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.
This embed will serve content from {{ domain }}. See our privacy statement

How It Started
The Kendrick Consent Decree grew out of a federal lawsuit filed in 1976 challenging the Memphis Police Department's domestic intelligence unit, which had spent years collecting information on civil rights leaders, union organizers, and political groups, including those associated with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The lawsuit, Kendrick v. Chandler, resulted in a landmark agreement between the ACLU of Tennessee and the City of Memphis that became the first of its kind in the nation.

The decree was updated in 2020 to account for modern surveillance tools, including social media monitoring and body cameras. It remains one of the strongest legal protections against police surveillance of First Amendment activities anywhere in the country.

What It Protects
The Kendrick Consent Decree protects your right to speak, organize, protest, and associate freely — without fear that Memphis police are watching, recording, or building a file on you for doing so. Specifically, MPD is prohibited from:

  • Surveillance and intelligence gathering: Memphis police cannot collect information about your political beliefs, opinions, or associations unless that information is directly connected to a specific legitimate criminal investigation. Your protest plans, your social media posts about political issues, and your participation in lawful demonstrations are protected from police intelligence gathering or interference.
  • Infiltration and monitoring: Officers cannot use informants to gather information about your political activities or lawful associations. They cannot pose as members of political or community groups for intelligence purposes. They cannot photograph people or record license plates at protests, meetings, or demonstrations for the purpose of harassment, building a record, or discouraging participation.
  • Information sharing: MPD cannot share information collected about your First Amendment activities with other agencies, including state or federal agencies or the National Guard, unless the agencies are conducting a lawful criminal investigation of the same individual.
  • Harassment and intimidation: The decree explicitly prohibits MPD from taking actions designed to disrupt, discredit, or intimidate people for exercising their constitutional rights. Chilling your right to speak or assemble is a violation of the decree.

If you believe your rights under the Kendrick Consent Decree have been violated, report a potential violation here.

If a Criminal Investigation Overlaps with First Amendment Activity
If MPD believes a criminal investigation may involve collecting information about constitutionally protected activities, the Decree requires additional safeguards. The Police Director or their assignee must personally authorize the investigation in writing, authorization is limited to 90 days, and officers must use the least intrusive methods available.

Who Oversees Compliance
In December 2018, federal Judge Jon P. McCalla appointed an independent monitoring team, led by Edward L. Stanton III, to oversee the City of Memphis's compliance with the decree. In January 2025, the court approved a transition plan designating MPD Legal Advisors and subject matter experts as Compliance Officers to carry the decree into a sustainment phase expected to last 18 to 24 months.

As the original plaintiff in the Kendrick case, the ACLU of Tennessee retains enforcement authority over the decree and continues to monitor MPD's compliance.

Why It Matters Now
The Kendrick Consent Decree is not a historical artifact. It is active law. It applies to MPD's coordination with federal agencies, including those deployed as part of federal task forces operating in Memphis. Memphis police cannot use federal partnerships as a workaround to conduct surveillance activities the decree was designed to prevent. If the rights protected by this decree are threatened, the ACLU of Tennessee will act.

The Kendrick Consent Decree monitoring team maintains a public website with court filings, monitor reports, and additional materials. For more information, visit here.

Related Content

Press Release
Apr 02, 2026
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Legal Reform|
  • +4 Issues

ACLU-TN Urges Independent Legal Monitor to Investigate the Memphis Police Department’s Conduct at the No Kings Rally

From the DOJ Report to the No Kings Rally — MPD’s Pattern of Conduct Demands Answers 
Court Case
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.
  • Privacy, Surveillance and Technology|
  • +1 Issue

No Kings Memphis and the Kendrick Consent Decree

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.