University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are all the additions to the Clearinghouse collection -- cases, summaries, case studies, etc. -- over the past 90 days:


CASE ADDITIONS
December 7, 2021
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00303 (D. Nev.)
PR-NV-0001
A rural Nevada church brought this lawsuit against the Governor of Nevada on May 22, 2020, alleging that the governor’s COVID-19 gathering ban was a violation of the church’s First Amendment rights. The district court denied the church’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief; the church appealed this denial to the Ninth Circuit. Both the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court denied motions for injunction pending the Ninth Circuit’s appeal; as of August 6, 2020, the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit.
View Case Detail (PR-NV-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 7, 2021
League of Independent Fitness Facilities and Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00458 (W.D. Mich.)
PR-MI-0005
This lawsuit was filed against the state of Michigan by 22 individual companies operating fitness businesses in Michigan and an organization representing over 150 fitness facilities in the state. The suit was filed to enjoin orders that required the plaintiffs to keep their facilities closed. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction which was granted on June 19. The defendants filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, with a motion for a stay pending appeal. The district court denied the stay on June 22 but the Sixth CIrcuit granted the stay pending appeal on June 24. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-MI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 7, 2021
Signature Sothbeys International Realty, Inc. v. Whitmer
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00360 (W.D. Mich.)
PR-MI-0003
On April 28, 2020, several Michigan businesses that were required to close during the outbreak of COVID-19 filed this suit against Governor Whitmer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Michigan. Plaintiffs challenged Michigan's executive orders, which required businesses deemed non-critical to close, alleging that the orders arbitrarily discriminated against their businesses. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest suggesting that the executive orders likely violated the Equal Protection and the Commerce Clauses. After the Governor lifted the restrictions on plaintiffs, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the complaint on December 2, 2020.
View Case Detail (PR-MI-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 7, 2021
Bayley's Campground, Inc v. Mills
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00176 (D. Me.)
PR-ME-0001
On May 25, 2020, several rural campgrounds and individuals wishing to travel to Maine filed this suit against Governor Mills in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Plaintiffs challenged Maine's executive orders, which required individuals traveling into Maine to self-quarantine for 14 days, alleging that the orders violated their right to interstate travel, as well as their due process and equal protection rights. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest suggesting that the executive orders likely violated plaintiffs' right to interstate travel. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the plaintiffs appealed on June 1 and moved for reconsideration. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and the case was stayed on June 8. The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision on January 19, 2021 and on February 3, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
View Case Detail (PR-ME-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 7, 2021
The Beloved Church v. Pritzker
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-50153 (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0017
An Illinois church sued the governor, alleging that his COVID-19 stay-at-home order violated the church members' First Amendment rights. The court ruled that the order passed minimal constitutional requirements. The plaintiffs appealed but the Seventh Circuit affirmed, the plaintiffs dismissed the case shortly thereafter.
View Case Detail (FA-IL-0017)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 6, 2021
Lois Curtis presents President Obama with a picture
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/22/olmstead-champion-meets-president
Date: Jun. 20, 2011
By: Pete Souza (White House)
President Barack Obama looks at a painting presented to him by artist Lois Curtis (plaintiff in Olmstead v. L.C.), center, during their meeting in the Oval Office, June 20, 2011. Joining them are, from left, Janet Hill and Jessica Long, from the Georgia Department of Labor, and Lee Sanders, of ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 5, 2021
Middleton v. Ward
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:21-cv-334 (M.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0027
This class-action lawsuit challenges the conditions of confinement in the segregation units of the Georgia State Prison (GSP). The plaintiffs are men in held in the prison's "Tier II Program" and other solitary confinement housing units, many of whom suffer from serious mental illness. Represented by attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights and a private law firm, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on September 10, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, where it was assigned to U.S. District Judge Marc T. Treadwell. Bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory Judgment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act), they alleged that the conditions they were confined in violated the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment and the guarantees against discrimination on the basis of disability created by the ADA and the Rehab Act. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys fees. A motion to dismiss by the defendants is currently pending.
View Case Detail (PC-GA-0027)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2021
Garfield Gayle, et al. v. Janet Napolitano, et al.
ACLU New Jersey
Date: Nov. 15, 2012
By: ACLU New Jersey
In November of 2012, the ACLU of New Jersey and the national ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who are facing deportation and held in detention facilities without the possibility of bail or a bail hearing during the duration of their ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2021
Iranian Man Turned Away During First Travel Ban Reaches Settlement with U.S.
ACLU Southern California
Date: Jun. 26, 2017
By: ACLU Southern California
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) and law offices of Stacy Tolchin have reached a settlement with the United States on behalf of Ali Vayeghan, an Iranian immigrant denied entry to the U.S. at LAX and deported back to Iran in January during the Trump ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2021
Live Blog: Detentions at LAX Under Executive Order
ACLU Southern California
Date: Feb. 9, 2017
By: ACLU Southern California
The ACLU of Southern California and its partners are hard at work to defend the rights of people detained at Los Angeles International Airpot. As the situation develops, we will post updates here.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2021
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979)
Justia
Date: May 14, 1979
By: U.S. Supreme Court
Justia
After she was refused admission to the University of Chicago medical school, Cannon sued under Title IX to compel her admission. She argued that the medical school was covered by the law because it received federal funds and that she had been denied because of her gender. Title IX prevented ...
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
December 3, 2021
"Implied Private Rights of Action Under Federal Statutes: Congressional Intent, Judicial Deference, or Mutual Abdication"
Fordham L. Rev.
