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 STUDIES
September 19, 2021
"Will Singer, Judicial Intervention and Juvenile Corrections Reform: A Case Study of Jerry M. v. District of Columbia"
Date: Jun. 1, 2012
By: Will Singer (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology)
102 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 901 (2012)
In January 2007, Vincent N. Schiraldi was the head of the District of
Columbia’s juvenile corrections agency.1
By that time, the agency had
struggled for decades to comply with a comprehensive consent decree
aimed at remedying constitutionally deficient conditions of ...
View Case Study Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 19, 2021
Lessons Learned from Georgia’s 2010 Olmstead Settlement: The Good, the Bad, and the Limitations of a Justice Department Olmstead Settlement
By: Talley Wells (Journal of Legal Medicine)
40 J. Legal Med. 45 (2020).
We were crushed.
It was Thursday, January 15, 2009, the day Captain Sully piloted his aircraft onto the Hudson River.1 It was five days before President George W.
Bush left office. And, it was the day the United States Justice Department
and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue entered ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 19, 2021
Baker v. Minnesota Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 62-cv-20-5143 (State Court)
PC-MN-0006
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-MN-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 19, 2021
Tassinari v. Salvation Army National Corporation
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-10806 (D. Mass.)
DR-MA-0009
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (DR-MA-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 18, 2021
Hill v. County of Montgomery
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 9:14-cv-00933 (N.D.N.Y.)
JC-NY-0070
In 2014, a former pre-trial detainee at the Montgomery County Jail filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiff alleged the facility failed to provide adequate food and nutrition, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In 2018, the class was certified. The class was divided into two subclasses of pre-trial and post-trial detainees and was generally defined as all detainees who have been or will be placed into the custody of the jail and were detained for at least two consecutive weeks since July 24, 2011. The parties reached a settlement agreement creating a $1,000,000 settlement fund on July 22, 2020, which was approved by the court in June of 2021.
View Case Detail (JC-NY-0070)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Harold v. Richards
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Jan. 10, 2018
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Pennsylvania targeted people with drug-related convictions in a particularly severe way — unlike for all other criminal offenses, the state automatically suspended the driver’s license of any person whose conviction involved drugs. These suspensions made social reentry nearly impossible; they ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
DiFrancesco v. Bullock
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Aug. 31, 2017
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Every year, Montana was suspending the licenses of an estimated 10,000 drivers because they were unable to pay court debts. The automatic suspensions were designed to coerce payment -- but this practice can never accomplish its intended goal. No punishment can increase the likelihood that a person ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Fowler v. Johnson
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: May 4, 2017
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law successfully settled with the state of Michigan
to ensure that, before the state suspends licenses for unpaid court
debt, individuals are given proper notice and the opportunity to show their inability to pay.

For those unable to pay, an ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Watlington v. City of McCrory
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Jan. 5, 2017
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law is arguing defendants banish from the city those who are too poor to live in homes worth $7 ,500 or more.

In September of 2016, the City of McCrory Arkansas passed a Trailer-Banishment Ordinance, forbidding anyone within the city limits from residing in a mobile ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Mar. 11, 2020
By: Equal Justice Under Law
This critical lawsuit aims to relieve hundreds of people currently detained unjustly pending immigration proceedings. The class action lawsuit includes immigrants detained in Richwood, Louisiana with Department of Justice immigration proceedings in Batavia, New York. Individuals who are not being ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Buffin v. San Francisco
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Mar. 4, 2019
By: Equal Justice Under Law
The City and County of San Francisco kept some of its poorest residents in jail because of their inability to make a monetary payment. In San Francisco, the poorer you are, the worse the system treats you. A wealthy individual could simply purchase his or her freedom whereas someone without means ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Rodriguez v. Providence Community Corrections
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Oct. 1, 2015
By: Equal Justice Under Law
In 2015, Equal Justice Under Law went on a six-month investigation — initially led with a team of Harvard Law School Students on Spring Break — and exposed rampant corruption, racketeering, and constitutional violations pervading the Rutherford County probation system.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Evenson-Childs v. Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Aug. 9, 2021
By: Equal Justice Under Law
On August 9, 2021, Equal Justice Under Law filed a lawsuit against the Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office on behalf of hundreds of individuals being extorted money through pre-trial fees before ever being found guilty of a crime.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
EPIC v. U.S. Postal Service
EPIC
Date: Aug. 12, 2021
By: EPIC
EPIC v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 21-2156 (D.D.C. filed August 12, 2021) is a lawsuit under the E-Government Act of 2002 to stop the U.S. Postal Service's law enforcement arm from using facial recognition and social media monitoring tools.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections
MacArthur Justice Center
Date: Oct. 28, 2020
By: MacArthur Justice Center
The MacArthur Justice Center and the ACLU of Missouri jointly filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) systematic denial of potential life-saving medication to inmates with chronic Hepatitis C (HCV).*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections
ACLU Missouri
Date: Dec. 6, 2018
By: ACLU Missouri
The ACLU of Missouri and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center (MJC) at St. Louis jointly filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of Missourians who are asking for their constitutional and statutory rights to life-saving treatment while in prison.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Review of the Use of Monitors in Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees Involving State and Local Government Entities
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 9/13/2021
By: Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assoc. AG Vanita Gupta (U.S. Department of Justice)
Today, the Justice Department will begin implementing a set of principles and specific recommendations regarding the use ofmonitors in civil settlement agreements and consent decrees involving state and local governmental entities. These actions are the result of a review conducted by the Associate ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 15, 2021
Brnovich v. Biden
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-01568 (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0032
The Attorney General for the State of Arizona filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the Biden administration's planned vaccine mandate was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it applied to U.S. citizens but not unauthorized aliens.
View Case Detail (IM-AZ-0032)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 15, 2021
DOJ Investigation of Georgia Prisons
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: N/A (No Court)
PC-GA-0026
The Justice Department opened a statewide civil investigation into conditions of confinement of prisoners held in Georgia’s prisons. The DOJ investigation was conducted under the authority granted by CRIPA. The investigation examined whether Georgia provided its incarcerated population with ...
View Case Detail (PC-GA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 13, 2021
Cruz-Guzman v. Minnesota
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 27-CV-15-19117 (State Court)
SD-MN-0002
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-MN-0002)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2021
City of Baltimore Consent Decree
Date: Apr. 7, 2017
(City of Baltimore)
On April 7, 2017, the City of Baltimore and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Consent Decree, which is a court enforceable agreement to resolve DOJ's findings that it believed the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) had engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct that violates the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2021
Arctic Village Council v. Meyer
ACLU Alaska
Date: Oct. 13, 2020
By: ACLU Alaska
The lawsuit, Arctic Village Council v. Meyer, seeks to waive a provision of state law for the November general election that requires voters who submit a mail-in absentee ballot to have a witness sign their ballot return envelope even in the midst of a highly contagious and deadly pandemic. *
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2021
Alaska Ballot Witness Law (Arctic Village Council et al. v Meyer et al.)
Native American Rights Fund
Date: Oct. 13, 2020
By: Native American Rights Fund
Alaska’s witness signature requirement for casting an absentee ballot is unconstitutional, and immediate injunctive and declaratory relief must be granted, a lawsuit filed on September 8, 2020 against Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer, Director of the Alaska Division of Elections Gail Fenumiai, and ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 12, 2021
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-02448 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0039
On November 13, 2017, several immigrant rights' organizations sued ICE under FOIA, seeking records on a mass immigration enforcement operation called "Operation Mega," planned for September 2017, or related operations. ICE finished document production in 2019, and the parties filed motions for summary judgment related to one Handbook in early 2020. The court granted the defendants' motion, and the case subsequently closed.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0039)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 11, 2021
Cowan and US v. Bolivar County Board of Education
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 2:65-cv-00031 (N.D. Miss.)
SD-MS-0007
In 1965, the Bolivar County School District was sued to force it to desegregate, and in 1969 an order was entered by the Court. In 1985, the United States intervened to enforce the 1969 order, saying that the school district still had a racially identifiable school system. In 2011, the United States filed a motion requesting that the previous orders be enforced, and, in 2012, the Court ordered the parties to come up with a plan to eliminate racially identifiable schools and resolve problems with faculty assignment. The plan to allow open enrollment, with all students able to choose between each of two junior high and high schools (as opposed to attendance zones) was approved by the district court but reversed by the Fifth Circuit in 2014, which ordered that the district court explain how open enrollment will eliminate racially identifiable schools and why other solutions, such as consolidating the two schools, were not viable. In January of 2017, the parties eventually reached a settlement agreement consolidating buildings and schools before the 2017-2018 school year.
View Case Detail (SD-MS-0007)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 10, 2021
Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings
Columbia Law Review
Date: Jan. 1, 1976
By: William R. Stein (Columbia Law School Law Student)
William R. Stein, Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings, 76 COLUM. L. REV. 674 (1976)
Student Note in the Columbia Law Review that discusses Avant with fair detail under the umbrella of use immunity and its relevance in criminal proceedings*
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
September 10, 2021
"Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings"
Columbia Law Review
Date: Jan. 1, 1976
By: William R. Stein (Columbia Law School Law Student)
William R. Stein, Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings, 76 COLUM. L. REV. 674 (1976)
Student Note in the Columbia Law Review that discusses Avant with fair detail under the umbrella of use immunity and its relevance in criminal proceedings*
View Case Study Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
March 2017 Stop & Frisk Report
ACLU
Date: Jul. 11, 2017
By: ACLU Illinois
March 24, 2017 -- Independent consultant and former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys released his first semiannual report pursuant to the 2015 investigatory stop and protective pat down agreement between the City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department and the ACLU of Illinois.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
Robinson v. Martin
MacArthur Justice Center
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Locke Bowman and Alexa Van Brunt
The MacArthur Justice Center partnered with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. and Civil Rights Corps to file a federal class action targeting Cook County’s unconstitutional pay-for-release cash bail system, which results in the pre-trial detention of legally innocent men and women who cannot ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
Independent Consultant Releases New Stop & Frisk Report for the City of Chicago
ACLU
Date: Mar. 7, 2018
By: ACLU Illinois
Former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys today released the latest report on investigatory stops and protective pat downs by Chicago Police officers. The report is the most recent evaluation of data gathered and analyzed as part of an agreement between the City of Chicago, Chicago Police ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
Period 3 and 4 - Stop and Frisk Report, CY2017
ACLU
Date: Oct. 17, 2019
By: ACLU Illinois
This is the third report conducted by retired Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys as a result of a 2015 agreement between the City of Chicago and the ACLU. The agreement followed an ACLU report showing that stop and frisk was used more than four times as often in Chicago as compared to New York City ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 9, 2021
Reed v. City of Ferguson
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 14SL-CC04195 (State Court)
CJ-MO-0014
On December 8th, 2014 a class of citizens of Missouri brought a lawsuit against the City of Feguson, Missouri. The class of citizens were those assessed warrant recall fees by the city. The plaintiffs were represented by ArchCity Defenders. The plaintiffs are seeking various types of relief including injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. The case settled in May 2020.
