University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

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


CASE ADDITIONS
February 26, 2021
Committee on Oversight and Reform v. Barr
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03557 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0086
In 2019, the House Oversight and Reform Committee filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were acting in violation of the Committee's Article I powers by refusing to comply with its subpoenas. These subpoenas were for documents related to the Committee's investigation into the Trump Administration's efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The case has been stayed pending pending the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Committee on the Judiciary of the United House of Representatives v. McGahn (1:19-cv-02379). The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0086)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 26, 2021
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:69-cv-02145 (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0008
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (FA-IL-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 26, 2021
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-10721 (E.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0010
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0010)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 24, 2021
Muslim Ban Litigation
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
Date: Feb. 3, 2020
By: Brennan Center for Justice
Less than a week after taking office, President Trump began the process of following through on his campaign promise of instituting a Muslim ban, triggering large-scale protests and chaos at airports around the country. Push back from the Courts led to the first ban being revoked, but two ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 24, 2021
Criminal Alien Program (CAP) FOIA Documents
American Immigration Council
Date: Jul. 15, 2014
By: American Immigration Council
American Immigration Council and AILA’s Connecticut chapter initially sought records related to CAP through a FOIA request to ICE in December 2011. When ICE refused to release records responsive to the request, Plaintiffs filed suit under FOIA for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 24, 2021
Criminal Alien Program (CAP)
American Immigration Council
Date: Jul. 31, 2013
By: American Immigration Council
Co-Plaintiffs American Immigration Council and AILA’s Connecticut chapter initially sought records related to the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) through a FOIA request to ICE in December 2011. When ICE refused to release responsive records, Plaintiffs filed suit under FOIA to compel their ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 24, 2021
Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Department of State
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-07520-JGK (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0056
On Oct. 2, 2017, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law sued DOS under FOIA, seeking information about Trump's "extreme vetting practices" including the Administration's Mar. 6, 2017 EO and Sept. 24, 2017 Proclamation restricting entry of persons into the US. The Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on March 29, 2019. It also ordered the defendants to provide the court with copies of five documents in question for in camera review on the applicability of the presidential communication privilege. The court continues to review the documents to determine and to what extent privilege applies. On July 30, 2020, the plaintiffs requested the court to act expeditiously and as soon as possible given the great public interest in the subject matter of the suit. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0056)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 23, 2021
Alvarez v. La Rose: Otay Mesa Detention Center
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
Date: Sep. 22, 2020
By: National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
NIPNLG, the ACLU of San Diego, the ACLU, and Ropes & Gray, LLP filed a class-action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons detained pretrial and post-conviction in US Marshals Service custody at the Otay Mesa Detention Center--a facility ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 23, 2021
Brizuela v. Feliciano
Yale Law School
Date: Nov. 14, 2017
By: Yale Law School
In February 2012 Sergio Brizuela, a resident of East Haven represented by the Yale Law School Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, filed a proposed state-wide class action lawsuit against the Connecticut Department of Corrections (DOC) on behalf of all persons held by DOC based solely on ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 23, 2021
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
On August 3, 2020, the National Association for the Deaf and five deaf plaintiffs who use ASL as their primary language sued President Donald Trump and other White House officials for injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' failure to provide in-frame ASL interpretation at White House Coronavirus Briefings violated their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and the First Amendment. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which Judge James E. Boasberg granted on September 9, 2020. Under the preliminary injunction, the defendants are required to provide in-frame interpretation at all White House Coronavirus Briefings, either in the form of live ASL interpretation from the location of the briefing or live interpretation from a remote location in picture-in-picture format. The Defendants appealed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the DC Circuit. The case is currently stayed in district court pending the resolution of the appeal.
View Case Detail (DR-DC-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 23, 2021
Ryan v. Smith
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00843-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0014
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 22, 2021
R.P.-K. v. Hawaii Department of Education
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 1:10-cv-00436-SOM-KSC (D. Haw.)
ED-HI-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (ED-HI-0003)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 21, 2021
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC: Seventh Circuit Holds Landlords May Be Liable for Tenant-on-Tenant Discriminatory Harassment.
Harvard Law Review
Date: May 10, 2019
By: Harvard Law Review (Harvard Law School)
132 Harv. L. Rev. 2050
As federal civil rights statutes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 have much in common, but they diverge in one crucial respect. While employers and schools can be held liable for employee-on-employee and ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 21, 2021
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community
Lambda Legal
Date: August 27, 2018
By: Lambda Legal
In a groundbreaking decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a landlord may be held liable under the Fair Housing Act for failing to protect a tenant from known, discriminatory harassment at the hands of other tenants, reinstating Lambda Legal’s federal lawsuit on behalf of ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 21, 2021
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-07598 (N.D. Ill.)
FH-IL-0019
On July 27th, 2016, plaintiff Marsha Wetzel brought a civil right action under the Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Northern District Court of Illinois. Plaintiff, a 68-year-old lesbian, sought for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Glen St. Andrew Living Community (GSALC) and their administrators. Plaintiff alleged that throughout most of her time at GSALC, Marsha has been subjected to a pattern of discrimination and harassment from other residents because of her sexual orientation, including persistent verbal harassment, threats and three separate assaults resulting in visible injuries. She further alleged that although she repeatedly complained about the sexual orientation-based harassment to GSALC staff, they gave no response. Instead, it was alleged that staffs marginalized and alienated Marsha and retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment.
View Case Detail (FH-IL-0019)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 20, 2021
Attorney General James Files Lawsuit Against the NYPD for Excessive Use of Force
New York State Attorney General
Date: Jan. 14, 2021
By: New York State Attorney General
New York Attorney General Letitia James today filed a lawsuit against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and its leadership to end its pattern of using excessive force and making false arrests against New Yorkers during peaceful protests. In the complaint, Attorney General James outlines ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 20, 2021
City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-04642-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0093
The City and County of San Francisco sued DOJ on Aug. 11, 2017 over policies targeting "sanctuary cities" by imposing immigration enforcement conditions on federal funding for law enforcement. The U.S. District Ct. for the District of Northern California granted summary judgment for San Francisco, entering a nationwide injunction. DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court but limited the scope of the injunction to just California. The government filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court in November 2020. In January 2021, President Joesph Biden took office and the government filed a letter with the Supreme Court recommending it hold the petition in abeyance until it could determine the administration's position on these issues. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0093)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 19, 2021
Black Millennial Movement et al v Trump
ACLU Oregon
Date: 2021
By: ACLU Oregon
Protesters who were abducted, beaten, and gassed by federal agents in Portland, Oregon, are suing President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshals Service, DHS officials, and the federal agents that violated the protesters’ civil rights in a lawsuit filed today by the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 19, 2021
Gordon v. Jordan School District
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00677 (D. Utah)
ED-UT-0002
Parents of students across three Utah school districts allege sex discrimination because of disparities in opportunities between male and female athletics. Suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated parties, the parents seek injunctive relief and equal availability of sports like girls' football.
View Case Detail (ED-UT-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 19, 2021
Pettibone v. Trump
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01464 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0009
Individual Portland protestors along with Black Millennial Movement and Rose City Justice, Inc., filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs alleged that federal law enforcement violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and acted outside of their statutory authority during “Operation Diligent Valor,” an alleged effort to quell the widespread racial justice protests in Portland in July 2020. As of February 19, 2021, the case remains pending in the District Court.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 19, 2021
People of New York v. New York
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00322 (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0054
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0054)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 18, 2021
Chicagoans for an End to the Gang Database v. Chicago
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-04242 (N.D. Ill.)
PN-IL-0027
A coalition of individuals and community organizations filed a federal class action lawsuit against the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department in 2018 alleging that the city’s Gang Database was unconstitutional. The case was settled by the parties in 2020. Chicago announced a new process for designating individuals as gang members, among other initiatives.
View Case Detail (PN-IL-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 18, 2021
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03812 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0093
In 2020, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. and other immigration service organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that a new rule promulgated by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which set a new fee schedule for removal proceedings, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the due process and equal protection rights of asylum seekers. In 2021, the court stayed the effective date of the final rule pending the outcome of the litigation. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0093)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 16, 2021
Proclamation on the Termination Of Emergency With Respect To The Southern Border Of The United States And Redirection Of Funds Diverted To Border Wall Construction
WhiteHouse.org
Date: Jan. 20, 2021
By: Joseph Biden
Like every nation, the United States has a right and a duty to secure its borders and protect its people against threats. But building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border is not a serious policy solution. It is a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 16, 2021
Sierra Club v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-01494 (N.D. Cal.)
PR-CA-0006
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PR-CA-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 14, 2021
Richardson v. New York
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-09447-JPO (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0298
Current and former Black FDNY employees sued the City of New York alleging racial discrimination in their hiring, promotion, and compensation practices. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of individuals similarly situated who suffered from FDNY's policies that afforded too much discretion to higher-level individuals and fostered a culture of favoritism that harmed Black candidates for hiring and advancement. The City filed a motion to dismiss and the Court partially granted the motion, but sustained the plaintiffs' claims related to the hiring and promotion practices with the FDNY. The City moved for partial summary judgment in May 2020, arguing that the retired class representatives could not seek relief. At the same time, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class. Both motions were pending as of February 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0298)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 13, 2021
United States v. NYC Housing Authority, Davis v. NYC Housing Authority
Case Category: Public Housing
Trial Docket: 1:90-cv-628 (S.D.N.Y.)
PH-NY-0002
These are two cases about housing segregation in New York City. On January 31, 1990, two black and Hispanic individuals residing in or eligible for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing filed a class action lawsuit against the NYCHA under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83. On July 1, 1992, the U.S. filed its own lawsuit against the NYCHA. The plaintiffs alleged that, since 1983, the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race, color, and national origin against black and Hispanic tenants in the selection and assignment of public housing. The court approved a consent decree on November 16, 1992, and this included creating a "Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan" to prohibit past practices. However, the court found some of the defendant's subsequent tenanting plans to be inconsistent with the consent decree, and issued a preliminary injunction on December 2, 1993. After a series of appeals and remands, the court turned the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction on August 11, 1999. In addition to the permanent injunction, the court awarded monetary relief totaling $308,896.32 for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. This case has finished.
View Case Detail (PH-NY-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 12, 2021
Wolfe v. Portland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01882-BR (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0010
Four Portland residents with disabilities, along with the advocacy organization Disability Rights Oregon, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs alleged that local, state, and federal law enforcement violated their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by targeting protestors with disabilities and failing to make reasonable modifications to use of force policies. As of February 12, 2021, the case remains pending in the District Court.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 11, 2021
Turner v. U.S. Agency for Global Media
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02885-BAH (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0024
In 2020, former civil servants at the U.S. Agency for Global Media filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that recently appointed administrators of the Agency were violating statutory firewalls in order to push the Trump Administration's agenda and viewpoint across the Agency's overseas broadcast networks. Judge Beryl A. Howell granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. This case is ongoing pending defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction order.
