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
July 28, 2021
Boyd v. Denton
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: C78-1679 (N.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0029
Four individuals incarcerated at the Ohio State Reformatory filed a class action lawsuit against the facility. They alleged that a variety of the facility's conditions, including overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, violated their Eighth Amendment rights. They also alleged that the prison's staff discriminated based on race in assigning cells and jobs. The parties ultimately proposed a consent decree, which the court approved on February 1, 1983. The prison operated under the consent decree until it was closed in 1990.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0029)


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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-MD-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2021
Faust v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 21-548 (E.D. Wis.)
PB-WI-0006
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-WI-0006)


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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0036)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 27, 2021
McKinney v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-212 (E.D. Tex.)
PB-TX-0019
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 27, 2021
Joyner v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-1089 (W.D. Tenn.)
PB-TN-0010
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-TN-0010)


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)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 23, 2021
Dunlap v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-942 (D. Or.)
PB-OR-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-OR-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 22, 2021
Emami v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-01587-JD (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0140
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0140)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 22, 2021
Miller v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-00595-O (N.D. Tex.)
PB-TX-0017
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0017)


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
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
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 21, 2021
Wynn v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-00514-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla.)
PB-FL-0022
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-FL-0022)


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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0018)


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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-TN-0009)


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
Kent v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-540 (S.D. Ill.)
PB-IL-0016
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-IL-0016)


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
Reynolds v. Giuliani
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:98-cv-8877 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0003)


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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
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
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 20, 2021
Bernardi v. Yeutter
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: No. C 73 1110 SC (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0368
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0368)


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 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
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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0051)


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
Libertarian Party of Illinois v. Pritzker
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02112 (N.D. Ill.)
VR-IL-0133
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-IL-0133)


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 15, 2021
Sarsour v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00120 (E.D. Va.)
IM-VA-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-VA-0005)


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)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 13, 2021
Washington v. DeVos
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00182 (E.D. Wash.)
PB-WA-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-WA-0011)


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)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2021
Terrill v. Oregon
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 6:21-cv-00588-AA (D. Or.)
PC-OR-0017
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-OR-0017)


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 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)


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 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)