Date: March, 1982
By: Donna L. Goldstein (Fordham University School of Law)
50 Fordham L. Rev. 611
Part I of this Note describes the development of the Supreme Court's implication standard and the erosion in recent decisions of the Cort v. Ash analysis. Part II summarizes the current standard, examines recent lower federal court decisions to determine whether the Court has provided clear ...
View Case Study Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2021
Louhghalam v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0007)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2021
Goodlaxson et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
(Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho)
On June 10, 2021, GBDH, along with Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Disability Rights Maryland (DRM), and Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Baltimore for its failure to properly install and maintain curb ramps and sidewalks ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2021
Kilpatrick v. City of Newark
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Jun. 17, 2019
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law filed a lawsuit to fight the discriminatory practice in Newark whereby individuals were banished from the city if they lived in homes worth less than an arbitrary threshold.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2021
Chicago Impound
Institute for Justice
Date: Aug. 25, 2020
By: Institute for Justice
Jerome Davis and Veronica Walker-Davis did absolutely nothing wrong, yet lost their car to a system that made them feel like criminals. Their car was impounded by the city of Chicago, which tows and holds tens of thousands of vehicles each year. Vehicles can be impounded for littering, playing ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2021
McDonald v. City of Pompano Beach
Florida Justice Institute
Date: Jul. 2, 2021
By: Florida Justice Institute
the Florida Justice Institute (FJI), in partnership with Fort Lauderdale lawyers Mara Shlackman and Frantz J. McLawrence, filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Pompano Beach’s anti-panhandling ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. The Ordinance prohibits the solicitation ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2021
Freeman v. County of Riverside
National Center for Youth Law
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: National Center for Youth Law
Prior to passing California Senate Bill 190 (SB 190), counties throughout the state charged fees to families for administrative costs associated with their children’s involvement in the juvenile court system. These fees included daily “costs of support” for each day a youth spent in a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 26, 2021
Challenging USCIS for Delays in Renewal of Employment Authorizations
American Immigration Council
Date: Nov. 11, 2021
By: American Immigration Council
This nationwide class action lawsuit challenges USCIS’ failure to timely renew work authorizations for asylum workers in the United States and seeks to compel USCIS to take necessary steps to address delays and timely adjudicate employment authorization renewal applications for asylum applicants.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2021
USCIS’ Unlawful Denial of H-1B Petitions Spurs Class Action Lawsuit
American Immigration Counsel
Date: Nov. 1, 2021
By: American Immigration Counsel
This nationwide class action lawsuit challenges U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) pattern and practice of arbitrarily denying H-1B nonimmigrant employment-based petitions for market research analyst positions filed by United States businesses. *
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2021
Hinkley v. Fair
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 88-064 (State Court)
CJ-MA-0002
This case challenged Massachusetts’ policy of civilly committing women suffering from alcoholism in a state prison. In addition to being a significant violation of the committed women’s civil liberties, this practice did not mirror how men facing similar challenges were treated. The plaintiffs, two women who were civilly committed by the Commonwealth in the late 1980s, filed this class action lawsuit in Hampshire County Superior Court in 1988. They were represented by attorneys from the Center for Public Representation. On November 30, 1990, the plaintiffs reached a settlement with the Commonwealth. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-MA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2021
Azad v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00706 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0084
Two lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the U.S. initiated this challenge to President Trump's January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) banning non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, from being admitted to the U.S on January 29, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a joint habeas petition and civil complaint against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. They claimed that despite their LPR status, agents of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained them upon their arrival from a trip to Iran and would not permit them to enter the U.S. The plaintiffs also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against CBP. However, later on the 29, the plaintiffs filed a notice that they had been released from detention and were withdrawing their ex parte application. An amended habeas petition and complaint (one document) was filed on the 29 that listed three individuals and five organizations as plaintiffs. The district court terminated the original two plaintiffs as parties to the action and added the three individuals and five organizations as plaintiffs; treating the amended habeas petition and complaint as the operative pleading The plaintiffs claimed that despite their valid entry documents (tourism and work visas), they were detained by CBP agents as soon as they arrived at the Airport and were prohibited from leaving LAX to enter the U.S. The organization plaintiffs (five public interest law groups) alleged that CBP denied their attorneys access to speak to the individual plaintiffs and other travelers affected by the EO-1. Represented by the ACLU of Southern California, the plaintiffs argued that their continued detention at LAX pursuant to EO-1 and inability to access counsel amounted to violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights of the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To remedy these violations, the plaintiffs asked the court for a writ of habeas corpus to undo their unlawful detention by the federal government, declaratory and injunctive relief “to prevent such harms from occurring,” and an order, directing CBP to allow all individuals detained at LAX pursuant to EO-1 access to counsel. The Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and President Donald Trump in his official capacity were named as defendants. In a minute order from February 3, 2017, the district court explained that in a motion to withdraw one of their two active ex parte applications, the individual plaintiffs indicated that they were no longer being detained at LAX. In this order, the court set a February 7 deadline for the plaintiffs to submit a memorandum explaining: why their claims were not moot, why the organizational plaintiffs would have standing to challenge EO-1 if the individual plaintiffs were dismissed from the action, and whether they intended to file a second amended complaint. While the plaintiffs submitted the requested memorandum by the deadline, they moved to dismiss their claims 10 days later on February 17. The district court ordered the case dismissed on February 28. This case is now closed. Many of this case’s filings are not publicly available.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0084)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2021
Busbee v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02401-CCC-SES (M.D. Pa.)