View Case Detail (CJ-MO-0014)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 8, 2021
"You're Destroying Families"
ProPublica Illinois
Date: Jun. 20, 2019
By: Melissa Sanchez and Duaa Eldeib
When his son was born in 2014, Jorge Matias held the infant in the hospital and sang him the lullabies he had learned as a child in Guatemala. He teased the boy’s mother that he would raise their son to speak Spanish, and one day the two of them would talk in secret around her.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 8, 2021
2015 Stop and Frisk Report
ACLU Illinois
Date: Mar. 20, 2015
By: ACLU Illinois
Chicago has failed to train, supervise and monitor law enforcement in minority communities for decades, resulting in a failure to ensure that officers’ use of stop and frisk is lawful. This report contains troubling signs that the Chicago Police Department has a current practice of unlawfully ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 7, 2021
“The Judge Didn't Sentence Me to Be Raped”: Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections: A 15-Year Battle Against the Sexual Abuse of Women Inmates in Michigan
Women & Criminal Justice
Date: Jul. 9, 2012
By: Rachel Culley
This research traces the history of Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections, a class action lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections that alleged the sexual abuse of women prisoners spanning more than two decades. The litigation resulted in combined jury verdicts of more than ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 7, 2021
New Jersey Settles NAACP Lawsuit
State Police New Jersey
Date: Mar. 1, 2000
By: New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety
New Jersey and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and a class of unhired trooper applicants have settled a four-year-old lawsuit against the State Police by agreeing to a plan to emphasize both stringent educational standards and the need for diversity in the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 7, 2021
Davis v. Jeffreys
Uptown People's Law Center
Date: 2021
By: Uptown People's Law Center
In June 2016, UPLC brought a case against the Illinois Department of Corrections on behalf of six prisoners who were facing or had faced, extreme isolation in Illinois prisons. These individuals had been held in extreme isolation for between 6 months and 17 years. The conditions described by the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 6, 2021
Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01143 (D. Ariz.)
VR-AZ-0057
In June 2020, the Arizona Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs alleged that the state's policy requiring unsigned mail-in ballots to be corrected by election day violated the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 10, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Arizona to give voters five business days to correct unsigned ballots and the defendants appealed. The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. There has been no further action as of September 2021.
View Case Detail (VR-AZ-0057)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 6, 2021
Arctic Village Council v. Meyer
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3AN-20-07858Cl (State Court)
VR-AK-0013
The Arctic Village Council, the League of Women Voters, and individual Alaskan voters filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska challenging Alaska's witness requirement for absentee ballots in the 2020 General Election. The plaintiffs argued that the requirement imposed an unconstitutional burden during the Covid-19 pandemic by forcing high-risk voters to either risk their health or forgo their right to vote. The court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction eliminating the witness requirement for the November 2020 election.
View Case Detail (VR-AK-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 6, 2021
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 3:65-cv-01974 (W.D.N.C.)
SD-NC-0001
On January 1, 1965, parents on behalf of their minor children filed suit in the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte, asking for an injunction barring discriminatory school selection practices. The injunction was granted and a bussing plan for desegregation was implemented. The case was reopened in 1999, but the court held that the schools had reached unitary status and thus dissolved the 30-year desegregation order.
View Case Detail (SD-NC-0001)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 5, 2021
Kennedy v. City of Zanesville
Relman Colfax PLLC
Date: 2008
By: Relman Colfax
On July 10, 2008, a federal court jury returned verdicts totaling nearly $11 million against the City of Zanesville, Ohio, Muskingum County, Ohio, and the East Muskingum Water Authority for illegally denying water service to a predominately African-American community on the basis of race. The sixty- ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 5, 2021
Busby v. Bonner
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-02359 (W.D. Tenn.)
JC-TN-0012
Two detainees in Shelby County Jail in Tennessee filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. They claimed that failure to take sufficient COVID-19 precautions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and they sought release. The court appointed an "Independent Inspector" to assess conditions at the jail and, based on his report, denied preliminary relief. The court also denied defendants' motion to dismiss, and a trial is scheduled for May 2021. An Independent Inspector was tasked with inspecting the jail to evaluate the conditions. While praising defendants' professionalism, he wrote that several adjustments needed to be made in order for the jail to be a safe place for detainees. After attending mediation and filing a joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, the court preliminarily granted the consent decree requiring monthly reports on the status of COVID-19 in the Jail and unannounced, periodic inspections by the Inspector. A final approval hearing is scheduled for March 5, 2021.
View Case Detail (JC-TN-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 5, 2021
Seth v. McDonough
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-01028 (D. Md.)
JC-MD-0017
In April 2020, pretrial and post-conviction detainees at Prince George's County Jail filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that in light of COVID-19, they were being held in conditions that violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. A subclass of pretrial, medically vulnerable plaintiffs also alleged that they are being held in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 21, the court granted in part the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. Defendant appealed and were denied a stay pending their appeal. On July 7, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, pointing to the lack of mental health services during an indefinite lockdown. The parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings on August 27 pending settlement talks. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-MD-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 5, 2021
In re Edward Allen Britton
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 07CRWR678445 (State Court)
PC-CA-0043
This case involved an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While the plaintiff's writ was denied, the court did order the defendant jail to provide all inmates with a copy of their administrative appeals.
View Case Detail (PC-CA-0043)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 96-6986-CZ (State Court)
PC-MI-0021
In 1996, six female inmates filed a class action lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections alleging a pattern of systematic sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and abuse. After losing jury verdicts totaling $30 million at two different trials, defendants settled in July 2009 for $100 million and substantial injunctive relief.
View Case Detail (PC-MI-0021)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
Cantwell v. Crawford
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 09EV275M (State Court)
PD-GA-0006
The plaintiffs were a class of pretrial detainees in various counties in northern Georgia who did not have counsel because their "conflict" counsel had withdrawn or ceased representation when their contracts with the Northern Circuit Public Defender were terminated. The plaintiffs sued because they were left in jail without counsel for months. The case settled, setting new standards for providing contracted counsel in conflict cases in the countries covered by the Northern Circuit.
View Case Detail (PD-GA-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
North Carolina Department of Correction v. North Carolina Medical Board
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 07CV003574 (State Court)
CJ-NC-0002
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 ...
View Case Detail (CJ-NC-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
Flores v. City of Baldwin Park Police Department
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: BC560031 (State Court)
IM-CA-0078
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0078)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
Hixson v. Hope
Case Category: Juvenile Institution
Trial Docket: CV 029154 (State Court)
JI-CA-0014
Parents brought this suit on behalf of their juvenile son, who was incarcerated at the San Joaquin Juvenile Hall. Alleging a wide range of inadequate and abusive conditions, the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree with the defendant, whereby the latter agreed to improvements in training, conditions, and procedures. The consent decree appeared to have lasted almost four years, but the precise duration is unknown to the Clearinghouse.
View Case Detail (JI-CA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
Gloucester County (New Jersey Turnpike) Police Stop Cases
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: MER-L-002687-96 (State Court)
PN-NJ-0001
The NAACP and several individuals filed a class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against the New Jersey State Police alleging discriminatory recruitment, application, and hiring practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) and state law. The main discriminatory practices were a requirement of a college education and an examination (Law Enforcement Candidate Record), which allegedly had a disparate impact on Black and Latino candidates. After an appeal of decisions on pro hac vice appearance, the parties settled and the court entered the agreement as a consent decree. The decree required a reform of employment practices, including selection of a less discriminatory examination and alternate education requirements.
View Case Detail (PN-NJ-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 4, 2021
Gomez-Garcia v. New York City Police Dep't
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 451000-2012 (State Court)
PN-NY-0015
This case is about arrests for marijuana possession in New York City. On June 22, 2012, a group of individuals who had been arrested for possession of marijuana filed this lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court for the County of New York against New York City and the NYPD under state law. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the NYPD had violated state law, which mandated that police issue a ticket rather than arrest individuals for possession of marijuana.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 3, 2021
Trader Joe’s Point of Sale Agreement and Amendment
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: N/A (No Court)
DR-CA-0044
Three organizations representing the interests of the visually impaired entered negotiations with Trader Joe's to ensure such individuals did not have to divulge sensitive PIN numbers due to unusable keypads. Trader Joe's agreed to a roll out in stages of new tactile keypads in its stores, completing the rollout by August 2009.
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0044)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 3, 2021
ACLU Settlement with the Chicago Police Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: N/A (No Court)
PN-IL-0016
On August 7, 2015, the Chicago Police Department, the City of Chicago, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU) reached a settlement agreement to conduct independent evaluation of the Chicago Police Department's stop and frisk practices and increase public disclosure regarding the investigatory stops.
