Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Search for:
clear search

Docket Number

Key Dates

Filing Date

Settlement / Judgment Date

Terminating Date

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Details

Outcome

Issues

MORE▾

Document Details

Document Filing Date

MORE▾

Document Citation (Choose One)

Use this for most court reporters

S.Ct. reporter and WL only

LEXIS and L.Ed. only

Search for:
5 cases, 5 documents
Ordered by
PUBLIC BENEFITS/GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Ligas v. Maram [now Ligas v. Hamos]

1:05-cv-04331 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: July 28, 2005

Case Ongoing

On July 28, 2005, nine individuals with developmental disabilities filed this lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the Illinois Department of Human Services, and the Illinois Department of Public Health in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They alleged that they were eligible for long-term care through state-administered Medicaid Services but were forced to reside in large congregate care institutions rather than commun…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Flores v. Reno

2:85-cv-04544 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: July 11, 1985

Case Ongoing

COVID-19 Summary: This is a very longstanding class action addressing appropriate treatment of noncitizen children in federal immigration custody. On March 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking promptly release due to COVID-19 risks. On March 27, 2020, the court issued an order to the federal agencies detaining immigrant children to “make continuous efforts” to release the children from custody because of the risk posed to them by COVID-19 and to provide an accounting of their …
POLICING
Floyd v. City of New York

1:08-cv-01034 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Jan. 31, 2008

Case Ongoing

COVID-19 Summary: This is an ongoing case to challenge the constitutionality of the NYPD's stop and frisk practices, in which the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion calling for a moratorium and investigation of NYPD's alleged discriminatory enforcement of social distancing policy. No outcome yet on plaintiffs' motion.This is one of four ongoing cases challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" program. See Ligon v. City of New York (PN-NY-0014); Dani…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Catholic Social Services v. Ashcroft

2:86-cv-01343 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Nov. 12, 1986

Closed Date: Aug. 29, 2014

On Nov. 12, 1986, Catholic Social Services filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ("INS") interpretation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). This case was one of three "late amnesty cases" filed in the federal courts in California against the INS. The other two case were Zambrano v. INS, S-88-455 EJG (E.D.Cal.) [IM-CA-0008 of this collection] and LULAC v…
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
Schaefer v. Tannian

2:73-cv-39943 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: April 10, 1973

Closed Date: 1998

On April 10, 1973, female police officers filed a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, against their superior officers and the Detroit Police Department in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs contended that their separate divisions and unequal pay were illegal under Title VII. Before they brought the suit, female police officers were restricted to working only in the "Women's Division," which was its ow…