PC-PA-0052
On November 11, 2019, correctional officers at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections pepper sprayed an asthmatic incarcerated person who then suffered an asthma attack and passed away from asphyxiation as a result. The decedent's mother filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and various individual defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated her son’s Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to prolonged and excessive pepper spray exposure, failing to provide appropriate and timely medical care, and leaving him in solitary confinement despite his obvious medical distress. On September 7, 2021, the parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court that required the defendants to pay $8.5 million and to provide mandatory training for corrections and medical staff regarding the increased risk pepper spray may pose to incarcerated persons with asthma or other respiratory disease. The judge granted the motion for settlement and dismissed the case on October 18, 2021.
View Case Detail (PC-PA-0052)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2021
Wilson v. Williams
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-00794 (N.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0034
Individuals incarcerated in a northern Ohio prison seek relief from exposure to COVID-19. Preliminary injunctive relief was granted, and the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and a motion for a stay pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied the defendant's request for a stay. On May 21, the defendants applied for a stay of the preliminary injunction to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied on May 26, noting that the defendants had not yet appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit and moved to stay the order pending appeal scheduled the next day, which was granted by the Supreme Court on June 4. On June 9, the Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in July and, between September 2020 and March 2021, the defendants filed joint motions to stay all proceedings. The defendants continued to file daily status reports through April 2021. In January and May 2021, the plaintiffs filed two notices of stipulated dismissal, which terminated their claims.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2021
T.R. v. Dreyfus
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:09-cv-01677-TSZ (W.D. Wash.)
PB-WA-0007
Children with psychiatric and behavioral disorders filed a class action complaint alleging that Washington's system of mental health services for Medicaid-eligible children was inadequate. The parties reached a settlement agreement for expanded intensive home- and community-based services for all Medicaid-eligible children statewide. Implementation was completed by September 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PB-WA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
MadKudu Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-02653 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0178
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0178)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
Davis v. City of Chicago
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03691 (N.D. Ill.)
CJ-IL-0014
This lawsuit is a constitutional challenge the City of Chicago’s vehicle impound program. The plaintiffs, individuals whose cars had been impounded by the city, filed this putative class action suit in Illinois state court (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division) on April 29, 2019. Represented by attorneys from the Institute for Justice and a private law firm, they claimed that the city impounded cars in connections with offenses not committed by their owners, required the owners of impounded cars to pay administrative penalties prior to the entry of judgment in their cases, did not provide adequate notice of disposal and other proceedings to impounded car owners, and held cars as collateral while their owners paid their fines. The plaintiffs, bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that these practices violated their Eighth Amendment rights to be free from excessive fines, their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and their analogous rights under the Illinois Constitution. Additionally, they brought a separate count demanding the return of tools and other items seized from the car of one of the named plaintiffs. They asked the court for the certification of a class, declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages of $1, and attorneys’ fees. Before any significant litigation could occur in state court, the city removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where it was eventually assigned to District Judge Mary M. Rowland. On August 21, 2020, Judge Rowland partially granted a motion to dismiss by the defendants. As of November 2021, the plaintiffs are continuing to litigate their remaining claims.
View Case Detail (CJ-IL-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
Irving v. Berryhill
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01730 (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0065
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0065)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
B.B. v. Hochul
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-06229 (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0012
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CW-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2021
Freeman v. Riverside County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: RIC2001772 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0027
This case is about whether the parents of children who interact with the juvenile justice system can be forced to pay the costs of those services in the absence of legal process. The plaintiffs in this case, parents and grandparents of children who were involved in the juvenile justice system in Riverside County California allege that they were ordered to pay “juvenile administrative fees” to cover the cost of their children’s interactions with the system, including the cost of juvenile detention.This putative class action lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court on June 1, 2020. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the National Youth Center for Youth Law and the Western Center on Law & Poverty, brought several claims under the California Constitution and various state statutes. They requested reimbursement of juvenile administration payments already made by class members, a writ of mandate ordering the defendants to return those payments, a court order preventing the defendants from collecting such fees in the future, and attorneys' fees.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2021
Florida State Conference Of Branches and Youth Units Of the NAACP v. Lee
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla.)
VR-FL-0175
In May 2021, The Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida, and Common Cause brought this suit against the Secretary of State of Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida challenging SB-90, Florida's voter suppression law. The plaintiffs alleged that the law violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. They asserted that the bill created an undue burden on the right to vote, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, constituted race discrimination, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations under Title II of the ADA. After the court partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, the defendants moved for summary judgment. That motion is pending and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-FL-0175)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2021
District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md.)
PR-MD-0001
In 2017, Maryland and the District of Columbia filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the State of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that President Donald Trump’s continued ownership of and involvement in the Trump Organization violated the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. In 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the case for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Upon rehearing en banc, the appeals court reversed in favor of the plaintiffs. Subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, the case was dismissed as moot since Donald Trump was no longer president. The district court closed the case on May 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (PR-MD-0001)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 18, 2021
Update on Ramos v. Nielsen
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Date: Sep. 10, 2021
By: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
On Sept. 14, 2020, in Ramos et al. v. Wolf et al., No. 18-16981 (9th Cir., Sept. 14, 2020) (PDF, 374.01 KB), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction that prohibited DHS from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2021
Davis v. Jury Commission of Montgomery County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 66-cv-c2479 (M.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0018
In this case, a Black man charged with a crime in Montgomery County Alabama challenged the County's policy of systematically excluding Black people from jury service. On November 5, 1966, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, where it was assigned to then-District Judge Frank M. Johnson. Bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgement Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), the plaintiff claimed that the exclusion of Black people from criminal juries violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Johnson denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order on November 10, noting that the plaintiff had yet to be indicted, so no constitutional violation had yet occurred. 261 F. Supp. 591. However, he also set a preliminary injunction hearing for January of 1967. The status of the case after that date is unclear, but it is presumably now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2021
Rabinowitz v. United States
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: (M.D. Ga.)
