ABSTRACT
When police use excessive force, the physical encounter is only the beginning of the injury. What typically follows is a systematic assault on the victim’s character and reputation, driven by an institutional ecosystem – including law enforcement, the courts, and media – that produces exculpatory narratives to favor the state. By shifting blame onto the injured to justify state lethality, these institutions inflict a profound epistemic harm, which is a form of institutional gaslighting that destroys the victim’s standing as a credible witness to their own experience. This injury is defamation-like in structure but carries the unique authority of the state, making it far more damaging. Because this injury is narrative in nature, money alone cannot correct a public record that institutions have used their own credibility to distort. This Article argues that courts should be empowered to close that gap. In municipal liability cases alleging excessive force under Section 1983, judges should have the authority to order public institutional apologies to successful plaintiffs.
Apologies already do meaningful work across the legal landscape, influencing charging, sentencing, and settlement decisions. Extending their application here follows the bedrock remedial principle that the scope of the relief should match the violation. These ‘apologies in blue’ would serve three critical functions. First, they would return a measure of control to victims, providing formal validation of their lived reality that can begin to reverse the legal estrangement driving marginalized communities away from public institutions. Second, they would correct the public record by compelling cities to acknowledge that harm resulted from municipal policy or custom rather than isolated misconduct, helping to dispel the ‘bad apple’ myth with an institutional admission of systemic failure. Third, the mere availability of this remedy would create meaningful settlement leverage, incentivizing cities to resolve claims early to avoid the internal discord and public scrutiny a formal admission would provoke. This Article addresses potential objections, including First Amendment limits on compelling a city to speak, doubts about whether forced apologies can carry genuine meaning, and the risk that repeated apologies lose their moral weight, and concludes that none defeat the proposal.
MehChu, Ndjuoh, Apologies in Blue (February 27, 2026). Forthcoming Arizona Law Review.
Leave a Reply