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:


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Miller v. Thurston
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 09/07/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, who seek to place a constitutional amendment on the Arkansas ballot, filed suit alleging Arkansas' ballot access requirements are unconstitutional as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. They allege the orders and warnings relating to the pandemic make it impossible for Plaintiffs to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
LWV of Ala. v. Merrill
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 09/12/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Facts: The LWVAL and plaintiff voters filed suit over the state’s lack of safe and accessible voting processes amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Claims: (1) Expiration of Secretary of State’s emergency waiver of ‘no-excuse’ absentee voting is violation of the fundamental right to vote under ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Baker v. Thurston
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 09/01/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs (Arkansas residents) filed suit against Arkansas Sec. of State challenging the State's limitations on eligibility to vote absentee. Arkansas law permits absentee voting only by those who fall into one of four statutorily defined categories: (i) “Any person who will be unavoidably ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
di Genova-Chang v. Ducey
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 09/05/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Citing multiple federal laws (Public Health & Welfare, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Help America Vote Act 2002, National Voter Registration Act of 1993; Voting Accessibility for the Elderly & Handicapped Act of 1984), Plaintiff (Arizona resident) filed suit against Arizona's ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Yazzie et al v. Hobbs
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 10/31/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs allege that state law requiring that mailed ballots be received, not postmarked, before 7PM on Election Day to be counted is unconstitutional given unique circumstances for Navajo Nation, COVID-19, and USPS reorganizational issues.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 09/23/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Alaska LT. governor and Division of Elections only mailed absentee ballots to registered voters over age 65. Plaintiffs allege intentional age discrimination that violates Alaska Constitution, the 1st, 14th and 26th Amendments of the US Constitution, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Case ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Arctic Village Council vs. Meyer, Kevin
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 10/15/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs argue that the notarization/witness requirement for mail-in ballots leaves self-isolated, immunocomprimised citizens with an untenable choice between risking their health to vote and not voting at all. Plaintiffs ask for the court to grant injunctive and declaratory relief, ordering ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Hoffard v. Cochise Cnty., No. 4:20-cv-00243 (D. Ariz.)
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 11/07/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff is an individual with severe physical disabilities which limit her ability to stand, walk, etc. and her medication suppresses her immune system (which makes her particularly susceptible to Covid-19). Plaintiff participated in curbside voting in Cochise County prior to the November 2018 ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 23, 2020
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-04756 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0051
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0051)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 21, 2020
US Supreme Court Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1201.html
By: Supreme Court of the United States
Keith Preston Gartenlaub, Petitioner v. United States*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 21, 2020
Whitfield v. Thurston
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs are independent candidates for public office in Arkansas seeking access to the Arkansas ballot. They filed suit against the Secretary of State of Arkansas, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Arkansas prohibiting the enforcement of ballot access provisions setting May 1, 202 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 21, 2020
De La Fuente v. Hobbs
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 29, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente, the 2020 nominee of the Alliance Party for the Office of President of the United States and the Alliance Party filed this lawsuit against Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arizona. The plaintiff’s seek injunctive and ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2020
NAACP v. Department of Commerce
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01682 (D. Conn.)
PB-CT-0014
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-CT-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2020
Lopez v. Riveland
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:93-cv-01030 (W.D. Wash.)
PC-WA-0023
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-WA-0023)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 19, 2020
DNC v. Reagan (also titled Feldman v. Arizona Sec'y of State)
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=184
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Stanford University
Plaintiff registered voters sued state and county officials alleging that the allocation of polling locations discriminated against Hispanics and African Americans in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 19, 2020
Garcia Ramirez, Et Al. v. ICE, Et Al.
National Immigrant Justice Center
Date: Jul. 2, 2020
By: National Immigrant Justice Center
Garcia Ramirez et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., is a nationwide class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for transferring unaccompanied minors who reach their 18th birthdays to ICE adult ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 19, 2020
Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 13, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Arizona law permits all registered voters to submit mail-in ballots. Arizona's Elections Procedures Manual establishes a cure period, between 3 and 5 Business Days after an election (depending on the type of election), for the cure of signature mismatches on mail-in ballots. In the case of a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2020
James v. Global TelLink Corp.
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-04989 (D.N.J.)
PC-NJ-0026
In 2013 New Jersey prisoners and their loved ones filed this class action complaint against Global Tel*Link, a major prison telecommunications provider, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants high billing rates and unjust billing practices violated New Jersey law, the Federal Communications act, and the Fifth Amendment's Takings clause through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In October of 2020, the parties reached a settlement in which the defendants agreed to pay $25 million to the plaintiffs and other class members. This case remains open for settlement enforcement purposes.
View Case Detail (PC-NJ-0026)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 17, 2020
Coronavirus Order For Miami Detention Facility Dashed on Appeal
Bloomberg Law
Date: Jun. 15, 2020
By: Porter Wells
A jail within the Miami-Dade County system doesn’t have to abide by the coronavirus-related requirements of a trial court’s order, a split Eleventh Circuit said Monday.

*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 17, 2020
Alaska Libertarian Party v. Fenumiai
Healthy Elections Project
Date: 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff, the Libertarian party, sought a waiver of the signature requirements to get on ballot, citing COVID restrictions, claiming violation First, Fifth, Fourteen Amendments. Court held a preliminary hearing and noted it was likely going to deny the request for injunctive relief, noting that ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2020
Anderson v. Garner
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:96-cv-00322 (N.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0016
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-GA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2020
Banks v. Booth
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00849 (D.D.C.)
JC-DC-0015
On March 30, 2020, detainees in D.C. jails filed this lawsuit on behalf of all the detainees in D.C. jails in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They sought immediate relief for 1,600-plus detainees at the D.C. jail and its adjacent custodial treatment facility in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, the plaintiffs requested the immediate release of individuals sentenced for misdemeanors, who number nearly 100, immediate appointment of an expert to recommend further releases, and the implementation of 18 precautionary measures in the D.C. Jail. On June 18, the district court granted in part the preliminary injunction and ordered defendants to provide a detailed plan for the review and possible reductions of the DOC population by July 1. On June 18, the district court granted the preliminary injunction in part but refused to order releases. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-DC-0015)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 15, 2020
G.T. v. Kanawha County
bazelon.org
Date: Jan. 27, 2020
By: Bazelon Center
January 27, 2020 – The Bazelon Center and other advocates represent The Arc of West Virginia and parents of an autistic child in a class action in federal court in Charleston, West Virginia, alleging widespread failures by Kanawha County Schools (KCS) to educate children with disabilities, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2020
McPherson v. Lamont
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00534 (D. Conn.)
PC-CT-0022
On April 20, 2020, five individuals held at the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) filed a class action, alleging that the conditions of confinement posed an unreasonable risk of COVID-19 in violation of detainees’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied on May 4, the court noting that the normal grievance process is “practically . . . incapable of use” for COVID-19 purposes due to the imminent health threat it poses. The class was certified on June 12. On July 17, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for a variety of specific mitigation measures to improve COVID-19-related sanitation, hygiene, testing, and medical monitoring at every Connecticut DOC facility, and discretionary release that prioritizes prisoners who are 65 or older, or with a medical score of 4 or 5. The agreement was approved and the case was dismissed on July 22.
View Case Detail (PC-CT-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2020
Porter v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00763-MPK (W.D. Pa.)
PC-PA-0051
On July 5, 2017, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution in Greene County, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by public interest organizations, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. He claimed that the defendants keeping him in solitary confinement despite his perfect disciplinary record in DOC custody and well after his death sentence was vacated in 2003 was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and violated the plaintiff's rights to liberty, equal protection, and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on August 8, 2017, which was denied on September 15. The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on November 9, 2018. On September 1, 2020, the appeals court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the substantive due process and Eighth Amendment claims, and the appeals court reversed summary judgment for the procedural due process claim and remanded the case to the district court to determine damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. 974 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2020). This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-PA-0051)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2020
Kiakombua v. McAleenan
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-01872 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0062
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0062)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 13, 2020
Migrant Justice, et al. v. Nielsen, et al.
National Immigration Law Center
Date: 2020
By: National Immigration Law Center
ICE, DHS, and Vermont DMV retaliating against activist immigrant leaders.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2020
Central American Resource Center v. Cuccinelli
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02363 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0088
Immigrants with Temporary Protected Status filed suit to enjoin USCIS from implementing a new policy that would block their route to permanent residency status. Plaintiffs argued the policy violated the INA and equal protection, and that its implementation violated the APA, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the appointments clause. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0088)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 12, 2020
Evidence Shows Montgomery Residents Were Illegally Jailed for Inability to Pay Fines
Public Justice
Date: Jul. 16, 2020
By: Leslie Bailey
The City of Montgomery, Alabama and its contractor, for-profit probation company Judicial Correction Services, “pocket[ed] millions” while knowingly “perpetuating a cycle of debt and unlawful imprisonment.” That’s how federal judge Royce Lamberth described the system under which hundreds ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2020
Migrant Justice v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:18-cv-00192 (D. Vt.)