View Case Detail (PN-IL-0016)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 1, 2021
Terrill v. State of Oregon
Disability Rights Advocates
Date: Apr. 20, 2021
By: Disability Rights Advocates
On April 20, 2021, Disability Rights Advocates and Lynn S. Walsh filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) on behalf of current and former people with disabilities who are incarcerated and who have been charged for the costs of the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 1, 2021
Florida Parents Partner with IJ to Shut Down Dystopian "Predictive Policing" Program
Institute for Justice
Date: Aug. 4, 2021
By: Institute for Justice
The Sheriff’s Office of Pasco County, Florida, harasses people in their own homes using a method they call “predictive policing.” The program has unfolded like a dystopian nightmare for the Pasco County residents it has ensnared, who have been subjected to near-constant police surveillance ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 31, 2021
Messina v. City of Fort Lauderdale
Florida Justice Institute
Date: Jul. 2, 2021
By: Florida Justice Institute
The Florida Justice Institute (FJI), in partnership with Fort Lauderdale lawyers Mara Shlackman and Frantz J. McLawrence, filed a lawsuit challenging a pair of the City of Fort Lauderdale’s anti-panhandling ordinances as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. One ordinance prohibits ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 31, 2021
Avendaño v. Asher
ACLU Washington
Date: Dec. 11, 2020
By: ACLU Washington
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Washington, and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement today on behalf of immigrants detained at the Tacoma Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. The legal organizations seek the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 30, 2021
ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Migrant Transportation Order
American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Aug. 5, 2021
By: ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas are suing Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over his executive order that bars the transportation of certain migrants in the state.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 30, 2021
Publisher Again Challenges Censorship of Publications by Florida DOC
Human Rights Defense Center
Date: Aug. 10, 2021
By: Human Rights Defense Center
The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) has filed suit in the United States Southern District of Florida to challenge censorship by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) and Secretary Mark S. Inch, as well as Jose Colon, warden of the Everglades Correctional Institution. The lawsuit alleges ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 30, 2021
New York Immigration Coalition v. U.S. Department of Commerce
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-05025 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0033
In March 2018, the Secretary of Commerce ordered that the 2020 Census include a question about citizenship of all U.S. residents. The following June, a group of six advocacy and policy organizations filed a complaint against the Department of Commerce and Bureau of Census alleging that the question intentionally discriminated immigrant communities of color. The plaintiffs posited that the Trump Administration sought to deter participation in the Census and affect federal funding. This case was informally coordinated with States v. U.S. Department of Commerce. The district court ultimately found a litany of Administrative Procedure Act violations and vacated the decision to add the citizenship question. The Government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which upheld the legality of the citizenship question but remanded back to the district court due to the pretextual nature of the Commerce Department’s explanation. Judge Furman permanently enjoined the government from adding the question to the census and the census forms were printed without them. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0033)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
Oyez
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: Oyez
Respondents are a class of noncitizens subject to reinstated removal orders, which generally are not open to challenge. However, if a noncitizen has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in the countries designated in their removal orders, the person may pursue withholding of removal. That is ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
G: The Miseducation of Larry P
WNYCStudios
Date: Jun. 7, 2019
By: Radiolab
Are some ideas so dangerous we shouldn’t even talk about them? That question brought Radiolab’s senior editor, Pat Walters, to a subject that at first he thought was long gone: the measuring of human intelligence with IQ tests. Turns out, the tests are all around us. In the workplace. The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
Biden v. Texas
SCOTUSBlog
Date: Aug. 24, 2021
By: SCOTUSBlog
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should issue a stay of a district court’s injunction requiring the federal government to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
The Story of Sale v. Haitian Centers Council: Guantanamo and Refoulement
Columbia University
Date: 1993
By: Harold Hongju Koh & Michael J. Wishnie
Nearly two decades before September 11, 2001, thousands of foriegn nationals without due process at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 28, 2021
Woodcock v. Correct Care Solutions
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00096 (E.D. Ky.)
PC-KY-0010
Plaintiffs—a class of approximately 1,200 prisoners in the custody of the Kentucky Department of Corrections diagnosed with Hepatitis C, and those who might be diagnosed in the future—sued the Department in an action removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on December 7, 2016. They challenged the Department’s treatment of inmates with Hepatitis C, in particular the practice of triaging direct-acting antiviral treatment based on a priority level categorization of infected inmates, bringing claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and failure to reasonably accommodate their Hepatitis C in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1978. They also alleged negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of state law. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and punitive damages. Judge Gregory F. Van Totenhove certified the class but denied a permanent injunction on July 12, 2019, 2019 WL 3068447, before ultimately granting the Department’s motion for summary judgment on February 2, 2020, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show that the Department’s practice of screening and monitoring inmates with Hepatitis C and prioritizing direct-acting antiviral treatment was inadequate or detrimental to their health, or that the defendants had acted with deliberate indifference to substantial risk of harm—and remanded the action to state court as to the state law claims, 2020 WL 556391. On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. 2021 WL 2799978.
View Case Detail (PC-KY-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 27, 2021
Doe v. Washington State Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-05059-TOR (E.D. Wash.)
PC-WA-0034
Disability Rights Washington and the ACLU of Washington, in collaboration with private counsel, filed this action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on April 7, 2021. They sought to prevent the Washington State Department of Corrections from releasing records, requested through Washington’s Public Records Act, that would reveal the identities and personal information of the class of people that they aimed to represent: transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and intersex persons currently and formerly in Department of Corrections custody. They argued that disclosure of the requested records would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as state law, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Thomas O. Rice granted an initial temporary restraining order on April 8, 2021, 2021 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 68698, and a preliminary injunction on May 17, 2021, 2021 WL 2453099, finding that disclosure would cause irreparable injury, and that the plaintiffs’ interest in personal and public safety outweighed the Department of Corrections’ interests in disclosure. The Court also preliminarily certified the class on May 17, 2021. 2021 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 93489.
View Case Detail (PC-WA-0034)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 26, 2021
Does v. Washington State Department of Corrections
By: Disability Rights Washington
Does v. Washington State Department of Corrections, et al., E.D. Wash. No. 4:21-cv-05059-TOR, is a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the way the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) responds to Public Records Act requests for information about people in custody DOC has identified as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 26, 2021
Disability Rights Connecticut v. Connecticut Department of Correction
https://www.acluct.org/en/cases/disability-rights-connecticut-v-department-correction
By: ACLU of Connecticut
Disability Rights Connecticut (DRCT), represented by the ACLU of Connecticut, Yale Law School’s Lowenstein International Human Rights Law Clinic, and Morrison & Foerster, sued the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) for its continuing physical and psychological abuse of people with mental ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 26, 2021
Texas & Missouri v. United States
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-00067 (N.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0059
This is a case about the Biden Administration's termination of the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which required individuals at the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in Mexico pending adjudication of their immigration claims. On April 13, 2021, the states of Texas and Missouri filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against President Biden, DHS, CBP, ICE, and USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. They claimed that the suspension of MPP was "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA and caused the government to violate the INA. The district court ordered a permanent injunction requiring the federal government to implement and enforce MPP, and the federal government appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The government also moved for a stay, which was denied by the district court, Fifth Circuit, and Supreme Court. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0059)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 25, 2021
Disability Rights Connecticut v. Connecticut Department of Correction
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-00146 (D. Conn.)
PC-CT-0023
This case challenged the prolonged isolation and in-cell shackling of persons with mental illness in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction. Disability Rights Connecticut initiated the action in the District of Connecticut on February 4, 2021, in collaboration with the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School, and Morrison and Foerster LLP. They alleged cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to end the practices of prolonged isolation and in-cell shackling and to ensure meaningful access to services, programs, and activities for incarcerated persons with mental illness. As of August 24, 2021, settlement discussions were ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-CT-0023)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 24, 2021
Police Misconduct
State of California Department of Justice
Date: Mar. 5, 2001
By: Office of the Attorney General
In January 1999, Attorney General Lockyer issued a new policy governing the review of complaints received by the Department of Justice that allege police misconduct by local law enforcement agencies or their employees. Complaints that have exhausted the local review process will be referred to both ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 24, 2021
Attorney General Lockyer Announces Conclusion of Five-Year, Court-Enforced State Monitoring of Riverside Police Department
State of California Department of Justice
Date: Mar. 2, 2006
By: Office of the Attorney General
Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced that the Riverside Police Department (“RPD”) has fulfilled the conditions of a court-enforced judgment reached in 2001 between the Attorney General, the City of Riverside and the RPD. This judgment required the department to implement wide-ranging ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 23, 2021
Kelley v. Hodgson
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 98-3083 (State Court)
JC-MA-0004
In 1998, inmates in the Bristol County Jail filed a class action suit on behalf of all present and future inmates challenging the overcrowded conditions at the jail. The Superior Court of Massachusetts for Suffolk County enjoined defendant from using port-a-bunks, which allowed inmates to sleep on common areas floors, and from triple-bunking any cell. Later, the plaintiffs also added a claim that the defendant was locking inmates in cells without toilets. In 2009, the court granted summary judgment for the original 1998 claims. The parties later negotiated a settlement that the court approved in 2012. As of September 2021, it appears that the settlement is still in effect and plaintiffs' counsel is monitoring the defendants' compliance.
View Case Detail (JC-MA-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 23, 2021
People of the State of California v. City of Riverside
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 355410 (State Court)
PN-CA-0014
On March 5, 2001, the Attorney General of California [AG] filed a complaint and stipulated judgment in Riverside County Superior Court. This stipulated judgment resolved issues regarding racially discriminatory law enforcement uncovered by the AG during a nearly two-year investigation of the Riverside Police Department (RPD). That investigation was sparked by the 1998 shooting death of Tyisha Miller, a 19-year old black woman, who was shot by RPD officers. Pursuant to the stipulated judgment, the RPD agreed to implement a series of reforms. After five years, the AG determined that RPD had fulfilled its obligations, and the stipulated judgment was dissolved.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 22, 2021
Texas v. United States
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 6:21-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0058
On April 6, 2021, the states of Texas and Louisiana filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the DHS, CBP, ICE, and USCIS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs claimed the Biden Administration released guidance in two memoranda that unlawfully limited holding criminal aliens convicted of felony offenses in ICE custody. On August 19, 2021, the court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining specific sections of the federal government's memoranda. The federal government appealed to the Fifth Circuit. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0058)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 18, 2021
Malcolm v. Starr
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 0:20-cv-02503 (D. Minn.)
PC-MN-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-MN-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 12, 2021
El Ali v. Barr (Jardaneh v. Barr)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 8:18-cv-02415-PX (D. Md.)
NS-MD-0002
Numerous Muslims filed suit against multiple federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on August 8, 2018. All plaintiffs, most of whom were American citizens, had been placed on a federal terrorist watchlist. They alleged violations of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as well as the Administrative Procedure Act and Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part on July 20, 2020. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-MD-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 12, 2021
City of Seattle v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:19-cv-07151 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0151
On October 29, 2019, the City of Seattle and a group of non-profit organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services's (USCIS) new fee waiver policies which made it substantially more difficult for naturalization applicants to obtain waivers. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and federal law. On December 11, 2019, the Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the policies. On February 10, 2020, the Court ordered the case be held in abeyance pending proposed rulemaking changes by USCIS. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0151)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 12, 2021
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-01388-TSC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0051
Iraqis and Afghans who worked for the U.S. government in their home countries filed suit against the Departments of State and Homeland Security in 2018. They had experienced long delays in the processing of their applications for special immigrant visas (SIV). They alleged this violated a 2013 congressional mandate that SIV applications must be processed fully within nine months. In September 2019, the court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, stating that the defendants’ delays were unreasonable. In February 2020, the district court certified the plaintiffs' proposed classes for those similarly situated to them. The parties submitted a joint proposed adjudication plan that the court approved in June 2020. Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 12, 2020. This challenged numerous orders issued by the district court including the court-approved joint adjudication plan and class certification. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0051)


CASE STUDIES
August 11, 2021
"Why Alabama School Desegregation Succeeded (And Failed) "
Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev.
