|
|
|
The site home page highlights cases that seem to us particularly interesting—because they are being litigated right now, or because they involve large numbers of people and very consequential issues, or because of their historical importance. We change out those featured cases periodically, and this page is where we put the previous choices.
DIA v. SEPTA
In 2003, persons with mobility impairments who rely on wheelchairs successfully sued Philadelphia's regional transit agency (SEPTA) when it reconstructed sections of its Center City station without making these sections accessible.
After lengthy litigation, lasting from 2003 through early 2011, the Third Circuit agreed with the Plaintiffs and in doing so, established definitions of key portions of the laws protecting persona with disabilities.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
U. S. Census Bureau Sued for Hiring Discrimination :
Class Action complaint filed April 13, 2010
Discrimination on the basis of race can take many forms. In this case, the first of its kind to be filed against a federal agency, people of color who applied for jobs with the 2010 U. S. Census claimed the Census screened out applicants when their names showed up in an FBI database, indicating a match with an arrest record. These denied applicants were given 30 days to produce official documentation to refute the disqualification, but the process was onerous and in many cases impossible.
Further, because the arrest and conviction rates of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans far exceed those of whites nationwide, the rejected applicants claim that the policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, and national origin.
More information about the lawsuit is available at www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
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. The government 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.
Judge Robertson wrote, “[t]here 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:
|
ACORN v. Edgar
In this lawsuit in 1995-1996, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and several other plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the League of Women Voters brought suit against the State of Illinois, which was refusing to implement the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1973gg, et seq., usually known as the Motor Voter law. The State argued that the Constitution did not authorize Congress to force state governments to administer federal programs, here a program for facilitating the registration of voters in federal elections. Both the district court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Act against this challenge, and Illinois proceeded to implement the statute.
This case has been the subject of a great deal of recent interest--including a large number of requests that it be featured in the Clearinghouse--because ACORN and several other plaintiffs were represented by Barack Obama. As a service to anyone interested, we've posted a great many documents and opinions in the case.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank
Many hundreds of people have come to this site looking for this case, in which Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. Here's a summary. For more information on the case, click on its name, below. We've posted public versions of most of the most important documents.
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
The case was certified as a class action in 1995, and settled three years later. The settlement is posted.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
California Systemic Prison Cases:
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Order to Reduce Population
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.
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, claiming the Order violates the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 19, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Order was stayed while the Court considered a new appeal filed by the State on April 12, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Court set a hearing on both the jurisdictional questions and the merits of the case for the October term. Oral arguments were heard on November 30, 2010. The trancript of the argument is posted in the case file.
On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the three-judge panel decision. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, the Court resolved the jurisdictional and substantive issues in favor of the Plaintiffs, most significantly affirming the order to cap the prison population at 137.5% of design capacity within two years of the decision.
See the individual case pages for details.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Weinschenk v. State of Missouri
In this ongoing litigation in Missouri state court, plaintiffs argued that the Missouri Constitution's right to vote was violated by a state statute requiring would-be voters to present a state- or federal-issued photo id at the polls. In September 2006, the state circuit court held the statute unconstitutional and entered a declaratory judgment and injunction forbidding state and county officials from implementing the law.
In October 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. Over the sole dissent of Justice Limbaugh, the court held that the law burdened the fundamental right to vote and violated the equal protection provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
|
|
|
The Clearinghouse has been generously supported by the National Science Foundation.
|
|
|