View Case Detail (FA-DC-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 10, 2021
Ramirez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00508-RC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0078
In 2018, two immigrants who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors and were placed in ICE detention on their 18th birthdays filed this class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that ICE did not fulfill its statutory obligations when choosing whether to detain young them, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. in 2020, after a bench trial, the court sided with the plaintiffs and found that ICE systematically did not consider placing members of the plaintiffs' class in the least restrictive setting available. The parties are in the process of determining an appropriate remedy for ICE's violations of the law.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0078)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 10, 2021
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective v. Duke
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-02048 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0105
In Oct. 2017, an immigrant rights' organization and an individual member sued DHS, USCIS, and CBP, seeking reinstatement of the member's terminated DACA status on the basis of an unsubstantiated criminal allegation, and nationwide class certification of people whose DACA status had been unlawfully revoked. The Court twice granted preliminary injunctions as well as class certification; defendants have appealed to the 9th Cir. The case was stayed pending resolution of Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security by the Supreme Court. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay on the appeal of the preliminary injunction and directed the parties to file briefs addressing the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Regents on this case. In early July 2020, the parties filed their briefs. As of February 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0105)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 10, 2021
NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Boston Housing Authority
Case Category: Public Housing
Trial Docket: 88-T-1155 (D. Mass.)
PH-MA-0002
This is a case about racially segregated public housing in Boston. In 1988, the Boston chapter of the NAACP filed this class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff sued the Boston Housing Authority (BHA), the mayor of Boston, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development, and HUD under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983, 3604, 3608; and Massachusetts state law. They claimed that the BHA maintained racially segregated public housing by discouraging black applicants to apply to its site-specific waiting lists in the predominately white neighborhoods in Boston. The parties came to a settlement, which was approved by the court on October 4, 1989. The BHA agreed to integrate its white housing developments and pay damages. The payments would go into a Community Benefit Fund containing $250,000-$500,000 in order to promote fair housing efforts in Boston. This case has finished.
View Case Detail (PH-MA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 9, 2021
Cottrell v. Kaysville City, Utah
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:91-cv-00095-DB (D. Utah)
JC-UT-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (JC-UT-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 9, 2021
State of New Hampshire v. Adams
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:94-cv-00573-SM (D.N.H.)
PC-NH-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-NH-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 9, 2021
Dittimus-Bey v. Taylor
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:05-cv-00063-JBS-JS (D.N.J.)
JC-NJ-0025
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (JC-NJ-0025)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 7, 2021
Executive Order 14012: Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans
Federal Register
Date: Feb. 5, 2021
By: President Joseph Biden (Office of the President)
After eleven years of litigation and five failed consent decrees, Camden County, New Jersey corrections officials have finally agreed to pay $160,000 to settle a federal civil rights suit that alleged severe overcrowding, sanitation, poor nutrition, and environmental violations of prisoners’ ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 7, 2021
Perez v. Decker
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-10683-AJN (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0081
In 2018, a New York resident filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, who had been arrested and detained by ICE in October 2018, alleged that the government’s practice of detaining individuals for up to three months without scheduling an initial hearing violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights. On November 30, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The defendants have appealed as of January 29, 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0081)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 7, 2021
State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 19-cv-04975 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0157
On August 16, 2019, the states of California, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania along with the District of Columbia filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs challenged the Department of Homeland Security's Final Public Charge Rule (the Rule), which added non-cash benefits to the factors considered in determining whether a person applying for legal permanent residence is likely to become a public charge. The plaintiffs alleged that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In October 2019 the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing and enforcing the Rule in California, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Pennsylvania. After the government appealed the district court's order for preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit, a Ninth Circuit panel issued an order staying the injunction pending appeal. In August 2020, the District Court dismissed four of the six claims in the complaint, but deferred ruling on whether the Rule violated the INA or was arbitrary and capricious until the preliminary injunction was ruled on. The preliminary injunction was subsequently affirmed in December 2020. However, the order was stayed a few weeks later, leaving the stay of the preliminary injunction in effect. Currently, the injunction is stayed pending petitions to the Supreme Court.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0157)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 6, 2021
Reina Moran v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00696 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0175
In April, 2020, three immigrant detainees filed this lawsuit in the Central District of California. Citing COVID-19 concerns, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and release. The TROs were granted and the court issued a partial stay order on April 24, 2020, which ordered that the plaintiffs remain released until final resolution of a related case in which a preliminary injunction was issued. In June, the plaintiffs moved to certify class and for a preliminary injunction. The defendants moved to dismiss the case and, following a hearing in August, the motion for preliminary injunction was to remain under submission pending the outcome of related cases. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0175)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 5, 2021
Lawsuit: Law enforcement fails to provide Oregonians with disabilities equal access to Portland demonstrations
CREEC
Date: Nov. 2, 2020
By: Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
A lawsuit filed last night on behalf of people with disabilities in federal district court in Portland argues that law enforcement tactics fail to provide equal access to public demonstrations calling for racial justice, robbing them of their constitutional right to assemble and protest. People ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 5, 2021
Indigo Williams, et. al. v. Phil Bryant et. al.
Southern Poverty Law Center
Date: 2020
By: Southern Poverty Law Center
Mississippi has repeatedly violated a nearly 150-year-old, legally binding obligation to operate a “uniform system of free public schools” for all children, an obligation placed on the state as a condition of rejoining the Union after the Civil War. Mississippi enshrined this requirement in the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 5, 2021
Williams v. Bryant
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-404 (S.D. Miss.)
ED-MS-0006
In 2017, four low-income African American mothers filed suit against the numerous officials of the State of Mississippi claiming the state failed to live up to the educational requirements set by the Mississippi Readmission Act of 1870. They sought declaratory relief that the requirements are still intact. The case was dismissed in 2018 due to the state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit which affirmed in part and reversed in part. The defendants requested rehearing en banc, but the Fifth Circuit denied the request. The defendants then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court and a request to stay the Fifth Circuit's mandate in January 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (ED-MS-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 5, 2021
E.F. v. New York City Department of Education
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00419 (E.D.N.Y.)
DR-NY-0017
Students sued the New York City Department of Education, the City of New York, and the chancellor of the New York City Department of Education to seek injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and New York state law. The student plaintiffs are either student in Staten Island District 75 schools or vulnerable to being sent to those schools, which are separated from New York City community schools. District 75 students receive their education in a restrictive setting where they are largely isolated from interactions with students who do not have disabilities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of a permanent injunction against future violations and an order for a remedial plan to reimagine policies, practices, and norms that will permit each student to learn in the most integrated setting possible. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (DR-NY-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 5, 2021
U.S. v. Morgan County, Tennessee
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:00-cv-00089 (E.D. Tenn)
JC-TN-0010
In 2000, the Department of Justice brought this case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against Morgan County, on account of the conditions at the Morgan County Jail. The DOJ had originally investigated the jail in 1997, and found that conditions were unsafe and abusive. Before the lawsuit went to trial, the parties were able to reach a settlement agreement, and the case was conditionally dismissed in 2000. The DOJ found that Morgan County substantially complied with the agreement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in 2006.
View Case Detail (JC-TN-0010)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
February 4, 2021
Grant Turner v. U.S. Agency for Global Media
Global Freedom of Expression
Date: 2021
By: Global Freedom of Expression
The United States (U.S.) District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendants in respect of actions taken by them within the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) that likely violated the First Amendment. The case concerned six plaintiffs ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
February 4, 2021
Crawford v. McDonalds
Case Category: Public Accomm./Contracting
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-05132 (N.D. Ill.)
PA-IL-0001
In 2020, former Black McDonald's franchisees filed suit against the parent corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that McDonald's racially discriminated against them by denying opportunities to manage more viable franchises that were available to white franchisees and by more strictly enforcing standards for inspections and quality against them. McDonald's filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on December 21, 2020. As of February 4, 2021, briefing on the motion to dismiss was in progress and the motion remained pending. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PA-IL-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 3, 2021
United States of America v. Humboldt County
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-05139 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0060
On September 7, 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The DOJ sued Humboldt County under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that Humboldt County discriminated against individuals with disabilities by failing to make County facilities, programs, services, and activities accessible. Immediately, the DOJ filed a proposed consent decree. On September 13, 2016 Judge Nandor J. Vadas approved and entered the consent decree that provided a wide array of steps Humboldt County agreed to take to bring its facilities, programs, services, and activities into compliance with the ADA and make the county more accessible to individuals with disabilities within three and a half years. The county agreed to pay $275,000 in compensatory damages. As of July 18, 2020, there has been no additional activity on this case.
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0060)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 27, 2021
Wis. Leg. v. Evers
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Wisconsin state legislature filed this lawsuit against Tony Evers in his official capacity as the Governor of Wisconsin in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as an original action. Plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the governor's Executive Order suspending in-person voting from the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 27, 2021
Taylor v. Milwaukee Elections Comm’n
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Washington state senator Lena Taylor, Tory Lowe (candidate for alderman in the City of Wilwaukee's 6th aldermanic district) and Justice Wisconsin Inc. (non-profit founded by Lowe) sued the Wilwaukee Election Commission and its members, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 27, 2021
Swenson v. Bostelmann
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Tracker
Date: Dec. 20, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Action by group of citizens alleging denial of right to vote in 4/7/20 Wisconsin Presidential Primary and Spring Election. Complaint seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief to establish reasonable, disability accessible, and constitutionally sufficient voting procedures (including mail ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 27, 2021
Jefferson v. Dane County
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioners Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin filed a petition and motion for temporary injunctive relief against respondents Dane County and Scott McDonell, in his official capacity as Dane County Clerk. Petitioners sought a temporary injunction ordering Mr. McDonell to remove a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 27, 2021
Edwards v. Vos
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Dec. 20, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Class action by group of citizens alleging denial of right to vote in 4/7/20 Wisconsin Presidential Primary and Spring Election. Complaint seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief to establish reasonable, disability accessible, and constitutionally sufficient voting procedures (including ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 27, 2021
Carranza v. Reams
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00977 (D. Colo.)
