White supremacy and racism have no place in law enforcement. Despite white supremacy and police departments sharing the same historical origins, the Constitution of the United States has since evolved and guarantees equal protection for all under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the wake of highly publicized violence against Black people at the hands of law enforcement over the past several years, such as the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, the public is demanding more transparency and accountability within police organizations nationwide. Our Constitution and the entire criminal justice system are continuously delegitimized by allowing racist police officers on the force, therefore it is necessary to begin the difficult process of eradication of explicit white supremacy within law enforcement.

Bills are currently being introduced at both state6 and federal levels that either ban, dissuade, or make it more difficult for individual police departments to hire individuals with white supremacist connections. The government may prohibit the employment of known white supremacists from law enforcement jobs, not as a form of punishment for these views – this reasoning would be in violation of the First Amendment – but because the government decides they are simply not qualified for the job.

White supremacy refers to “an individual, group or action embodying the ideological notion of biological, genetic, intellectual or other inherent superiority of whites over other population groups.” White supremacists also include those people who believe in white superiority even if they are not officially affiliated with nor member of a specific white supremacist organization. Simply put, you don’t have to be a card-carrying member to wave the flag.

Vida B. Johnson, a scholar from Georgetown Law, has argued that the disclosure of a police officer’s involvement with white supremacist organizations and other hate groups should be relevant discovery information when an officer is a party or witness in litigation under the Brady Doctrine. She argues that compelling government interest exists in the public’s awareness of an officer’s involvement with extremist groups, and such information should be used to question the integrity of an officer’s testimony with the possibility of impeachment. However, in this article I take that argument a step further and posit that not only should such information be available under the Brady Doctrine, but such involvement completely and unequivocally disqualifies a person or officer from licensure with any public law enforcement agency all together.

Law enforcement officers take an oath to protect the community. Every officer should strive for unbiased treatment of all individuals—without exception. Especially and without question when based on a superficial distinction between two people, such as the color of their skin. If a law enforcement officer or law enforcement candidate holds a fundamental belief that certain individuals are superior to others because of the color of their skin alone, that person disqualifies themselves from employment with the state because they are inherently unfit to fulfill any duty of any policing organization while remaining true to our democratic Constitution. Though not every police officer with white supremacist views or affiliations in a department will act out on those extremist beliefs, all it takes is one officer to behave in a manner that terrorizes a community, causes distrust, and who will therefore delegitimize the entire organization. Unfortunately, this cycle is history repeating itself. It has been happening since colonists landed, since slaves were freed, since the 14th amendment was passed and incarceration rates skyrocketed, since Jim Crow laws shifted to “Voter Protection” laws, and continues to happen today. Though only now do we have powerful social movements, largely fueled by protests, social media, and the news, that are bringing greater awareness to this institutionalized practice of law. And people are calling for change.

Public awareness of bias within the criminal justice system has existed for decades (if not longer), specifically the disparity with which law enforcement agents treat people of color versus those people with white or lighter skin. The discourse has ebbed and flowed between seeing this systemic inequality as something explicit and intentional versus implicit and unintentional. Implicit racism within law enforcement is well researched and beyond the scope of this paper. I will be discussing the idea of explicit racist behavior, specifically white supremacist values, operating within police departments and the First Amendment ramifications of a deliberate ban thereof.