CJ-GA-0014
In these federal criminal cases, a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) member, as well as four Black civil rights demonstrators, were charged and convicted of perjury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. On appeal, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, in an opinion by Judge Richard Rives, that the Middle District's jury commissioner violated the Civil Rights Act of 1957 when he selected a jury that did not include any Black members. 366 F.2d 34. The Court of Appeals reversed the defendants' convictions and ordered that the indictments against them be dismissed, ending their criminal cases.
View Case Detail (CJ-GA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2021
Quintanilla Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-00755 (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0029
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0029)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2021
Carden v. Town of Harpersville
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01381 (N.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0025
This case is a follow on case to Burdette v. Town of Harpersville, Alabama (CJ-AL-0005). On August 14, 2015, after the Burdette litigation was finished, a woman who had been fined by the Harpersville Municipal Court and "supervised" by JCS filed a class action lawsuit against the City in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiff, bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgement Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), claimed that the City's actions violated her Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as Alabama state law. After several years of litigation, which included multiple amendments to the plaintiff's complaint and motions to dismiss by the defendants, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the case on May 18, 2018. It appears from the docket that named plaintiff—and possibly others—were able to reach a monetary settlement with the City. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2021
M.G. v. Cuomo
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 7:19-cv-00639 (S.D.N.Y.)
MH-NY-0012
In 2019, six indigent prison inmates with mental illness whom the defendants held in secure prisons past their release dates filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of other prisoners in similar situations. The plaintiffs alleged that the New York State and its Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) failed to make available community-based housing and supportive services that the plaintiffs require upon release, thereby holding the plaintiffs in state prison past their lawful release dates. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (MH-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2021
Brionez v. United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA")
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 4:01-cv-03969 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0369
In 2001, the Regional Hispanic Working Group filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs Alleged that Region 5 of the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture was engaging in discriminatory hiring practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2002, the parties reached a court-approved settlement agreement that implemented mediation procedures for resolving EEOC disputes and various recruitment measures intended to increase Hispanic representation in Region 5's workforce. After a 2006 finding that Region 5 failed to significantly comply with the agreement, the court extended it for a another year. A monitor's report indicated that Region 5 complied more closely with the agreement after the extension, and the court denied plaintiffs' request to further extend the agreement.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0369)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
La Riva v. D.C. Board of Elections
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01937 (D.D.C.)
VR-DC-1175
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-DC-1175)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Blankenship v. Newsom
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-04479 (N.D. Cal.)
VR-CA-0170
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-CA-0170)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00173 (D. Alaska)
VR-AK-0014
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-AK-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed.
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: Civ. A. No. 604-E (M.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0002
This case began on January 28, 1963 with a group of frustrated African American students and parents seeking to desegregate the twenty public schools of Macon County, Alabama. This was one of many such cases dealing with school desegregation on a school system-by-system basis. However, after interference from Governor George Wallace and other state officials in the county's efforts to comply with the initial court order, the Middle District of Alabama eventually responded by issuing an unprecedented statewide order that would serve as a legal basis for the enforcement of desegregation across all Alabama's public school and as an example for similar statewide orders across the country.
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Seaport House Hopkins v. Cuomo
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-10932 (S.D.N.Y.)
PR-NY-0011
In 2020, a New York business, non-profit, and an individual resident filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that the state's COVID-19 dining policies violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, in addition to infringing on the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce and violating the nondelegation doctrine and New York state law. In January 2021, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in February. In April 2021, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted and for lack of jurisdiction. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Lee and United States of America v. Macon County School Board (M.D. Ala. cases)
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 3:70-cv-00846-MHT-DRB (M.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0023
This Clearinghouse entry discusses the post 1970 proceedings in Lee v. Macon County, a seminal Alabama desegregation case. That case originated in the Middle District of Alabama and was transferred to a three-judge district court which supervised school desegregation across the state. However, after 1970, the statewide case was dissolved and desegregation cases in individual school districts were sent to the judicial districts that encompassed them. This Clearinghouse entry describes the Lee litigation in the Middle District of Alabama after 1970. To read about what happened between 1963, when the case was filed, and 1970, please see Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed. (SD-AL-0002)
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Lee and United States of America v. Macon County School Board (S.D. Ala. cases)
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 1:70-cv-05945-M (S.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0022
This Clearinghouse entry discusses the post 1970 proceedings in Lee v. Macon County, a seminal Alabama desegregation case. That case originated in the Middle District of Alabama and was transferred to a three judge district court which supervised school desegregation across the state. However, after 1970, the statewide case was dissolved and desegregation cases in individual school districts were sent to the judicial districts that encompassed them. This Clearinghouse entry is for cases in the Southern District of Alabama after 1970. To read about what happened between 1963, when the case was filed, and 1970, you can go to Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed. (SD-AL-0002)
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0022)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Azar
ACLU of Washington
Date: Jun. 28, 2019
By: ACLU of Washington
On March 7th, 2019 the ACLU filed a complaint on behalf the Nation Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and Cedar River Clinics challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to fundamentally alter the Title X family planning program, which provides care to 4 million low-income ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
American Medical Association v. Becerra
SCOTUSBlog
Date: May 17, 2021
By: SCOTUSBlog
Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services' rule for the Title X family planning program — which prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion-related information but requiring information about non- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Dec. 3, 2020
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Under current law, Tennessee automatically strips anyone convicted of a felony of the right to vote. The result of this policy is that more than 9% of the total voting age population of Tennessee — and more than 21% of the African-American voting age population — cannot vote. Tennessee has the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Campaign Legal Center 2021
Date: Apr. 13, 2021
By: Campaign Legal Center
Tennessee disenfranchises more than 451,000 of its residents for past felony convictions, about 9.1% of its total voting age population. These individuals remain unable to vote for life unless they are able to restore their voting rights.