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)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 8, 2021
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00929-RDB (D. Md.)
PN-MD-0010
In April 2020, two Baltimore activists and a local grassroots think tank filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that the Baltimore City Police Department’s contract with a private surveillance company to fly panes that captured images of the city for use in police investigations violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction a few weeks after the lawsuit was filed. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit and were initially unsuccessful as the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion in November 2020. However, after an en banc rehearing of the case in March 2021, the Fourth Circuit overturned its prior decision in an eight to seven vote and reversed the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 24, 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PN-MD-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 8, 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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0151)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 7, 2021
United States v. Mohamud
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:10-CR-00475-KI-1 (D. Or.)
NS-OR-0003
In 2010, the government initiated criminal prosecution of Mohamed Osman Mohamud in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon charging him with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. At the start of the proceedings, the government filed a FISA notification which gave Mohamud notice that the government intended to use information obtained and derived from electronic surveillance and a physical search conducted pursuant to FISA. When Mohamud challenged the government's compliance with the notification procedures and their legality, the district court upheld the statute and scope of required notification of surveillance under FISA Section 702. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari. Mohamud filed a motion to vacate or correct his sentence in June of 2020; the motion has yet to be ruled on and the case remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-OR-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 7, 2021
Morrissey v. Brewer
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 69-20468 (S.D. Iowa)
CJ-IA-0001
This is an older case about whether due process rights are violated when a parole board revokes someone's parole without a hearing. The petitioners were individually convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in the late 1960s; each was granted parole by the Iowa Board of Parole in 1968 and subsequently arrested for violating parole in 1969. The petitioners filed writs of habeas corpus in 1969, alleging that the revocation of his parole by the Iowa Board of Parole without first receiving a hearing on the matter violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied both petitions and on April 21, 1971, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On June 29, 1972, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, reasoning that the interest at issue for the petitioners fell within the contemplation of the fourteenth amendment and thus due process concerns applied. The Supreme Court found no state interest in revoking parole without procedural safeguards for the parolee. The Supreme Court further found society had an interest in not having parole improperly revoked as doing so would make integrating the parolee back into society more difficult. The court concluded by evaluating the nature of what parole revocation consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment should constitute, including: (1) a determination by a third party that reasonable grounds exist for parole revocation; (2) notice of the grounds and the opportunity to bring evidence; and (3) an opportunity for a hearing, if so desired by the parolee. There was no information on Lexis, Westlaw, or another publicly-available resource about whether and for how long litigation continued subsequent to the supreme court ruling.
View Case Detail (CJ-IA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 7, 2021
United States v. James Griggs Raines
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: Civ. A. No. 442 (M.D. Ga.)
VR-GA-0167
The United States alleged that the registrars of Terrell County, GA purposefully delayed and rejected Black voter registrations in order to maintain racial disparity among registered voters. Defendants, led by one of the foremost segregationist attorneys of the era, challenged the constitutionality of the statute that authorized the United States to file an action based on private citizens rights. After the District Court dismissed the complaint and declared the statute unconstitutional, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On remand, the court found that Terrell County had purposely discriminated against Black voters and ordered the county to stop these discriminatory practices but declined to enact the greater judicial oversight permitted by the Civil Rights Act of 1957. History shows that this enabled Terrell County to continue its abuses.
View Case Detail (VR-GA-0167)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2021
Romero v. Evans
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-754 (E.D. Va.)
IM-VA-0009
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-VA-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2021
Crawford v. McDonald's
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; it has not yet been adjudicated. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PA-IL-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2021
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-05205-NRB (S.D.N.Y.)
PR-NY-0004
In 2017, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued President Donald Trump and other executive branch officials, alleging unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech after the named individual plaintiffs were blocked from the Twitter account @realDonaldTrump for being critical of President Trump and/or his policies. After the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the opinion and directed the Second Circuit to dismiss the case as moot because there was a change in presidential administrations due to the 2020 election.
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 5, 2021
Washington v. GEO
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05806-RJB (W.D. Wash.)
CJ-WA-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-WA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 5, 2021
Plata v. Brown (Newsom) / Coleman v. Brown Three-Judge Court
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:01-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0057
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-CA-0057)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2021
Goode v. Tate
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 70-491 (E.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0022
Plaintiffs in two separate cases sought injunctive relief regarding the same alleged unconstitutional conduct by Philadelphia police. After the district court initially ordered the police to revise its citizen complaint process and awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed by finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
View Case Detail (PN-PA-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2021
Oldaker v. Giles
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 7:20-cv-00224-WLS-MSH (M.D. Ga.)
IM-GA-0017
