University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are all the additions to the Clearinghouse collection -- cases, summaries, case studies, etc. -- over the past 90 days:


CASE ADDITIONS
June 17, 2017
G.G. [Gavin Grimm] v. Gloucester County School Board
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 4:15-cv-00054-RGD-TEM (E.D. Va.)
ED-VA-0002
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (ED-VA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 17, 2017
El Paso County v. State of Texas
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00459 (W.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0046
This suit challenges Texas's "Sanctuary City" legislation, Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which requires local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punishes them if they do not. Unlike the other suits in this special collection, this suit does not challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order. On May 22, the County of El Paso filed this suit in the United States District Court Western District of Texas. The suit alleged that SB4 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the supremacy clause, the First Amendment's protection of expression, and the Texas Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. As this case has been consolidated with others, please refer to this case for further updates.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 17, 2017
City of San Antonio v. Texas
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00489-OLG (W.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0047
This suit challenges Texas's "Sanctuary City" legislation, Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which requires local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punishes them if they do not. Unlike the other suits in this special collection, this suit does not challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order. On June 1, the City of San Antonio filed this suit in the United States District Court Western District of Texas. The suit alleged that SB4 violates the the Supremacy Clause, the Contracts Clause, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Please refer to this case for further updates.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0047)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 15, 2017
Hamama v. Adducci
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-11910 (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0005
Petitioners in this class action habeas petition are Iraqi nationals—many, perhaps most, Chaldean Christian—who have resided in the United States for many years. They have been subject to final orders of removal for years, but the government permitted them to reside in the community under ...
View Case Detail (IM-MI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 15, 2017
Argueta v. Myers
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 3:08-cv-01652-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.)
IM-NJ-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-NJ-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 14, 2017
City of El Cenizo v. State of Texas
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00404 (W.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0045
This suit challenges Texas's "Sanctuary City" legislation, Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which requires local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punishes them if they do not. Unlike the , this suit does not challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order. On May 8, the City of El Cenizo filed this suit in the United States District Court Western District of Texas. The suit alleged that SB4 violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering local government and that it is preempted under federal law. There are, so far, four cases addressing SB4. The State of Texas has been seeking to consolidate this and two other cases with another case, Texas v. Travis County; the opposing side in Travis County (several cities and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) oppose consolidation, arguing that Texas illegitimately raced to the courthouse, filing this case before SB4 had even gone into effect, in order to secure the most favorable court/judge. The four cases are: This one (Judge Orlando L. Garcia). El Paso County v. Texas, No. 5:17-cv-00459 (W.D. Tex.), IM-TX-0046 (Judge Orlando L. Garcia) City of San Antonio, Texas v. State of Texas, No. 5:17-cv-00489 (W.D. Tex.), IM-TX-0047 (Judge Orlando L. Garcia) Texas v. Travis County, No. 1:17-cv-00425 (W.D. Tex.), IM-TX-0044 The three cases pending before Judge Garcia were brought by cities and counties seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction barring implementation of SB4. The other case was brought by brought by Texas against pro-immigration cities and counties. On June 6, Judge Garcia ordered a consolidation of this case with the San Antonio and El Paso cases, with this case becoming the lead case in the consolidation. Travis County, however, remains separate.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0045)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 13, 2017
Texas v. Travis County
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00425 (W.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0044
This suit seeks to support Texas's law Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which requires local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punishes them if they do not. Unlike the suits that seek to challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order, this suit aims to support the work of federal immigration officials. On May 7, 2017, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed this suit seeking a judgment on SB4 before it is challenged. Defendants are Travis County, City of Austin, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. In their complaint, Plaintiffs accused defendants of being "openly hostile" to cooperation with federal immigration officials both in policy and in practice. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment. Judge Sam Sparks was assigned to the case.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0044)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
June 13, 2017
Morgan v. Sproat
(Southern Poverty Law Center)
Description of the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent involvement in the 1975 case Morgan v. Sproat.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
June 12, 2017
Davis v. Buckley
Case Category: Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Trial Docket: 80-0569 (E.D. Va.)