IM-VT-0002
In 2018, Migrant Justice and four individual members of the organization filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Plaintiffs alleged that the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) implemented retaliatory policies in response to their activism on behalf of immigrant farm workers, including extensive surveillance and false imprisonment, in violation of their First Amendment Rights and that the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) aided these practices by consistently and intentionally sharing personally identifying information about the plaintiffs with ICE in a manner that violated their Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights. On January 21, 2020, the plaintiffs and the DMV settled, and the DMV agreed to implement new protocols to protect against disclosing immigration and citizenship information with ICE. The plaintiffs then settled with the remaining defendants on October 28, 2020. The settlement agreement included $100,000 in damages, deferred action for the plaintiffs so they would not be deported, and ICE informing its employees that all immigrants are protected by the First Amendment.
View Case Detail (IM-VT-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2020
Schultz v. Alabama
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00270-MHH (N.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0022
This is a federal class action lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging Alabama’s bail system. The plaintiffs argued that indigent defendants are routinely jailed pretrial due to their inability to afford a predetermined bail bond required for release, which the plaintiffs allege deprives indigent defendants of their right to due process, equal protection, pretrial liberty and the protection against excessive bail. On February 21, 2017 and in multiple amended and intervenor complaints thereafter, plaintiffs brought suit against the State of Alabama, a number of court administrative offices and personnel, the sheriff, and a number of magistrate and district judges. The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Civil Rights Corps joined in the suit seeking to end the allegedly unlawful detention scheme. The case proceeded before Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala through discovery. On September 4, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining the Cullman County Sheriff from detaining indigent defendants who cannot afford to post a property bond or a surety bond as a condition of pretrial release. The following day, the court denied the Sherriff’s motion to dismiss, originally filed on March 28, 2018. The following week, on September 13, 2018, the defendants filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, appealing the judgment on the preliminary injunction and the order dismissing the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss. The court did not stay the preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeal. As of November 2020, the appeal on the preliminary injunction remains ongoing. Oral argument is scheduled for December 16, 2020. The district court case also remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2020
Carter v. City of Montgomery
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-00555 (M.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0021
The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of indigent individuals who have been incarcerated or sentenced by the Montgomery Municipal Court to probation with Judicial Correction Services, Inc. (“JCS”) for failure to pay fines, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on August 3, 2015. Represented by The Evans Law Firm, P.C., the plaintiff sued the City of Montgomery, an attorney hired by the City, and JCS under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3)-(4). The plaintiff alleged that the City exceeded its authority under Alabama law by requiring the municipal court to attach probation and fees to all court orders, even orders to pay fines. The plaintiff also alleged that the City violated the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by allowing JCS, a private party hired by the City, to imprison indigent offenders for failing to pay fines without giving them a hearing or effective assistance of counsel. Lastly, the plaintiff alleged that the attorney hired by the City failed to provide the plaintiff with adequate counsel. The plaintiff requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and demanded that the Court void the contract between the City and JCS. The plaintiff also asked the Court to enjoin the City from outsourcing fine collection and probation services to a private party. Finally, the plaintiff sought damages for himself and all class members. The case was assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Although the Court declined to certify the class and dismissed many of the plaintiff’s claims, this case is ongoing, and many of the plaintiff’s due process, equal protection, and Sixth Amendment claims against the City and JCS remain.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0021)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 8, 2020
Chalmers v. New York
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03389 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0297
Fire protection inspectors (FPIs) and associate fire protection inspectors brought this class action suit against the Fire Department of New York (FDNY), alleging racial discrimination. The plaintiffs argued that FDNY racially discriminates against FPIs and associate fire protection inspectors by compensating them less than building inspectors (BIs), who perform similar tasks to fire protection inspectors. BIs are 50% white, while 30% of FPIs are white. The plaintiffs filed suit for disparate impact under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and disparate treatment under Title VII and under the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs also brought disparate impact claims for the subclass under Title VII and the New York city Human Rights Law. The case is currently in discovery, with a case management conference set for 3/15/2021.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0297)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2020
County of Butler v. Wolf
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00677 (W.D. Pa.)
PR-PA-0002
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PR-PA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2020
Baker v. Florissant
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:16-cv-01693 (E.D. Mo.)
CJ-MO-0024
On October 31st, 2016, a group of Plaintiffs who had been jailed for their inability to pay fines owed to the City of Florissant, Missouri for traffic tickets or other minor municipal offenses, sued the City for this violation of due process. This case is still in the discovery stage and has been ongoing for four years.
View Case Detail (CJ-MO-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 5, 2020
In re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Orders Requiring the Production of Call Detail Records
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0141
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0141)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 4, 2020
Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-05883-JSW (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0170
This case is about the legality of a rule change by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule, for the first time in U.S. history, would charge all asylum seekers a non-waivable fee of $50 plus $580 to obtain their first employment authorization. Eight non-profit organizations that provided a variety of services for low income applicants for immigration benefits sued to enjoin enforcement of the rule. On August 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Jeffery S. White granted the motion on September 29, 2020 and stayed the rule's effective date pending resolution on the merits.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0170)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 3, 2020
Lewis v. Cain (Angola Medical)
laaclu.org
Date: Apr. 1, 2020
By: American Civil Liberties Union
In May 2015, the ACLU of Louisiana, along with The Promise of Justice Initiative (PJI), the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Cohen Milstein), and the Advocacy Center (AC), filed a complaint against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) and Angola’s wardens ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 3, 2020
J.N. v. Oregon Department of Education
youthlaw.org
Date: Sep. 2, 2020
By: National Center for Youth Law
The State of Oregon has effectively denied hundreds of children with disabilities the opportunity to attend school for a full day, in violation of federal laws, the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act.

Children ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2020
Criswell v. Boudreaux
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01048 (E.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0144
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0144)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2020
Hernandez v. Houston
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:16-cv-03577 (S.D. Tex.)
CJ-TX-0019
In 2016, individuals who had been arrested without warrants and held by Houston city police for longer than 48 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause filed this class action lawsuit against the City of Houston. The plaintiffs alleged that this was a violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In 2020, the parties reached a settlement providing the plaintiffs with financial compensation in exchange for indemnity for the City of Houston.
View Case Detail (CJ-TX-0019)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 2, 2020
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance File Suit Against Trump Administration; African American Policy Forum Launches #TruthBeTold Campaign
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Date: Oct. 29, 2020
By: NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Today, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the National Urban League (NUL), and the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” on the grounds that it ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 2, 2020
Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”
PACER
Date: Jul. 28, 2020
By: Chad F Wolf
On June 15, 2012, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano established the policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) through a memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” Ever since, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
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. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-ME-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Hallinan v. Scarantino
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:20-hc-02088 (E.D.N.C.)
PC-NC-0020
Individuals incarcerated at FCI Butner filed this class action, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement due to inadequate protection from COVID-19. They sought release and improved social-distancing and hygiene measures. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and writ of habeas corpus on June 11, 2020. On June 29, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.
View Case Detail (PC-NC-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
National Urban League v. Trump
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03121 (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0023
This is a case about President Trump's executive order that prohibits racial sensitivity training in federal agencies, contractors, and grant recipients. On October 29, 2020, the National Urban League and National Fair Housing Alliance filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, the Secretary of Labor, and the Department of Labor, seeking an injunction, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. They claimed that the executive order violated freedom of speech under the First Amendment by denying benefits to private entities that express ideas the Trump Administration doesn't like. The plaintiffs also argued that the executive order violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the order was too vague and created with an intent to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and/or gender. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FA-DC-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Southern Poverty Law Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00760-CKK (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0046
This suit, filed on April 4, 2018, challenged the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy and practice of deliberately keeping detainees in immigration prisons from access to legal resources. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) brought the suit, arguing that DHS created and maintained substantial barriers for detainees in immigration prisons to meaningful access to and communication with attorneys. SPLC argued that in so doing, DHS violated Fifth Amendment due process with respect to SPLC's clients as well as SPLC's First Amendment right to represent civil detainees. SPLC sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2020, SPLC sought a temporary restraining order in response to COVID-19, and the court partly granted this motion. Defendants have appealed the grant of the temporary restraining order to the D.C. Circuit and litigation remains ongoing in the district court.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Waddell v. Taylor
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00340-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss.)
PC-MS-0011
On May 14, 2020, plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit to challenge the Mississippi Department of Corrections's ("MDOC") inadequate response to the COVID-19 outbreak at Mississippi's two largest prisons: Central Mississippi Correctional Facility ("CMCF") and South Mississippi Correctional Institute ("SMCI"). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that MDOC's failure to adequately implement baseline protection measures at CMCF and SMCI violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 on May 25, but later withdrew the motion and moved to stay the proceedings on September 15. The parties then entered settlement negotiations and the next status conference was set for February 22, 2021.