JC-CO-0010
Inmates held at Weld County Jail with high risks of complications from COVID-19 filed this putative class action lawsuit against the Sheriff of Weld County. They sought injunctive relief, in the form of following public health guidelines in the jail, and declaratory relief. On December 29, 2020, the court granted a joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-CO-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 27, 2021
Texas v. United States
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 6:21-cv-00003 (S.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0057
Shortly after President Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021, Acting Homeland Security Secretary David Pekoske issued a memorandum ordering U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to halt most deportations from the United States for 100 days ("100 day pause"). The 100 day pause was intended to allow time for ICE to overhaul its enforcement priorities and focus its efforts on threats to national security, public safety, and border security. Two days later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed this lawsuit against the United States, Acting Secretary Pekoske, DHS, USCIS, CBP, ICE, and various officials from each agency in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to try and block the 100 day pause on deportations. Texas sought a declaration that the memorandum was unlawful, a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants from implementing the memorandum, and attorney's fees and costs. Texas alleged the 100 day puse violated an agreement the state signed with former Acting Deputy Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli requiring the federal government to consult with Texas before taking action that could reduce immigration enforcement. Texas also argued that the 100 day pause violated the APA because it was unlawful in violation of Section 1231 of the INA, arbitrary and capricious, required notice and comment, and was ultra vires. Immediately, Texas filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The ACLU and ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants. Judge Tipton granted the temporary restraining order on January 26, 2021 and suspended the 100 day pause nationwide for 14 days. Judge Tipton found that Texas was likely to succeed on at least two of its claims under the APA: that the 100 day pause violated Section 1231 and that the defendants arbitrarily and capriciously departed from previous policy. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0057)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 26, 2021
Debraska v. Oneida Business Comm.
Date: Dec. 20, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin Election Board canceled a May 23 primary election for tribal positions after passage of legislation allowing for this adjustment. Plaintiffs, candidates in the primary and Oneida Nation voters, seek a declaration that the legislation and subsequent cancellation of the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 26, 2021
City of Green Bay v. Bostelmann
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After the Wisconsin Governor, Secretary-Designee, and Election Committee refused to postpone the April 2020 election, the City and Mayor of Green Bay sought declaratory and injunctive relief permitting them to delay the election to June 2020, extend the voter registration deadline, be relieved of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Common Cause R.I. v. Gorbea
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs Common Cause Rhode Island (CC-RI), League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, and three Rhode Island registered voters sued Rhode Island Secretary of State and members of the Rohde Island Board of Elections, challenging the state's two witness/notary signature requirement of mail-in ballots ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Washington v. Trump
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 18, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs are WA, CO, CT, IL, MD, MI, MN, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, WI, and VA suing Trump, DeJoy and the USPS. The complaint begins by laying out the historical importance of the post office and by describing the statutory requirements that the post office must satisfy in order to implement certain ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Seventh Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. v. Va. Dep’t of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
In Virginia, each qualified party decides for itself whether to use a primary or a convention to nominate for any particular partisan office. On April 15, a state trial court judge granted an injunction against the state law that says conventions must take place no later than June 9. The Seventh ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Luciani v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Independent candidate for House of Representatives brought a claim against the Virginia Department of Elections and State Board of Elections seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pertaining to Virginia signature requirements to appear on ballot in light of hardship caused by COVID and ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Libertarian Party v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Third parties and their candidates for US House, Senate, and President sued the Virginia State Board of Elections to eliminate the petition signature requirement for the 2020 election due to COVID. After a one day bench trial on 7/13/20, the Court concluded that the signature requirements were ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Lean on McLean v. Showalter
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Tracy McLean, a candidate for Mayor of the City of Richmond, Virginia, sought to enjoin enforcement of certain procedures for appearing on the ballot in the November 2020 Richmond Mayoral Election on the grounds that such restrictions violated her First Amendment rights in light of the challenges ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Gary v. Va. Dep’t of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs--blind/visually-impaired registered voters, National Federation of the Blind of Virginia, and American Council of the Blind of Virginia, Inc.--sued Virginia Department of Elections ("VA DOE"), Virginia State Board of Elections, and officers of those organizations for violating the ADA by ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Curtin v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs allege absentee ballots increases voter fraud and thus violates the first and 14th Amendment, Art. I, section 4, cl. 1*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Alliance Party v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Third party and its candidate for president sued Virginia Board of Elections seeking to modify in-person signature collection requirements in light of COVID-19. Also seek to modify the requirement that electors for 3rd party candidates need to be named on the petition before signatures are ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 25, 2021
Alberto v. City of Roanoke
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Two potential candidates allege that they cannot reasonably meet the State Board of Elections rules to appear on the ballot. Specifically, given COVID and relevant Stay at Home orders, limitations on gatherings over 10 people and social distancing: 1) they cannot reasonably obtain the required ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Garbett v. Herbert
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
After a request to modify the signature gathering requirements to permit electronic signatures, a candidate seeking the Republican party nomination for gubernatorial election brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Utah's Governor and Lieutenant Governor, asserting that state's ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Texas v. Hollins
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=229
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Texas, through its Attorney General, seeks to prevent the Harris County Clerk from mailing applications for mail ballots to every registered voter in the counting. Texas claims that doing so will increase fraud and exceeds the clerk's statutory authority. Texas seeks a temporary restraining order, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Texas Alliance of Retired Americans v. Hughes
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=200
Date: Jan. 14, 2021
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Appellants renew their request to enjoin the implementation of HB 25, which would eliminate straight ticket voting (STV) in Texas as a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs contend that the elimination of STV would disenfranchise minority voters because minority voters utilize ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Semien v. Hughs
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=208
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs, Texas voters with disabilities and organizations that represent those individuals, bring claims under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against the Texas Secretary of State for failing to provide them means of voting secretly and independently and ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs Mi Familia Vota, Texas State Conference of NAACP, and individual registered voters sued Governor and Secretary of State of Texas for violating the First Amendment, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, section 2 of the Voting ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
In re State of Texas
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=130
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
In Texas, voting by mail is only permitted if the voter qualifies under categories of (1) absence from county of residence, (2) disability, (3) over 65, (4) incarcerated, or (5) part of the address confidentiality program. Disability is defined as "sickness or physical condition that prevents the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
In re Hotze
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=230
Date: Oct. 18, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
The issue in this case is whether Harris County Clerk Christopher Hollins (Respondent) is violating Texas Election Code § 84.012 by sending applications for mail-in ballots to over 2.37 million registered voters in Harris County regardless of whether the individual requested the application or has ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Gloria v. Hughs
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=181
Date: Oct. 15, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs (a group of individual voters) sued the Texas Secretary of State claiming that denying the right to vote on account of age (by only making vote by mail without excuse available to for those at least 65 years old) violates the 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint further ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Gloria v. Hughs
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=132
Date: Oct. 15, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs (a group of individual voters) sued the Texas Secretary of State claiming that denying the right to vote on account of age (by only making vote by mail without excuse available to for those at least 65 years old) violates the 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint further ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 24, 2021
Lichtenstein v. Hargett
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=223
Date: Oct. 22, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Tennesee law forbids anyone but employees of election commissions from providing absentee ballot applications to any person. The COVID pandemic is anticipated to increase the demand for absentee voting in Tennessee. Plaintiffs engage in voter outreach, including disseminating information about ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 23, 2021
Walker v. Barnett
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=178
Date: Oct. 15, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff started circulating petition to be on ballot for US Senate, but because of Covid-19, social distancing recommendations, and lack of alternative ways to circulate the petition by the Secretary of State and unknown federal employyes, he files a pro se civil suit against the US, the unknown ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 23, 2021
Acosta v. Restrepo
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 10, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Candidates for Rhode Island (RI) Senate sought injunctive relief from RI statutory ballot qualification requiring in-person solicitation and receipt of signatures, in-person witness, and wet signature of common petition form. Court granted injunctive relief for 2020 candidate nomination process ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 23, 2021
Arlene Ocasio v. Comisión Estatal de Elecciones
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Although Puerto Rico's legislature expanded absentee and early voting eligibility for recent primaries and authorized expansions for the upcoming election, Puerto Rico's Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico has not acted to allow senior citizens to vote early or absentee in November. The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 22, 2021
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Petitioners request a declaratory and injunction relief so as to protect the franchise of absentee and mail-in voters. On October 31, 2019 the Governor enacted Act 77 which permits no excuse mail-in voting for all qualified electors. Due to COVID-19, Act 12 was passed. This Act allowed counties to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 22, 2021
NAACP Penn. State Conference v. Boockvar
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 16, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference sued Pennsylvania's Secretary of State and Director of the Bureau of Election Services and Notaries ("State Defendants"). It alleges that Pennsylvania's election laws and practices during the pandemic severely burden the right to vote and ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 20, 2021
Libertarian Party v. Wolf
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs, three political parties and their supporters and potential candidates for office, sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s in-person signature requirements for party candidates. Plaintiffs argued that given the extraordinary ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 20, 2021
League of Women Voters of Penn. v. Boockvar
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 16, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh, and individual voters sued state and county officials. Plaintiffs alleged that Pennsylvania’s failure to provide, on a uniform and statewide basis, absentee and mail-in voters with any opportunity to cure ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 19, 2021
Johnakin v. U.S. Postal Service
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 18, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
The USPS allegedly enacted operational challenges after June 2020 that reduced postal service worker hours, forbade overtime, and removed sorting machines, thus affecting the postal service's ability to deliver ballots cast by mail in a timely manner. Pennsylvania enacted a law to expand access to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 19, 2021
In re: Extension of time for Absentee and Mail-in Ballots
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Facts: The Montgomery County, PA Board of Elections filed an emergency petition to extend the date for the return of absentee and mail-in ballots (to align with the deadline for military and overseas ballots). The extension was requested because an update to the State Uniform Registry of Electors ( ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 19, 2021
In re: Extension of time for Absentee and Mail-in Ballots
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Dec. 20, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Due to the high number of applications for mail-in and absentee ballots on account of the pandemic, despite its best efforts (including appropriating resources from other county agencies), the county board of elections was unable to process applications in a timely manner. The board feared that ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 19, 2021
Sims v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: CIV 1004019 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0019
The Marin Superior permanently enjoined the CDCR from using the lethal injection method to execute anyone before issuing new regulations pursuant to the APA. The CDCR appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the decision.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0019)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 18, 2021
Muting Gideon’s Trumpet: The Crisis in Indigent Criminal Defense in Texas
Prison Policy Initiative
Date: Sep. 22, 2000
By: Prison Policy Initiative
The Gideon case, while a landmark, merely extended the reasoning of Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), which had earlier ruled that the Constitution required legal counsel be appointed or otherwise provided for indigents accused in capital cases. Later cases such as In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 18, 2021
ACLU Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Gov. and DOC for Failure to Protect Medically Vulnerable People in Prison from COVID-19
ACLU Colorado
Date: 2020
By: ACLU Colorado
ACLU of Colorado filed a class action lawsuit today against Governor Polis and the Department of Corrections seeking an emergency order to compel the DOC to protect medically vulnerable incarcerated people from COVID-19. The requested order includes prioritizing the release of people who are older, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 18, 2021
Colorado DOC Population Management Plan - COVID-19
Colorado DOC
Date: Apr. 21, 2020
By: Colorado DOC
At the outbreak of COVID-19, the DOC quickly reviewed all relevant strategies and approaches to prevent the spread of the virus. These strategies mirror many of the public-facing strategies, but there are some profound challenges that are unique to the prison environment. *
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 18, 2021
Engers v. AT&T
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 98-CV-3660 (SRC) (D.N.J.)