ID-VA-0001
In 1980, two plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of 98 residents with intellectual disabilities of Southside Virginia Training Center ("Southside") who desired community placement. Though the class was eventually denied, plaintiffs succeeded in acquiring the promise of a findings letter on Southside from the Department of Health and Human Services.
View Case Detail (ID-VA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 11, 2017
Conn. ARC v. Thorne
Case Category: Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Trial Docket: 78-653 (D. Conn.)
ID-CT-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (ID-CT-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 5, 2017
In re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things from [redacted]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: BR 15-99 (FISC)
NS-DC-0101
In August 2015, the government submitted an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court requesting bulk collection of telephony metadata during the interim period between the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act on June 2, 2015, and the beginning of the new telephony metadata collection under the Act on November 28, 2015. Judge Michael W. Mosman of the FISC granted the application, and with the assistance of court-appointed amicus, concluded that the USA FREEDOM Act also allowed the government to retain and use the previously bulk-collected metadata for limited purposes in the three months after November 28, 2015.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0101)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 4, 2017
Miller v. Deal
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 2011-CV-198121 (State Court)
PD-GA-0007
Five indigent parents who were incarcerated for their child support debt sued the State of Georgia seeking injunctive relief requiring the State to provide counsel when defendants could be incarcerated for child support debt, and when the State was a represented by its own attorneys. The issue of the class of indigent parent went to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which decided that there is no absolute, inflexible, and categorical right to appointed counsel in child support proceedings as a matter of due process, even when the Department, represented by its own lawyers, pursues the incarceration of an indigent parent.
View Case Detail (PD-GA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 3, 2017
Muslim Advocates v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00820 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0109
On May 3, 2017, Muslim Advocates filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This suit aimed to shed light on the "government’s border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by President Donald Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order, in addition to its border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons – including U.S. citizens – whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agents perceived to be Muslim." The plaintiff, who is a nonprofit organization, argued that such border searches "dramatically increased" after the EO was released. On May 18, the case was randomly assigned to Judge Amy Berman. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0109)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 3, 2017
Tucker v. State of Idaho
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: CV-OC-2015-10240 (State Court)
PD-ID-0001
The Idaho Supreme Court found that plaintiffs could pursue this 2015 class action to seek reform of an allegedly unconstitutional public defender system. The case is proceeding towards trial in Idaho's District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
View Case Detail (PD-ID-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 1, 2017
Hart v. Colvin
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-00623-JST (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0046
On February 9, 2015, three individuals whose disability benefits had allegedly been denied or terminated based on consultative examinations (CEs) performed by a now disqualified doctor, filed this class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in her official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that she wrongfully relied on CEs performed by a physician, who at the time of this complaint had been disqualified, in denying or terminating their disability benefits. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's policy and practice of relying on this disqualified doctor's defective CE reports in denying or terminating disability benefits was in violation of requirement that these determinations be based on evidence from acceptable medical sources. After the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied on July 17, 2015, the court set a number of settlement conferences. For months these conferences were unsuccessful, but the parties reached an agreement on September 19, 2016 by which the defendant agreed to provide relief to class members through procedural mechanisms that vary depending on the status of their claims and the amount of time since their examination by the disqualified doctor and pay $490,000 in attorneys fees. On April 17, 2017, Judge Tigar granted final approval of the class action settlement.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 29, 2017
Menocal v. The GEO Group, Inc.
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 1:14-cv-02887-JLK (D. Colo.)
IM-CO-0009
This class action lawsuit was brought by current and former civil immigration detainees against the GEO Group, Inc., a for-profit corporation that provides detention and correction services. The plaintiffs allege that GEO violated Colorado's Minimum Wage Order by paying its detained employees one dollar per day for their labor and that GEO violated federal law by forcing its detainees to clean the "pods" where they were housed for no pay. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages for themselves and those similarly situated.
View Case Detail (IM-CO-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 27, 2017
N.P. v. Georgia
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 14-cv-241025 (State Court)
PD-GA-0008
On January 7, 2014, youth and adult criminal defendants filed this class-action lawsuit in the Georgia Superior Court of Fulton County. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the state to provide free and quality counsel to indigent defendants within three days of their arrest. On March 13, 2015, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a Statement of Interest regarding the juvenile justice claims. On April 20, 2015 Judge Todd Markle approved a consent decree, set to last for three years.