In 2020, women who were detainees at Irwin County Detention Center (an ICE Jail in Ocilla County, Georgia) filed a class action complaint, habeas petition, and emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (in Valdosta). The plaintiffs alleged that they were medically abused while in ICE custody and that federal and jail officials retaliated against them when they attempted to inform the public about the conditions of their confinement. The plaintiffs claim that these actions violated the First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and other federal and state laws. ICE moved all women detainees out of ICDC by late April 2021 and the Department of Homeland Security announced the end of its contract with the detention center in May 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-GA-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 2, 2021
United States v. Alabama
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01971-JHE (N.D. Ala.)
PC-AL-0037
On October 6, 2016, the DOJ announced that it had opened a statewide investigation into the conditions in Alabama’s prisons for men under CRIPA. The investigation revealed poor conditions in the prisons, and the DOJ was unable to reach a settlement with the state. As a result, the DOJ filed a lawsuit on December 9, 2020 against Alabama in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-AL-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 30, 2021
Diaz v. Hott
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-1405 (E.D. Va.)
IM-VA-0010
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-VA-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 30, 2021
Plata v. Newsom
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:01-cv-01351-TEH (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0018
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-CA-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 30, 2021
Doe v. McAleenan
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:19-cv-02119-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0152
Asylum seekers sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the U.S. District Court of Southern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants forbid them from seeking and retaining legal counsel for their non-refoulement interview, which would determine whether they must stay in Mexico while their immigration proceedings are ongoing. The plaintiffs argued that the denial of access to counsel violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, procedural and substantive due process, and the First Amendment. The district judge granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction was appealed by the government to the Ninth Circuit in March 2020. The Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal in this case pending the outcome of a separate Supreme Court case on the same issue, Wolf [or Pekoske] v. Innovation Law Lab. This case remains pending until Innovation Law Lab is resolved in the Supreme Court.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0152)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 29, 2021
Dobbey v. Weilding
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-01068 (N.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0052
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0052)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 29, 2021
United States v. Baltimore County
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-02465-CCB (D. Md.)
EE-MD-0152
The United States sued Baltimore County seeking to enjoin the use of discriminatory exams used by the county police department in their hiring process. Following protracted negotiations, the parties came to a settlement agreement. The agreement stipulates that: (1) The County in enjoined from using the challenged exams and requires the County to create a new schematic which would not lead to a disparate impact against African American applicants (unless the impact is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity) (2) The County shall provide for individual relief in the form of back pay for certain affected applicants who had been denied under the old policy, and priority hiring relief for up to twenty of those applicants in certain circumstances. (3) Procedures and timelines for implementing the above.
View Case Detail (EE-MD-0152)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 29, 2021
Stafford v. Carter
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00289 (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0024
In 2017, prisoners of the Pendleton Correctional Facility filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs alleged that employees of the Indiana Department of Corrections denied inmates of life-saving medical treatment for the Hepatitis C virus in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Plaintiffs sought relief in the form of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment; compensatory damages and punitive damages for claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and for attorney fees, expenses, and costs. In January 2020, a settlement agreement was approved by the court. Most notably, the settlement guarantees HCV treatment for all eligible prisoners. The case is ongoing for purposes of implementation of the settlement.
View Case Detail (PC-IN-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 29, 2021
Wolfe v. Portland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01882-BR (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0010
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 24, 2021
Morgan v. Sproat
Case Category: Juvenile Institution
Trial Docket: 3:75-cv-00021-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss.)
JI-MS-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (JI-MS-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 23, 2021
Elhady v. Piehota
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va.)
NS-VA-0008
The plaintiffs, a group of Muslim-American U.S. citizens who believed that they were on the Terrorism Screening Database (the “watchlist”), filed their lawsuit in April 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. They said that the watchlist subjected them to invasive travel screening and reputational harm and lacked a constitutionally adequate mechanism for having their names removed. The plaintiffs alleged that this violated their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the nondelegation doctrine. In 2017, Judge Anthony J. Trenga dismissed the plaintiffs' substantive due process, equal protection, and non-delegation claims, while allowing their procedural due process and APA claims to proceed to discovery. Though the plaintiffs successfully argued a procedural due process violation at summary judgment in September 2019, the Fourth Circuit reversed in May 2021.
View Case Detail (NS-VA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 23, 2021
State of Washington v. United States of America
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-00939-RAJ (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0037
On June 26, 2018, a coalition of states filed this lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's practice of refusing entry to asylum applicants at the southern border, as well as its family separation policy. The case was transferred to the Southern District of California and is currently being held in abeyance until litigation in a similar case, Ms. L v. ICE, concludes.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 22, 2021
Ross v. Gossett
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-00309 (S.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0033
