Blind Persons Win Case Requiring Paper Money They Can Easily Identify
On October 3, 2008, the American Council of the Blind won a landmark disability discrimination case against the U.S. Treasury. Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the government must come up with a plan to make its currency “meaningfully accessible” and may not approve any new designs for its paper money unless the bills can be easily distinguished by persons who are blind or have other vision impairments. The decision helps people who have had to depend on the honesty of sighted individuals or the accuracy of machines to tell the difference, for example, between a $10 bill and a $100 bill.
In 2006, the government moved to dismiss the case, but Judge Robertson held that the failure to produce paper money that is meaningfully accessible violated the Rehabilitation Act. He wrote, “There was a time when disabled people had no choice but to ask for help – to rely on the ‘kindness of strangers.’ It was thought to be their lot. Blind people had to ask strangers to push elevator buttons for them. People in wheelchairs needed Boy Scouts to help them over curbs and up stairs. We have evolved, however, and Congress has made our evolution official, by enacting the Rehabilitation Act, whose stated purpose is ‘to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society.’”
In May 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the government’s appeal and sent the case back to Judge Robertson. The case is ongoing, with six-month status reports coming in from the government.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
California Systemic Prison Cases
The California prison system—the largest state system—incarcerates over 160,000 people on any given day. It is subject to a large number of system-wide cases in which courts have found serious constitutional violations or violations of prior settlement agreements. The most costly of these cases, Plata, concerns medical care, which has at this point been turned over to a court-appointed receiver. It has become apparent that solving the constitutional problems will cost billions of dollars.
In three of the cases—Plata, Coleman (mental health care), and Armstrong (disability discrimination)—the plaintiffs asked for imposition of a population cap on the California system, as a constitutionally necessary remedy. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, such a cap may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. Judge Wilken stayed consideration of the motion in Armstrong, but such a panel was convened to decide the issue in Plata and Coleman. On February 9, 2009, it announced its "tentative ruling" that California must reduce overcrowding from 190% of its prisons' design capacity to something between 120% and 145%, over the next two or three years. If the state did not build any more prisons, this would mean a population reduction of about 50,000 prisoners.
While the population cap issue was under consideration, the cases also proceeded individually. Most recently, the receiver in Plata has requested the state release $250 million for initial medical care improvements (out of an approximately $8 billion dollars likely to be needed for new medical care facilities), but the state refused to meet the deadline of November 5, 2008. Judge Henderson's hearing on contempt sanctions for the refusal was scheduled for November 11, 2008, but was stayed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on the issue in January.
On August 4, 2009, the three-judge district court (Judges Reinhardt, Karlton, and Henderson), following two years of proceedings including fourteen days of trial, issued an opinion that imposes a population cap on California's prisons. The court found that the cap is necessary to cure the constitutional violations that have long existed with respect to the provision of medical and mental health care. Considering the strict requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act for entry of a population cap, the court found (as required by the statute as a prerequisite to such an order) that overcrowding is the primary cause of these violations. It approved a population limit of 137.5% of design capacity, and it ordered the state to submit a plan as to how best it can reduce the current prison population from its present level of more than 190% of design capacity. No immediate release of prisoners was ordered. Rather, the reduction in prison population of over 40,000 may be accomplished by the state over a two-year period, through a combination of various measures previously recommended by numerous state commissions and committees, including through the early release of some non-dangerous prisoners or the diversion to other forms of custody or supervision of other individuals, such as technical parole violators who are currently returned to prison for short periods.
The statute also requires courts considering population caps to assess the impact on public safety. The court found that the overcrowding in the prisons led to "criminogenic" conditions, which resulted in more crimes being committed by former prisoners and an increase in the recidivism rate. It also determined that, with adequate safeguards and improved rehabilitation and re-entry programs, the state could ensure that the order would result in an increase in public safety.
See the individual case pages for details.
On January 12, 2010, the three-judge district court, still comprised of Judge Karlton (from Coleman), Judge Henderson (from Plata), and Judge Reinhardt, selected at random from the 9th Circuit, issued an Order to reduce the state's prison population by more than 40,000 inmates over two years. The court said the reduction was necessary to improve medical and health care throughout the state's adult prisons.
California appealed, and on January 19, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order is still indefinite, and the case is ongoing.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Even though this is the most famous civil rights case ever, the relevant litigation documents are not easy to come by. The Supreme Court decisions, in 1954 (announcing the rule that "separate is inherently unequal") and 1955 (announcing that remediation of Jim Crow school segregation could proceed "with all deliberate speed"), were obviously extraordinarily important, and are easily available. But the litigation in Topeka lasted from the filing of the first complaint in 1951 until final dismissal of the case in 1999. The Clearinghouse has copies of many of the crucial documents in the case.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
|
completed
in process
2754