Whitechurch et al v. Mulkey et al

On February 4, 2025, in Atlanta, Georgia, activist David Whitechurch led a peaceful protest against police brutality. Sheriff Marcus Mulkey ordered riot police to disperse the crowd, citing an emergency curfew. Officers allegedly used batons, tear gas, and flash-bang grenades, resulting in the arrest of Whitechurch and over thirty demonstrators, with multiple injuries reported. Whitechurch and other plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force, false arrest, and violations of free speech and assembly. The complaint argues that the curfew was selectively enforced to suppress dissent and that the force used was grossly disproportionate. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting qualified immunity and public safety justifications. The case represents a significant clash between law enforcement discretion and constitutional protections during civil unrest.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in late 2025, ruling that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged constitutional violations and that qualified immunity could not be resolved at the pleading stage. The case is currently in discovery as of June 2026.

Whether the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; whether the curfew enforcement and dispersal orders unlawfully infringed on First Amendment rights to speech and assembly; and whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

The case quickly became a flashpoint in the national debate on police militarization and the policing of protests. Civil rights organizations cited it as emblematic of systemic excessive force against marginalized communities. It spurred legislative proposals in Georgia to clarify use-of-force standards and curtail the use of tear gas on demonstrators, while also drawing counter-criticism from law enforcement unions defending proactive crowd control.