In March 2015, an Illinois prisoner brought this class action suit seeking damages and injunctive relief against the State of Illinois, alleging that during an April 2014 search of cells at Illinois River Correctional Center, the members of the IDOC tactical team "Orange Crush" beat, abused, and sexually humiliated the plaintiff, destroyed his property, and that such misconduct was endemic. Class certification was granted in March of 2020. The case remains open and in Discovery.
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0033)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 22, 2021
Siddiqui v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 0:20-cv-00793 (D. Minn.)
IM-MN-0007
In March 2020, sixty-eight immigration detainees held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Sherburne County Jail (Elk River, MN) filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing their continued detention in light of the COVID-19 pandemic was a violation of their Substantive Due Process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs sought an injunction ordering ICE to release petitioners to their homes pending further immigration proceedings or, alternatively, a temporary restraining order. The Court adopted the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which recommended denying both the injunction and temporary restraining order sue to the lack of imminent harm Plaintiffs would face if each were denied; COVID-19 safety guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and adopted by ICE for the protection of inmates in the midst of the pandemic were cited as reasons. Plaintiffs appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which summarily affirmed the lower court ruling in December 2020. Appellants were deported by ICE in the following weeks and tere has been no movement on the docket since.
View Case Detail (IM-MN-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 21, 2021
Ahmad v. City of St. Louis
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-02455 (E.D. Mo.)
PN-MO-0008
This lawsuit, filed in 2017 in the Eastern District of Missouri, alleged that law enforcement in the City of St. Louis violated individuals' right to protest by classifying assemblies as "unlawful" and used chemical agents without probable cause or fair warning. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against the City to quell police misconduct and granted class certification, but the defendants successfully appealed both the class certification and preliminary injunction orders. Because so much time had passed since the 2017 entry of the preliminary injunction, the Eighth Circuit instructed the District Court to vacate and dissolve the preliminary injunction by October 31, 2021, if it has not been replaced by a permanent injunction in the meantime. It also left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could renew their request for class certification if a permanent injunction were granted. A non-jury trial is set for August 23, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-MO-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 18, 2021
Washington v. Devos
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01119-BJR (W.D. Wash.)
PB-WA-0009
In 2020, Washington State challenged a rule from the U.S. Department of Education (DoED) allocating additional COVID funding to private schools. It was alleged that the DoED rule was in contravention of both the language and spirit of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The case was dismissed in October 2020 as the DoED rule had already been enjoined in a separate case, NAACP v. DeVos (ED-DC-0010).
View Case Detail (PB-WA-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 17, 2021
Brito v. Barr
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-11314 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0025
In this class action covering the Boston Immigration Court (which covers immigration detainees in Massachusetts and other parts of New England), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered numerous procedural changes to immigration court bond hearings. First, the Court put the burden on the government, not the detainee, to prove a flight risk or danger to the public. Second, immigration courts must consider the detainee's ability to pay. Finally, immigration courts must consider alternative conditions of release. Appeal is pending.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 17, 2021
Abdi v. Wray
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00622 (D. Utah)
NS-UT-0002
In 2017, an American Citizen who is a cleric at a mosque in Salt Lake City filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The plaintiff alleged that his placement on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist” violated his Fifth Amendment Rights, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine. In 2018, the District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in 2019.
View Case Detail (NS-UT-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 17, 2021
Beydoun v. Sessions
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 5:14-cv-13812 (E.D. Mich.)
NS-MI-0007
A Michigan resident filed a class-action suit against the FBI and its Terrorist Screening Center after allegedly being repeatedly singled out for additional security screenings at airports. While TSC neither confirmed nor denied it, the plaintiff believed he had been added to the FBI’s "Selectee List" of persons subject to greater airport security. The plaintiff challenged this as a violation of his right to travel freely, but the court ultimately dismissed the case, finding that he had not suffered a deprivation of rights amounting to a constitutional violation.
View Case Detail (NS-MI-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 16, 2021
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-10721 (E.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0010
This 2017 lawsuit was brought by eight crime victims and witnesses who were threatened, arrested, and imprisoned in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs alleged that the District Attorney of Orleans Parish and many agents of the state violated the plaintiffs' First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by creating and distributing doctored subpoenas to coerce them into submitting to interrogations. Five of the eight plaintiffs have settled their claims for monetary damages. The remaining three continue discovery on their way to trial as of June 15, 2021. Of the remaining three plaintiffs, one has settled against the individual defendants but maintains her claims against the DA. The other two have pending claims against both the DA in his official capacity and assistant DAs in their individual capacities.
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 16, 2021
In re Jackson Lockdown/MCO Cases
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 81-72151 (E.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0034
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-MI-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 16, 2021
Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:88−cv−01467 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0276
Employees of Lucky Stores filed suit in 1988 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged sex, race, and/or national origin discrimination in Lucky's hiring, promotion, and training practices on behalf of a class of all female, Black, and Hispanic past, present, and future Lucky employees. Following six years of litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree in 1994, whereby Lucky agreed to non-discrimination in its employment practices and pay monetary relief to both non-representative class members and the named plaintiffs.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0276)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 15, 2021