View Case Detail (PC-MS-0011)


LINKS TO THE CLEARINGHOUSE
November 1, 2020
Argument by Raymond Vasvari in Hanrahan v. Mohr 8-3-2018 Sixth circuit
Prison Radio
Date: Aug. 7, 2018
By: Raymond Vasvari
This is a recorded opinion from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirms the judgment of the Southern District Court of Ohio in the case of Hanrahan v. Mohr. The appeals court affirms the district court's finding in favor of the defendants, which dismissed the case after the defendant (Ohio ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
Lewis v. Cain
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-00318 (M.D. La.)
PC-LA-0015
In 2015, inmates currently incarcerated at Louisiana State Penitentiary filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the Louisiana State Penitentiary and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The class was certified on February 26, 2018, and settlement discussions are in progress.
View Case Detail (PC-LA-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
J.N. v. Oregon Board of Education
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 6:19-cv-00096-AA (D. Or.)
ED-OR-0002
In this case, a 6-year-old plaintiff brought a class action suit against the Oregon Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs had been deprived of their right to a free appropriate public education and had been subject to shortened school days, which hindered their learning and social relationships. After the filing of the initial complaint, the parties participated in settlement talks; however, they did not reach an agreement. In September 2020, the presiding Judge Ann L. Aiken denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged standing. Oral argument regarding the motion to certify the class and memorandum in support is set for November 15, 2020. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (ED-OR-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
Malam v. Adducci
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-10829 (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0006
In March 2020, during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Michigan, a civil immigration detainee critically vulnerable to the infectious disease filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff filed a habeas petition, suing ICE and its directors for violation of her constitutional rights. The plaintiff argued that continued detention in the face of a potential outbreak in the detention facility, which would expose the plaintiff to substantial harm, amounted to punishment and failed to ensure their safety and health, in violation of the Due Process Clause. On April 5, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order seeking immediate release from the detention center. On April 9, the court also granted an intervenor's motion for temporary restraining order and required him to be released immediately. After issuing five injunctions for thirteen detainees, the court on July 31 granted class certification. The court established a class of immigrant detainees at Calhoun and a subclass seeking habeas release of those detainees who faced one or more medical problems that increased risk of serious illness or death. The court then instituted procedures for processing bail applications from detainees qualifying as members of the subclass. Since then an additional six detainees have been released. The case is ongoing as of August 3, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-MI-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
Hanrahan v. Mohr
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-01212 (S.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0035
In 2013, prisoners involved in the 1993 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) prison uprising and media outlets filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs sued the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and ODRC's Communications Chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In 2017, summary judgment was granted against four of the prisoners and the SOCF approved all of the media plaintiff’s requests to interview the remaining prisoner plaintiff. The District Court dismissed the case on mootness, the plaintiffs appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2020
Carranza v. ICE
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00424 (D.N.M.)
IM-NM-0002
On May 4, 2020, two individuals in ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody sued ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. They claimed that restrictions to telephone access by impsing costs and denying access to incoming calls during the COVID-19 pandemic when in-person visitations have been rendered impossible is unconstitutional. Specifically, they alleged that their Fifth and First Amendment rights had been violated by preventing communication with counsel, denying their right to legal representation, and other resources critical to support their cases. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NM-0002)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 30, 2020
Frequently Asked Questions About Gomez v. Trump
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Date: Oct. 21, 2020
By: American Immigration Lawyers Association
AILA, the Justice Action Center, and the Innovation Law Lab provide a resource for those with questions regarding the Gomez v. Trump litigation against President Trump’s proclamations banning immigrants and nonimmigrants; these FAQs will be updated with information on the case.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 30, 2020
Status of Current Challenges to Presidential Proclamations
Joseph & Hall P.C.
Date: Aug. 4, 2020
By: Joseph & Hall P.C.
On April 22, 2020 and June 22, 2020 President Trump signed two Presidential Proclamations suspending the entry of certain immigrants, those applying for permanent residence, and nonimmigrants, those coming to the United States temporarily for work. These Proclamations have had massive impacts on ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 30, 2020
2020 DV Lottery Information Page
Law Office of Curtis Morrison
Date: Oct. 29, 2020
By: Curtis Morrison Law
Gomez Docket (that includes Mohammed, Aker, Fonjong and Kennedy filings after August 7, 2020)*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2020
Cervantes v. Baldwin
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: Civil No. 92-70-JE (D. Or.)
PC-OR-0010
On January 21, 1992, an Oregon state prisoner brought suit against the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution for allegedly segregating Hispanic prisoners in celling. The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and a settlement agreement was given final approval on August 28, 1996.
View Case Detail (PC-OR-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2020
Chua v. City of Los Angeles
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS(x) (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0046
Protestors in downtown LA alleged they were unlawfully detained, searched, interrogated, and some arrested during demonstrations in November, 2014. They brought a class action lawsuit against the City alleging violations of their 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights, as well as California state rights. A settlement was reached on May 11, 2020, granting plaintiffs $750,000 of attorney's fees, court fees, and class damages.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0046)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 29, 2020
NAACP Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc. V. U.S. Department Of Justice
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Date: Oct. 12, 2018
By: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
On January 15, 2019, in a case brought by other groups, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York ruled against the Trump administration’s plan to add a citizenship status question to the 2020 census, rejecting the administration’s transparent attempts to deceptively ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 29, 2020
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund v. United States Dep't of Justice
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
Date: Jul. 14, 2020
By: Brennan Center for Justice
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to compel the Department of Justice to release documents related to its request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 29, 2020
Housing Settlement
Westchester County
Date: Aug. 9, 2010
By: Westchester County
In 2009, Westchester County entered into a stipulation and order with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to increase its efforts to affirmatively further fair and affordable housing. Among other things, the agreement required Westchester build 750 units of affordable housing in 31 ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
Murray v. Santa Barbara
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-08805 (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0129
This 2017 class action lawsuit was brought by several prisoners of the Santa Barbara County Jail in the U.S. District for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs' alleged that the defendant violated the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. The plaintiffs were granted class certification and the parties agreed to a settlement in plaintiffs' favor in 2020. The defendants agreed to implement a remedial plan to provide adequate mental health and medical care, limit use of solitary confinement, prevent discrimination against people with disabilities, and improve living conditions for people incarcerated at the jail.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0129)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
N.S. v. Hughes
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-101 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0085
In January 2020, an individual detained by the U.S. Marshals Services (USMS) sued the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia Superior Court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by a public defender, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff alleged that the USMS lacked authority to enforce immigration law. On May 7, 2020, the court preliminarily enjoined the USMS from seizing individuals for suspected civil immigration violations and certified a class of indigent criminal defendants detained by the USMS. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0085)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v. Executive Office of Immigration Review
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00852 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0072
In March 2020, during the outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States, immigrant detainees and organizations comprised of immigration attorneys filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued EOIR, ICE, and their directors for violations of statutory and constitutional rights. The plaintiffs challenged defendants' failure to implement a uniform policy suspending in-person court appearances and provide for remote communications. In April, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, seeking the suspension of in-person court appearances and access to remote communications. The court denied this motion in late April. On June 2, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0072)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2020
Rodriguez v. Hayes
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:07-cv-03239-TJH (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0063
On May 16, 2007, an immigration detainee who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing while in removal proceedings petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the Department of Homeland Security was violating his Due Process rights and the INA. A class of detainees was eventually certified. On September 13, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction that requires the government to provide bond hearings to those detained according to INA sections 1225(b) and 1226(c). On February 8, 2013, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, requiring the government to hold bond hearings for all current and future class members by their 181st day of detention. The Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the District Court, except with respect to non-citizens who had been ordered removed, as they were not class members. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and issue an opinion on February 27, 2018, reversing the Ninth Circuit's ruling as to the plaintiffs' claims that the INA required bond hearings after six months. The Supreme Court remanded to the Ninth Circuit for consideration of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims and for a reexamination of whether class certification continues to be proper. The Ninth Circuit then remanded those issues to the District Court. On July 11, 2019, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add a new plaintiff, reassert a statutory claim that had not been appealed previously, and add an Eighth Amendment claim. In November, the District Court dismissed the newly-added plaintiff and revived statutory claim. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0063)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2020
NAACP v. DOJ
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-09363 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0037
This is a case about a FOIA request concerning the Department of Justice's role in requesting to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. On December 12, 2018, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the Department of Justice. The plaintiff sought to compel the DOJ to disclose the requested records in addition to injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff claimed that the DOJ violated FOIA by failing to adequately respond to the FOIA request. On May 29, 2020, the court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the DOJ to conduct an adequate search. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0037)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 27, 2020
M.B. V. Howard
National Center for Youth Law
Date: 2020
By: National Center for Youth Law
Kansas’s child welfare system is failing to protect the safety and well-being of foster children and youth in the custody of the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF). This lawsuit addresses two fundamental systemic failures creating this danger.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 26, 2020
National Urban League v. Ross
Brennan Center for Justice
Date: Aug. 14, 2020
By: Brennan Center
The National Urban League is leading a coalition of counties, cities, advocacy organizations, and individuals in a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the U.S. Census Bureau’s Covid-19 plans and rush the data-collection and data-processing timelines for the 2020 Census ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 26, 2020
National Urban League v. Ross
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-05799 (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0056
On August 18, 2020, a coalition of counties, cities, Indian tribes, advocacy organizations, and individuals sued the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department Secretary, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Bureau Director in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by abandoning the Bureau’s Covid-19 plans and pursuing a “rush plan” that would truncate 2020 Census timelines, undercount communities of color, and produce inaccurate census results. The plaintiffs asked the Court to declare the rush plan unconstitutional under the Enumeration Clause and unlawful under the APA; to vacate the rush plan and reinstate the Covid-19 Plan; and to enjoin the defendants from implementing the rush plan or otherwise interfering with the Covid-19 plan. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay and for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited defendants from implementing the rush plan. After several appeals, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction, allowing the Census Bureau to cease its counting operations in accordance with the rush plan. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0056)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 26, 2020
Farber v. Rizzo
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 72-2052 (E.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0020
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-PA-0020)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 25, 2020
Trump v. New York
Supreme Court of the United States
Date: Oct. 20, 2020
By: Supreme Court of the United States
SCOTUS Docket*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 25, 2020
M.B. v. Colyer
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-02617 (D. Kan.)
