No Kings Memphis and the Kendrick Consent Decree

  • Latest Update: May 04, 2026
Stylized collage featuring the scales of justice, a judge’s gavel, and a person speaking—symbolizing law, accountability, and the power of public voice.

Summary

On April 1, 2026, the ACLU of Tennessee sent a letter to Independent Monitor Edward L. Stanton III urging him to investigate whether the Memphis Police Department’s conduct on March 28 during the No Kings rally violated the Kendrick Consent Decree. The decree is a landmark federal court order that places limits on how MPD can surveil, monitor, and intimidate people who are exercising their constitutional rights. During the rally, MPD officers grabbed protest marshals from behind, pepper-sprayed Memphians at close range, and arrested peaceful demonstrators.

In the letter, the ACLU-TN urged an investigation into whether: 1) MPD’s forcible intervention interfered with First Amendment activity and was intended to deter future protest; 2) MPD failed to seek required director authorization before intervening, as the decree stipulates; and 3) photographs, body-worn camera footage, or other intelligence gathered at the march were preserved or shared in ways that violate the decree’s strict restrictions on surveillance and information sharing.

The city responded on April 15 by confirming an independent investigation. That same day, the state dropped charges against the three peaceful demonstrators arrested during the march.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The decree has protected Memphis residents’ First Amendment rights since 1978. What happened at the No Kings rally raises serious questions about whether those rights were honored.

The No Kings rally is an event designed to sound the alarm about the rise of authoritarianism and attempts to normalize its insidious violence. And yet, MPD subjected peaceful demonstrators to pepper spray, physical force, and mass detentions. The Kendrick Consent Decree exists precisely to prevent officers from using force or intimidation to chill lawful assembly.

Although city officials have confirmed an independent investigation, arresting or punishing individuals without wholesale system reform leaves Memphians vulnerable to the same patterns and practices that produced March 28 in the first place. Unlawful policing and transparency has been a struggle for MPD. The question is not whether MPD crossed a line on March 28. The question is whether long-promised change will finally come.

The right to peaceably assemble is a constitutional guarantee. It does not disappear because those in power find protecting that right inconvenient. If MPD’s conduct on March 28 goes unchecked, the message sent to every Memphian is that dissent comes at the cost of constitutional rights.

Attorney(s):
ACLU-TN: Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Zee Scout

Documents

Learn More About the Issues in This Case

Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Police Accountability View All Issues

Related Content

Resource
Placeholder image

The Kendrick Consent Decree: Your First Amendment Rights in Memphis

Since 1978, Memphis residents have had a distinct legal protection: a federal court order that places strict limits on how the Memphis Police Department can surveil, monitor, and gather intelligence on people exercising their constitutional rights. That protection is called the Kendrick Consent Decree, and it exists because of what Memphis police once did in secret and what Memphians fought to stop.