EE-NJ-0116
AT&T management employees filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that changes to the company's pension plan violated the ADEA and ERISA. After more than ten years of litigation, the defendants were granted summary judgment on all claims.
View Case Detail (EE-NJ-0116)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 18, 2021
Leopold v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-01278 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0148
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0148)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 17, 2021
Rhames v. United States of America
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 7:17-cv-00009-O (N.D. Tex.)
PC-TX-0023
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-TX-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 17, 2021
Robinson v. Beck
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 07 CVS 001109 (State Court)
CJ-NC-0003
On January 18, 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board (NCMB) issued a Position Statement to express their views regarding the participation of North Carolina's licensed physicians in executions. NCMB stated their belief that any physician participation in capital punishment was a violation of medical ethics. The statement said physicians who were present for purposes of state law would not be disciplined, but those who participated beyond the requirements of state law would be subject to discipline. Two death-sentenced prisoners filed a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina, contending that their rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment would be violated if a physician did not participate in their execution. The North Carolina Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the State to stay executions until the Warden of the Department of Corrections received approval from the Governor and Council of State regarding the new execution protocol that did not require physician participation in lethal injections. We do not have further information on this case.
View Case Detail (CJ-NC-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 17, 2021
Klinger v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:88-cv-399 (D. Neb.)
PC-NE-0012
In 1988, a class of women incarcerated in the Nebraska Center for Women sued the Nebraska Department of Corrections alleging violations of Title IX, the Equal Protection clause, and the Eighth Amendment. After multiple district court opinions finding in favor of the plaintiffs, two Eighth Circuit opinions reversed the lower court and denied any relief for the plaintiffs.
View Case Detail (PC-NE-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2021
Parga v. Tulsa County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:18-cv-00298-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla.)
CJ-OK-0006
Civil Rights Corps sued Tulsa County and various judicial officers, alleging that the court system operated a wealth-based detention system by detaining arrestees without inquiring into their ability to pay bail. While the plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction was denied, the plaintiffs motion for class certification is still pending.
View Case Detail (CJ-OK-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 12, 2021
Winston v. Polis
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: D162020CV31823 (State Court)
PC-CO-0036
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-CO-0036)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 11, 2021
In re: Extension of time for Absentee and Mail-in Ballots
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=118
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
The Delaware County Board of Elections submitted an emergency petition to allow it to extend the deadline to accept and tabulate mail-in ballots for the June Primary. As of the date of the Primary on June 2, 2020, about 400-500 ballots still had not been mailed out. The Delaware County Board of ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
County of Santa Clara v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05813 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106
Santa Clara County and a labor union filed this lawsuit on October 10, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging President Trump's revocation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs argued that revoking DACA violated due process, equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to keep DACA in place, which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0106)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01907-CRC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0032
On September 18, 2017, the NAACP sued DHS for ending the DACA program, alleging that rescission violated due process and the APA. Several labor unions joined as co-plaintiffs. On January 18, 2018, the case was consolidated with Trustees of Princeton University v. U.S.A.. On April 24, 2018, the Court held that the DHS’ rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious, and vacated the DHS decision. In August 2018, the government appealed to the DC Circuit Court, and the District Court granted a limited stay of its April 24, 2018 order as it applied to initial DACA applications and applications for DACA-based advance parole. The defendants later sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in this and two other DACA cases. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The district court remanded the case to DHS for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. The plaintiffs in this case declined to challenge the July 28 memo, but the plaintiffs in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump challenged the memo and the court in those cases ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0032)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
Garcia v. United States of America
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05380 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0099
A group of DACA recipients filed this lawsuit on Sept. 18, 2017, challenging President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The plaintiffs argued that revoking DACA violates due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. On Jan. 9, 2018, the court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0099)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
City of San Jose v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05329 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098
On Sept. 14, 2017, the City of San Jose filed this lawsuit in response to the Trump Administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), arguing that such a rescission violates the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on Jan. 9, 2018 to keep DACA in place, which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0098)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
State of California v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05235-MEJ (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096
Several states filed this lawsuit on September 11, 2017, challenging President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). The plaintiffs alleged that the government's decision to end DACA violated due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In November 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction to preserve the program. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0096)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 9, 2021
Frateschi v. Fennessy
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1700910/2020 (State Court)
PC-NY-0084
In April of 2020, five inmates in Oneida County, New York filed this habeas corpus action in the Supreme Court of New York in Oneida County. The petitioners alleged that their continued detention, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and their medically vulnerable statuses, violated their Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and their rights under Article I, Section 5 of the New York State Constitution. The petitioners sought immediate release from prison. In May 2020, the court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss. In June 2020, the petitioners appealed. According to plaintiffs' counsel as of September 29, the appeal is in process.
View Case Detail (PC-NY-0084)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 5, 2021
Don't Shoot Portland v. Wolf
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02040 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0016
This lawsuit arose out of President Trump's decision to send federal agents to Portland, Oregon in order to quell protests there in July of 2020. The decision came following months of protest against racial inequality and policing, largely in response to the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint alleged that federal police were illegally stopping protests, using excessive force, and foregoing due process in an attempt to quell the unrest. The plaintiffs, two activist organizations and several individual plaintiffs, sued six federal agencies and their heads, demanding declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 15, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. A group of current and former prosecutors, Attorney Generals, and former attorneys for the federal government filed an amicus brief expressing concerns about the deployment of federal law enforcement in Portland and elsewhere. The Constitutional Accountability Center also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. Then, on December 17, the plaintiffs requested to file an amended complaint. The court granted them leave to do so and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. The case is ongoing as of January 5, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 4, 2021
Nightingale v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:19-cv-03512 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0150
On June 16, 2019, plaintiffs--three immigration attorneys and two noncitizens who filed FOIA (FOIA) requests for individual immigration case files (known as A-Files)--filed this class-action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs, represented by the American Immigration Council and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, sought declaratory relief that defendants’ failure to make timely determinations on plaintiffs’ and proposed classes’ A-File FOIA requests violates FOIA, and a nationwide injunction requiring defendants to make timely determinations. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief and ordered the defendants to provide quarterly reports on their compliance with the FOIA.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0150)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 4, 2021
Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County v. City of Seattle
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00887 (W.D. Wash.)
PN-WA-0005
This lawsuit was brought by Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County against the Seattle Police Department. In the protests following the murder of George Floyd, the Seattle Police Department unlawfully used excessive force against the protesters in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, according to the complaint. A temporary restraining order was granted against the SPD. This TRO was made into a preliminary injunction, but plaintiffs later filed a contempt motion arguing that the defendant violated the injunction by targeting journalists, legal observers, and medics, as well as firing indiscriminately into crowds of protesters. On December 7, the court found the court violated the preliminary injunctions in four incidents and directed the plaintiffs' to file a motion with proposed sanctions. The defendant's responded by filing a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court applied the wrong standard and incorrectly found that the four incidents violated the orders. The case is ongoing as of January 4, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-WA-0005)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 3, 2021
Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland
ACLU Oregon
Date: October 9, 2020
By: ACLU Oregon
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon and Braunhagey & Borden LLP filed a class-action lawsuit on June 28, 2020 on behalf of journalists and legal observers who were targeted and attacked by the police while documenting protests in Portland over the killing of George Floyd. The ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Anti Police-Terror Project v. Oakland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-03866 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043
This class-action lawsuit claims that Oakland, California police tactics used to quell protests following the killing of George Floyd were violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and also represented a Monell violation on the part the City of Oakland. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and attorneys from the National Lawyers Guild. They brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief. On July 29 the court entered a preliminary injunction against the defendants, which limited the OPD's use of "less-lethal" weapons, mandated body cameras, and required further training. The parties both sought modifications to the injunction in October 2020. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to modify the preliminary injunction and instead granted the defendants' motion to modify the injunction on October 28, 2020. The Court acknowledged the defendants' concern about demonstrations in relation to the upcoming presidential election and how OPD's mutual aid partners had largely withdrawn support after the preliminary injunction. It found that the combination of the lack of mutual aid and the potential demonstrations was a significant change in the facts meriting a change in the injunction to properly balance the equities of the parties and the public interest. OPD officers still were required to ensure that mutual aid partners were briefed on OPD's prohibited weapons and force to the extent possible. This case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0043)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Black Lives Matter v. Wolf
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-04319 (N.D. Ill.)
PN-IL-0026
This is a lawsuit brought by several black activist groups, legal organizations, and news media outlets, against the heads of various federal agencies, including the DHS, ICE, Federal Protective Services, and the DOJ. They argued that the deployment to Chicago of these federal agencies by President Trump during the protests that ensued after the police killing of George Floyd were unlawful and unconstitutional. They argued that the defendants violated the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments by using these agents, and that they were in conspiracy to deprive Chicago residents of their rights. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim on October 2. The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-IL-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Buchanan v. Trump
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01542 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0015
This lawsuit was filed in response to President Trump's use of chemical weapons on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square Park. Plaintiffs sued the President, Attorney General William Barr, and other military and law enforcement officials under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. They also sued under Bivens and the Posse Comitatus Act. On September 3, 2020, the plaintiffs amended the complaint adding numerous officials and officers from the Metropolitan Police Department (the D.C. police), the United States Park Police, and the Arlington County Police Department as defendants. Each group of defendants then filed motions to dismiss the claims asserted against them. These motions remain pending as of January 2, 2021. The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Ruiz v. City of Sacramento
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01229 (E.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0045
This class action lawsuit was brought on June 18, 2020 in response to the Sacramento Police Department using allegedly illegal tactics to quash the protests that arose after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution, the California state constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Bane Act. The plaintiffs amended the complaint on August 14, adding additional plaintiffs and state tort claims. The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0045)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Black Lives Matter 5280 v. City and County of Denver
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01878 (D. Colo.)
PN-CO-0004
This case arose out of the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint alleges that during the protests in Denver, city police and state patrol officers used less-lethal weapons against protesters in violation of the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments' prohibitions on excessive force and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition. This case was consolidated with Cruz v. County of Denver on August 4. Later in October, it was also consolidated with Acker v. City and County of Denver. The litigation in all cases continues as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-CO-0004)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 30, 2020
Judge Halts ‘Public Health’ Expulsions of Children at the Border
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/politics/trump-migrant-children.html
Date: Nov. 18, 2020
By: Zolan Kanno-Youngs (New York Times)
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a public health emergency decree did not give the Trump administration authority to expel unaccompanied children before they could request asylum.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 27, 2020
Castillo v. Whitmer
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00751 (W.D. Mich.)