CW-KS-0002
In 2018, children in the foster care system of Kansas filed a class action suit against the Governor, the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF), the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services. The children had experienced dozens and even hundreds of moves during their time in the system, and the state had failed to fulfill its requirements to provide screening and treatment for mental and behavioral conditions. The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Medicaid Act. The parties reached a settlement in July 2020, which offered comprehensive relief for class members and required the state to take systemic action to end practices harming children's health. The court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in September, 2020. The final approval hearing is set for January 2021.
View Case Detail (CW-KS-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 25, 2020
Millien v Madison Square Garden Co.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0299
In April 2017, an individual denied employment sued The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (MSG) in New York County Supreme Court for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensation for damages and reasonable attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that MSG failed to provide job applicants with copies of their background check reports and other required notices before making adverse employment decisions. The parties reached a class settlement that provided for $500,000 in damages, $750,000 in attorneys' fees, and policy changes that limited the defendants' reliance on the criminal histories of job applicants in hiring decisions. The settlement is set to remain in effect until at least 2022.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0299)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 18, 2020
G.T. v. Board of Education of Kanawha
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D. W. Va.)
DR-WV-0001
In this case, a third-grader plaintiff who had autism and ADHD filed suit against the Kanawha County Schools system under the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, the West Virginia Human Rights Act, and West Virginia Policy 2419. The elementary school student had been subject to disciplinary removal from the classroom and his district had failed to provide the behavioral supports and programming required by law. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (DR-WV-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 18, 2020
Belle v. New York
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-02673-VEC (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0051
This is a case about detaining people for warrant searches without reasonable suspicion. On March 25, 2019, two African-American and Latino men filed this putative class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees. They claimed that the NYPD policy of detaining people for warrant searches without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. They also claimed that the NYPD's policy was widespread and that the NYPD officials failed to properly train or supervise police officers regarding these searches. On January 3, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which included adding five more plaintiffs and changing the class definition to use the specific term "NYPD record searches" instead of "warrant searches." As of October 18, 2020, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0051)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 17, 2020
La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE) v. Trump
https://www.brennancenter.org/
Date: Sep. 14, 2020
By: Brennan Center for Justice
Latino groups filed a lawsuit against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross challenging his directive to the Census Bureau to collect and produce citizenship data for state-level redistricting purposes. The plaintiffs argue that Secretary Ross’s directive violates the U.S. Constitution, the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 16, 2020
The Detroit School Busing Case: Milliken v. Bradley and the Controversy over Desegregation
History of Education Quarterly
Date: May 2012
By: Deeann Grove
History of Education Quarterly Vol. 52, No. 2 (May 2012), pp. 282-285
While much remains to be understood about the desegregation of schools in the South, scholars are increasingly, and rightfully so, turning their attention to the desegregation and integration of northern schools. Joyce A. Baugh's decision to pursue this emerging line of inquiry comes from her ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 16, 2020
New York v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-05770 (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0080
In July 2020, several states and local governments filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that the “Defendants’ decision to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base following the 2020 Census … is unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States;” that the decision to do so is “intentionally discriminatory in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment[,]” and that the “Defendants’ decision and any implementing actions they take are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law within the meaning of [the Administrative Procedure Act,] 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” In August 2020, this case was consolidated with New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and the government filed a motion to dismiss. On September 10, 2020, the three judge panel denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion for summary judgment. The government is appealing the permanent injunction to the Supreme Court. The government motioned for a stay pending appeal. The motion was denied. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Monday, November 30, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0080)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2020
Willis v. Seattle
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00077-RSM (W.D. Wash.)
PN-WA-0006
In 2017, the plaintiffs, consisting of unhoused individuals in Seattle, Washington and local organizations, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the City of Seattle and the Washington State Department of Transportation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the "sweeping" policy and practices committed by the City. They alleged the City's policy violated their protections from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to protection from invasion of home under the Washington State Constitution, and the right to due process under the Washington State Constitution. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought class certification. The City of Seattle counterclaimed and sought a declaratory judgment affirming the constitutional validity of their policies. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification and preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs' appealed the denial of class certification to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification. Consequently, the plaintiffs moved for and were granted dismissal of all claims without prejudice on June 11, 2020. The case is closed. closed.
View Case Detail (PN-WA-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2020
Dube v. Eagle USA Airfreight, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 01-900 (S.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0110
Employees of Eagle Global Logistics filed a class-action lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The EEOC intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court then granted the EEOC’s motion to transfer jurisdiction from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.On October 1, 2001, the EEOC announced a settlement agreement with Eagle for the amount of $9,000,000 as per a consent decree. The original plaintiffs attempted to seek their own relief outside of the consent decree, but failed. Their claims were dismissed June 5, 2003. After some dispute as to how the money from the consent decree should be spent, the parties eventually modified the decree allowing Eagle to recapture $5,975,000. The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 18, 2007.
View Case Detail (EE-TX-0110)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2020
Jones v. Stanford
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01332 (E.D.N.Y.)
CJ-NY-0016
In the spring of 2020, several individuals under the supervision of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), who were required to register under the Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that DOCCS's policies prohibiting SORA registrants under its supervision from accessing the internet and social media violated their First Amendment Rights. In Fall 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction against DOCCS's policies with respect to registrants whose offenses did not involve the internet. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-NY-0016)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 14, 2020
Legal Aid and DRNY File Class Action Lawsuit Against NYS Over Practice of Keeping New Yorkers with Mental Illness Incarcerated Past Their Release Dates
The Legal Aid Society
Date: Jan. 23, 2019
By: Redmond Haskins and Katrin Haldeman
The Legal Aid Society and Disability Rights New York filed a lawsuit today in the United States District Court for the Southern District on behalf of a class of New Yorkers with mental illness who have been held in prison because of a lack of community-based mental health housing programs. Some ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 14, 2020
Dobbey v. Weilding
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-01068 (N.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0052
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0052)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 14, 2020
McCadden v. Flint
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-12377 (E.D. Mich.)
PN-MI-0012
In 2018, the ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit against the Flint Police Department and the Flint Chamber of Commerce on behalf of a child with disabilities who was handcuffed by a school resource officer (SRO) when he was seven years old. Plaintiff, who is black, has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The case ended in a settlement agreement in the fall of 2020, which created a fund t0 help address plaintiff’s needs and new policies adopted by the afterschool program and the Flint Police Department.
View Case Detail (PN-MI-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 14, 2020
Wright v. Family Support Division
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-00398-RLW (E.D. Mo.)
CJ-MO-0025
On March 4, 2019, two named plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the Missouri Department of Social Services Family Support Division and a number of other Missouri public officials challenging a Missouri law that allows the Family Support Division ("FSD") to suspend the driver's license of non-custodial parents that owe at least three months' worth of child support payments or at least $2,500 in child support payments, whichever is less. The plaintiffs claimed that FSD’s indefinite suspension of non-custodial parents’ driver’s licenses because of their inability to pay child support violates their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The two named plaintiffs filed the complaint on behalf of themselves and a class, defined as anyone who has had or will have his or her driver’s license suspended due to an inability to pay child support. The class sought declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ordering and enforcing driver’s license suspensions, reinstate plaintiffs’ and class members’ driver’s licenses and grant reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the plaintiffs. On August 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended pleading added two new named defendants and supplemented the allegations of the original complaint. On May 1, 2019, the court partially granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on all counts except the plaintiffs’ claim for violation of procedural due process. 2020 WL 2104766. The case remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-MO-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 13, 2020
NAACP v. DeVos
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01996 (D.D.C.)
