On July 24, 2013, a group of Michigan residents who were denied Food Assistance Program (FAP) benefits under a "criminal justice disqualification" justification filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Michigan Department of Human Services (MDHS). The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Civil Justice and the ACLU of Michigan, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and federal SNAP law, alleging they were improperly denied food assistance. They sought declarative and injunctive relief, relief notice to members of the class, and attorneys' fees and costs. The case was initially assigned to Judge Bernard A. Friedman but was reassigned to Judge Judith E. Levy on March 13, 2014.

The plaintiffs claimed that without specific information for the reasons or nature of the disqualification, they were not provided proper notice to understand the basis for the decision or a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The letters only instructed them to contact a law enforcement agency to resolve the issue. The plaintiffs alleged the "criminal justice disqualification" violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the substance and application of MDHS’s decision to deny benefits to all people with an outstanding felony warrant violated the “fleeing felon” standard set by the federal government. Michigan’s “fugitive felon” policy and practice disqualified people through a match program without confirming the person was actually sought by law enforcement. Federal SNAP law prohibited this by instead disqualifying only fleeing felons, and only if the government made a finding that law enforcement officials are actively seeking the individual and that the individual knew his or her apprehension was sought and was intentionally fleeing from justice.

The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to provide immediate relief to the requested class and subclass of individuals who relied on FAP benefits and would suffer irreparable harm while they waited for the resolution of the case without the food assistance. On September 25, 2013, Judge Friedman denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction. On October 11, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment.

On October 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification. On November 21, 2013, the plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Hearings for the summary judgment motions were postponed after the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 27. On September 30, 2014, the defendants filed a responsive motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Hearings on the motion were set and held before the court on November 14, 2014.

On January 9, 2015, Judge Levy ruled on all three motions. Judge Levy granted the class certification and ruled for the plaintiffs in summary judgment for all but one plaintiff, who was dismissed. 79 F. Supp. 3d 712.

On January 23, 2015, the defendants moved for reconsideration and a stay pending the outcome of the reconsideration. On March 24, 2015, Judge Levy issued an order denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, stating their motion was more “petulance than substance” and that none of the defendant's four claims had a proper ground for reconsideration. 2015 WL 1322728.

On March 31, 2015, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and requested a motion to stay pending the appeal. On April 7, the Sixth Circuit denied the stay pending appeal.

On May 18, 2015, the plaintiffs motioned an order to show cause, suggesting the defendants should be held in contempt for failing to implement the changes ordered by the court. And on June 5, 2015, Judge Levy denied the defendant’s motion to stay pending the appeal.

On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs requested expedited post-judgment discovery in order to determine if the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the court’s January 9, March 30 and 31 orders. On September 1, 2015, Judge Levy granted the plaintiffs’ motion for post-judgment discovery and motion for an order to show cause. Judge Levy noted that the plaintiffs had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant had not stopped the conduct declared unlawful and enjoined by the court.

On September 23, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The defendant agreed to work with the plaintiff on implementing the court-ordered changes to their administration of FAP, and the plaintiffs agreed to stipulate the dismissal of their motion to show cause once the changes were implemented. On March 30, 2016, Judge Levy dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion to show cause upon the parties' agreement that the terms of the settlement agreement had been met.

On August 25, 2016, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion and remanded the case for continued enforcement of the permanent injunction.

On February 24, 2017, the parties jointly moved for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $910,908.83 for class counsel. On May 31, 2017, the court granted this award. As of April 21, 2020, this case is ongoing for compliance enforcement purposes.

Noel Ripberger - 09/24/2014
Kelly Ehrenreich - 11/10/2016
Jake Parker - 07/18/2018


compress summary