View Case Detail (PD-GA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 26, 2017
Nwanguma v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential Authority
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00247-DJH-HBB (W.D. Ky.)
PR-KY-0001
Plaintiffs allege that at a campaign rally, Donald Trump incited the crowd to commit violence against them.
View Case Detail (PR-KY-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 25, 2017
Twitter v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01916 (N.D. Cal.)
FA-CA-0013
On March 14, 2017, Twitter received a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) summons to disclose identifying information of the user(s) operating a rogue “alternative” government agency account. Twitter did not comply and instead filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging a violation of First Amendment anonymity of political speech. On April 7, Twitter dismissed the suit when CBP withdrew its summons. The DHS Office of Inspector General is now investigating CBP on the matter.
View Case Detail (FA-CA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 25, 2017
Northwest Immigrants Rights Project (NWIRP) v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00716 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0034
On May 8, 2017, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) filed suit against the Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The NWIRP received a “cease-and-desist” letter for providing assistance to unrepresented immigrants in deportation proceedings without appearing as formal counsel for each client. On May 11, 2017, the Court granted a nationwide TRO preventing DOJ enforcement of the prohibition or issuing any similar letters to other non-profits.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 24, 2017
Heckman v. Williamson County
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: No. 06-453-C277 (State Court)
PD-TX-0001
A group of indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment brought this suit alleging violations of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. After six-year dispute regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, the parties reached a settlement forcing the county to provide notice of the right to indigent defense counsel, to provide public access to the courts, and to create a policy that provided quicker access to indigent defense counsel.
View Case Detail (PD-TX-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 24, 2017
Alford v. Johnson County Commissioners
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 73D01-1601-PL-000003 (State Court)
PD-IN-0003
On October 8, 2015 individuals who were arrested in Johnson County brought this lawsuit alleging a systematic denial of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as state law. The case is in Indiana Superior Court and was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against the Johnson County Commissioners as well as several judges and public defenders. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 29, 2016 and after hearing, Judge Robert W. Freese granted the motion to dismiss on January 30, 2017 because the plaintiffs' cases were not yet ripe for review as they were active criminal proceedings in the pre-trial stage. The plaintiffs appealed on February 6, 2017 and as of May 24, 2017 the matter is still pending.
View Case Detail (PD-IN-0003)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
May 24, 2017
Williamson County TX settles “no counsel court” lawsuit
http://sixthamendment.org/williamson-county-tx-settles-no-counsel-court-lawsuit/
Written: Jan. 24, 2013
By: Jon Mosher (sixthamendment.org)
Brief overview of the history of the case, Texas Law regarding sixth amendment rights, and the settlement agreement.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
May 23, 2017
Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 8866-07 (State Court)
PD-NY-0002
On November 8, 2007, 20 named criminal defendants with cases pending in New York state courts filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Albany County. The plaintiffs sued the State under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 6 of the New York Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure meaningful and effective representation for indigent defendants.The parties settled in October 2014.
View Case Detail (PD-NY-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 22, 2017
ACLU of Southern California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS (C.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0026
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Southern California and Nevada filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Los Angeles Field Office, including Los Angeles International Airport and McCarran International Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders in the Los Angeles Field Office" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The case was assigned to Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. On May 17, the government moved to stay the proceedings pending the consolidation decision. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 22, 2017
Muslim Advocates v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00813-TSC (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0110
The Muslim Advocates filed this suit against DHS under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The plaintiffs want information regarding the government's border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons from the seven Muslim-Majority countries covered by President Trump's Jan. 27 and Mar. 6 Executive Orders, as well as by all persons whom CBP agents "perceived to be Muslim."
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0110)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 21, 2017
EEOC v. Associated Security Enforcement, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 4:04-cv-00391-SPM-AK (N.D. Fla.)
EE-FL-0017
In September 2004, the Miami District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Associated Security Enforcement, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ...
View Case Detail (EE-FL-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 21, 2017
Renee v. Duncan
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 4:07-cv-04299-PJH (N.D. Cal.)