ED-DC-0010
In July 2020, the NAACP, public school districts, and parents of children who attend public schools filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that the Department of Education violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding its authority in creating a rule that stated that CARES Act funding must disbursed to non-public schools without regard to family income, residency, or low achievement. In September 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds that the Department of Education violated the APA and vacated the rule.
View Case Detail (ED-DC-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2020
Casa de Maryland v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-02118-PX (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0017
In July 2020, five non-profit legal services organizations filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the grounds that two new rules unlawfully impaired the employment authorization document (EAD) application process by repealing the requirement that DHS resolve an EAD application within 30 days and delaying or eliminating some applicants’ access to work authorizations. The organizations sought injunctive relief and vacatur of the rules. On September 11, 2020, the court preliminarily enjoining DHS from enforcing a subset of the rules against members of the plaintiff organizations.
View Case Detail (IM-MD-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 11, 2020
Amaro v. New Mexico
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00993 (D.N.M.)
PC-NM-0008
In 2016, a prisoner filed a complaint under § 1983 alleging exposure to carbon monoxide incidents in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiff alleged negligent operations of the prison and medical facilities as well as denial of Fifth Amendment due process claim and an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied due to failing to state a connection between the official conduct of government officials and a violation of a constitutional right. The plaintiff’s appeal was denied pending judgment on his amended complaint. In 2020, the court denied the plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismissed the case without prejudice. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2020 and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-NM-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 11, 2020
Copeland v. Jones
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:15-cv-00452 (N.D. Fla.)
PC-FL-0024
In 2015, prisoners filed this class action in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that they were denied medical treatment for hernia and sought an injunction requiring a new health policy to provide surgery for hernia. In 2016, parties reached a settlement that required such policy as well as monetary damages to the plaintiffs. In 2019, the parties reached an agreement that in addition to the settlement, more complete and frequent reports would be provided and a delay of more than four months would be considered an "undue delay." As of October 11, 2020, this case is ongoing for monitoring and enforcement purposes.
View Case Detail (PC-FL-0024)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 10, 2020
Officer’s Claims Against State Attorney Who Read Letter Containing Racial Slurs Out Loud Barred by Prosecutorial Immunity
Wolters Kluwer
Date: Jul. 17, 2018
By: Kathleen Kapusta
Addressing interlocutory appeals that were part of a broader litigation alleging pervasive race discrimination and unlawful retaliation against three African-American municipal police officers, the Fourth Circuit, affirming in part the decision of the court below, found that prosecutorial immunity ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2020
Rosenblum v. John Does 1-10
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01161 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0006
This case was brought on July 17, 2020 by the State of Oregon through the Attorney General of Oregon, Ellen Rosenblum. It sued several federal agencies including the DHS, CBP, USMS, and Federal Protective Services, as well as ten unnamed and unidentified officers. The suit came as President Trump ordered federal law enforcement agencies to exert force in Portland, Oregon, following months of protests against racial inequality after the killing of George Floyd. The complaint alleged that the federal agencies were detaining people off the streets without warrants, putting them into unmarked vans, and taking them to the courthouse without telling them the crime for which they were detained. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, prohibiting the agencies from arresting people without warrants, mandating that the agents identify themselves and the agencies they work for, and explaining to all detainees the crime for which they would be arrested. The State of Oregon sought a temporary restraining order, but the Court denied it on July 24 because the State lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. On September 16, 2020, the State of Oregon voluntarily dismissed the case, as the federal agents had stopped engaging in the allegedly illegal behavior. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2020
Subramanya v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-03707 (S.D. Ohio)
IM-OH-0005
In 2020, immigrants who had received approval for their Applications for Work Authorization but who had not yet received Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services filed this class action complaint in the U.S. Southern District Court of Ohio Eastern Division. The plaintiffs alleged that the agency was intentionally delaying or stopping printing the documents altogether, making it impossible for the putative class members to work. This was in violation of their substantive Due Process rights under the 5th Amendment and of the Administrative Procedure Act. In August 2020, the parties reached a settlement that required USCIS to create and update a list of putative class members and to produce and mail EADs to the pertinent class members. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (IM-OH-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2020
Jones v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00361 (W.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0077
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0077)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2020
Nielson v. Shinn
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01182-GMS-JZB (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0022
In 2020, current prisoners within the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry along with the Arizona State Conference of the NAACP, filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court of Arizona. The plaintiffs alleged that the agency was violating their rights under the 8th Amendment, 13th Amendment, and 14th Amendment by incarcerating them in private prisons instead of public facilities and refusing their application for transfer. In August, 2020, the defendants’ counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. In early fall, the plaintiffs’ counsel submitted their response for the defendants’ motion. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (PC-AZ-0022)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 9, 2020
Center for Popular Democracy Action v. Bureau of the Census
Brennan Center
Date: Apr. 21, 2020
By: Brennan Center
The Center for Popular Democracy Action and the City of Newburgh, New York sued the Census Bureau, contending that the Bureau’s preparations for the 2020 Census were deficient and would lead to a dramatic undercount of communities of color.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 9, 2020
CLC v. DOJ (Census FOIA)
Campaign Legal Center
Date: Jul. 30, 2018
By: Campaign Legal Center
CLC filed suit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) for its failure to produce any documents related to its December 2017 request to the Department of Commerce to add a citizenship question in the upcoming 2020 U.S. Census.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 9, 2020
California v. Trump
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
Date: Jul. 31, 2020
By: Brennan Center for Justice
The State of California – along with several California cities and the Los Angeles Unified School District - are challenging President Trump’s attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the state-population totals that are produced by the 2020 Census and used for apportioning seats in the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 9, 2020
FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir
Oyez
Date: Oct. 6, 2020
By: Oyez
The plaintiffs, Muslim men born outside of the U.S. but living lawfully inside the country, allege that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) placed their names on the national “No Fly List,” despite posing no threat to aviation, in retaliation for their refusal to become FBI informants ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 9, 2020
Tanzin v. Tanvir
SCOTUSblog
Date: Oct. 6, 2020
By: SCOTUSblog
Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 9, 2020
Tanvir v. Tanzin (formerly Tanvir v. Holder and Tanvir v. Lynch)
Center for Constitutional Rights
Date: Oct. 6, 2020
By: Center for Constitutional Rights
Tanvir v. Lynch (formerly Tanvir v. Holder) is a federal lawsuit filed against the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security that challenges the FBI’s abuse of the No-Fly List to coerce law-abiding American Muslims into spying on their religious communities. The ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2020
Harrison v. Spencer
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00641 (E.D. Va.)
EE-VA-0142
In 2018, an Army Reservist and lawyer filed this complaint for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after allegedly being refused a commission as a Judge Advocate General officer in the D.C. National Guard. The plaintiff challenged Department of Defense policies preventing HIV positive service members from being hired or promoted and discharging present service members with HIV, alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment rights. After several years of pretrial litigation, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-VA-0142)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2020
R. v. Connecticut State Board of Education
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-01197 (D. Conn.)
ED-CT-0008
In July 2016, a class of individuals with disabilities under the age of 21 sued the Connecticut State Board of Education in the District of Connecticut under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Represented by Disability Rights Connecticut, the class sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. The class alleged that the Board violated their right to free and appropriate public education (FAPE) guaranteed under the IDEA by terminating their special education services once they turned 21 years old. The plaintiff class contended that they were entitled to FAPE until age 22. On June 10, 2019, the court issued a ruling that granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement and denied the Board’s cross-motion. On July 10, 2020, the court enjoined the termination of FAPE to members of the class prior to them turning 22 years of age. The Board appealed on July 10, 2020 and on August 4, 2020, the court granted the Board’s motion to stay the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees pending appeal. The appeal is ongoing.
View Case Detail (ED-CT-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2020
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) v. DeVos
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02310-GLR (D. Md.)
ED-MD-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (ED-MD-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2020
Tanvir v. Holder
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-06951-RA (S.D.N.Y.)