Over 14 years ago, the Tennessee Legislature ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Campaign Legal Center 2021
Date: Apr. 13, 2021
By: Campaign Legal Center
Tennessee disenfranchises more than 451,000 of its residents for past felony convictions, about 9.1% of its total voting age population. These individuals remain unable to vote for life unless they are able to restore their voting rights.

Over 14 years ago, the Tennessee Legislature ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities
Whitehouse.gov
Date: Jan. 20, 2021
By: Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The policy of the Biden Administration is to protect national and border security, address the humanitarian challenges at the southern border, and ensure public health and safety. The Biden Administration will reset the policies and practices for enforcing civil immigration laws to align ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
Executive Order on Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border
Whitehouse.gov
Date: Feb. 2, 2021
By: Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The Biden Administration will implement a multi-pronged approach toward managing migration throughout North and Central America that reflects the Nation’s highest values. They will work closely with civil society, international organizations, and the governments in the region to: establish a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1915-65 (D.D.C.)
VR-DC-1172
In 1965, two New York voters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to block the federal government from enforcing Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. New York required Puerto Ricans to have completed their education at least through the sixth grade entirely or predominantly in English to be able to vote. However, Section 4(e) prohibited denying the right to vote to anyone educated through sixth grade in Puerto Rico in a language other than English. The plaintiffs alleged Section 4(e) unconstitutionally violated New York’s right to regulate its own elections and diluted their own votes. After the District Court sided with the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling Section 4(e) was proper congressional use of its authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which allowed Congress to enact appropriate legislation to implement and enforce the Equal Protection Clause.
View Case Detail (VR-DC-1172)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Tawfeeq v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00353 (N.D. Ga.)
IM-GA-0008
The plaintiff in this case, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the U.S., was held and questioned at the Atlanta International Airport on January 29, 2017, after arriving from a trip to Iraq following the President Trump’s January 27, 2017, suspending entry into the United States of nationals of Iraq and other majority-Muslim countries. On January 30, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by the federal government. This case is different from many of the other cases in the Travel Ban collection as it challenged the legality of the executive order as applied to LPRs, instead of arguing that the executive order was invalid on its face. Prompted by developments in Washington v. Trump, the President rescinded the January 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2) on March 6, 2017. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging EO-2, and the government moved to dismiss. On August 11, 2017, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. This case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-GA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Nuest v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 0:21-cv-01572 (D. Minn.)
PB-MN-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-MN-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
E.E. v. California
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-07585-SI (N.D. Cal.)
ED-CA-0040
In 2021, public school students in California with disabilities filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that a newly passed state law, which established Independent Study as the primary avenue, discriminated against students disabilities in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts. On June 30, 2021, the court granted a TRO requiring defendants to maintain the status quo from the previous school year, prior to the new state law. The case ongoing as of November 14, 2021.
View Case Detail (ED-CA-0040)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Carpenter v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 0:21-cv-00103 (D. Wyo.)
PB-WY-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-WY-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Rogers v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-01779 (D. Colo.)
PB-CO-0009
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-CO-0009)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 12, 2021
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Oyez
Date: Jun. 13, 1966
By: Oyez
New York voters sought declaratory judgment in a New York federal district court to prevent compliance with Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section provided that no person who successfully completed the sixth grade in a school accredited by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 12, 2021
Manker v. Del Toro
JND Legal Administration
Date: Oct. 7, 2001
By: JND Legal Administration
A lawsuit was filed alleging that since the start of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy and Marine Corps discharged thousands of Sailors and Marines with Other Than Honorable ("OTH") or General (Under Honorable Conditions) ("GEN") statuses due to misconduct attributable to post- ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Drewniak v. C.B.P.
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00852 (D.N.H.)
IM-NH-0002
After being stopped and detained without a warrant at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoint 90 miles from the Canadian border, the plaintiff brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on August 11, 2020, challenging CBP's practice of using checkpoints for general crime control. The plaintiff delineated two separate counts in their complaint: that the agents who stopped and detained the plaintiff without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and that there was a substantial risk the plaintiff's rights would again be violated. On April 8, 2021, the court granted motion to dismiss for the Fourth Amendment claim and denied the motion to dismiss for the second claim, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated Article III standing at the pleading stage. As of November 3, 2021, the case is pending trial.
View Case Detail (IM-NH-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Anderson v. Cornejo
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:97-cv-07556 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0025
This is a case about a class of African-American women who alleged that they were subjected unconstitutional searches, including cavity searches, when entering Customs at Chicago O'Hare Airport. In October of 1997, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. The parties eventually settled for $1.93 million.