Guilford College v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00891 (M.D. N.C.)
IM-NC-0005
On August 9, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a new policy that made it easier to declare the presence of students and visitors to the United States unlawful. On October 23, 2018, Guilford College and other universities challenged that policy under the Administrative Procedure Act. They alleged that the new policy violated statutory and due process rights. The District Court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction against the policy but denied summary judgment because the parties had not submitted a complete administrative record. The case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals but then the government dropped that appeal, leaving the injunction in place. It is unclear why the government chose to drop the appeal.
View Case Detail (IM-NC-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 15, 2021
Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, and Cooper v. New York State Office of Mental Health
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 92-CV-169-NPM (N.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0227
In 1992 and 1993, terminated employees of several New York state agencies filed these cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging that they had suffered age discrimination in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In both cases, the district court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear these claims because Congress had abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court when it passed the ADEA, a holding which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit in the wake of its 2000 decision in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, which found that Congress did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity with the ADEA. Both cases were then dismissed.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0227)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 15, 2021
Nashville Community Bail Fund v. Gentry
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00103 (M.D. Tenn.)
CJ-TN-0015
In 2020, the Nashville Community Bail Fund filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiff alleged that a local rule which required it to agree to garnishment of judgment fees from bail bonds before it could post bail for indigent arrestees violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and threatened its ability to operate as a non-profit. The District Judge granted a preliminary injunction in March 2020 enjoining the County Criminal Court Clerk from garnishing fees from bonds posted by the Bail Fund. In December 2020, the District Judge approved a consent decree where the Bail Fund and the County Government agreed to make the injunction permanent. The matter is ongoing as the parties are litigating over who should pay attorneys fees and how much.
View Case Detail (CJ-TN-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 15, 2021
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 75-1991 (D. Mass.)
EE-MA-0026
On May 20, 1975, a non-veteran woman who had applied for civil service positions in Massachusetts filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, its Division of Civil Service, the Director of Civil Service, and the members of the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission. She sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking injunctive relief. Massachusetts had passed the Massachusetts Veterans' Preference Statute, which gave preference to veterans when hiring for state civil service positions. The plaintiff alleged that this was discriminatory against women and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because only a small percentage of veterans were women. The Supreme Court, in light of its recent decision in Washington v. Davis (1977), held that the Massachusetts statute lacked a discriminatory purpose against women and that there was no equal protection violation.
View Case Detail (EE-MA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 14, 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
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-DC-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 14, 2021
Edrei v. Bratton
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-01652 (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0061
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0061)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 11, 2021
Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00290 (W.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0082
In 2020, two immigration detainees in the Batavia Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, NY, filed this class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Plaintiffs claimed that they and others similarly situated had been improperly denied bond, that non-bond alternatives to detention had not been properly considered by their immigration judges, that such considerations were required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that the policy of placing the burden of proof on the Plaintiffs to show they posed no flight risk violated their Fifth Amendment Rights. The court granted relief for pre-hearing detainees, agreeing that they pled sufficient facts to state a Due Process Claim that the government is required to bear the burden of proof at bond hearings for individuals detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a). It denied Plaintiffs' request to certify the putative post-hearing class. Both parties appealed; the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0082)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 10, 2021
El Ali v. Barr
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 8:18-cv-02415-PX (D. Md.)
NS-MD-0002
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-MD-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 9, 2021
Sines v. Kessler
Case Category: Public Accomm./Contracting
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va.)
PA-VA-0003
Ten private citizens of Charlottesville, Virginia, sued a host of individuals identified as organizers and proponents of the far-right “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville. Invoking state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the plaintiffs sought to hold defendants liable for the damages caused by their event. This case moved slowly through the discovery process, with a number of sanctions against the defendants, and is now set for trial in October 2021.
View Case Detail (PA-VA-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 6, 2021
Barnett v. Tony
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 0:20-cv-61113-WPD (S.D. Fla.)
JC-FL-0026
In June 2020, thirteen named plaintiffs and Disability Rights Florida, represented by the ACLU, sought a writ of habeas corpus and injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs alleged that the Sherrif's Office knowingly failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 at Broward County jails and prisons. The parties settled December 2020, and the settlement was approved May 2021. The settlement agreement requires the Sherrif's Office to comply with CDC recommendations on matters such as social distancing, PPE and sanitization supplies, and the availability and prominence of health information.
View Case Detail (JC-FL-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 4, 2021
Street v. O'Toole
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-02590 (E.D. Mo.)