NS-NY-0007
The plaintiffs, four American Muslim men that have been denied boarding on flights originating in or destined for the U.S. because of their alleged inclusion on the No Fly List of the federal government, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that their inclusion on the No Fly List is because they refused to forfeit their constitutional rights by serving as FBI informants. The Second Circuit held that RFRA permits individual capacity suits against government officers for money damages. The Supreme Court then granted cert, and oral argument was held on October 6, 2020. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-NY-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2020
Meade v. Bonin
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01455-CJB-DMD (E.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0012
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0012)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 8, 2020
Houston, TX: Probable Cause
Civil Rights Corps
Date: Dec. 30, 2018
By: Civil Rights Corps
Civil Rights Corps filed two class-action lawsuits against the City of Houston and Harris County, Texas, for illegally detaining thousands of people every year for extended time periods after arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The first lawsuit resulted in a federal injunction reforming ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2020
A.B. v. Morgan
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00846-RJL (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0089
The plaintiffs, a group of mothers and children from Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico seeking asylum in the United States, were granted preliminary injunctive relieve from asylum determinations made by Border Patrol Agents. The District Court for the District of Columbia found that due to limited training given to these agents, these determinations likely violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and issued the preliminary injunction barring their removal. The case awaits judgement on the merits.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0089)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2020
Wise v. Portland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01193 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2020
Scholl v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-05309-PJH (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0058
Class-action lawsuit seeking CARES Act relief to be provided to incarcerated people was granted certification and a preliminary injunction, but defendants appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0058)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 7, 2020
Thakker v. Doll
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00480 (M.D. Pa.)
IM-PA-0016
In March 2020, during the outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States, persons critically vulnerable to the infectious disease and held in an immigration detention facilities near Philadelphia filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs filed a habeas petition, suing ICE, its directors, and the wardens of three detention facilities for violation of their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs argued that continued detention in the face of a potential outbreak in the detention facility, which would expose the plaintiffs to substantial harm, amounted to punishment, in violation of the Due Process Clause. On March 31, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and directed ICE to release the plaintiffs immediately. This TRO has been extended to April 27. On April 17, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking class certification of all civil immigrant detainees in the Middle District of PA over the age of 45 and/or with underlying conditions. On April 28, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiffs from Pike County Correctional Facility could remain released. The next day, the court ordered the continued release of two plaintiffs who were suspected of contracting COVID-19. The plaintiffs filed a motion for classwide preliminary injunction, which is currently pending before the court.
View Case Detail (IM-PA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 7, 2020
Hope v. Doll
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00562 (M.D. Pa.)
IM-PA-0017
COVID-19 Summary: This is a putative habeas action filed by a group of medically vulnerable individuals being held in civil detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at York County Prison and Pike County Correctional Facility. The plaintiffs seek safety remedies and release from detention in light of COVID-19. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded the decision for a temporary restraining order on August, 25, 2020. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-PA-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2020
A.D. v. Washburn
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01259-NVW (D. Ariz.)
CW-AZ-0003
On July 6, 2015, an attorney representing Indian children as a “next friend” and foster parents of American Indian children filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs alleged that certain provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act were unconstitutional because they discriminate against Indian children and non-Indian foster, preadoptive and prospective adoptive parents on the basis of race. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines that accompany the Act were unlawful agency action. On March 16, 2017, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing because the plaintiffs did not allege an injury. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the Court dismissed the case for mootness because the children involved in the case were adopted before the appeal could be heard. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
View Case Detail (CW-AZ-0003)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 5, 2020
McCadden v. City of Flint
aclu.org
Date: Jun. 5, 2020
By: American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit against the Flint Police Department and the Flint Chamber of Commerce on behalf of Cameron McCadden, a child with disabilities who was handcuffed by a school resource officer (SRO) when he was seven years old. Cameron, who is black, has Attention ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 5, 2020
Legal Attacks Mount on Crowded Houston Jails
Courthouse News Service
Date: Dec. 29, 2016
By: Cameron Langford
In the latest of three federal class actions challenging a post-arrest regime that effectively warehouses poor people in Texas’s most crowded jail, two men claim Harris County unconstitutionally jailed them with “unsworn” arrest reports.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 5, 2020
The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Youtube.com
Date: Sep. 29, 2020
By: The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Case #: 20-CV-2023 COMMON CAUSE, et. al. P: Gregory L. Diskant (23 min. argument) vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et. al. (in his official capacity as President of the United States
D: Sopan Joshi (30 min. argument)

Amicus: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Amicus: Douglas N. Letter (7 ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 5, 2020
Lomas v. Harris County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:16-cv-03745 (S.D. Tex.)
CJ-TX-0020
In 2016, two individuals arrested without warrants filed this putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Harris County. Represented by the Civil Rights Corps and the Texas Fair Defense Project, the plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment, an injunction, and attorneys' fees. They claimed that keeping people in custody after a warrantless arrest without providing a determination of probable cause based on sworn statements violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, also claimed that keeping people in custody after a warrantless misdemeanor arrest without offering bond when eligible for release violated the Texas Criminal Procedure Code. On November 1, 2017, the parties settled. The District Attorney agreed to change the process of presenting probable cause statements for warrantless arrests so that an officer now swears to the facts inputted into the District Attorney Intake System (DIMS). The defendants paid the plaintiffs $75,000 in attorneys' fees, but did not admit liability or that they engaged in the practices alleged by the plaintiffs. The court ordered for the settlement to be monitored for three years.
View Case Detail (CJ-TX-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 4, 2020
Gomez v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01419 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0090
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the State Department ceased processing most visas on March 20, 2020. Over the next few months, President Trump issued two Proclamations which effectively suspended the entry of all immigrants to the US for two months, unless they qualified for an exception. The State Department also suspended review and adjudication of visas. Relatives of minors who would age out of preferential treatment filed suit, seeking injunctive relief. On July 17, plaintiffs amended their complaint and expanded the putative class to include companies that were unable to bring in necessary workers and Diversity Visa Selectees who must have visas issued before Sept. 30 to be eligible for entry. On September 4, Judge Mehta granted preliminary injunctive relief to the DV-2020 plaintiffs, but not the others. This was followed by further orders for the State Department to process the visas and to hold a number of DV-2020 visas for the plaintiffs past the September 30 deadline. The case in ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0090)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 3, 2020
Morgan v. U.S. Soccer Federation
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0363
The Women's National Soccer Team alleged that the United States Soccer Federation discriminated against them in terms of pay and working conditions in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court denied the Equal Pay Act claim because the team failed to provide sufficient evidence for gender-based unequal pay. The Title VII claim is moving forward however on the premise of unequal working conditions and is scheduled for a jury trial on January 26, 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0363)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 2, 2020
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-00050 (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0142
On January 4, 2018, six women prisoners filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging systematic, misogynistic mistreatment of women prisoners at the Alameda County Jail in Santa Rita, California. The plaintiffs sued Alameda County and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and state law. On April 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The plaintiffs elaborated on the allegations in the original complaint of the mistreatment against pregnant women prisoners and discrimination against women prisoners in general. The second amended complaint also added additional causes of action under California state law and identified additional named defendants beyond the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and individuals employed therein, including the California Forensic Medical Group, retained to provide medical services to prisoners and Aramark Correctional Services, a for-profit food services provider at the Jail. The plaintiffs requested that the court certify a plaintiff class of women prisoners and the subclass of pregnant women prisoners, and that the court issue emergency remedy, by decree, to ensure that the women prisoners receive the medical care and other accommodations they needed to be safe while in custody at the Alameda County Jail. Finally, in addition to the injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages requested in the original complaint, the plaintiffs requested that the court affirmatively direct the defendants to fully comply with all state statutes and regulations regarding medical treatment, nutrition, activities, and personal hygiene for women prisoners. The parties began engaging in settlement negotiations and entered an agreement in principle on May 14, 2018. On May 7, 2019, one named plaintiff moved to relate the case to Gonzalez v. Ahern. Though opposed by the defendants, on May 15, 2020, the court related this case to Gonzalez v. Ahern. For further information, refer to the Clearinghouse page, available at this link.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0142)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 2, 2020
Doe v. BHC Fairfax Hospital, Inc.
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 2:19-cv-00635-TSZ (W.D. Wash.)
DR-WA-0004
In April 2019, former mental health patients at Fairfax Behavioral Medicine in Washington State sued Fairfax under Title III of the Americans with Disability Act and state statues. The plaintiffs alleged that Fairfax has an indiscriminate policy of requiring all adult and teen patients to submit to random, video-recorded strip and cavity searches. The plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of all persons admitted to Fairfax between April 30, 2016 and the date of class certification, but certification was denied in August 2020. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (DR-WA-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 2, 2020
New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-05781 (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0079
In July 2020, several immigration advocacy and nonprofit organizations filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that by excluding “undocumented immigrants from: (a) the tabulation of the total population of the states; (b) the calculation and statement of the whole number of persons in each state; and (c) the calculation and statement of the apportionment of the House of Representatives among the states” the federal government were violating the Enumeration and Apportionment clauses of the United States Constitution, Equal Protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Separation of Powers, the Census Act, and. In August 2020, this case was consolidated with State of New York v. Trump. For additional information, on this case, please see State of New York v. Trump.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0079)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 1, 2020
League of Women Voters Of Ohio v. Larose
The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: May 26, 2020
By: The Ohio State University College of Law
Plaintiffs challenge the standards for the delayed primary created by the enactment of House Bill 197 (“H.B. 197”), including the refusal to extend the voter registration deadline, which passed on February 18, to at most thirty days prior to April 28; the imposition of a multi-step, multi- ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 1, 2020
Doe v. Massachusetts Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-12255 (D. Mass.)