ED-CA-0006
On August 21, 2007, a group of California students, their parents and a non-profit filed a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division for violating the teacher quality provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that by allowing teachers who were in the process of achieving full certification to teach full time, the Defendants violated the congressional directive that "highly qualified" teachers teach students in their core classes. The District Court granted Summary Judgment for the Defendants, holding under Chevron deference that the Defendants' interpretation of the No Child Left Behind Act was not unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision on September 27, 2010, holding that the Defendants' policy was against the clear intent of Congress. On October 12, 2010 the Defendants filed a motion for rehearing en banc, however in December of 2010, the NCLB was amended to allow teachers who had not achieved full state certification to teach as "highly qualified" teachers. This amendment was only in effect through the 2012-2013 school year. The case was closed on July 5, 2012.
View Case Detail (ED-CA-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 19, 2017
DOJ Investigation of Torrance Police Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: (No Court)
PN-CA-0034
The DOJ opened an investigation on racist policing by the Torrance Police Department in 1995. The DOJ had already filed a lawsuit against the City of Torrance, which the court issued a judgment for the City. However, we do not have further information on Police Department specifically.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 18, 2017
Hassan v. City of New York
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-03401-WJM-MF (D.N.J.)
PN-NJ-0006
Several individuals and organizations affiliated with New Jersey's Muslim community filed suit against the City of New York in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging they had been subjected to illegal surveillance by the New York City Police Department solely because of their religion. The NYPD's monitoring, the plaintiffs claimed, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against them on the basis of their religion and contravened the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment because, by singling out Muslims, it was not neutral with respect to religion or general applicability. The District Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding Plaintiffs lacked standing and nevertheless had pled insufficient facts to state a claim. On October 13, 2015, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceeding.
View Case Detail (PN-NJ-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 17, 2017
ACLU of San Diego v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00733-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0025
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial counties filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Documents in this case are not yet available.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 17, 2017
ACLU of Virginia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00441-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va.)
NS-VA-0007
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU's of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Documents for this case are not yet available.
View Case Detail (NS-VA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 16, 2017
Protect Democracy Project v. Office of Management and Budget
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00814-APM (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0112
On May 2, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiff seeks disclosure of agency records by OMB that will shed light on the degree to which (if at all) the any federal agencies were consulted prior and subsequent to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order 13769. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0112)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 16, 2017
CRIPA Investigation of the Topeka Correctional Facility, Topeka, Kansas
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: No Court Case (No Court)
PC-KS-0006
On April 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”) notified Kansas that it was opening an investigation into the conditions and practices at the Topeka Correctional Facility (“TCF”), a prison housing about 550 female prisoners. On September 6, 2012, the DOJ sent its “Findings Letter” to Kansas’ governor, informing him that TCF had failed to protect women prisoners from sexual abuse and harassment. On December 22, 2014 they released a Memorandum of Agreement requiring the state to implement specific procedures to address the sexual abuse.
View Case Detail (PC-KS-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 16, 2017
Protect Democracy Project v. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00815 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0111
On May 2, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiff seeks disclosure of agency records by DOJ that will shed light on the degree to which (if at all) the agency was consulted prior and subsequent to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order 13769. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was assigned to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. This case now continues consolidated with a similar case at NS-DC-0112 in this Clearinghouse.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0111)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 16, 2017
CRIPA Investigation of the Westchester County Jail, Valhalla, New York
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: No Court Case (No Court)
JC-NY-0066
This DOJ investigation of the Westchester County Jail, under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act began in 2007. In 2009, the investigation led to findings of unlawful jail conditions, such as inadequate medical and mental health care. The DOJ continues to assess information about current conditions at the jail.
View Case Detail (JC-NY-0066)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 16, 2017
United States v. Qazi
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 0:12-cr-60298 (S.D. Fla.)
NS-FL-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-FL-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 15, 2017
CRIPA Investigation of the W.F. Green State Veterans’ Home in Bay Minette, Alabama
Case Category: Nursing Home Conditions
Trial Docket: (No Court)
NH-AL-0002
A DOJ CRIPA (42 U.S.C. § 1997) investigation into a Veterans' Nursing home in Alabama led to the discovery of conditions that were detrimental to resident health and restricted patient discharge into the community. A memorandum of understanding by the DOJ as well as preliminary remedies in a findings letter solved these problems.