PR-MI-0006
In August 2020, a group of Latino agricultural migrant workers and two limited liability companies that employ agricultural migrant workers filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs alleged that one of the state's emergency health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against Latino workers and their employers. The plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief was denied by the district court, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision. On September 9, the case was closed when the plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal.
View Case Detail (PR-MI-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 25, 2020
Arab American Institute v. Office of Management and Budget
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00871-ABJ (D.D.C.)
PB-DC-0011
On April 13, 2018, the Arab American Institute sued the Office of Management and Budget under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. AAI alleged that OMB violated FOIA by failing to disclose requested records pertaining to OMB’s decision not to include a combined race and ethnicity question or a Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) category on the 2020 Census. In May, the court ordered OMB to file a dispositive motion or a status report setting a schedule for OMB’s production of documents to AAI. Over the next two years, the parties filed several joint status reports detailing which documents OMB had disclosed to AAI and which documents were still outstanding or disputed. OMB produced a number of documents to AAI but withheld some, claiming they were FOIA exempt. AAI objected to five claimed exemptions. The parties both filed motions for summary judgment. After conducting in camera review, on August 13, 2020, the court granted OMB’s motion for summary judgment and denied AAI’s cross-motion, finding that the disputed documents were predecisional and exempt from FOIA. As of December 25, 2020, AAI has not appealed the court’s decision.
View Case Detail (PB-DC-0011)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, and Turning Point for Women and Families -AGAINST- The City of New York
https://www.stopspying.org/hijab
Date: Mar. 11, 2019
By: Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Inc. (The Urban Justice Center)
STOP and our co-counsel are pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit to end the NYPD policy of forcing arrestees to remove religious head coverings, including turbans, wigs, hats, and the hijab. Our plaintiffs include a survivor of domestic violence who was traumatized by the NYPD when she was ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
Chicagoans for an End to the Gang Database v. City of Chicago
https://www.macarthurjustice.org/case/chicagoans-for-an-end-to-the-gang-database/
Date: Sep. 3, 2020
By: Vanessa del Valle (MacArthur Justice Center)
The MacArthur Justice Center represents the Chicagoans for an End to the Gang Database, a coalition of individuals and community organizations, in a federal class action lawsuit against the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department (CPD) targeting the widespread use of an inaccurate, racially ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
A Critical Legal Rhetoric Approach to In Re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=jcred
Date: Jun. 1, 2010
By: Lolita Buckner Inniss (St. John's Law Scholarship Repository)
Critical legal rhetoric is a means of explicating the way in which rhetoric and ideology relate to law. It names the rhetorical practices and clarifies the ideologies that go into making up the law's articulations. Critical legal rhetoric is, in other words, a way of understanding not only why law ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
Fazaga v. FBI
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/cases/fazaga-v-fbi
Date: Feb. 21, 2011
By: ACLU of Southern California
Fazaga v. FBI is a case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation for illegally spying on the Muslim community in Orange County, California.

In June 2006, FBI agents sent an informant to one of the largest, most diverse mosques in Orange County, California, who posed as a convert to ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 24, 2020
DOJ v. Amtrak
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-3503 (D.D.C.)
DR-DC-0009
On December 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, by failing to make its intercity rail stations accessible to individuals with disabilities by July 26, 2020, as required by the Act. The case was never properly docketed or assigned to a judge, however, because the government announced its settlement with Amtrak on the same day. The settlement agreement required Amtrak to design at least 135 accessible stations, complete construction at 90 stations, and be in the process of constructing at least 45 stations within 10 years of the settlement date. The agreement also required Amtrak to train staff on ADA compliance, establish a monitor-approved process for managing ADA complaints, and create a settlement fund to compensate individuals who were harmed by Amtrak’s most inaccessible stations. The settlement was monitored by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Department of Justice.
View Case Detail (DR-DC-0009)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Drenth v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Joseph Drenth and National Federation of the Blind in Pennsylvania brought a civil rights case under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act asserting that Pennsylvania's election policies violated the rights of the blind by not providing accessible ballots for blind ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
People Not Politicians Oregon v. Clarno
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
In light of COVID-19 issues, Petitioner attempted to meet the signature requirements using online and mail, but was not able to meet the threshold required to add petitions to the November ballot. Petitioner requests that the Secretary of State adjust both the deadline (to mid-August) and threshold ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
The Obama administration released the 2009 interrogation/rendition task force report I sued them for under the Freedom of Information Act
https://charliesavage.com/?p=1423
Date: 12/06/2016
By: Charlie Savage
President Obama is today scheduled to deliver his last major speech about national security, which will summarize and defend his counterterrorism legal policy and strategy over the past eight years. Ahead of that, the administration released a pile of documents yesterday. These included a 61-page ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Here’s a previously top secret 2005 Bush Justice Department memo on Stellarwind surveillance and prosecutors’ discovery obligations
https://charliesavage.com/?p=1579
Date: Mar. 31, 2017
By: Charlie Savage
In response to one of the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits I am fighting with The New York Times’ lawyer David McCraw and our annual First Amendment Fellow, Ian MacDougal, the government has turned over a May 2005 memorandum by Patrick Rowan, who was then a top national-security prosecutor in ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Don’t cite the Prism v. Upstream collection numbers from Judge Bates’ 2011 FISC opinion anymore
https://charliesavage.com/?p=1714
By: Charlie Savage
Among surveillance legal policy specialists, it is common to cite a set of statistics from an October 2011 opinion by Judge John Bates, then of the FISA Court, about the volume of internet communications the National Security Agency was collecting under the FISA Amendments Act (“Section 702”) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-17/pdf/2020-27856.pdf
Date: Dec. 17, 2020
By: Chad R. Mizelle (U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
On July 16, 2019, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DOJ,’’ ‘‘DHS,’’ or, collectively, ‘‘the Departments’’) published an interim final rule (‘‘IFR’’) governing asylum claims in the context of aliens who enter or attempt to enter the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Class Action Lawsuit Challenges California Cities' For-Profit Prosecution Scheme
https://ij.org/case/indio-fines/
Date: Jan. 1, 2020
By: Institute for Justice
There is a new sheriff in town in Indio, California and he’s coming after residents who find themselves caught in the city’s outrageous new code enforcement law.

That sheriff is a private, for-profit law firm called Silver and Wright, which was hired by Indio in 2014 to serve as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
McCarter v. Brown
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 28, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff sought a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction asking for multiple types of relief due to the Governor of Oregon and various local county officials’ executive orders’ violating plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights afforded under the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
NILA’s Affirmative Litigation Docket
https://immigrationlitigation.org/impact-litigation/
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: National Immigration Litigation Alliance
NILA’s impact litigation in the federal courts seeks procedural or substantive change either to extend the rights of noncitizens or to eliminate systemic obstacles they or their immigration counsel routinely face. It includes affirmative suits in district court as well as select circuit level ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Featured Issue: USCIS’s Blank Space Policy
https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/all/featured-issue-usciss-blank-space-policy
Date: Dec. 21, 2020
By: American Immigration Lawyers Association
As a result of class action litigation in Vangala v. USCIS challenging USCIS's “No Blank Space” policy, USCIS has agreed to stop implementing the rejection policy for asylum applications and U visa petitions starting December 28, 2020. Read AILA's practice alert for more details.

*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Wright v. Oklahoma
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Stephen Christopher Wright is challenging Oklahoma statute Title 26 §26511 as creating barriers to running for office. The Statute allows 2 methods for candidates to get on the ballot; (i) pay a filing fee, and (ii) gather physical signatures of voters in the district. COVID-19 has caused the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Manning v. Rogers
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Facts/claims: Secretary of State has delayed signature counting and verification for a State Question (law prohibiting extreme sentencing) due to COVID-19 related difficulties. Court agreed and directed Secretary of State to begin signature count to consider petition.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Hawkins v. Ziriax
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Green Party nominee for President and registered voters in the State of Oklahoma brought an action against the Oklahoma State Election Board seeking: (i) a declaratory judgment that certain Oklahoma statutes (Okla. Stat. tit. 26 Sec. 5-112 and 10-101.1) (the "Oklahoma Election Statutes") are ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Ohio ex rel. Speweik v. Wood Cnty. Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Facts/Claims: Plaintiff candidate for an Ohio county court of common pleas sued the Ohio Secretary of State and the Wood Country Board of Elections, alleging violation of election laws for changing the primary date from March 17 when the state legislature had not elected to move the primary date ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Ohio ex rel. ODP v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
After Ohio Department of Health ordered the closing of polling places the day before the March primary, the Secretary of State issued a directive to extend absentee voting through June 1 and set June 2 as the date for in-person voting. The Ohio Democratic Party challenged the Secretary of State's ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 10, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The Ohio Democratic Party and other plaintiffs seek a declarative judgment that Ohio law does not limit counties to one drop box for absentee ballots, nor does it limit their location to county boards of elections, despite the Secretary of State's earlier instruction to the contrary. The plaintiffs ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
LWV of Ohio v. LaRose II
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Signature matching procedures and standards are inconsistent across different counties in Ohio. The State also fails to provide sufficient opportunity for voters to correct any signature mismatches. The voters most susceptible to signature mismatches are the elderly, disabled, ill and non-native ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Hawkins v. DeWine
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs seek to modify or enjoin both the State's ballot access provisions for independent political candidates and the State's requirements for formation of a minor political party. Specifically, they challenge the in-person nominating petition signing requirements and nominating petition ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Duncan v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff is a presidential candidate, arguing that the signature requirement to appear on the Ohio ballot is unconstitutional in light of the Gov.'s stay at home order; P moved for a PI to either waive the signature requirement or put P on the ballot.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 22, 2020
State Of Arizona v. Maricopa County Community College District Board
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: CV2013-009093 (State Court)
IM-AZ-0023
In 2013, the State of Arizona filed this lawsuit against the Maricopa County Community College District Board. The plaintiff argued that 8 USC §1623(a) and ARS §15-1803(B) both prohibit granting in-state tuition to students based on state residency when they are not lawfully in the United States, thus, the defendant could not allow DACA recipients to pay in-state tuition rates. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Arizona confirmed, and the case was remanded with instructions to enter a judgment enjoining the Maricopa County Community College District Board from granting in-state tuition to DACA recipients.
