University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are the cases added to the Clearinghouse, or updated, over the past 90 days:


CASE ADDITIONS
February 28, 2021
Disability Rights Montana v. Opper
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-00025-SEH (D. Mont.)
PC-MT-0008
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-MT-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
February 27, 2021
Marimuthu v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00499 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0039
On Aug. 7, 2013, 10 Indian guestworkers filed a lawsuit in E.D. Tx. for harm suffered as a result of an allegedly fraudulent and coercive employment recruitment scheme by Defendant Signal International. While discovery was underway, Signal filed for bankruptcy and the Court stayed this case pending bankruptcy and settlement proceedings. Defendant’s bankruptcy terminated February 9, 2019, but the parties continue to coordinate the distribution of the settlement funds.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0039)


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


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


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


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


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


CASE ADDITIONS
February 23, 2021
National Association of the Deaf v. Trump
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02107 (D.D.C.)
DR-DC-0008
On August 3, 2020, the National Association for the Deaf and five deaf plaintiffs who use ASL as their primary language sued President Donald Trump and other White House officials for injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' failure to provide in-frame ASL interpretation at White House Coronavirus Briefings violated their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and the First Amendment. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which Judge James E. Boasberg granted on September 9, 2020. Under the preliminary injunction, the defendants are required to provide in-frame interpretation at all White House Coronavirus Briefings, either in the form of live ASL interpretation from the location of the briefing or live interpretation from a remote location in picture-in-picture format. The Defendants appealed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the DC Circuit. The case is currently stayed in district court pending the resolution of the appeal.
View Case Detail (DR-DC-0008)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


CASE ADDITIONS
February 18, 2021
Motion of Thomas C. Goldstein For Appointment As Amicus Curiae and For Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief [FISA Docket Misc. 18-04]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 18-04 (FISC)
NS-DC-0130
After then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned on November 7, 2018, President Trump appointed Matthew Whitaker to serve as the Acting Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. On December 11, 2018, Thomas Goldstein filed this motion with the FISC for appointment as amicus curiae in order to urge the FISC to decide whether President Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker was lawful. On April 11, 2019, FISC Judge Rosemary M. Collyer denied Mr. Goldstein’s motion for appointment as amicus curiae. She found that the concerns raised by Mr. Goldstein were not before the FISC, because the Government had not relied on any action taken by Mr. Whitaker as the Acting Attorney General “in any submission to the Court.” She further noted that the Senate had confirmed the nomination of William P. Barr as Attorney General on February 14, 2019.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0130)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


CASE ADDITIONS
December 19, 2020
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-04756 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0051
A Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient living in New York filed this suit against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoining the expansion of DACA, USCIS had unlawfully revoked a three-year employment authorization that had previously been granted to him. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the revocation unlawful and in violation of the procedures required under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and restoring his three-year employment authorization. A nationwide injunction was issued, and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5 which was granted on July 3, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. On July 28, 2020, the purported Acting Secretary of DHS issued a memorandum effectively suspending DACA while DHS reviewed it. The plaintiffs challenged the memorandum on the grounds that (1) the Acting Secretary did not have the authority to issue the memorandum, and (2) the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. While the parties awaited the court’s decision, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging various constitutional and statutory violations pertaining to the Acting Secretary’s appointment and agency action following the Supreme Court’s decision. On November 14, 2020, the district court found that the Acting Secretary was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of DHS and thus did not have the authority to issue the memorandum. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 4, 2020, the court vacated the memorandum and ordered DHS to resume processing DACA applications. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0051)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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