PC-MA-0052
The plaintiff, a trans woman housed in a men's prison in Massachusetts, sued the Department of Correction (DOC) and several administrators in the department for mistreatment while in custody on account of her gender identity and presentation. She was represented by GLAD and brought the suit in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint requested injunctive relief and attorney's fees. The judge granted a preliminary injunction regarding how prison staff were required to treat and accommodate the plaintiff while housed in the men's facility. After the plaintiff's transfer to a women's facility in 2018 and release in 2019, the judge dismissed the case as moot and awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiff.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0052)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 30, 2020
Justice Department Seeks to Intervene in Lawsuit Alleging Race Discrimination and Retaliation by Pocomoke City, Maryland, the Worcester County Sheriff and the State Of Maryland
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Date: Oct. 19, 2016
By: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The United States' complaint in intervention alleges that the Worcester County Sheriff and the state of Maryland subjected former Pocomoke City Police Officer Franklin Savage to a racially-hostile work environment while he was assigned to a joint task force operated by the sheriff's office ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 30, 2020
Savage v. Pocomoke City
ACLU Maryland
Date: 2020
By: ACLU Maryland
The lawsuit alleges numerous causes of action on behalf of the plaintiffs due to the race-based discrimination and retaliation they endured, which are "clearly prohibited by federal and state laws as well as [the] Constitution." The asserted causes of action include those involving the First and ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 30, 2020
Harrison v. Esper (formerly v. Shanahan)
https://www.lambdalegal.org/
Date: Sep. 14, 2018
By: Lambda Legal
Lambda Legal, Modern Military Association of America (MMAA), with partner law firm Winston & Strawn, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a sergeant in the D.C. Army National Guard who was denied the opportunity to serve as an officer and faces possible discharge from the United States armed services ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 30, 2020
Savage v. Pocomoke City
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00201-JFM (D. Md.)
EE-MD-0153
In 2016, three Pocomoke City, Maryland police officers filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered racial discrimination and retaliation by their employer in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2019, two of the officers reached a partial settlement with Pocomoke City requiring adoption of anti-discrimination policies and procedures by the police department and awarding monetary damages to the officers. As of September 30, 2020, the case is still ongoing pending a final settlement.
View Case Detail (EE-MD-0153)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 30, 2020
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01638 (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0084
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-OH-0084)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 30, 2020
Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines
Case Category: Public Accomm./Contracting
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-03972 (N.D. Cal.)
PA-CA-0005
In 2017, current and former pilots of Southwest Airlines filed a class action complaint against their employer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They alleged that Southwest failed to provide the retirement contributions and sick leave for military duty leaves of absence that are mandated by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act. In 2018, the parties reached a settlement agreement whereby Southwest restored current employees sick leave and paid $5.8 million to cover retirement contributions, compensation for and restoration of sick leave, and attorneys’ fees. Under the settlement, the court retained jurisdiction for three years.
View Case Detail (PA-CA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 29, 2020
New York v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02340 (D.D.C.)
PR-DC-0018
In June and July 2020, the U.S. Postal service implemented significant Postal Policy Changes. The States of New York, Hawaii, and New Jersey; the City of New York; and the City and County of San Francisco filed this lawsuit the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Louis DeJoy, in his official capacity as Postmaster General; and the U.S. Postal Service under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, the Postal Reorganization Act, and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that the agency acted beyond its authority and in violation of the Elections Clause when implementing the Postal Policy Changes, causing nationwide delays in First-Class mail and impeding efforts by states and localities to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and ensure safe alternatives to in-person voting. In September 2020, The D.D.C. granted the motion for preliminary injunction against the government defendants. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-DC-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 29, 2020
National Association of the Deaf v. Trump
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02107 (D.D.C.)
DR-DC-0008
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (DR-DC-0008)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 28, 2020
Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census
WhiteHouse.org
Date: Jul. 21, 2020
By: Donald J Trump
Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 28, 2020
DCCC v. Ziriax
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-00211 (N.D. Okla.)
VR-OK-0020
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-OK-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 28, 2020
Tully v. Okeson
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01271 (S.D. Ind.)
VR-IN-0028
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-IN-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 28, 2020
Hudson v. Montgomery County
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01487-JDW (E.D. Pa.)
FA-PA-0017
On March 17th, 2020 a former chief public defender of Montgomery County filed a suit against the county for wrongful retaliation and wrongful discharge. She alleged that she was fired because she directed her office to file an amicus brief critical of the County's money bail system. She claimed that this violated her rights protected by the First Amendment and the common law of Pennsylvania. Montgomery County moved to dismiss the case, and the judge has not yet ruled on the motion.
View Case Detail (FA-PA-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 28, 2020
California v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-05169-EMC (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0169
In 2020, the State of California, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the Los Angeles Unified School District filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that President Trump's Memorandum violated the constitutional mandates for the census (actual enumeration and apportionment) and separation of powers, as well as violating the Census Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is ongoing as of September 28, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0169)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 27, 2020
Western Native Voice v. Stapleton
https://www.aclu.org/
Date: Sep. 25, 2020
By: American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund are challenging a Montana law that severely restricts Native Americans’ access to the ballot.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 27, 2020
Roman v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161
Immigration detainees in the Adelanto Detention Center filed a class action to secure release from the detention center and improvement of sanitation and virus-prevention methods in light of COVID-19. The class was provisionally certified and a preliminary injunction was entered on April 23, requiring the defendants to release enough detainees so that the remaining detainees could maintain 6 feet of social distancing at all times, and to provide cleaning supplies and sanitization of common areas.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0161)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 27, 2020
Albert v. Global TelLink Corp.
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-01936-PWG (D. Md.)
PC-MD-0015
On June 29, 2020, four individuals who paid $9.99 or $14.99 to accept collect calls from three prison phone providersof prisoners filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that three providers of inmate calling services (Global Tel*Link, Securus Technologies, and 3CI) colluded to fix the price of these one-time collect calls and lied about prices in violation of federal antitrust laws and RICO. The defendants claimed that their high prices were due to "transaction fees," but the plaintiffs alleged the transaction fees were much lower and the defendatns were pocketing the difference. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-MD-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 26, 2020
Hendrix v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Incorporated
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01595 (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0137
In 2020, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against her employer, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant discriminated against her due to her sex by refusing to allow her to take a break during her shift to pump breastmilk. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-AZ-0137)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 26, 2020
Williamson v. Maciol
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 9:20-cv-00537 (N.D.N.Y.)
JC-NY-0082
On May 12, 2020, three female general custody prisoners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs sued the Oneida County Sheriff and the Chief Deputy of the Oneida County Jail under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article I § 11 of the New York State Constitution. Represented by the Legal Services of Central New York, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Jail from denying female general custody prisoners equal access to the housing and program benefits that male general custody prisoners receive.
View Case Detail (JC-NY-0082)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 26, 2020
Haitian-Americans United v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-11421-DPW (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0023
On July 27, 2020, Haitian-Americans United, Inc., Brazilian Worker Center, Chelsea Collaborative, Inc. and Centro Presente filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District Of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged that the Presidential Memorandum titled “Excluding Illegal Aliens from the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census” is unconstitutional and that any compliance violates §§ 706(2) of the APA because it is contrary to constitutional power, right, privilege, or immunity and in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority, and without observance of procedure required by law. The case has been approved for a three-judge court and is awaiting the defendants' answer.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 25, 2020
Angell v. Oakland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:13-cv-00190 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0048
This is a case about mass arrest and detention related to the “Occupy Oakland” march on January 28, 2012. On January 14, 2013, persons who had been arrested filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Oakland and the Alameda County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, and the destruction of records pertaining to the arrest. They claimed that they had been subject to 14th amendment violations, false arrest and imprisonment, violation of state law, and negligence during the course of their arrest and detention. Plaintiffs’ arrest records pertaining to this event were sealed and destroyed as part of a $1.36 million settlement.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0048)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 25, 2020
Amador v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01102 (D. Md.)