View Case Detail (IM-IL-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Rodriguez v. Todd Greiner Farms Packing
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00227-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0008
The plaintiffs, two farm workers, filed this class action case against a Michigan produce producer in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on April 20, 2021. Represented by attorneys from the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and the Sugar Law Center, they alleged that their employer violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) (29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq) and Michigan state law. According to the plaintiffs, their bosses forced them to work long hours, six or seven days a week, and exposed them to dangerous pesticides. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class of people who had worked at a facility operated by the defendants in Jackson, Michigan, as well as declaratory relief, monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Paul L. Maloney and, as of September 2021, is being actively litigated.
View Case Detail (IM-MI-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Rose v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-04254 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0064
Several blind taxpayers filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They alleged that the Internal Revenue Service had sent them notices they could not read, leading them to incur tax penalties. After a year of litigation, the parties reached a settlement on July 14, 2020.
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0064)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
State of Washington v. Azar
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03040-SAB (E.D. Wash.)
PR-WA-0001
On March 5, 2019, the State of Washington filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for violating Title X’s “Nondirective Mandate,” the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Title X generally, and the Administrative Procedure Act. On March 4, 2019, HHS published a Final Rule, scheduled to go into effect on May 3, 2019, which would alter longstanding regulations governing Title X grants for family planning services. Washington sought declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the Final Rule and prohibit HHS from implementing or enforcing it, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 18, 2019, this case was consolidated for pretrial proceedings with a separate case filed by the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), a Washington-based NFPRHA member organization, and two health care professionals that challeneged the same HHS Rule. On April 25, 2019, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Final Rule nationwide. The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted cert, but before a decision was made, the newly-instated Biden Administration issued a memorandum directing HHS to review and reconsider the Final Rule. The case was dismissed on June 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (PR-WA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
In the Matter of JPay, LLC
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2021-CFPB-0006 (No Court)
PC-DC-0035
In an administrative proceeding, The CFPB stated that JPay, LLC (a prison services company) engaged in unfair and deceptive consumer practices by requiring consumers to opt-in to their fee-bearing prepaid card service in order to receive money consumers were entitled to upon release from prison or jail. The program's fee structure was, in many instances, misleading, unclear, and unstated in cardholder agreements. As part of their Consent Order, the CFPB required JPay to pay $4 million in damages and $2 million in fines.
View Case Detail (PC-DC-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
NAACP v. Lee
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.)
CJ-TN-0016
In 2020, the NCAAP and individual plaintiffs filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs alleged that Tennessee's voter restoration scheme, which was error-riddled and charged applicants administrative fees, violated applicants' Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendment Rights. In 2021, the parties agreed to a consent decree that ended administrative fees for applicants. The case is on-going.
View Case Detail (CJ-TN-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
Scharff v. Shah-Gavnoudias
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 10-cv-04208 (E.D.N.Y.)
DR-NY-0018
Three visually-impaired named plaintiffs and the Long Island Council of the Blind filed suit against the County of Nassau and the Commissioner of the Nassau County of Public Works for failing to install accessible pedestrian signals (APS) on September 15, 2010. Plaintiffs alleged that the lack of APS at busy intersections violated civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement on November 24, 2015, with the plaintiffs as the prevailing party. The consent decree contained both monetary and non-monetary terms, and defendants were ordered by the court to pay attorney’s fees. A monitor for the obligations of the consent decree was appointed by the court on July 15, 2016.
View Case Detail (DR-NY-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-02431-WFK-LB (E.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0062
In 2015, twenty Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Police Department, and various individual police officers and officials. The plaintiffs alleged the county and police department showed deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ rights by failing to remedy the police department's practice of conducting race-based stops and searches in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs also alleged that police officers, including two of the individual defendants, perpetrated a stop-and-rob scheme that involved stopping Latino individuals and stealing money from them. Discovery lasted from 2015 to 2020. On April 5, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' injunctive class certification. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0062)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education, Inc. v. Maryland Higher Education Commission
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-02773-CCB (D. Md.)
SD-MD-0002
In 2006, a non-profit corporation centered on ending racial discrimination in higher education filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiff alleged that the state's unequal funding at HBCUs and TWIs, undermining the value of unique academic programs at HBCUs, and disparities in faculty resources violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a prior agreement relating to this issue. After several years and an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the parties reached a settlement agreement to provide additional funding to HBCUs and create programs aimed at remedying further disparities. Upon approval of this agreement, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. The case closed in June 2021.
View Case Detail (SD-MD-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
Ali v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00135 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0028
This class action, filed January 30, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO-1) ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The plaintiffs included U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and applicants for visas. The plaintiffs claimed that either their own immigration process or that of an immediate family member was negatively affected by the travel ban. They argued that EO-1 violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. Developments in this case followed the progression of the litigation in Hawaii v. Trump, beginning with a stay of proceedings by this court after the District of Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction on the enforcement of EO-1. President Trump would issue two more Executive Orders banning travel and the Supreme Court ultimately upheld his third EO in Hawaii v. Trump. That EO banned immigration from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, Somalia, and certain groups of non-immigrants from these countries. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hawaii case, the plaintiffs in this case filed an unopposed notice for voluntary dismissal in 2018. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
DOJ Investigation of Brown University
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: No Docket (No Court)
DR-RI-0005
The Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division entered into a three year agreement with Brown University following an investigation into the university’s alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The university was alleged to have inconsistent and discriminatory policies towards students seeking to return to the school following a medical leave of absence for mental health reasons between 2012 and 2017. In the settlement agreement, the university agreed to pay the United States no more than $684,000.00 (to be distributed to individuals affected by the university’s policies) and a three-year agreement to implement revised policies for readmission, provide ADA training to relevant faculty and staff and send semiannual reports to the Disability Rights Section including any denials of a student’s request for readmission, details on ADA training, and any complaints filed against the school alleging disability-based discrimination in federal or state court.
