Case Summary
LWVNJ and co-amici filed an amicus brief in state supreme court supporting the New Jersey Attorney General. They argued that supersession of municipal police departments has helped improve troubled police departments in the past and that Paterson’s systemic failures necessitated doing so. Under state law, the New Jersey Attorney General has the authority to assume control of a police department when external reform measures are needed to stop misconduct and build public trust.
New Jersey’s Criminal Justice Act of 1970 gives the attorney general “broad authority over criminal justice matters” including the power to take over any case, function, or law enforcement agency that has failed to meet required standards. That power is called “supersession,” and it allows attorneys general or county prosecutors to stand in for local police chiefs to improve public safety and trust. On March 27, 2023, the New Jersey Attorney General informed the mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, that he was superseding the Paterson Police Department (PPD) after years of misconduct and mismanagement. In fall 2023, the PPD sued the attorney general.
Paterson’s Acting Public Safety Director Mirza M. Bulur and Paterson's chief of police filed two complaints alleging that the attorney general’s supersession of the police department was outside his authority. The first complaint was filed on October 6, 2023. The second complaint was filed on November 28, 2023. The complaints were consolidated and transferred to the appellate court.
The complaints sought declaratory and injunctive relief. First, the plaintiffs requested the court declare the defendants had exceeded their constitutional and statutory authority by taking over the department and that Paterson’s power to control daily operations had been usurped. They also asked for the following injunctive relief: termination of defendants’ control of the department, restoration of the police chief, return of operational control to PPD, compulsion of defendants to provide the city with an accounting of the operations while under supersession, a bar on defendants’ staffs’ use of the Paterson Public Safety building, and limit on defendants’ supersession authority over PPD to its internal affairs unit only.
On December 18, 2024, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the attorney general does not have the authority to directly supersede all operations of a municipal police department without the consent of the municipality. The court ordered a reversal of the attorney general’s 2023 supersession and directed the defendants to reassign the police chief to Paterson and restore operational control of the PPD to the plaintiffs.
On January 2, 2025, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari before the state supreme court. In it, they requested the supreme court grant certification, stay the case pending final judgment, and reverse the appellate court’s decision.
On January 10, 2025, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey (LWVNJ) and co-amici, including the ACLU of New Jersey, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Reimagining Justice, Inc., and Salvation and Social Justice, filed an amicus brief in the state supreme court in support of the attorney general and other defendants. The League and its partners argued that that supersession of municipal police departments has helped improve troubled police departments in the past and that Paterson’s systemic failures necessitated doing so.
On January 28, 2025, the state supreme court agreed to hear the case on an expedited schedule with motions and briefs filed by February 28, 2025. On March 31, 2025, the court heard oral arguments. On July 23, 2025, the state supreme court unanimously ruled in favor of the attorney general. The opinion stated that, specifically in the case of the PPD, the legislature’s passage of legislation waiving certain training requirements for the officer appointed to supervise the department, and appropriation of funds to fund the oversight, indicated it had granted the New Jersey Attorney General authority to take over the PPD. The ruling did not address whether the attorney general had a general power to take control of a police department at their discretion. The court suggested the state legislature clarify this issue.
LWVNJ was represented in this matter by the ACLU of New Jersey, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, and Lowenstein Sandler, LLP.
Read LWVNJ's press release here.
LWV Timeline
Paterson Police Department files complaint against New Jersey Attorney General
The Paterson Police Department sues, asserting the attorney general’s supersession violated the state constitution’s protections for local government autonomy and state laws on command of police and their removal, and exceeded the attorney general’s legal authority.
Trial court transfers case to appeals court
Over the objection of the plaintiffs, the trial court transfers the case to the New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division.
Court rules in favor of the Paterson Police Department
A state appeals court orders defendants to restore control of day-to-day operations of the municipal police department to plaintiffs.
Defendants file a petition for certification
The New Jersey Attorney General requests the state supreme court hear the case and reverse the order of the state appeals court.
LWVNJ files amicus brief in state supreme court
LWVNJ and co-amici file an amicus brief supporting the attorney general and their power to take over police departments that require reform.
State supreme court accepts case
Court grants NJ Attorney General’s request to hear the case again.
State supreme court issues ruling
The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of the attorney general, stating that the legislature’s passage of a bill allowing the appointment of an officer to oversee the PPD and waiving the state law requirements, and appropriation of funds for the supersession, permitted the takeover in this specific case.