PB-MD-0009
In April 2020, plaintiffs with undocumented spouses filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the United States Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiffs were denied payments if they filed a joint tax return with an undocumented spouse. The plaintiffs, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleged that their ineligibility to receive CARES Act recovery payments during the COVID-19 pandemic violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. On August 5, the court denied a motion to dismiss by the defendants. The case is ongoing
View Case Detail (PB-MD-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 25, 2020
Common Cause v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02023 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0084
On July 21 2020, President Trump issued a memorandum titled “Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census.” Two days later, on July 23, the nonprofit Common Cause, along with cities, citizens and organizations from across America, filed a complaint for declaratory judgement and injunctive relief against implementation of the memorandum, which describes President Trump’s intent to use the data gathered in the 2020 census to exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted when apportioning seats in the US House of Representative and votes in the Electoral College. The plaintiffs claimed that the memorandum violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but as of now, the case is still pending.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0084)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2020
FISA Court Matters relating to disclosure of Carter Page surveillance records: Four FISC cases [FISC Misc. 18-01, Misc. 18-02, Misc. 18-03, and Misc. 19-01]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 18-01 (FISC)
NS-DC-0126
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0126)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2020
American Humanist Association v. Perry
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:15-ct-03053 (E.D.N.C.)
PC-NC-0021
This case is about the refusal of North Carolina's Department of Public Safety (DPS) to recognize Humanism as a faith group within the North Carolina state prison system. On February 2, 2015, an inmate in a North Carolina prison and the American Humanist Association filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina against officers of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety that are involved in policy decisions related to recognition of faith groups in state prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on March 29, 2018, Judge Terrence W. Boyle granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion. He entered a permanent injunction ordering DPS to recognize Humanism as a faith group and to permit a Humanist study group to meet within North Carolina state prisons on the same terms as other faiths are allowed and entered declaratory judgment. The court also awarded nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Since the entering of the permanent injunction, there has been no activity in this case. The permanent injunction remains in effect.
View Case Detail (PC-NC-0021)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2020
In re Motion of ProPublica, Inc. for the Release of Court Records [FISC Docket Misc. 13-09]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 13-09 (FISC)
NS-DC-0027
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2020
EEOC v. Walmart
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 6:20-cv-00163 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0037
On August 3, 2020, after an attempt to reach a settlement through a voluntary pre-litigation process, the EEOC brought a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against Walmart alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleges that since 2010, in Walmart grocery distribution centers nationwide, Walmart used a physical abilities test in hiring for grocery orderfillers. Because women tended to receive less than competitive scores on the physical abilities test, Walmart’s use of this physical abilities test disparately and negatively affected women in the hiring process for grocery orderfillers. The EEOC asked the court for: (a) a permanent injunction preventing Walmart from using physical abilities tests to hire for grocery orderfiller positions; (b) a permanent injunction against any hiring practices, such as employment tests, that have a disparate and discriminatory impact on women; (c) an order requiring Walmart to institute new training, policies and programs that provide equal employment opportunities based on sex and that ensure that its operations are free from employment practices that discriminate on women based on sex; (d) an order requiring Walmart to compensate the plaintiffs to eradicate the effects of the discriminatory employment practices; (e) an order granting further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper; and (f) an order awarding EEOC costs for the lawsuit. By the time that the lawsuit was filed, the parties had already agreed on terms of a settlement. On August 3, 2020 the parties filed a joint motion for entry of a consent decree and on September 9, 2020, Judge Karen Caldwell granted the motion and approved the consent decree. All of the EEOC’s requests except for the awarding of costs to EEOC were granted by the court. The decree ordered Walmart to pay $20,000,000.00 into a Qualified Settlement Fund as part of the resolution, to be distributed to eligible claimants at the sole discretion of the EEOC. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky retains jurisdiction over the matter for two years, through September 9, 2022. The case remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-KY-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2020
Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth (BAGLY) v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-11297 (D. Mass.)
PB-MA-0013
This case is about a regulation promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) affecting protections against discrimination in healthcare on the basis of sex, which were created by the Affordable Care Act. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to ...
View Case Detail (PB-MA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2020
In re Opinions and Orders of this Court Containing Novel or Significant Interpretations of Law
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 16-01 (FISC)
NS-DC-0117
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Media Freedom and Information Access of Yale Law School filed this motion in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to unseal the court's orders and opinions containing "novel or significant interpretations of law" issued between September 11, 2001, and the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act on June 2, 2015. Judge Boasberg dismissed this case on September 15, 2020 for a lack of jurisdiction.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0117)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 23, 2020
New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-05583 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0038
In July 2020, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia (States) filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the grounds that the June 19, 2020 rule within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act arbitrarily and unlawfully denied health care rights guaranteed under Section 1557 of the Act. The States alleged the 2020 rule allowed for discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, excluded health insurance from protected programs, removed notification of rights to individuals with limited English proficiency, and created a broad religious exemption. The States sought vacatur of the rule, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The court ordered HHS to provide the relevant administrative record by October 16, 2020 and scheduled a telephone conference for October 29, 2020. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0038)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 21, 2020
Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS
Lambda Legal
Date: 07/15/2020
By: Lambda Legal
Lambda Legal and Steptoe & Johnson LLP filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published rule that purports to carve out LGBTQ people and other vulnerable populations from the protections of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 19, 2020
Occupy Oakland J28 Class Action Settlement
J28
Date: Apr. 15, 2015
By: J28
This lawsuit is about the mass arrest in Oakland, California, on January 28, 2012, when the Oakland Police Department and several other law enforcement agencies arrested approximately 360 people in front of the YMCA at 2350 Broadway in downtown Oakland. Most of the arrestees had been marching in a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 19, 2020
Common Cause v. Trump
Common Cause
Date: Jul. 23, 2020
By: Common Cause
On July 21, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a memo describing his administration’s intent to implement a discriminatory and unconstitutional policy regarding the census. This memo directed the Secretary of Commerce to provide the President with the information necessary to exclude ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 19, 2020
Common Cause v. Trump
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
Date: Aug. 27, 2020
By: Brennan Center for Justice
Common Cause et al., are challenging President Trump’s attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the state-population totals that are produced by the 2020 Census and used for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. This case is pending in ...
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
September 18, 2020
"Policing the Police: The Impact of "Pattern-or-Practice" Investigations on Crime"
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27324
Date: June 2020
By: Tanaya Devi, Roland G. Fryer Jr (Harvard Faculty)
This paper provides the first empirical examination of the impact of federal and state "Pattern-or Practice" investigations on crime and policing. For investigations that were not preceded by "viral" incidents of deadly force, investigations, on average, led to a statistically significant reduction ...
View Case Study Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 4, 2020
A.B.-B., et al. v. Morgan, et al.
Constitutional Accountability Center
Date: Aug. 31, 2020
By: Constitutional Accountability Center
People who arrive at the United States without documentation allowing them to enter the country may be summarily deported, without a hearing, unless they express an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution in their home countries. In that situation, the asylum seeker is interviewed to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 4, 2020
A.B.-B. v. Morgan
Wordpress
Date: Jun. 24, 2020
By: Hold CBP Accountable
On March 27, 2020, five asylum-seeking mothers and their children filed this action challenging the use of U.S. Border Patrol agents to screen asylum seekers for their “credible fear” of persecution.

Many people seeking asylum at the border must first pass a “credible fear” ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2020
Nio Documents
https://dcfederalcourtmavniclasslitigation.org/
Date: Jul. 27, 2020
By: MAVNI Federal Class Action Litigation
This page contains some of the useful documents relevant to MAVNIs in the Nio class. Click on the document title to open each document as a PDF.

Note that the updated email address to contact class counsel for the Nio litigation is nioclasscounsel@morganlewis.com *
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 28, 2020
ADA Settlement Agreement
Georgia.gov
Date: Feb. 3, 2020
By: Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities
On June 29, 2018, the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a joint status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to their 2010 Settlement Agreement.

In the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 28, 2020
United States v. State of Georgia
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/united-states-v-state-georgia
Date: Jul. 15, 2016
By: Eric S. Dreiband (The United States Department of Justice)
The United States brought two separate cases against the State of Georgia involving its public services for people with mental health or development disabilities. Each lawsuit was resolved through separate landmark settlement agreements. Currently, the 2010 case remains pending. In the 2010 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 26, 2020
Kirwa, et al. v. United States Department of Defense, et al., Civil Action No. 17-1793
MAVNI Federal Class Action Litigation
Date: May 31, 2019
By: MAVNI Federal Class Action Litigation
If you are a service member who has served or is serving in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve (the “Selected Reserve”), who enlisted through the MAVNI program, and who has not yet become a naturalized U.S. citizen, you may be affected by ongoing litigation in the United States District ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 26, 2020
Resources Related to DOD’s Tightening of Rules and Discharges of Immigrants from the Military
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Date: Jul. 24, 2020
By: American Immigration Lawyers Association
In October 2017, the Department of Defense issued several memoranda that tightened the rules for immigrants joining the military.

The Congressional Research Service issued an In Focus report on expedited citizenship through military service describing the current law and eligibity, as ...
View Link Detail