View Case Detail (DR-RI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
Cole v. County of Santa Clara
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:16-cv-06594-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0132
In 2016, prisoners in the Santa Clara County Jail System filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that the jail facilities were not accessible to inmates with mobility disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. In 2019, the parties jointly settled the case under a consent decree which would force Santa Clara County to make its jails accessible. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0132)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
Hagig v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00289 (D. Colo.)
IM-CO-0010
This action, filed on January 31, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by a Libyan lawful permanent resident, challenged President Trump’s January 27 travel ban (EO-1). The plaintiff claimed that although he was not in danger of being removed from the U.S. EO-1 limited his ability to visit his family in Libya as he feared it would prevent him from re-entering the U.S. The plaintiff sought to certify a class of similarly situated individuals and litigation continued over subsequent months as the Trump Administration revised the executive order. The case was then stayed, pending the outcome of the Hawaii and IRAP cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiff in this case then voluntarily dismissed all of his claims on May 2, 2019, and the case was closed.
View Case Detail (IM-CO-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2021
Al Homssi v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00801 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0019
On January 31, 2017, four days after President Trump’s Travel Ban (EO-1) went into effect, this Syrian citizen and resident physician at the University of Illinois Chicago/Advocate Christ Hospital (who held valid J-1 and B1/B2 visas) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that EO-1 prevented him from boarding a flight to the U.S. from Abu Dhabi International Airport in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, his Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and U.S. obligations under international law including the Refugee Convention. Following a status hearing on February 1, 2017, before the District Judge, the plaintiff was allowed to enter the U.S. on February 2. As a result, the case was voluntarily dismissed on February 9, 2017. This case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-IL-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 5, 2021
National Fair Housing Alliance v. S.C. Bodner Co.
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:10-cv-00993 (S.D. Ind.)
FH-IN-0008
Begun in 2010, this is a case about fair housing and discrimination against people disabilities. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, three nonprofits sued eighteen different companies that build, own, or rent out housing properties. After the defendants' unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case, the parties engaged in settlement talks with each of the defendants ultimately entering into settlement agreements to make internal and external design changes to their properties in order to meet requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act. With official dismissals in the record of all but one defendant by December 2016 and no further docket activity, there is no reason to think that the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FH-IN-0008)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 4, 2021
J/J Doe Plaintiffs #1-21, Individually and O/B/O All Others
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Date: Apr. 29, 2015
By: Latino Justice
LatinoJustice and co-counsel filed this class action lawsuit in May 2015 o/b/o Latinx Long Island residents who had been racially profiled and “stopped & robbed” by uniformed Suffolk Police over the past decade. After an undercover sting operation in January 2014 resulted in the arrest of a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2021
Collins v. Meyers
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-02713 (D. Colo.)
PB-CO-0008
Resort Meeting Source, a Colorado-based event planning company, and its CEO filed suit in the District of Colorado against the Executive Director of the Colorado Office of Economic and International Trade (OEIT) for a clause in OEIT’s COVID relief program that appeared to give preference to “minority-owned businesses.” Though the Court initially granted a TRO enjoining OEIT from “giving any effect to the minority-owned business preference,” the case was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff eventually received funds from OEIT’s program despite not being a minority-owned business.
View Case Detail (PB-CO-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2021
Becker v. District of Columbia
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:01-cv-00811 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0017
This case is a class-action suit arising out of the mass arrest of more than 670 people at an April 2000 protest near the World Bank and International Monetary Fund offices in Washington, D.C. An initial group of 33 named plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 13, 2001, against the District of Columbia, District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the United States, and various federal law enforcement agencies. They sought monetary and declaratory relief for violations of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and battery. They also sought expungement of the arrest records of all class members by both the District of Columbia and the federal government. The court approved a final settlement between 14 remaining named plaintiffs and the District of Columbia defendants on July 15, 2010. That agreement included a total of $13,302,500 in monetary relief; new training and policy change requirements for MPD in its handling of First Amendment and mass demonstration issues; and a number of steps D.C. would take to expunge the records of class members and seek similar expungements from the federal government and other states where applicable. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0017)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 31, 2021
JPay, LLC
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Date: Oct. 19, 2021
By: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On October 19, 2021, the Bureau issued a consent order against JPay, LLC (JPay). JPay, headquartered in Miramar, Florida, contracts with Departments of Corrections around the country to provide financial products and services to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals. JPay provided ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
Holman v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-1085 (W.D. Tenn.)
PB-TN-0011
This case is one of several challenging the American Rescue Plan’s (ARP) and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) classification of “socially disadvantaged groups.” Sections 1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan Act direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Farm Services Agency (FSA) to forgive loans made to “socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.” 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(6) defines socially disadvantaged to mean “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” The plaintiff in this case, a white farmer, alleged that the socially disadvantaged group category was a racial classification and its inclusion in the ARPA denied him government benefits because of his race. The plaintiff claimed that this policy violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennesse granted the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, finding that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The case remains pending.
View Case Detail (PB-TN-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
In re Descendants of African Slavery
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:02-cv-07764 (N.D. Ill.)
