.

CRS’s community conflict resolution functions—which often involve sustained, multi-month, in-person engagement in potentially violent situations—cannot be fulfilled by just one person.

This litigation seeks to hold DOJ accountable for its unlawful dismantling of CRS and its defiance of the Constitution and legal mandates.

Case Citation

Ethical Society of Police, et al. v. Pamela J. Bondi and the U.S. Department of Justice, Case No. 25-CV-13115 (IT) (D. Mass., filed Oct. 24, 2025)

Case Status

• On December 5, 2025, two amicus briefs were filed in support of CRS and the plaintiffs.

  • 90 Members of the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, filed a brief emphasizing Congressional commitment to CRS, the historic and critical peacemaking role that CRS has fulfilled, and the illegality of DOJ’s shuttering of CRS. Jenner & Block filed the brief on behalf of the 90 amici.

  • Led by The Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, 102 civil rights and community organizations filed a brief highlighting CRS’s extraordinary contributions to communities throughout the U.S. and harms that communities are suffering due to CRS’s closure. The 102 groups are listed in Appendix 1, and Appendix 2 provides a detailed, 155-page overview of CRS’s work over 60 years. BCLP filed the brief on behalf of the 102 amici.

• On November 25, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the Court to prohibit DOJ from eliminating CRS — and instead to require that DOJ (1) resume CRS services to plaintiffs, (2) rescind the unlawful RIF (see below) of CRS employees that went into effect on October 31, 2025, and (3) take “all necessary steps to restore those employees to service.”

• On November 12, 2025, Congress passed a new federal government funding law (H.R. 5371) that provided for continued funding of CRS at the October 2023 level through January 30, 2026. The law included a provision (Section 120(e)(1)) that “any reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken" between October 1, 2025 and November 12, 2025 "shall have no force or effect." The law also required agencies to send notice of RIF rescission by November 17, 2025 to all affected employees and reinstate them to their positions as they were on September 30, 2025.

  DOJ, however, did not reinstate the 13 CRS employees who received RIF notices on September 29, 2025 and whose RIFs were implemented on October 31, 2025.

• On October 30, 2025, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to stop the planned October 31 closure of CRS and RIF action against CRS employees.

  Nonetheless, the Court declared in the denial order: “Plaintiffs have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, where Defendants concede that only Congress, and not the executive branch, may eliminate a Congressionally created agency….”

  The Court also stated: “Nonetheless, if Plaintiffs were to prevail . . . , the court could order Defendants to rescind its shuttering of CRS, including as necessary to restaff the agency by rehiring employees terminated by the RIFs. . . .”