Date: 2017
By: Wendy Parker (Wake Forest University School of Law Faculty)
67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 1091 (2017)
Alabama is not an obvious location for successful school desegregation. The state is not generally known for being at the forefront of creating racial equality, particularly when the suit started in 1963. More likely to come to mind is Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to ...
View Case Study Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 11, 2021
Libertarian Party of Illinois v. Pritzker
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02112 (N.D. Ill.)
VR-IL-0133
The Libertarian Party of Illinois, the Green Party of Illinois, and several independent candidates filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 2, 2020. Plaintiffs challenged signature gathering requirements for ballot qualification during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The court granted a preliminary injunction on April 23, 2020, which allowed the collection of electronic signatures, extended the filing deadline, and permitted candidates who qualified for previous ballots to qualify for that year’s ballot. The Seventh Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction on August 20, 2020. After the November 2020 elections passed, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, which the Court granted on July 8, 2021.
View Case Detail (VR-IL-0133)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 11, 2021
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01002-APM (D.D.C.)
PB-DC-0016
Various Native American tribes filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 17, 2020. They argued that Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) were not tribal governments as defined by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Thus, ANCs should not receive CARES Act funding which had been set aside for tribal governments. On June 26, 2020, the district court held that ANCs were tribal governments and thus entitled to CARES Act relief. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this order on September 25, 2020. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, reversed and remanded the case on June 25, 2021. The court reasoned that ANCs were practically tribal governments under the plain definition of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, even though they were not considered tribal governments in an official political sense, and thus were entitled to CARES Act relief. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-DC-0016)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 10, 2021
Faust v. Vilsack
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
Date: Apr. 29, 2021
(Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty)
This is a webpage created by plaintiff's counsel from Faust v. Vilsack (PB-WI-0006). It provides additional information on plaintiff and an overview of the case itself.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 10, 2021
McKinney v. Vilsack: Race-based COVID-19 farm loan forgiveness denies equal treatment to Texas farmer
Pacific Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 10, 2021
(Pacific Legal Foundation)
This is a webpage created by plaintiff's counsel from McKinney v. Vilsack (PB-TX-0019). It provides additional information on plaintiff and an overview of the case itself.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 10, 2021
Dunlap v. Vilsack: Race-based COVID-19 farm loan forgiveness denies equal treatment to Oregon farmer
Pacific Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 24, 2021
(Pacific Legal Foundation)
This is a webpage created by plaintiffs' counsel from Dunlap v. Vilsack (PB-OR-0007). It provides additional information on plaintiffs and an overview of the case itself.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 10, 2021
Kent v. Vilsack: Race-based COVID-19 farm loan forgiveness denies equal treatment to Illinois farmers
Pacific Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 7, 2021
(Pacific Legal Foundation)
This is a webpage created by plaintiffs' counsel from Kent v. Vilsack (PB-IL-0016). It provides additional information on plaintiffs and an overview of the case itself.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 10, 2021
Wynn v. Vilsack: Race-based COVID-19 farm loan forgiveness denies equal treatment to farmers
Pacific Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 23, 2021
(Pacific Legal Foundation)
This is a webpage created by plaintiff's counsel from Wynn v. Vilsack (PB-FL-0022). It provides additional information on plaintiff and an overview of the case itself.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 10, 2021
Faust v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 21-548 (E.D. Wis.)
PB-WI-0006
Five white farmers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Green Bay) on April 29, 2021. Plaintiffs challenged Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan which offered loan forgiveness only to farmers who qualified as "socially disadvantaged." They alleged that these racial classifications violated the equal protection components of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining Section 1005 on June 10, 2021. However, the TRO was later dissolved as a very similar nationwide injunction had been issued in Wynn v. Vilsack. Defendants subsequently moved to stay the case pending the outcome of a class-action challenge to Section 1005 in Miller v. Vilsack.
View Case Detail (PB-WI-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 10, 2021
McKinney v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-212 (E.D. Tex.)
PB-TX-0019
A white farmer from Naples, Texas filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) on June 10, 2021. Plaintiff challenged Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan, which offered loan forgiveness only to farmers who qualified as "socially disadvantaged." Plaintiff alleged these racial classifications violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiff subsequently moved to preliminarily enjoin Section 1005. Defendants then moved to stay this case pending the outcome of a class-action challenge to Section 1005 in Miller v. Vilsack. Both motions were pending as of July 27, 2021. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0019)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 9, 2021
Darchini v. Pompeo
Law Office of Curtis Morrison
Date: Apr. 6, 2021
By: Law Office of Curtis Morrison
In Darchini v. Pompeo (Now known as Kavoosian v Pompeo), 3 (originally 14) Iranian American families are challenging the U.S. Government’s unreasonable administrative delays in adjudicating case-by-case waivers of under the travel ban. Challenged policies include the U.S. Government’s ...
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
August 9, 2021
"Lee v. Macon County Board of Education: The Possibilities of Federal Enforcement of Equal Educational Opportunity"
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy
Date: 2016
By: Brian K. Landsberg (Pacific McGeorge School of Law Faculty)
12 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 1-52 (2016)
Lee v. Macon County Board of Education shows the evolution of the role of the three branches in enforcing the equal protection clause in public education in Alabama. All three branches initially acquiesced in the separate but equal doctrine. The executive and the judicial branches rejected the ...
View Case Study Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 9, 2021
Lee v. Macon County Board of Education
Encyclopedia of Alabama
Date: Dec. 11, 2013
By: C. J. Schexnayder
Lee v. Macon County Board of Education is a pivotal civil rights case that sought the integration of the all-white Tuskegee High School in Macon County. The initial 1963 lawsuit was later expanded to include all of the state's primary and secondary schools, two-year postsecondary schools, and ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Bagnall v. Sebelius
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:11-cv-01703-MPS (D. Conn.)
PB-CT-0013
Medicare beneficiaries who were denied benefits after being placed on "observation status" by hospitals challenged Department of Health and Human Services regulations that govern observation status. Following a successful order to dismiss by the trial court which was reversed on appeal, as well as unsuccessful motions to dismiss and for summary judgement by the government, the plaintiffs achieved class certification and a bench trial was held starting in August, 2019. On March 24, 2020, the district court found that some of the plaintiffs had had their right to due process violated, and entered an injunction against the Secretary. The government appealed this decision in May, 2020; while the issue was on appeal, the Second Circuit stayed the injunction. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (PB-CT-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Palacios v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-00026 (W.D.N.C.)
IM-NC-0004
In early 2018, two immigrants detained in North Carolina filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs alleged that three Immigration Judges violated their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over bond hearing requests filed while the plaintiffs were held in the Mecklenburg County Jail Central. The District Court judge dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify the class. In late 2018, the plaintiffs appealed the District Judge’s ruling. The parties were scheduled to appear for oral argument at the end of 2019; however, the parties agreed to remove the case from the Circuit Court calendar in November, 2019. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn and the case closed.
View Case Detail (IM-NC-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Darchini v. Pompeo
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:19-cv-01417 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0177
This lawsuit, filed July 22, 2019, challenged the State Department’s implementation of President Trump’s September 24, 2019, Executive Order (EO-3) which was the third of four orders by the former President that restricted travel to the US for nationals of majority Muslim countries. The plaintiffs were 14 Iranian American families who claimed that the State Department failed to properly adjudicate case-by-case waivers to the travel ban’s restrictions on visa issuance in contravention of the waiver process that EO-3 itself laid out and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the State Department’s Constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act violations. District Court Judge James Selna denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in September 2019 and granted two separate motions to dismiss by the government first in December 2019 and later in March 2020. The plaintiffs appealed the later dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Before a hearing could be held on the appeal, President Biden rescinded EO-3 upon his inauguration; the Ninth Circuit held that the case was moot in February 2021 and issued its final mandate on April 6, 2021, ending the case.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0177)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Carcaño v. McCrory
Case Category: Public Accomm./Contracting
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00236 (M.D. N.C.)
PA-NC-0002
On March 28, 2016, the ACLU and Lamda Legal Fund sued the State of North Carolina on behalf of LGBT individuals over a law called HB2 (the “bathroom bill”), which denied transgender individuals access to single-sex facilities that matched their gender-identities in public buildings. On August 26, 2017 Judge Schroeder of the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. On May 2, 2017 Judge Schroeder lifted the preliminary injunction with the agreement of all parties, because House Bill 142 repealed the basis for the Court’s prior order. On December 21, 2018, the executive branch defendants and the plaintiff filed a joint motion for a consent decree to settle the claims against the executive branch defendants. After proceedings were stayed pending the Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the parties' joint motion for consent decree was entered and the case closed with prejudice.
View Case Detail (PA-NC-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Handberry v. Thompson
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:96-cv-06161 (S.D.N.Y.)
JC-NY-0050
On August 14, 1996, eleven inmates between the ages of 16 and 21 at Rikers Island filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 alleging that they were not provided with educational services they were entitled to under federal and state law. On December 31, 2016 Judge Daniels ordered various provisions relating to educational services, like that all eligible inmates be provided a minimum of 3 hours of educational services every school day, and that the DOC must provide special education services to those inmates identified as in need. The judge also recommended that a special master be appointed for a two-year term to monitor and ensure compliance by the DOC and DOE.
View Case Detail (JC-NY-0050)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Wynn v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-00514-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla.)
PB-FL-0022
A white farmer filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) on May 18, 2021. Plaintiff challenged Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan which offered loan forgiveness only to farmers who qualified as "socially disadvantaged." Plaintiff alleged these racial classifications violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining Section 1005’s enforcement on June 23, 2021. Defendants subsequently moved to stay the case pending the outcome of a class-action challenge to Section 1005 in Miller v. Vilsack. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-FL-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Dunlap v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-942 (D. Or.)
PB-OR-0007
Two white farmers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Pendleton) on June 24, 2021. Plaintiffs challenged Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan which offered loan forgiveness only to farmers who qualified as "socially disadvantaged." Plaintiffs alleged that the statute's racial classifications violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Section 1005. However, the government successfully moved to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a class-action challenge to Section 1005 in Miller v. Vilsack (PB-TX-0017). This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-OR-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Kent v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-540 (S.D. Ill.)
PB-IL-0016
Three white farmers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) on June 7, 2021. Plaintiffs challenged Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan which offered loan forgiveness only to farmers who qualified as "socially disadvantaged." Plaintiffs alleged these racial classifications violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. However, proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a class-action challenge to Section 1005 in Miller v. Vilsack (PB-TX-0017). This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-IL-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
Joyner v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-1089 (W.D. Tenn.)