View Case Detail (NH-AL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 14, 2017
United States of America v. Philadelphia Municipal Separate School District
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 1368(N) (S.D. Miss.)
SD-MS-0020
This long-lasting school desegregation action commenced in 1966 and ended in 2010. The United States brought this suit, along with many others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that were eventually consolidated, because the Philadelphia Municipal Separate School district failed to desegregate its schools. The school district's desegregation efforts were monitored for decades by the court.
View Case Detail (SD-MS-0020)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
May 13, 2017
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, Fourth Circuit - Oral Argument Audio File - May 8, 2017
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Written: May. 8, 2017
By: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
May 11, 2017
Lambert v. Alexander County Housing Authority
Case Category: Public Housing
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-513 (S.D. Ill.)
PH-IL-0002
In 2016, current and former public housing residents filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged rampant discrimination on the basis of race and family status, rent overcharges, and a failure to maintain rental units. They seek monetary relief and an injunction to enjoin the Alexander County Housing Authority from discriminatory practices and to require adequate housing maintenance. As of May 11, 2017, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PH-IL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 11, 2017
Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-10277-MAG-SDD (E.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0011
In 2016, a nonprofit association of religious leaders in the Flint Area filed this suit in the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to force the City of Flint and the State of Michigan to provide clean water for citizens plagued by the lead-laden water streaming through their service pipes. The plaintiffs alleged that the damage to their city's aquastructure was caused by the miserly penny-pinching of the City's Emergency Manager. In late 2016, the plaintiffs received a preliminary injunction that forced the defendants to provide bottled water deliveries to eligible recipients. In March of 2017, the parties reached a settlement agreement in which the State agreed to set aside $87 million to replace the damaged water pipes, among other remedies.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 11, 2017
Mercado v. Dallas County, Texas
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-03481-D (N.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0043
On October 26, 2015, individuals held in detention by Dallas County filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued Dallas County and the Dallas County Sheriff under 42 USC §1983 for violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to enjoin the defendants from detaining plaintiffs solely based on a request from ICE, an immigration hold, or an Immigration Detainer. Judge Fitzwater initial granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs submitted an amendment complaint on July 5, 2016. The parties are now engaged in discovery.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0043)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 10, 2017
United States v. Mohammad
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:15-CR-00358-JZ (N.D. Ohio)
NS-OH-0002
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-OH-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 8, 2017
J.E.F.M. v. Holder
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-01026 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0023
On July 9, 2014, a group of minors in immigration proceedings filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement fail to guarantee their constitutional and statutory rights by not ensuring that minors in immigration proceedings have legal representation. On Sept. 20, 2016, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, but did not reach the merits of the claims.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0023)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
May 6, 2017
Desegregation Court Records
Written: Jan. 1, 2017
By: ProPublica (ProPublica)
This website contains desegregation documents related to the United States of America v. Halifax County Board of Education case.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
May 4, 2017
ACLU of Arizona v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-01083-DMF (D. Ariz.)
NS-AZ-0001
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of Arizona filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order," including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order. The request concerned implementation at sites within the purview of CBP’s Tucson Field Office, including Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The case was assigned to Judge Deborah M. Fine. On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-AZ-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
May 2, 2017
ACLU Foundation of Texas v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-01128 (S.D. Tex.)
NS-TX-0004
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order," including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order. The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Houston Field Office, including Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and Bush Intercontinental Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The case was assigned to Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-TX-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 28, 2017
ACLU of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00575-HZ (D. Or.)
NS-OR-0005
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs Oregon, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, and Wyoming filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Portland Field Office, including Portland International Airport, Denver International Airport, Ted Stevens International Airport, Boise International Airport, and Casper/Natrona County International Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The case was assigned to Judge Marco A. Hernandez. On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-OR-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 28, 2017
ACLU of Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00562 (W.D. Wash.)