PN-MO-0009
In 2019, individuals who participated in 2017 anti-police brutality protests in St. Louis filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs alleged a number of civil rights violations and tort claims following an incident where the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department allegedly "kettled" protestors on September 17, 2017. Hundreds of police officers were named in the original complaint but the District Judge narrowed the action to only six officers who held supervisory roles during the protest and the City of St. Louis themselves. As of June 17, 2021, the six remaining officers were appealing the denial of their motion to dismiss to the Eighth Circuit and the District Judge granted a stay of the original action pending the resolution of the interlocutory appeal.
View Case Detail (PN-MO-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 4, 2021
Blake v. Carr
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-807-P (N.D. Tex.)
PC-TX-0026
In 2020, female prisoners at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Allegations included a failure to implement COVID-19 protocols, low-quality food, and abuse by prison staff. A motion to consolidate the remaining 37 plaintiff's cases has been filed. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-TX-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 3, 2021
NAACP v. USPS
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02295 (D.D.C.)
PB-DC-0014
The NAACP sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) and Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, on August 20, 2020. The NAACP argued that rule changes implemented by DeJoy in July violated federal law by not allowing adequate time for public comment, and that resulting delays in mail delivery jeopardized the integrity of postal voting in the 2020 elections. Represented by the NAACP LDF and Public Citizen, the NAACP sought a reversal of the policies. Injunctive relief was granted on October 10. USPS appealed the decision on the preliminary injunction on December 9, 2020. The appeal is currently pending in the D.C. Circuit and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-DC-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 2, 2021
United States v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: CIV. A. No. 87–2842 (E.D. Pa.)
EE-PA-0247
Title VII action was brought by the United States Department of Justice against the Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia alleging employment discrimination on the basis of religion for refusal to allow a public school teacher to wear religious attire while teaching, and against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, challenging the validity of Pennsylvania's garb statute. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered judgment against the Board of Education and for the Commonwealth. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the Commonwealth, holding that the statute was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The Third Circuit reversed the judgment against the Board of Education, however, holding that accommodation of the religious practice would have imposed undue hardship on the school board.
View Case Detail (EE-PA-0247)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 2, 2021
Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Coleman
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 76-1913 (E.D. Pa.)
PB-PA-0001
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of federal laws were passed to make public transportation accessible for people with mobility problems. On June 17, 1976, a coalition of disability rights advocate groups, mobile disabled individuals, and elderly individuals filed this putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation had not complied with the federal laws by not mandating a fully accessible, low-floored, ramped bus. The case was declared moot after the appointment of a new Secretary of Transportation, who issued a policy mandating similar requirements for buses. This case has ended.
View Case Detail (PB-PA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 2, 2021
United States of America v. State of North Carolina
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: Civ. No. 4476 (E.D.N.C.)
EE-NC-0144
In 1973 the U.S. Department of Justice brought this pattern and practice lawsuit against the State of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The DOJ alleged that the state's use of minimum test score for teacher certification violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause. They were later joined by the North Carolina Association of Educators and a class of Black teachers who requested monetary relief and attorenys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs initially won a declaratory judgment and injunction forcing the state to license Black teachers affected by the minimum scores. However, the court later vacated its opinion after the Supreme Court decision in Washington v. Davis.
View Case Detail (EE-NC-0144)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 2, 2021
Humphrey v. LeBlanc
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0016
In 2020, three former Louisiana inmates filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs claimed that their overdetentions and the overdetentions of thousands of other former inmates due to slow processing constituted a violation of their 14th Amendment right to due process and that James LeBlanc was deliberately indifferent to these violations. As of writing, this case is still in discovery, and the plaintiffs' class has not yet been certified.
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 1, 2021
American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago v. Chicago
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-06322 (N.D. Ill.)
DR-IL-0006
In 2019, American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the City of Chicago’s failure to equip signalized street intersections with accessible pedestrian signals (ASPs) violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In April 2021, the DOJ intervened as a plaintiff. Discovery is ongoing and scheduled to end in early 2022. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and compensatory damages against the City.
View Case Detail (DR-IL-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 1, 2021
Parents Association of the St. Louis State School v. Bond
Case Category: Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Trial Docket: 82-0852-C(2) (E.D. Mo.)
ID-MO-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (ID-MO-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 26, 2021
Rulli v. Pittsburgh
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00965-CB-LPL (W.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0023
Six named plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of Pittsburgh and various elected officials and police officials alleging that actions taken against non-violent protestors constituted violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
View Case Detail (PN-PA-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 25, 2021
NAACP v. San Jose
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-01705 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0053
The NAACP and individual people sued the city of San Jose and political officials for policing tactics that allegedly deprived them of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs, protesting systemic racism in policing, alleged that the police used excessive force in a racially motivated manner to end the protests.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0053)