PB-TN-0010
A farmer filed this lawsuit against the USDA in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division (Jackson) on June 15, 2021. Plaintiff challenged Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan which offered loan forgiveness only to farmers who qualified as "socially disadvantaged." Plaintiff alleged these racial classifications violated equal protection. However, defendants moved to stay this case pending the outcome of a class-action challenge to Section 1005 in Miller v. Vilsack. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-TN-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 9, 2021
U.S. v. Desoto Parish School Board
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 5:67-cv-12589-SMH (W.D. La.)
SD-LA-0010
School desegregation case from Desoto Parish, Louisiana. Filed in 1967, this case dealt with various school districts within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit that instituted "freedom of choice" desegregation plans and were ordered to instead pursue more active integration efforts. It is still ongoing as of 2021, with the Parish filing periodic reports.
View Case Detail (SD-LA-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 8, 2021
Emami v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-01587-JD (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0140
On March 13, 2018, 26 individuals who had been denied travel visas, or had relatives denied a travel visa under Donald Trump's "Travel Ban" sued the federal government. They claimed that denying individuals' travel visas because of their national origin was unconstitutional and violated federal law. President Biden revoked the “Travel Ban” and ordered that visa applications resume processing on January 20, 2021. In a joint status update filed on June 7, 2021, the parties explained why they had not reached a settlement. The plaintiffs claimed that following the January 20 proclamation from President Biden, the government invited them to reapply for visas, denying them the benefit of their earlier application date. On the other side, the government claimed that because the Proclamation undid the EOs that were the source of the harm experienced by plaintiffs, that there is no live case or controversy for the district court to adjudicate. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0140)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 8, 2021
Sarsour v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00120 (E.D. Va.)
IM-VA-0005
This lawsuit, filed January 30, 2017, challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) which barred entry to the US to travelers from seven majority Muslim countries and barred Syrian refugees from entering the US indefinitely. Plaintiffs argued EO-1 violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. On March 6, 2017, the President rescinded EO-1 and replaced it with a narrower one (EO-2). Plaintiffs argued that EO-2 still enabled the constitutional and statutory violations of EO-1 despite its changes. On March 24, 2017, the court denied preliminary relief and refused to consider President Trump’s past statements as evidence of discrimination, contrary to the ruling in Hawaii v. Trump . On April 24, 2017, court stayed this case pending the outcome of a Fourth Circuit decision in a similar case IRAP v. Trump. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in late December 2017 responding to the third version of the travel ban (EO-3) but no rulings were ever made on it as the district court granted the government’s January 9, 2018, motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the IRAP and Hawaii cases at the Supreme Court. As a result there were no further proceedings in this case between January 2018 and June 2021. President Biden rescinded EO-3 upon his Inauguration, January 20, 2021. As a result, this case was voluntarily dismissed on June 25, 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-VA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 7, 2021
Wagafe v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00094 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0031
In 2017, two Muslim men (one a Somali national and lawful permanent resident, the other an Iranian nonimmigrant visa holder) filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (in Seattle). Suing the federal government, the plaintiffs alleged that US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interpreted former President Trump’s January 27 executive order (the first of the Travel Ban executive orders) to mandate suspension of adjudication of all pending petitions, applications, or requests from citizens or nationals of the seven banned countries, and that this suspension violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiffs also alleged that the order had or would expand USCIS's Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP), which they argued imposed extra-statutory rules and criteria on Muslim applicants to delay and deny immigration benefits to which applicants were entitled.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0031)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 7, 2021
P.K. v. Tillerson
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01533-TSC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0031
Numerous diversity visa lottery winners filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 3, 2017. They challenged the State Department’s practice of denying immigrant visas to diversity lottery winners from countries affected by President Trump’s March 6 Executive Order. Plaintiffs obtained some of the preliminary relief they sought. This included an order from the district court to the State Department to hold unused visas from 2016 for plaintiffs in the event Trump’s executive order was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in March 2018, the case was dismissed by the district court as moot following the expiration of the executive order at issue. But, this dismissal was reversed on appeal by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2019. Following the inauguration of President Joe Biden, the district court held the case in abeyance. As of this writing, the parties are in settlement negotiations. This case is ongoing
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0031)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 6, 2021
Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed.
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 3:70-cv-00846-MHT-DRB (M.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0002
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 4, 2021
Make the Road New York v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-02369-KBJ (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0095
This case concerns the Trump Administration’s decision to dramatically expand “expedited removal,” under which low-level Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) immigration officers were allowed to summarily deport individuals from the United States without a court hearing or opportunity for meaningful review. In 2019, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and permanently enjoined the Secretary of DHS from enforcing the policy changes in question. The D.C. Circuit Court subsequently reversed the preliminary injunction, finding that while DHS’s actions were subject to judicial review, the rule change implemented constituted agency action committed to agency discretion by law. When the Biden Administration took office, DHS issued a memo indicating the department would be reviewing its rules, policies, and practices concerning immigration enforcement. Although the issue seems resolved for the moment, the plaintiffs argue that the case is still live because the memo did not resolve the underlying issue, which DHS still contended was subject to reasonable interpretation.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0095)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 3, 2021
DHS Statement on Treatment of a Full and Unconditional Pardon Issued Under the Law and Process Currently in Place in Connecticut as Effective for Purposes of the INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) Pardon Waiver Clause and 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(c)(2)
Department of Homeland Security
Date: Mar. 23, 2021
By: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
Section 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that a noncitizen will not be deportable for certain criminal convictions “if [the noncitizen] . . . has been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 3, 2021
California v. Ross
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-01865 (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0049
On March 26, 2018, the State of California filed this claim requesting a permanent injunction to prevent the U.S. Census Bureau from adding a question regarding citizenship to the 2020 Census. California claimed that this action will do irreparable harm to the state depriving them of proportional population representation for elections as well as depriving the state of billions of dollars in federal funding. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were in violation of their duty under the Enumeration Clause of the constitution as well as 5 U.S.C §706(a) of the Administrative Procedures Act. The district court found on March 6, 2019, that the decision to add the citizenship question violated the Enumeration Clause and the APA; the government appealed. The Supreme Court ruled in a separate case, Department of Commerce v. New York that the citizenship question was constitutional but remanded back to the district court due to the pretextual nature of the Department’s explanation. On August 1, 2019, Judge Seeborg granted California’s motion to enter final judgement after remand. The Census Bureau was permanently enjoined from adding the citizenship question and the case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0049)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 3, 2021
Donnelly v. Glickman
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: CV-95-04389-DLJ (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0316
The second class-action Title VII suit against the U.S. Forest Service (the first being Bernardi v. Yeutter) alleging sex discrimination. In 1995, plaintiffs filed this case in the Northern District of California, and in 2001, the court approved a consent decree granting administrative injunctions, such as mandatory training and prompt investigation of harassment and reprisal complaints. The decree ended in 2006, and this case is now closed.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0316)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 2, 2021
State of New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-02921-JMF (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0032
An alliance of states, counties, and municipalities brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to stop the Trump Administration from asking about citizenship status on the 2020 U.S. Census. They alleged that the the inclusion of such a question would deter undocumented immigrants from participating in the U.S. Census, thereby artificially keeping census counts lower than the actual population number. A group of NGOs filed a similar lawsuit in in the same court June 2018, adding the claim that the the Department of Commerce's proposed inclusion of the citizenship question also violated equal protection; it was partially consolidated into this case. The plaintiffs’ ______ claims survived a motion to dismiss. A bench trial was held, in which it was determined by the district court that the addition of the question violated the Administrative Procedure Act, but not the Equal Protection Clause. The Department of Commerce was permanently enjoined from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted review of the case in February 2019. After finding the citizenship question’s addition was constitutional but that the Secretary’s justification for adding it was likely pretextual, the Supreme Court remanded back to the district court on June 27, 2019. The district court issued a permanent injunction and the citizenship question was not added to the 2020 Census. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0032)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 2, 2021
Connecticut v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:19-cv-01597 (D. Conn.)
IM-CT-0013
This is a case regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) interpretation of the Pardon Waiver Clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)(8 U.S.C. §1227). In the summer of 2018, DHS interpreted the Pardon Waiver Clause of the INA to mean that Connecticut’s system of granting pardons did not waive a person’s deportability even if they were granted a pardon by the board. Connecticut argued the DHS interpretation and the department’s pattern and practice of rejecting Connecticut pardons: 1) was not in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); 2) violated the APA as the change was arbitrary and capricious; and 3) violated the Tenth Amendment of the constitution by attempting to control how the state exercised its pardoning power. Connecticut sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case closed in September, 2020, after the parties claimed that a resolution of Connecticut’s claims had been reached, but reopened in April, 2021. The case remains open pending resolution of the issue of DHS’s interpretation of the pardon clause of the INA and whether it was reasonable or permissible under the ADA.
View Case Detail (IM-CT-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 2, 2021
Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. v. Coupe
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:15-cv-00688-GMS (D. Del.)
PC-DE-0009
In 2015, Community Legal Aid Society filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Represented by the ACLU and private counsel, the plaintiff sued the Delaware Department of Correction claiming constitutionally inadequate treatment, housing, and care of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement. On September 1, 2016, Judge Sleet issued an order approving the parties' agreement. The agreement includes specific actions and policies for improving mental health care for inmates, improving conditions of confinement and other aspects of restrictive housing, and reducing the length of disciplinary sanctions and the use of other forms of restrictive housing. A prisoner housed in solitary confinement during the litigation and agreement subsequently filed letters and motions, but on February 13, 2017, the court denied them because the prisoner was not a party to the case and because the case was closed. A motion for contempt by another non-party inmate was similarly dismissed in February, 2021.
View Case Detail (PC-DE-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 1, 2021
Washington v. DeVos
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00182 (E.D. Wash.)
PB-WA-0011
Washington challenged the U.S. Department of Education's eligibility requirements for higher education grants under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). These requirements included restricting students in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Basic Education for Adults, and Running Start Programs. A complaint was filed on May 19, 2020. Washington argued that these requirements exceeded the authority prescribed by the CARES Act. The court granted a preliminary injunction on June 12, 2020, enjoining enforcement of these eligibility requirements. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on June 21, 2021, as the requirements at issue had been rescinded. This case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-WA-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 1, 2021
Miller v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-00595-O (N.D. Tex.)
PB-TX-0017
A white farmer sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth) on April 26, 2021. Plaintiff challenged the racial classifications for the American Rescue Plan's farmer loan forgiveness program. He argued that these classifications discriminated against white farmers. After an amended complaint was filed in June, there were five named plaintiffs seeking certification for two putative classes of farmers. On July 1, 2021, the court certified the two classes and enjoined the USDA from implementing the challenged racial classifications. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 31, 2021
Washington v. GEO
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05806-RJB (W.D. Wash.)