View Case Detail (IM-AZ-0023)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 21, 2020
Brockman v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, two individuals over 65 years of age (Reardon and Brockman), enjoined the court to delay Ohio’s primary election, scheduled to take place on March 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020, as was recommended by the Governor and Secretary of State of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that, if not enjoined, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 21, 2020
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-01854 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0147
On August 7, 2018, Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning nonprofit specializing in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation to expose government mismanagement, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552) against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking records surrounding surveillance of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. The records sought in this case may impact the Carter Page FISA warrants. The parties have agreed to a document production schedule, and document disclosure is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0147)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 21, 2020
James Madison Project v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00597 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0146
On April 4, 2017, the James Madison Project (a Washington, DC-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting public transparency in the intelligence community) and a USA Today national security reporter filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking for any information on surveillance of the Trump 2016 campaign under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This case led to the disclosure of some of the Carter Page FISA warrants. It features extensive briefing on the use of President Trump's Twitter account and the White House press office as mechanisms to order declassification of records. The case closed in 2020.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0146)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
County of Nevada v. Superior Court of Nevada County
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: C0740504 (State Court)
JC-CA-0113
In 2013, the commander of the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility, a county jail in California, informed the inmates that lawyers would no longer be able to meet face-to-face with their clients. Instead, lawyers would have to meet with clients through glass walls, speaking into telephones. Both ...
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0113)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. HUD
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-11765-MGM (D. Mass.)
FH-MA-0007
On September 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and Housing Works, Inc. filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of HUD in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued the defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-703, alleging that a new HUD rule (“the 2020 Rule”) limiting disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from implementing the 2020 Rule until after this case was resolved and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on October 6, 2020. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on October 25, 2020, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the 2020 Rule was arbitrary and capricious. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FH-MA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
Vangala v. USCIS
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-08143 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0172
On November 19, 2020, three noncitizens filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on behalf of themselves and all individuals who had been or would be harmed by USCIS’s “blank space” policy, which required applicants for immigration benefits to fill in every response field on their applications, even fields that did not apply to them. Represented by National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and the Van Der Hout law firm, the plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Mandamus and Venue Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, alleging that the government violated the APA by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy, failing to follow proper procedures when adopting the policy, and defying USCIS regulations. The plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting USCIS from enforcing the policy and requiring USCIS to notify individuals whose applications were rejected as a result of it. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0172)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
Morales v. The City of Indio
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: RC 1803060 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0024
This case dealt with the practice of a private law firm collecting attorney's fees from plaintiffs who were charged with code violations. It was settled.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 19, 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
A Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient living in New York filed this suit against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoining the expansion of DACA, USCIS had unlawfully revoked a three-year employment authorization that had previously been granted to him. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the revocation unlawful and in violation of the procedures required under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and restoring his three-year employment authorization. A nationwide injunction was issued, and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5 which was granted on July 3, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. On July 28, 2020, the purported Acting Secretary of DHS issued a memorandum effectively suspending DACA while DHS reviewed it. The plaintiffs challenged the memorandum on the grounds that (1) the Acting Secretary did not have the authority to issue the memorandum, and (2) the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. While the parties awaited the court’s decision, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging various constitutional and statutory violations pertaining to the Acting Secretary’s appointment and agency action following the Supreme Court’s decision. On November 14, 2020, the district court found that the Acting Secretary was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of DHS and thus did not have the authority to issue the memorandum. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 4, 2020, the court vacated the memorandum and ordered DHS to resume processing DACA applications. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0051)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 17, 2020
Donald J. Trump for Pres., Inc. v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 22, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Trump Campaign, four Republican members of Congress, the RNC, and two PA residents sued the PA Secretary of State, and the County Election Boards of all 67 PA counties. The general theme of the complaint is that mail-in-voting is the “single greatest threat to free and fair elections.” The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 17, 2020
Disability Rights Penn. v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Disability Rights Pennsylvania; SeniorLAW Center; Southeast Asian Mutual Assistance Associations Coalition, Inc. (SEAMAAC); Suzanne Erb; The Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia (Petitioners), challenged the constitutionality of sections 1302, 1302.1, 1302.2, and 1308 of the 2019 Omnibus ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 17, 2020
Delisle v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The case concerns an emergency petition for an extension of time to allow the Bucks County, PA, Board of Elections to count the Voted Absentee and Mail-in Ballots that were received during the 2020 Pennsylvania Primary Election. On May 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
A.N.S.W.E.R. v. Norton
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:05-cv-00071-PLF (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0022
On January 14, 2005, a group of anti-war demonstrators including the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition (ANSWER), the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, the National Council of Arab Americans, a pastor at a congregational church, and a civilian whose son died in the Iraq War sued the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, and the Director of the Secret Service under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3)–(4) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, the plaintiffs alleged that the government violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, and their right to equal protection under the law by violating National Park Service (“NPS”) regulations by exempting the Presidential Inauguration Committee (“PIC”) from the regular permit process for reserving space along the Inauguration Day Parade route and by banning sign supports from the Parade. The plaintiffs alleged that these actions together prevented the public from accessing the Parade route and from exercising their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the government’s actions unconstitutional and to enjoin the NPS from setting aside its regulations for the PIC in the future. The district court found that the NPS’ regulatory set aside violated NPS regulations but was not unconstitutional. The court also upheld the government’s sign support ban. The D.C. Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision on appeal.
View Case Detail (FA-DC-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
Western Native Voice v. Stapleton
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: DV-2020-0377 (State Court)
VR-MT-0016
Voting organizations and seven tribes in Montana sued to block the Ballot Interference Prevention Act, which would constrain the organizations ability to collect ballots from rural Native American tribal members. The Court permanently enjoined the statute, finding that it infringed the Plaintiffs' fundamental rights to vote, free speech, and due process.
View Case Detail (VR-MT-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
[Redacted Caption] Gov't Ex Parte Submission of Reauthorization Certifications & Related Procedures, Ex Parte Submission of Amended Certifications & Request for an Order Approving Such Certifications & Amended Certifications (Dec. 2019) (702, Boasberg J.)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0145
In September 2019, the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence submitted the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) to the FISC for their annual review. This was a little later than usual, given the delays associated with appeals during the 2018 annual review. Judge James E. Boasberg approved the new procedures and provided an update on compliance with promises made during the 2018 approval process.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0145)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 8:11-cv-00301 (C.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0030
In February 2011, three Muslim individuals filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that the FBI had used an informant to gather information on hundreds of Muslims based solely on their religion, violating their First and Fifth Amendment rights and FISA. After United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney dismissed the majority of their claims, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of three judges held that the district court had erred in determining sua sponte that particular claims warranted dismissal under the state secrets privilege. In finding that Congress intended FISA procedures to displace the state secrets privilege and the common law dismissal remedy with respect to electronic surveillance, the panel remanded the case back to the district court to be analyzed under the FISA procedures. The Ninth Circuit released a revised opinion in July 2020 with a new concurrence and dissent after a failed vote to rehear the case en banc. The defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 18, 2020; the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0030)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 16, 2020
NSA Declassifies Internet Surveillance Files from 2011 Case
The New York Times Company
Date: Oct. 11, 2017
By: Charlie Savage
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The New York Times, the National Security Agency has declassified these previously secret documents from the docket of a 2011 case before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The case concerned problems with the NSA's so-called " ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 16, 2020
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of California, State of Delware, District of Columbia, State of Maine, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of North Carolina v. Louis DeJoy and the United States Postal Service
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs PA, CA, DE, DC, ME, MA, and NC bring suit against DeJoy, Duncan (chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors), and USPS challenging recent changes to USPS policies resulting in delay of the mail with impacts on the election. Under the Postal Reorganization Act, USPS is required to ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 16, 2020
Page v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03149 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0143
On October 21, 2019, an informal advisor to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign filed a complaint against the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act seeking release of documents he requested in 2017 related to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against him and injunctive relief to halt the DOJ from releasing more private and untrue information about him. The DOJ filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019, noting that the plaintiff had not fully responded to questions surrounding his initial FOIA request and that releases of information about his FISA warrants were done in response to FOIA requests from The New York Times. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice on September 11, 2020.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0143)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 16, 2020
Page v. Comey
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03460 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0144
On November 27, 2020, an informal foreign policy advisor to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and various former DOJ and FBI officials that sought the warrant against him in their personal capacity violated his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures in connection with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants issued against him during the 2016 campaign. He sought $75 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees for this case and a related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case used to gain information for this litigation under FISA, Bivens, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Privacy Act. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0144)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2020
In re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters Submitted to the FISC
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 19-02 (FISC)
NS-DC-0138
In response to late 2019 disclosures showing "inaccuracies and omissions" in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications against Trump 2016 campaign official Carter Page, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) released a series of orders asking the FBI to reform its FISA warrant application process and training on FISA warrants. The government is working to comply with these orders, though the FISC granted several extensions for reporting requirements in 2020 due to COVID-19 concerns.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0138)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2020
In re [Redacted], Non-U.S. Persons
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 19-218 (FISC)
NS-DC-0142
On March 5, 2020, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a warrant to monitor foreign persons in line with section 1805(a)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a redacted version of the opinion on September 23, 2020 because it clarified the definition of "facility" in section 1805(a)(2)(B) and the probable cause standard surrounding the term. With the warrant granted, the case is presumed to be closed.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0142)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2020
In re Opinions & Orders of this Court Addressing Bulk Collection of Data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA Docket Misc. 13-08, FISCR docket 20-1]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 13-08 (FISC)
NS-DC-0026
On June 12, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIAC) (collectively, "movants") filed a motion in the FISC for release of court records including opinions that address the legal authority for the NSA's bulk telephony metadata program. After various motions surrounding the specific data the movants were seeking and if the movants had standing to bring the case, Judge Rosemary Collyer denied the motion in 2020, saying that while the movants had standing, the First Amendment does not confer an unqualified right to access the material at issue and that this information should remain classified. The movants appealed the decision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR), but they denied the appeal on jurisdictional grounds in April 2020. The case was not appealed to the Supreme Court, closing the case.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0026)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