PB-IL-0015
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-IL-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association v. Abbott
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: D-1-GN-20-002034 (State Court)
CJ-TX-0017
This case is a challenge against the Governor of Texas’ order to limit bail, filed by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and sixteen Harris County Judges. On March 29, Governor Abbott removed the discretion from judges regarding who can receive personal bonds, and banned the use of personal bonds for detainees accused of violent offenses. The plaintiffs alleged that the order discriminated against those unable to afford cash bail and hampered efforts to reduce jail populations during the pandemic. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the order was unconstitutional, as well as a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing it. The plaintiffs also sought a TRO (temporary restraining order) to preserve the status quo pending the decision on the validity of the defendant’s order. On April 10, the court granted the TRO. The following day, the defendants filed an appeal to the Texas Supreme court, and the Texas Supreme Court issued a stay on the TRO, reviving Abbott’s order. On April 23, the Texas Supreme Court overturned the district court’s decision, after finding that the judicial plaintiffs lacked standing and therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs dismissed the case on November 4, 2020.
View Case Detail (CJ-TX-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
Manker v. Spencer
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-00372-CSH (D. Conn.)
PB-CT-0011
Former US Navy and Marine veterans claim that the Naval Discharge Review Board failed to consider the effect of PTSD when reviewing their less-than-Honorable discharge upgrade applications. Upon returning to civilian life, veterans struggled to address PTSD and other mental health issues, which in some cases had lead to their less-than-Honorable discharge. This caused permanent stigma and prevented veterans from accessing essential benefits like the GI bill and much-needed mental health care. The Board was directed by former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to consider PTSD and related conditions as “potential mitigating factors" in veterans' discharges. The plaintiffs claimed that the Board had rejected most such applications in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. In October 2021, the court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement providing for the reconsideration of veterans who have a less-than-honorable discharge status. As of November 16, 2021, the settlement remains subject to final approval after the Fairness Hearing scheduled for December 16, 2021.
View Case Detail (PB-CT-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2021
Machovec v. Palm Beach County
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 502020CV006920XXXXMB (State Court)
PR-FL-0003
This is a case where citizens sued the county for imposing a mask mandate, arguing that it was an infringement of their right to privacy in making medical decisions. The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order, which was denied by the district court on July 27, 2020. The plaintiffs appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal on August 10, but the court affirmed the lower court's decision on January 27, 2021. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, which it declined on July 2, 2021. Back in the district court, proceedings remain ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-FL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2021
Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00296 (E.D. Va.)
ED-VA-0007
On March 3, 2021, an organization of primarily Asian American parents advocating against the new admissions policy named the Coalition for TJ filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff alleged that the Fairfax County School Board’s new admissions procedures at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ) violated the Equal Protections Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment because it negatively impacted only Asian American applicants. On September 20, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff’s most recent motion for preliminary injunction. As of October 15, 2021, the case is undergoing discovery proceedings.
View Case Detail (ED-VA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2021
Public Counsel v. Presiding Judge, Superior Court of LA Cty
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 21STCV05124 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0028
In this case, various attorneys filed a lawsuit to stop the Los Angeles Superior Courts from requiring in-person appearances for non-essential civil matters, like traffic and unlawful detainer matters. The plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order, but a month later filed a dismissal. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2021
Kemp v. Bottoms
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2020CV338387 (State Court)
PR-GA-0001
This is a case where the governor of Georgia sued the mayor of Atlanta over passing COVID-19 orders (related to masks and social gatherings) that were more or less restrictive than the governor's own orders. The governor sought to enjoin the mayor from passing such orders and filed a motion for an injunction on July 17, 2020. The parties engaged in mediation and settlement discussions, at the request of the court. However, after not being able to achieve a full resolution, the governor withdrew the lawsuit and resolved to add relevant language allowing local jurisdictions to impose mask mandates into a new executive order on August 15, 2020. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PR-GA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2021
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-02596 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0041
On December 5, 2017, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) brought this suit in D.D.C., suing DHS and ICE under FOIA. Plaintiff sought records concerning ICE's use of mobile biometric devices and applications and DHS's investigations of civil rights or civil liberties in their use. This parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on September 18, 2020. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0041)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 28, 2021
Carpenter v. Vilsak
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Date: 2021
By: Southeastern Legal Foundation
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Biden, Congress created a farm loan forgiveness program for non-white farmers. Under the program the U.S. Department of Agriculture automatically forgiving federal farm loans at 120 percent of the loan value, unless the farmer is ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 28, 2021
Leisl Carpenter v Tom Vilsack and Zach Ducheneaux
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Date: Jul. 8, 2021
By: Mountain States Legal Foundation
In March 2021, the Biden administration signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) COVID-19 stimulus plan, providing $4 billion to forgive loans for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. But white farmers and ranchers are excluded in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 28, 2021
Sara M. Rogers v. Thomas J. Vilsack and Zach Ducheneaux
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: Mountain States Legal Foundation
White farmers and ranchers are excluded from the American Rescue Plan Act’s “Socially Disadvantaged” Farmer and Rancher Debt Relief Program solely due to their race, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We are suing the Biden administration on behalf of our client, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2021
Reina Moran v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00696 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0175
In April, 2020, three immigrant detainees filed this lawsuit in the Central District of California. Citing COVID-19 concerns, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and release. The TROs were granted and the court issued a partial stay order on April 24, 2020, which ordered that the plaintiffs remain released until final resolution of a related case in which a preliminary injunction was issued. In June, the plaintiffs moved to certify class and for a preliminary injunction. The defendants moved to dismiss the case and, following a hearing in August, the motion for preliminary injunction was to remain under submission pending the outcome of related cases. However, in March 2021 the plaintiffs orally withdrew the motion and the court closed the case without prejudice.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0175)