CJ-WA-0005
The State of Washington filed suit in state court against GEO Group, Inc., a for-profit corporation that operated the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC). Washington alleged that GEO Group's policy of paying immigrant detainees only $1 per day violated the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA) and that GEO Group was unjustly enriched by this violation. A jury trial was held on Zoom from June 1 and June 17, 2021. However, it ended in a mistrial after the jury could not agree on a verdict. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-WA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 31, 2021
Terrill v. Oregon
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 6:21-cv-00588-AA (D. Or.)
PC-OR-0017
A prisoner at an Oregon state prison sued the State of Oregon and the Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODC) on April 20, 2021. While in ODC custody, plaintiff received a prosthesis. Oregon state law allowed prisons to charge prisoners for elective medical devices. As a prosthesis was deemed elective by Oregon state law, plaintiff’s prison required he pay for it. Plaintiff challenged these regulations under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Plaintiff alleged that the ADA forbids “placing surcharges on medical equipment necessary for people with disabilities to access prison programs, services, and activities.” He sought to represent a class of all current and former prisoners in the state required to pay for medical devices to treat a disability. This case is ongoing as of July 31, 2021.
View Case Detail (PC-OR-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 31, 2021
Wolfe v. Portland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01882-BR (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0010
Four Portland, Oregon residents with disabilities filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on November 1, 2020. They alleged local, state, and federal law enforcement had targeted protestors with disabilities and failed to make reasonable modifications for people with disabilities. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on February 8, 2021, to enforce these modifications. This included providing alternate communication methods, altering protest dispersal tactics, and ceasing use of pepper spray. That motion is pending as of July 31, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 30, 2021
Dobbey v. Weilding
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-01068 (N.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0052
On February 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against employees at Stateville Correctional Center. The plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations based on numerous counts of unsanitary and unsafe prison conditions. On January 23, 2014, the court certified a class of inmates incarcerated at Stateville Correctional since January 1, 2011, and all individuals who would be housed at Stateville Correctional after the date that class certification was granted. Settlement negotiations began in 2015 and are ongoing. On April 2, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency, temporary appointment of a Special Master to oversee IDOC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic at Stateville Correctional. The court denied the motion. The original plaintiff has since voluntarily withdrawn his individual claims. As of July 12, 2021, the case remains ongoing amid a series of settlement conferences.
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0052)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 29, 2021
La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Ross
2021 Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
Date: Oct. 14, 2019
By: Brennan Center for Justice
Numerous Asian-American and Latino groups filed a lawsuit against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross challenging the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs argue that the Department’s decision violates the U.S. Constitution and the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2021
La Unión Del Pueblo Entero v. Ross
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 8:18-cv-01570-GJH (D. Md.)
PB-MD-0006
La Union del Pueblo Entero and several other immigrant advocacy groups sued the United States Department of Commerce and its agency the Bureau of the Census claiming that its decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census was unconstitutional and violated federal law. The plaintiffs were granted a preliminary injunction and the government was permanently enjoined from asking the citizenship question. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-MD-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2021
Boyd v. Denton
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: C78-1679 (N.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0029
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0029)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 27, 2021
Center for Popular Democracy Action v. Bureau of the Census
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-10917 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0036
This is a case challenging the Trump Administration’s oversight of the 2020 census. The plaintiffs contended that the government’s plan for making the enumeration of the population included several arbitrary and capricious decisions which would lead to an undercount of persons of color, of lower income, and of other “hard-to-count” communities. The plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on November 26, 2019, requesting declaratory and injunctive. The case was assigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein on December 11. The government filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on January 31, 2020. In response, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ultimately granted the government’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0036)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 23, 2021
Farrow v. Lipetzky
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:12-cv-06495 (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0013
Two criminal defendants filed this class action against the Contra Costa County Public Defender. The suit opposed a policy that denied representation to indigent detainees at their initial court appearance and allowed courts to postpone arraignment for five to thirteen days while the matter was referred to the Public Defender’s office. During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Public Defender changed its policy with respect to felonies, but not with respect to misdemeanors. The district court dismissed the lawsuit; the Ninth Circuit remanded for reconsideration of one of the claims. The district court dismissed that final claim; the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal. The plaintiffs sought and received a stay pending appeal to the Supreme Court and they filed for certiorari on October 27, 2020. The high court denied cert. on February 22, 2021, effectively ending the case.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0013)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 21, 2021
N.C. Court of Appeals Rules That Domestic Violence Protections Must Apply Equally to Unmarried LGBTQ Couples
ACLU of North Carolina
Date: Dec. 31, 2020
By: ACLU North Carolina
RALEIGH, N.C.-- In a victory for LGBTQ equality, unmarried people in same-sex dating relationships can no longer be excluded from domestic violence protections according to a ruling today from the North Carolina Court of Appeals in the case M.E. v. T.J. North Carolina was the last state in the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 21, 2021
Ray et al. v. Himes et al.
ACLU of Ohio
Date: Mar. 29, 2018
By: ACLU Ohio
Ohio, Tennessee, and Puerto Rico are the only U.S. jurisdictions that do not allow transgender people to correct the gender marker on their birth certificates. A birth certificate is an identity document routinely used for many purposes. Ohio provides all other individuals born in the state with a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 21, 2021
Examining Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Government Publishing Office
Date: Dec. 1, 2016
By: U.S. Government Publishing Office
Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government reform at the House of Representatives 114th congress examining sexual harassment and gender discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. *
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
July 21, 2021
"Gendered Harassment in the U.S. Forest Service"
Women Leading Change, Vol. 3 No. 1 (Oct. 10, 2018), at 73
Date: Oct. 10, 2018
By: Emma Weisner (Tulane University Faculty)
This case study examines the history and current state of gendered harassment in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Starting with the Bernardi Consent Decree in 1979 and the Donnelly Consent Decree two decades later, the USFS aimed to make its work environment more hospitable to women and other ...
View Case Study Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
Kelley v. California Department of Health Care Services
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: BS170173 (State Court)
PB-CA-0054
On July 6, 2017, plaintiffs sued the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) in the California Superior Court for the Central District of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs alleged that the CDHS had improperly denied Medicaid services to a number of low-income medically disabled persons. On January 14, 2020, the court ruled mostly in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the CDHS failed to adequate notify newly-eligible individuals or provide a process to retroactively compensate individuals who were incorrectly deemed ineligible for Medicaid.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0054)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
Vitolo v. Guzman
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-00176 (E.D. Tenn)
PB-TN-0009
This is a case challenging the legality of how COVID-19-related government assistance was distributed to small businesses under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which was signed into law by President Biden in March 2021. Section 5003 of the ARPA appropriated $28.6 billion for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund to be administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The plaintiffs were all white men who owned and operated restaurants and were represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a non-profit conservative law firm. The plaintiff applied for an emergency grant under the Restaurant Revitalization Fund on May 3, 2021, and his application was put on hold. The plaintiff filed suit on May 12, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Knoxville); they sought to enjoin the use of racial classifications under section 5003. The Sixth Circuit granted the plaintiff an injunction on May 27, 2021, which ordered the government to pay the plaintiff’s grant application, if approved, before all later-filed applications, without regard to processing time or the applicant’s race or sex. The plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew all appeals on July 15, 2021. The trial court case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-TN-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Lowell Correctional Institution
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: No Court Case (No Court)
PC-FL-0034
An investigation by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division found that conditions at the Lowell Correctional Facility, a women's prison in Ocala, Florida, violated the Eighth Amendment due to the sexual abuse of prisoners by the facility's staff. The DOJ wrote that the Florida Department of Corrections should implement remedial measures to correct the patterns and practices leading to persistent constitutional violations.
View Case Detail (PC-FL-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
Harvard v. Inch
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-00212-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla.)
PC-FL-0032
Incarcerated individuals in the Florida Department of Corrections filed a class action complaint seeking to enjoin defendants from violating their Eighth Amendment rights, as well as the ADA and Rehab Act, by using solitary confinement as a tool against people with disabilities. The parties engaged in various discovery disputes as the case remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-FL-0032)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
Blessed Cajuns LLC v. Guzman
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-00677 (N.D. Tex.)
PB-TX-0018
This case is one of several brought challenging the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) prioritization of certain applications for emergency government assistance. The plaintiffs were four restaurants and their owners, each of whom were white. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
DOJ Investigation of Virginia Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: No Court (No Court)
PC-VA-0028
On or about May 18, 2017, the DOJ launched an investigation into Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) policies concerning worship and religious practice. During the course of the investigation, the VDOC voluntarily modified its policies and relaxed requirements related to religious practice. On September 30, 2019, the two sides reached a one-year settlement agreement that further established reporting and training requirements.
View Case Detail (PC-VA-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2021
Investigation of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (CRIPA)
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: (No Court)
PC-MA-0056
On October 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division notified the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (MDOC) that it would investigate the statewide prison system pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(b). The DOJ found that MDOC's use of mental health watches for prisoners in mental health crises violated the Eighth Amendment because MDOC did not provide adequate supervision or mental health care, and put prisoners in restrictive housing conditions for prolonged periods of time. The DOJ acknowledged that MDOC had started implementing some reforms as a result of the investigation, and also provided 15 recommendations for how MDOC should remedy its constitutional violations. The DOJ is currently in negotiations to resolve its findings.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0056)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Centro Presente, Inc. v. McAleenan
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-02840 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0064
A group of asylum-seekers and two immigration nonprofits filed suit on September 20, 2019 against the U.S. Attorney General, ICE, and DHS to stop the implementation of an expedited deportation rule that would have greatly expanded who could be swept into fast-tracked deportation proceedings. The district court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously on July 8, 2020. The case has remained in the pleading stage for over a year, with multiple motions for extensions of time by the government to answer the initial complaint by the plaintiffs. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0064)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Ray v. Ohio Department of Health
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio)
PB-OH-0011
On March 29, 2018, four transgender persons filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs sued the Director of the Ohio Department of Health under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the ACLU, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on December 16, 2020, following a failed attempt by the government to have the case dismissed for failure to state a claim. On February 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees. On March 26, the court stayed this motion pending a joint status report detailing the discussions between the parties on the attorney fees motion and the government's compliance with the December 16 order. The court ordered that a joint status report be submitted no later than July 26, 2021.