A. Philip Randolph Inst. of Ohio v. LaRose
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=222
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
USPS operational changes may delay receipt of mailed absentee ballots and result in voided ballots. Ohio now allows absentee voters to drop off absentee ballot applications and ballots in secure drop boxes rather than mailing materials via USPS. But Ohio Secretary of State LaRose also restricts ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Sinner v. Jaeger
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=77
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Suit challenged North Dakota constitutional and statutory provisions governing the signature process to place a constitutional amendment on the November 3, 2020 ballot that would create a nonpartisan legislative redistricting process. These provisions require persons to sign a petition in the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Stringer v. North Carolina
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=73
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
The suit challenges (1) the State's failure to provide accessible in-person voting opportunities that comply with social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) vote-by-mail restrictions (postage at voters' expense, witness requirement, untenable absent ballot receipt deadline ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=180
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs, North Carolina State Conference of NAACP branches and individual registered voters residing in counties using the ExpressVote machine, sued North Carolina State Board of Elections and Board of Elections of various North Carolina Counties to enjoin them from employing the ExpressVote to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Chambers v. North Carolina
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=74
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs were in ill-health, some were senior citizens and all live alone and are following social distancing guidelines. They all intend to vote via absentee ballot and are concerned about the witness requirements exposing them to COVID-19.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Advance N.C. v. North Carolina
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=72
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
North Carolina has "no-excuse" absentee voting by mail which requires an application for an absentee ballot. Until 2018, voters could submit completed applications directly or through a third party. Following enactment of SB 683, most third party organizations and individuals were prohibited from ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Yin v. Cuomo
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=93
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
After Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.23, which canceled the June 23, 2020 Special Election for Queens Borough President, Dao Yin and Jay Yee, two candidates, filed a complaint seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Executive Order. The Court denied ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Yang v. Kellner
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and certain pledged delegates sue New York State Board of Elections for canceling the presidential primary. The legal claims are: (1) undue burden on and denial of the right to vote under the 1st and 14th Amendments, (2) denial of procedural due process ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Quinn v. Cuomo
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
After Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.23, which canceled the June 23, 2020 Special Election for Queens Borough President, Jim Quinn, a Democratic candidate in the election, filed a complaint seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Executive Order. The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Puliafito v. Bd. of Elections in the City of NY
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Seawright filed a petition designating her a candidate for the office of Member of the Assembly for the 76th District on the Democratic Party primary ballot. This petition required a cover sheet, which Seawright failed to file prior to the March 20 deadline. Seawright also filed a petition ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 14, 2020
[Redacted caption] Gov't Ex Parte Submissions of Reauthorization Certification and Related Procedures, Amended Certifications, and Request for an Order Approving Such Certification and Amended Certifications (April 2011) (702, Bates, J.)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0057
In 2013, the government released previously classified documents regarding the authorization of the government's collection of electronic data under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702 authorizes the surveillance of foreigners who are abroad. The released documents included three court opinions identifying deficiencies in the government's minimization procedures and the steps the government took to fix those deficiencies. A subsequent Freedom of Information Act request from The New York Times released more government submissions further clarifying the scope of the collection problems and an additional hearing transcript.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0057)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 13, 2020
Murray v. Cuomo
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
On March 14, Governor issued Executive Order 202.2, which reduced the time to collect designating petition signatures (changing date from April 2 to March 17) and reduced the number of required signatures (from 5% to 1.5%) of registered party members. After submission of designating petition, NYC ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
Mujumder v. Bd. of Elections in the City of NY
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioners filed designating petitions in order to be placed on the ballot for the Democratic Party primary election in June 2020. Petitioners failed to timely file cover sheets required in connection with such designating petitions, which delays they attributed to the effects of the Covid-19 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
Mejia v. Bd. of Elections in the City of NY
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Joselin Mejia submitted a petition to validate her application to be a candidate on the ballot for the Democratic Party primary election held on June 23, 2020. She had filed her application without a cover sheet, which the Board of Elections for the City of New York found to be a wholly uncurable ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Kosinski
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 22, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Facts/Claims: The League of Women’s Voters of the United States, the League of Women’s Voters of New York, and an individual voter sued Commissioners and Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, alleging the State’s absentee voting procedures unconstitutionally violate (i) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
Jasikoff v. Comm’rs of the Westchester Cnty. Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioner circulated petitions to run in the Democratic Party primary election as a candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 88th Assembly District. On March 18, 2020, the Legislature passed an act requiring that a designating petition for the June 2020 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 10, 2020
Hernandez v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs claim violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for New York State Board of Election's failure to provide accessible paper ballot for individuals who cannot independently mark a paper ballot due to their disabilities*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 10, 2020
Hawatmeh v. NY State Board of Elections
MIT-Stanford Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioner filed a designating petition on March 20, designating Petitioner a Conservative Party candidate for the public office of Member of the US House of Representatives for the 19th Congressional District. Petitioner mailed to the Board of Elections the required certificate of acceptance on ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Corona v. Cegavske
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Facts: Plaintiffs challenge a series of Nevada practices. The Nevada Secretary of State announced that mail-in ballots would be mailed to active (but not inactive) registered voters. The vote by mail signature cure period is only seven days, which plaintiffs argue is not sufficient time to cure ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
New Approach Mont. v. Montana
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Montana Constitution permits citizens to enact laws by initiative, but sets forth requirements for collecting and submitting signatures. New Approach Montana alleges emergency circumstances relating to the coronavirus pandemic nullifies its ability to gather the signatures required to qualify ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Donald J. Trump for President v. Bullock
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Governor Bullock enacted an executive order granting universal vote-by-mail balloting. Plaintiffs allege that (1) such a system is vulnerable to voter abuse and fraud; (2) only the state legislature has the authority to enact universal vote-by-mail. In doing so, Plaintiffs claim violations of the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
American Women v. Missouri
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 10, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After the Missouri officials realized the pandemic would affect the November 3 election, they passed a new bill loosening many of its previous requirements, but only for some voters and not others. These plaintiffs challenge five restrictions that either remain after or were imposed by these rule ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Parham v. Watson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Mississippi law allows those with permanent or temporary disability to vote absentee if in-person voting could reasonably cause danger to the voter or others. New legislation further establishes that individuals under physicain-imposed quarantine and those caring for such individuals count as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Oppenheim v. Watson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 8, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs sued Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson for a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of the absentee ballot provision in Mississippi law (Section 23-15-713(d)) and who can vote absentee in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including clarification regarding the meaning ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
NAACP Minn. v. Simon
MIT-Stanford Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Complaint challenges two Minnesota voting-by-mail requirements: (1) each absentee ballot be witnessed by a registered Minnesota voter, a notary, or person otherwise authorized to administer oaths (the “Witness Requirement”), Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, and (2) unless a voter is located in a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Gallagher v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs requested declaratory relief with respect to the validation of ballots that were incorrectly or untimely postmarked by the USPS, despite defendants' assurances that such ballots would be valid. Plaintiffs allege that under New York Executive Order 202.26, pre-paid postage would be ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Minn. Voters Alliance v. Walz
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs argue that the mask mandate in public places passed by Executive Order by the governor of Minnesota at the start of the pandemic conflicts with a Minnesota statute prohibiting the wearing of a mask in public. The plaintiffs argue that the prospect of being prosecuted either for wearing a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff sued City Clerk for the City of Detroit, Detroit Department of Elections, and Detroit Election Commission for violating her procedural and substantive due process rights by mailing of an unsolicited absentee voter application. Plaintiff voted in person in the August 4, 2020 democratic ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Kishore v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs filed action challenging Michigan's ballot-access requirements for independent candidates for President of the United States. The plaintiffs had filed to run for President/Vice-President with the FEC but did not file the qualifying petition or collect the requisite signatures under ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Jobs for Downriver v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, duly-formed local ballot question committees, challenged various municipal charter provisions and Michigan statutes related to the number of signatures required to submit local ballot questions, and the deadlines to submit the signatures to place questions on the November 3, 2020 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Fair and Equal Mich. v. Benson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Michigan’s constitution allows its citizens to propose legislation through initiatives, which result from petitions: (a) signed by at least eight percent of the total vote cast for all gubernatorial candidates in the prior election, with such signatures collected at least 180 days before filing ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Eason v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 15, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
A candidate for The House of Representatives and voter in MI argues that MI’s ballot access procedures in combination with emergency declarations issued in MI violate his 1st and 14th amendment rights both as a voter and a candidate. He claims that independent candidates are required to gather ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Davis v. Wayne Cnty. Election Comm’n
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs brought an action against the Wayne County Election Commission and individual county and City of Detroit officials claiming that the Commission had certified the Defendant Jones to appear on the ballot as a candidate for US Congress for the 13th Congressional District despite the fact ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Davis v. Benson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff sued the Secretary of State for the State of Michigan for violating his constitutional and statutory rights by mailing of an unsolicited absentee voter application. Defendant mass mailed unsolicited absentee voter applications to plaintiff and other registered voters in the State of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Beard v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 16, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff Beard asserts that her first and fourteenth amendment rights were violated by the Michigan Governor's Executive Order 2020-21. Due to the Executive Order state offices including the Secretary of State, through which all judicial candidates must file, require the office to be closed until ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Grossman v. Galvin
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
For its September 1st primary election, Massachusetts has allowed applications to be received until August 26, but the state has not adjusted its receipt deadline from September 1st. Plaintiffs sue under the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions to require the state to count all ballots postmarked ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Brady v. State Ballot Law Comm'n (same as Campbell v. Galvin)
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Petitioner Helen Brady’s appealed the State Ballot Law Commission's (SBLC) order that Brady had failed to appropriately collect a sufficient amount of electronic signatures from registered voters in the 9th District in order to appear on the September 1, 2020 state electoral ballot. Because of a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Bertin v. Galvin
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Massachusetts residents and voting rights groups entered petition for writ of mandamus against Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin to force his office to comply with a new law requiring the secretary to send mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters in the state by July 15 2020, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
National Urban League v. DeJoy
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 13, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
USPS enacted operational changes in July 2020 that reduced postal service worker hours, forbade overtime, and directed mail-carriers to leave mail behind under certain circumstances. Plaintiffs claim that USPS (1) intentionally delayed the mail and threatens to unconstitutionally burden voters' ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Md. Green Party v. Hogan
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs the Green Party and Libertarian Party of Maryland sued the Governor and State Administrator of Elections, alleging the governmental restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19 have hindered their effects to gather signatures. Under MD election law, the Green Party and the Libertarian ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Ivey v. Lamone
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Candidate challenged State of MD's 1% threshold requirement for inclusion on General Election ballot. Plaintiff candidate claimed 1st and 14th amendment right violations as a result of the enforcement of the signature requirement. Candidate requested relief from the 1% threshold requirement as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Dhillon v. Wobensmith