View Case Detail (PB-OH-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Unknown Party v. Motel 6
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-00242-DGC (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0025
In 2018, former Latino/a guests at Motel 6 locations in Arizona filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. They alleged that Motel 6's policy of disclosing guests' information to DHS and ICE agents without requiring a warrant or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity violated the United States Constitution and federal and state law. They also alleged Motel 6 conspired with DHS and ICE agents to violate guests’ Fourth Amendment rights. In February 2020, the parties agreed to class action settlement terms and the district court approved the settlement agreement. The court retains jurisdiction over the matter for the duration of the consent decree.
View Case Detail (IM-AZ-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Reynolds v. Giuliani
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:98-cv-8877 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0003
This class action was about whether the City of New York improperly denied federally sponsored cash assistance to qualified New York City residents under a program implemented by the city in the late 1990s. The plaintiffs each claimed to be qualified welfare beneficiaries who had been improperly denied assistance by one of New York City’s new job centers in violation of the fourteenth amendment guarantee of due process, the city’s obligations under 7 U.S.C. §2020 (the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program—then referred to as Food Stamps) and 42 U.S.C. §1396 (Medicaid), in addition to violating state law; the plaintiffs sought class certification for all similarly situated New York City residents, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 16, 1998, with Judge William H. Pauley presiding. The court entered a temporary restraining order on the same day directing the city to provide emergency food stamps and cash assistance to the named plaintiffs. The court granted a preliminary injunction in-part to the plaintiffs on January 21, 1999. The court ordered the city to (1) allow applicants for public assistance to apply for benefits the first day they visit a job center, (2) cease conversion of income support centers to job centers without a formal hearing, (3) make eligibility requirements for food stamps and Medicaid separately from the eligibility determination from cash assistance, (4) send applicants timely notice of the city’s decision on whether they qualify for benefits, and (5) form a corrective plan for achieving its policy goals while also meeting the needs of public assistance applicants. The city moved to vacate the preliminary injunction on December 10, 1999, after procuring more evidence surrounding the efficacy of the job centers in achieving their welfare obligations. Meanwhile, the State of New York moved to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a claim. Judge Pauley denied both motions and granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on July 21, 2000. The court entered a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs on December 30, 2004. The permanent injunction directed both the city and state to: (i) provide expedited food stamp service to eligible applications within 7 days; (ii) separately process applications for food stamps when the applications for cash assistance are denied or withdrawn; (iii) send notices to applicants confirming voluntary withdrawals for Medicaid in accord with 42 C.F.R. 435.913 and document such withdrawals pursuant to 7 C.F.R. 273.2(c)(6); and (iv) provide adequate and timely notice by correctly completing certain documentation. The injunction also required the state to supervise the city and make sure it met the obligations of the injunction. On January 13, 2005, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the part of the December order in which the court concluded that 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 387.8(a)(2)(i)(a) did not confer a privately enforceable right of action and that plaintiffs’ claim under New York Social Services Law § 133 was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion on February 14, 2005. Final judgement was entered on December 14, 2005; the court also granted the plaintiffs declaratory judgment. Both the state and the city appealed the permanent injunction to the Second Circuit on January 12, 2006, but the city dropped its appeal. On October 31, 2007, the Second Circuit reversed the district court, ruling that the state did not have a non-delegable duty to administer the decentralized Medicaid and Food Stamp programs, the state’s efforts in supervising the city since the permanent injunction was issued were adequate, and the district court exceeded its authority by issuing a permanent injunction in light of New York State’s affirmative supervisory steps it had taken to assure compliance. In a series of stipulations and orders from January 31, 2007 to July 22, 2011, the City of New York agreed to pay a total of $2,920,675.94 to plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs sought; the state agreed to pay a further $639,918.98. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Bernardi v. Yeutter
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: No. C 73 1110 SC (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0368
This is a class-action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California on behalf of all female employees and ex-employees of the U.S. Forest Service. Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service discriminated against them in hiring and advancement for their gender. After eight years of litigation, parties entered into a consent decree that set specific hiring benchmarks and accountability practices. The consent decree was in place from 1981 to 1994 (when it was replaced by the product of a separate class-action lawsuit, also on behalf of female Forest Service employees.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0368)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Weatherspoon v. Oldham; Tennessee v. Weatherspoon
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-02535 (W.D. Tenn.)
CJ-TN-0009
A man charged with murder in Tennessee challenged the state's cash bail system in state criminal and federal habeas proceedings. Represented by the Shelby County Public Defender and several civil rights groups, he claimed that the court that detained him did so solely on the basis of his inability to afford bail, rather than determining whether he posed risk of flight or danger. This, he said, violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, as well as Tennessee state law. Tennessee courts rejected the defendant's arguments, however, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee eventually found that his Due Process rights were violated by the state trial court's failure to consider his dangerousness and risk of flight when detaining him and issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus ordering the state court to do so. Both the federal habeas case and the defendant's state criminal case are now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-TN-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2021
Plush v. Cincinnati
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: A1903752 (State Court)
PN-OH-0011
A sixteen-year-old boy was trapped in his minivan after the backseat unexpectedly folded and pinned him against the back door. He managed to place two 911 calls, but no help arrived. After his death, his parents filed this lawsuit in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County. Under state law, they sued the city of Cincinnati and the city employees who took and responded to their son's 911 calls for the wrongful death of their son. The parties settled, with the defendants agreeing to pay $6 million in damages and attorneys' fees, as well as another $250,000 to hire a team of experts to help the city improve its operations for handling 911 calls. The terms of the settlement agreement are set to expire in 2026.
View Case Detail (PN-OH-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 19, 2021
United States and Cedar Rapids Agreement
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: Not filed (No Court)
DR-IA-0003
This is a settlement between the U.S Department of Justice and the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa concerning the city's compliance with federal disability law. After a federal investigation found that the city was not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, it entered into an agreement take numerous remedial steps and report twice a year on their efforts to comply with the law. Finalized in September of 2015, the settlement lasted for four years and is now presumably complete.
View Case Detail (DR-IA-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 19, 2021
Mobley v. Facebook (Onuoha v. Facebook)
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 5:16-cv-06440 (N.D. Cal.)
FH-CA-0026
In November 2016, numerous people of color challenged Facebook's tools which allowed advertisers to exclude users based on characteristics like race. By March 2019, Facebook reached a settlement promising to implement changes to prevent advertisers from targeting users based on protected characteristics such as race. As of July 19, 2021, the settlement was being enforced.
View Case Detail (FH-CA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 19, 2021
J.E.C.M. v. Lloyd
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va.)
IM-VA-0007
In 2018, individual minor plaintiffs from Honduras and Guatemala sued the Office of Refugee Resettlement, US Customs and Border Protection, and the directors of two juvenile detention centers. They filed writs of habeas corpus and alleged violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and due process rights. The claims of individual plaintiffs were dismissed as they were released from custody. However, the court certified two classes of detained minors and sponsors. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-VA-0007)


CASE STUDIES
July 16, 2021
"Trinh v. Homan: the Indefinite Detention of Vietnamese Refugees in the 21st Century"
Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice
Date: 2021
By: Trinh Truong (University of Southern California Gould School of Law Law Student)
30 S. Cal. Rev. of L. & Soc. Just. 415
After the Vietnam War, many young Vietnamese who arrived in the United States without their parents were easy prey for gang recruiters. Bullied for being outsiders, many young Vietnamese refugees sought protection from street gangs, only to learn later in life that the crimes committed in their ...
View Case Study Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 16, 2021
Universal Muslim Association of America v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00537 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0027
On March 24, 2017, the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) and two individual Yemenis filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald Trump in a challenge to his March 6, 2017, Executive Order (EO) barring legal immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US and barring Syrian refugees indefinitely. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that EO-2 discriminated on the basis of religion and national origin, in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause and Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. UMAA further argued that the EO violated the First Amendment Free Speech clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.). In addition to the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The case was assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan and marked as related to Pars Equality Center v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-00255). On May 11, 2017, Judge Chutkan stayed resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that plaintiffs could not show that they faced irreparable harm that a preliminary injunction would remedy, citing the two nationwide injunctions that were already in effect. On June 2, the government filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings pending Supreme Court review of Hawaii v. Trump and IRAP v. Trump . The court granted the motion to stay and denied without prejudice the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 20. On April 5, 2018, the court administratively closed this case, noting that the parties could file a motion following the resolution of other cases addressing President Trump's executive orders. Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential election and revoked the executive orders at issue in this case on Inauguration Day (January 20, 2021). As a result, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on March 29, 2021. District Judge Chutkan ordered the case dismissed without prejudice on April 1, 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 16, 2021
T.S. v. Twentieth Century Fox Television, Inc.
Case Category: Juvenile Institution
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-08303 (N.D. Ill.)
JI-IL-0005
In 2016, two children previously housed the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC) filed this class action lawsuit against both Fox Broadcasting and Cook County officials connected to the JTDC. They alleged degraded conditions of confinement caused by JTDC being used as a filming location for the Fox television show, Empire. Plaintiffs secured class certification and now continue to pursue various claims including indeminfication and JTDC official's breach of their fiduciary duty during the filming period. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JI-IL-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 15, 2021
Trinh v. Homan
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:18-cv-00316 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0115
Four refugees filed this class action suit in the U.S. Central District of California on behalf of Vietnamese immigrants facing orders of removal and indefinite detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite the fact that Vietnam has stated that it will not repatriate nationals who arrived in the U.S. before 1995. Judge Cormac J. Carney certified three classes of Vietnamese immigrants held in ICE detention in 2018 but subsequently dismissed their claims for declaratory relief in 2020 on the basis that it was inappropriate to grant sweeping declarations where individual review is required. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0115)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 15, 2021
Fernandez v. St. Louis County
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-01638-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.)
FA-MO-0014
Plaintiff, a homeless man, brought suit against St. Louis County on June 5, 2019. He frequently solicited to drivers on St. Louis County roads. He challenged various sections of the St. Louis County Code regulating roadside solicitation. He argued many provisions were not content neutral and overly vague allowing for unequal enforcement. Allegations also included violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Attorney’s fees, injunctive, declaratory, and damages relief were sought. On May 11, 2021, the court ordered that the challenged provisions be prohibited. Defendant was also ordered to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and damages totaling $228,515.
View Case Detail (FA-MO-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 13, 2021
Irish International Immigrant Center, Inc. v. Cuccinelli
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-11880-IT (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0018
In September 2019, the Irish International Immigrant Center sued U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services and President Trump. Plaintiff alleged defendants illegally terminated an immigration relief program that granted "deferred action" to seriously ill individuals and their families. Represented by the ACLU, the plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of Equal Protection and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted a joint motion to stay the case on October 31, 2019, so parties could seek a nonjudicial resolution. This followed a USCUS announcement that the deferred action program would return but requests would only be granted “based on compelling facts and circumstances.” Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on June 15, 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0018)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 12, 2021
United States v. Raines
Oyez
Date: Feb. 29, 1960
By: Oyez
Under authority of R.S. § 2004, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Attorney General brought this civil action on behalf of the United States in a Federal District Court to enjoin certain public officials of the State of Georgia from discriminating against Negro citizens who desired to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 12, 2021
U.S. v. Mohamud
Columbia University
Date: Dec. 5, 2016
By: Global Freedom of Expression
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an Oregon District Court ruling that the incidental collection of a U.S. citizen’s activities online under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not violate the Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights protecting a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 12, 2021
Lawsuits
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
Date: Aug. 20, 2020
By: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
In November 2018, when the Trump administration tried to deny asylum rights to anyone who couldn’t reach an official port of entry – a potential death sentence for thousands of people – we took them to court.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2021
Kravitz v. United States Department of Commerce
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH (D. Md.)
PB-MD-0005
On April 11, 2018, seven private plaintiffs sued United States Department of Commerce and its agency the Bureau of the Census, claiming its decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census was unconstitutional and violated federal law. The plaintiffs sued the defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Declaratory Judgments Act. Plaintiffs alleged that that the Census Bureau’s decision to include a citizenship question on the Census would violate the Census clauses because the question would cause a disproportionate undercount of immigrants, non-citizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin. This disproportionate undercount would deprive plaintiffs of representation in congressional, state, and local governing bodies, and access to social services whose funding is based on the Census. Defendants moved to dismiss this case on June 6, 2018, and on August 22, Judge Hazel denied this motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing, that the Secretary’s actions were reviewable, and that the political question doctrine did not bar the claims. Judge Hazel denied the government’s motion for summary judgement and the case was consolidated with a similar case, La Unión Del Pueblo Entero v. Ross (Docket No. 8:18-cv-1041), on December 19. Following a bench trial, Judge Hazel found that the government violated the APA and issued a nationwide injunction on the citizenship question. Following an appeal to the Fourth Circuit which was later remanded to the district court, Judge Hazel permanently enjoined the Census Bureau from promulgating the citizenship question on the 2020 Census. The parties reached a settlement for attorneys’ fees in September, 2019; there has been no significant movement on the docket since then. Since the census is now complete, the case is closed.
View Case Detail (PB-MD-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2021
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-04073 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0146
On July 16, 2019, the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles brought this suit against the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security. Plaintiffs challenged the federal immigration rule restricting eligibility for asylum for noncitizens who transited through another country prior to reaching the southern U.S. border. Plaintiffs claimed the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Plaintiffs successfully sought a preliminary nationwide injunction. However, defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit and the nationwide scope of the injunction was stayed. Then the District Court restored the nationwide scope of the injunction on September 9, 2019, but the government again appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay pending disposition of the appeal in the 9th Circuit. The District Court issued a separate preliminary injunction against another rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security in the closing days of the Trump Administration which was substantially similar to the one already enjoined. The Ninth Circuit upheld the original injunction in April, 2021. The case is ongoing but is likely to terminate soon given the change in presidential administrations.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0146)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 11, 2021
Ross v. Gossett
Uptown People's Law Center
Date: 2020
By: Uptown People's Law Center
In 2015, Uptown People's Law Center and Loevy & Loevy filed a lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of prisoners at Menard, Illinois River, Big Muddy River, and Lawrence Correctional Centers who experienced the physical and sexual abuse of the Orange Crush tactical team in the Spring of 2014. Used as a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 11, 2021
Judge Rotenburg Center v. Food and Drug Administration
Case Category: Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Trial Docket: 20-1087 (No Court)
ID-DC-0002
In 2020, the Judge Rotenburg Center, a facility that treats people with serious mental disabilities, and the parents of several of its patients, filed this petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging an FDA rule that would have effectively prevented the Center from using electric shock therapy to prevent patients from misbehaving. They argued that the FDA's ban was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and that the process which led to the ban was characterized by bad faith and undue political pressure. On July 6, 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated the ban, finding that the FDA had abused its statutory authorities in issuing it. The case remains pending as of July 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (ID-DC-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 11, 2021
International Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”) v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:17-cv-00361-TDC (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0004
On February 7, 2017, five immigrant organizations and 15 individual immigrants filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Represented by the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, the plaintiffs challenged the legitimacy of President Trump’s “travel ban,” arguing that his executive order was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. In the following months, President Trump issued two revised, narrowed versions of the original executive order and the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that corresponded to the updated EOs. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the President had the authority to issue the travel restrictions in a June 2018 decision, Hawaii v. Trump . Following that holding, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to only include claims that argued that the third version of the travel ban (EO-3) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §5) and the First and Fifth Amendments. The government moved to dismiss the amended complaint and on May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims but denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment claims. The government appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss the constitutional claims to the Fourth Circuit. On June 8, 2020, the Fourth Circuit issued an order reversing the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. After the court of appeals denied a motion by the plaintiffs for an en banc rehearing of the case, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice on August 31, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-MD-0004)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 10, 2021
Donald Trump's Muslim Ban
ACLU
Date: 2021
By: ACLU Michigan
When campaigning for president, Donald Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. In January 2017, one week after his inauguration, President Trump banned travel for immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries and halted the refugee resettlement program. His executive order ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 10, 2021
Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-10310 (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0004
In 2017, the Arab American Civil Rights League (ACLR) and seven of its individual members filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §2201), the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §5), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They claimed that President Trump’s Executive Order of January 27, 2017, violated these statutes as well as their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection rights. From 2017 to 2018, the plaintiffs amended their complaint several times to address the updated versions of the travel ban executive order issued by President Trump. The third amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2018 and was joined by other Arab American civil rights groups and the ACLU of Michigan. The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was denied on July 10, 2019. The government appealed this denial to the Sixth Circuit, but before oral arguments could be heard on the matter, Joe Biden won the 2020 election. On Inauguration Day, President Biden revoked the travel ban executive order. As a result, the parties agreed that this case was moot and proceedings were effectively ended by the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-MI-0004)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 9, 2021
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore City Police Department
ACLU
Date: 2021
By: ACLU Maryland
On behalf of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, grassroots think tank that advances the public policy interests of Black people in Baltimore, Erricka Bridgeford, co-founder of the Baltimore Ceasefire 365 project, and Kevin James, a community organizer and hip-hop musician, the American Civil ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 9, 2021
Drumwright v. Cole
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00998 (M.D. N.C.)
PN-NC-0004
Two consolidated cases alleged voter intimidation by police before the November 2020 elections. One was Drumright v. Cole, 1:20-cv-00998; the other was Allen v. City of Graham, 1:20-cv-00997. On October 31, 2020, police dispersed an event held in front of the Graham, NC courthouse, using pepper spray. Both of the aforementioned cases were filed on two days later against the Graham Police Department and the Alamance County Sherrif’s Office. Both cases listed similar claims of excessive force and voter intimidation. They also alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Allen claims were settled by mediation. The settlement stipulated the complete dismissal of the Allen claims. The court subsequently granted the dismissal of Drumwright’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 constitutional claims against only two defendants (the Graham Chief of police and one other officer). All other Drumwright claims proceeded. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PN-NC-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 9, 2021
Alliance Party v. D.C. Board of Elections
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02319 (D.D.C.)
VR-DC-1174
The Alliance Party and two third-party presidential sued the District of Columbia Board of Elections. The D.C. city government had lowered the signatures required for ballot qualification from 5,007 to 250 on August 6, 2020, the day after petitions to appear on the ballot were due. The plaintiffs contended that they had ceased collecting signatures because it was "impossible" to collect 5,007 signatures while adhering to social distancing guidelines, but would have continued their efforts if they knew they only had to get 250. The district court denied a motion for temporary restraining order, the 2020 election was held and this case was dismissed soon after.
View Case Detail (VR-DC-1174)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 7, 2021
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
Oyez
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: Oyez
Respondents are a class of noncitizens subject to reinstated removal orders, which generally are not open to challenge. However, if a noncitizen has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in the countries designated in their removal orders, the person may pursue withholding of removal. That is ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 7, 2021
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
SCOTUSBlog
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: SCOTUSBlog
Holding: The detention of a noncitizen ordered removed from the United States who reenters without authorization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231.

Judgment: Reversed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 29, 2021. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring except for footnote 4 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 7, 2021
Casenote: Rizzo v. Goode - Federal Court Intervention and Local Police Departments
University of Baltimore Law Forum
Date: March 1976
By: Lindsay Schlottman
In an action brought under 42 U.s.c. sec. 1983, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Rehnquist, reversed a federal district court's attempt to end a pattern of illegal and unconstitutional police mistreatment of citizens. Rizzo v. Goode, 44 LW 4095, was decided on January 21; 1976 and is the resting ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 7, 2021
Rizzo v. Goode
Oyez
Date: Jan. 21, 1976
By: Oyez
Two suits, permitted to proceed as class actions, were brought in District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by respondents, individuals and organizations, against petitioners, the Mayor of Philadelphia, the Police Commissioner, and others, alleging a pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 7, 2021
Oldaker v. Giles
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
Date: 2021
By: National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
On December 21, 2020, NIPNLG and its partners filed litigation on behalf of fourteen women who suffered medical abuse at the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia. More than 40 women filed sworn testimony in court revealing a relentless pattern of unnecessary and non-consensual medical surgeries, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
June 30, 2021
East Bay v. Barr
American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Feb. 16, 2021
By: ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new asylum restrictions announced July 15, 2019.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
June 29, 2021
Kravitz v. United States Department of Commerce
Brennan Center for Justice
Date: Jul. 15, 2019
By: Brennan Center for Justice
Maryland and Arizona residents are challenging the Department of Commerce’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs argue that the decision violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government appealed the decision and the case is ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
June 29, 2021
Appeals court sends census case to lower court to review discrimination claims
The Hill
Date: Jun. 25, 2019
By: Jacqueline Thomsen
A federal appeals court on Tuesday said it would send a lawsuit over the Trump administration's addition of a question about citizenship to the 2020 census to a lower court to determine whether there was discriminatory intent behind the question's inclusion.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
June 28, 2021
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
Oyez
Date: Mar. 18, 1968
By: Oyez
One who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee under § 204(b) unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust, and should not be limited, as the Court of Appeals held, to an award of counsel fees ...
View Link Detail