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff is a prospective, unaffiliated mayoral candidate for Baltimore City in the Nov. 2020 election and seeks to challenge the Maryland election law's signature-gathing requirements for unaffiliated candidates in light of the difficulty created by the COVID-19 crisis to obtain such signatures ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 6, 2020
Merrill v. Dunlap
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, who are blind or legally blind, claimed ADA, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., and Maine Human Rights Act violations relating to Maine's refusal to provide accessible electronic voting/vote-by-mail means. Plaintiffs demanded that Maine implement a remote, accessible vote by mail system.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 4, 2020
Eisen v. Cuomo
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
The Governor of NY issued an Executive Order to suspend the collection of signatures for petitions of candidates seeking nominations of a major political party; however, the Executive Order did not reduce the number of signatures for independent candidates or extend the deadline to file those ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 4, 2020
New Mexico ex rel. Riddle v. Oliver
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Petitioners are County Clerks and therefore responsible for administering elections and the election process in each county of New Mexico. Petitioners are (1) required to appoint and confirm the willingness of all Election Boards to work on the primary and general elections by April 21, 2020, (2) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2020
Gusciora v. McGreevey
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs submitted a letter brief to enforce a final order issued over ten years ago, which banned online voting permanently in New Jersey because online votes can be hacked. The State confirmed through the media and a phone call that the May 12th election will have an online voting system for ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 2, 2020
Donald J. Trump for President v. Murphy
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 6, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
New Jersey Governor Murphy issued Executive Order 177 mandating that November 3 elections will be all-mail, that all active voters will automatically receive mail-in ballots, that ballots postmarked on or before elections day will be counted even if received after election day, and that all in- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 2, 2020
Libertarian Party of NH v. Sununu
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 21, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Under New Hampshire law, a candidate unaffiliated with a party must secure nomination papers from registered voters to be placed on the ballot. They need 3,000 for the positions of President, Vice President, U.S. Senator and Governor, and 1,500 for the position of U.S. Representative. Due to the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Jorgensen v. Dunlap
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiff is the Libertarian Party of Maine candidate for U.S. President in the Nov. 2020 election and seeks to challenge the Maine's petition signature requirements for independent candidates in light of the difficulty created by the COVID-19 crisis to obtain such signatures. Defendant is the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Dunlap
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 9, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is suing Defendants Maine Secretary of State and Attorney General, claiming that 6 provisions related to absentee voting are unconstitutional and deny people’s fundamental rights. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the 6 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Harding v. Edwards
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 18, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana who raise concerns about certain provisions of LA law that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in LA (described as being among the most dire in the U.S.), create an undue burden on the right to vote (1st and 14th Amendments, Voting Rights Act) with provisions ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Sterne v. Adams
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
KY issued order to allow "fear of COVID-19" to be a reason for absentee ballots for the primary and they are seeking to extend that for the November Elections. In addition, KY has recently implement a new ID requirement in order to receive a ballot and the recent shutdown of Government offices due ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Nemes v. Bensinger
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After Kentucky legislators gave election officials greater flexibility to change the state’s voting laws, the election officials (Board of Elections, Governor, Secretary of State) submitted plans to curtail in-person voting, including having one polling location in the state’s largest counties ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
RNC v. Weipert
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 16, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Trump campaign and the RNC sued the Johnson County auditor who sent voters absentee ballot applications prepopulated with some of their voter information, in contravention of the guidance of the Iowa Secretary of State. This is in light of a law passed this summer that would have required ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
RNC v. Miller
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs brought suit requesting an injunction on the Auditor of Linn County's action, whereby absentee ballots were prepopulated before being mailed to every active registered voter, even though the Sec. of State's emergency election directive asked for blank ballots to be distributed ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
RNC v. Gill
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Trump campaign and the RNC sued the Woodbury County auditor who sent voters absentee ballot applications prepopulated with some of their voter information, in contravention of the guidance of the Iowa Secretary of State. This is in light of a law passed this summer that would have required ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
LULAC of Iowa v. Pate
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 6, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Iowa doesn’t require voters to provide an excuse to submit an absentee ballot, but voters must complete an absentee ballot request that requires certain identifying information and an affidavit. Election officials were able to use available voter database information to fill in any missing ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
DSCC v. Pate
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After being denied the opportunity to intervene in the RNC's lawsuits against the Johnson, Linn, and Woodbury county auditors, the DSCC, DCCC and the Iowa Democratic Party filed this lawsuit alleging that a Directive written by the Iowa Secretary of State was invalid under the Iowa Constitution, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Frye v. Gardner
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
With the current COVID-19 pandemic, New Hampshire has extended its absentee voting system to all voters. However, the system relies on printed forms and ballots, which print-disabled voters (such as blind adults or those who have muscle-weakness related disabilities) cannot read or mark ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
American Fed. of Teachers v. Gardner
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 7, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
New Hampshire has traditionally been an in-person registration and voting state, with 90% of the electorate voting in person in the 2016 and 2018 elections. Plaintiffs contend that the absentee registration request process is unduly cumbersome and would lead to disenfranchisement of New Hampshire ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Bertrand v. Woodbury Cnty
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
A former Republican state senator filed a lawsuit against the Woodbury County auditor, fighting the auditor's decision to open only two polling places in Woodbury County on the June 2nd primary. Bertrand argued that Republicans and men tend to vote on Election Day and the emphasis on absentee ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Frederick et al v. Lawson et al
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Indiana law statutorily provides a right to vote absentee to certain groups of voters. In order to vote absentee, voters must submit an application for an absentee ballot affixed with a signature. A signature on an affidavit attached to the final absentee ballot must match this first signature, as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 15, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Common Cause Indiana, a nonprofit, non-partisan, public interest group, sued the Indiana Secretary of State, Indiana Election Commission, the Indiana Election Division, four county election officials in their official capacities as county election officials and as representatives of all 280 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Fight Back Fund v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Collective Bargaining Freedom Act became law in Illinois in April 2019. That Act provides that the authority to enact laws / rules restricting the use of union security agreements vests exclusively with the Illinois General Assembly. Plaintiffs support Illinois House Joint Resolution ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Paher v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs claim that a universal mail voting plan violates the right to vote (1st and 14th Amendments). They further claim that the plan violates the Purcell principle, violates Article I, § 4 of the Constitution, and violates Article IV, § 4 as well as the Nevada Constitution. State ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Fight for Nevada v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff is an organization attempting to obtain the signatures required to recall Nevada's governor. Plaintiff filed a TRO to extend end the statutory deadline to obtain the required signatures (~250K) due to delays/difficulties related to Covid-19.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
With Lives of Immigrant Detainees at Risk to COVID-19, Federal Judge Forces ICE's Hand
prisonlegalnews.org
Date: Jul. 1, 2020
By: Christopher Zoukis
As a result of a ruling June 5, 2020, hundreds of immigrant detainees held by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in south Florida may have to be released. That day a federal judge for the Southern District of Florida agreed the agency was likely “[shuffling] people around the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Judge Abruptly Reverses Order to Have a Fact-Finder Investigate South Florida ICE Jails
miamiherald.com
Date: Jul. 6, 2020
By: Monique Madan
Just hours after appointing an independent fact-finder to investigate possible “inhumane conditions, deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual punishment” at three South Florida immigration detention centers, a Miami federal judge abruptly reversed her order on Monday without explanation ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Moreno v. Denney
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Voting for Idaho's 2020 Primary election was available only by absentee ballot due to COVID-19 concerns. The absentee ballot request website crashed on the last day for voters to request absentee ballots. Voters and a principal political campaign committee sued the Secretary of State to extend the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Griffin v. Hawaii
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
This pro se plaintiff is a candidate for Hawaii's 1st Congressional District. He is seeking a preliminary injunction of Hawaii's mail-in voting program. Specifically, he alleges that voter fraud will result from ballots being intercepted or thrown out by accident; that the system is unfair to the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2020
The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-07020 (S.D.N.Y.)
NS-NY-0026
On September 7, 2016, the New York Times and one of its reporters focusing on national security issues filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act for documents on forced interrogation policy, statistics on the National Security Agency's (NSA) upstream internet surveillance program, and on issues related to discovery in classified terrorism cases. The parties amicably agreed to a document release schedule, and the case closed on October 26, 2017. Of interest in the released documents is the revelation that the government may have been collecting different percentages of communications through upstream surveillance than previously believed.
View Case Detail (NS-NY-0026)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
De Jean v. Nago
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Khistina De Jean, independent presidential candidate, seeks to add her name to the 2020 ballot without meeting the threshold number of petition signatures (4,377) before the August 8 primary.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Ga. Ass’n of Latino Elected Officials v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration and Elections Closed
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 15, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger used CARES Act funds to mail English-only absentee ballots to Georgia's 6.9 million active voters. Plaintiffs challenge this as unlawful under Sections 203 and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Anderson v. Raffensperger
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The Democratic Party of Georgia, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and three Georgia residents filed suit against several state and local election officials, alleging local election administration policies result in extended waiting times at the polls, deterring citizens from voting ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Grimes v. Fla. Dep’t of State
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
A trio of voters have asked a state court to order Florida officials to send mail-in ballots to all registered voters both for the state's Aug. 11 primary and the November general election. A retired police captain who helps the elderly, an Ocala minister and a Miami man confined to his home have ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Vote Forward et al v. DeJoy et al
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The lawsuit brings claims focusing on: (1) the delay in the delivery of mail ballots caused by the policy changes, which will place unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote during the ongoing pandemic; and (2) the Postmaster General’s failure to seek approval from the Postal Regulatory ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Robinson v. Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Washington DC's Board of Elections closed 14 of 17 polling stations in Ward 8, an area that is over 92% African-American, in response to COVID-19. Plaintiffs claim that since at least 2019, an unknown number of Ward 8 residents have not received mail-in ballots. The voters who do not receive mail- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff political action committee, along with individual plaintiffs, sought to place an initiative on the Nevada November 2020 ballot that would amend Nevada’s State Constitution to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to combat partisan gerrymandering. In light of COVID- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Cook County Republican Party v. Pritzker
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 18, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Republican Party brought suit challenging Illinois' law SB 1863 which mails a mail-in ballot to every voter who voted in elections in the past 2 years. Plaintiffs allege lead to fraudulent votes being counted, ballots being collected by partisan political operatives who will not turn them in (voter ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2020
Augusto v. Moniz
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-10685 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0024
In this case filed April 7, 2020, after the COVID-19 outbreak, civil immigration detainees at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility (PCCF) requested habeas and injunctive relief in the form of immediate interim release from detention. The plaintiffs claimed that the health and safety measures being taken by PCCF were insufficient to curb the spread of the virus and protect the health and safety of detainees within the facility. On June 8, the court certified a class of "all civil immigration detainees who are Petitioners in this action (i.e., who signed the original petition) or are otherwise presently detained in Unit C-3 at the PCCF." The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2020
Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-04834 (E.D.N.Y.)
PR-NY-0010
A group of Orthodox Jewish synagogues brought this lawsuit against the Governor of New York on October 8, 2020, alleging that the governor's restrictions on gatherings in light of surges in COVID-19 cases violated the Free Exercise Clause. After the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, they appealed to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the injunction in part to block the enforcement of the executive order's attendance caps pending the outcome of the appeal in the Second Circuit. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0010)