NS-WA-0004
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Washington, Montana, and North Dakota filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Seattle Field Office, including Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and Fargo-Hector International Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The case was assigned to Judge Robert S. Lasnik. On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-WA-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 20, 2017
ACLU of Hawai'i v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-01970 (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0024
The ACLU's of Hawai'i, Northern California, and Utah filed a FOIA suit concerning the implementation of President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders at international airports within the purview of CBP's San Francisco Field Office.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 19, 2017
Texas v. United States
Case Category: Public Accomm./Contracting
Trial Docket: 7:16-cv-00054 (N.D. Tex.)
PA-TX-0001
Eleven States sue the DOJ and other agencies over their position that transgender access to bathrooms and other public facilities is required by Title IX, Title VII, and the Violence Against Women Act, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Northern District Court of Texas. The Court granted the preliminary injunction on August 21, 2016. 201 F.Supp.3d 810. The preliminary injunction was appealed and the case was ultimately dismissed without prejudice due to a voluntary withdrawal by defendants on March 3, 2017, due to a change in presidential administrations and policy.
View Case Detail (PA-TX-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 19, 2017
Westefer v. Snyder
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 00-162-GPM (S.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0023
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 18, 2017
ACLU of Georgia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01309-WSD (N.D. Ga.)
NS-GA-0001
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's College Park Field Office, including Hartsfield/Jackson International Airport, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charleston International Airport, and Yeager International Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The case was assigned to Judge Richard W. Story. On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-GA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 17, 2017
ACLU of Florida v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-21382-DPG (S.D. Fla.)
NS-FL-0002
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of Florida filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at CBP’s Miami Field Office (including Miami International Airport and various ports of entry) and CBP’s Tampa Field Office (including Orlando International Airport and various ports of entry). In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding" of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through the Miami and Tampa Field Offices, and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." Plaintiffs noted that the Miami and Orlando airports are especially busy hubs for international passengers, and that a direct flight route runs from Dubai to Orlando. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-FL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 17, 2017
ACLU of Maine v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00132-GZS (D. Me.)
NS-ME-0001
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at CBP's Boston Field Office, including Boston's Logan International Airport and other smaller international airports and ports of entry throughout New England. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding" of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through CBP's Boston Field Office, and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." Plaintiffs argued that "[a]t Boston’s Logan International Airport, implementation of the order harmed both individuals and institutions. Scholars and academics from Boston-area institutions were denied entry into the United States. Doctors from New England hospitals and patients seeking medical care were delayed, denied entry, or subjected to unnecessary anguish." The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-ME-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 17, 2017
ACLU of Illinois, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-02768 (N.D. Ill.)
NS-IL-0004
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at CBP’s Chicago Field Office, including Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, and other international airports and ports of entry across the Midwestern states in which plaintiffs were located. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding" of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through the Chicago Field Office, in particular at O'Hare Airport, and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." Plaintiffs argued that CBP detained approximately 17 persons at O'Hare on Jan. 28 under Executive Order No. 1, and refused to release information about the detainees, even to their lawyers. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-IL-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 13, 2017
Melendres v. Arpaio
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:07-cv-02513-GMS (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0003
On December 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the County of Maricopa and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. They claimed that defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of racial profiling and racially or ethnically discriminatory treatment against Latino persons in an attempt to find people who are in the United States illegally. Plaintiffs allege that defendants' pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond unlawful "sweeps" to include widespread, everyday targeting and mistreatment of drivers and passengers in Maricopa County who appear to be Latino. The Court certified the class as "all Latino persons who, since January, 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona." In May 2013, the Court found the MCSO in violation of the Constitution, and entered a permanent injunction forbidding racial profiling. The Court made the previous injunctions permanent and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Court retains jurisdiction until the Sheriff has fully complied with the Court's order, pending the result of the Sheriff's appeal. In July 2016 the Court found that the defendants' had failed to comply with many components of the injunction. Judge Snow therefore issued an Amended Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction that required MCSO to investigate all allegations of employee misconduct related to the issues in this case; implement misconduct related training, develop a civilian complaint intake, implement transparency measures, and ensure document preservation and production. On August 19, 2016 the Court ordered Sheriff Arpaio to a randomly-selected judge for criminal proceedings to determine whether he should be held in criminal contempt for failure to comply with court orders. In November 2016, Sheriff Arpaio was replaced by Sheriff Penzone. The case continues as the Court Monitor continues to oversee the MCSO's compliance with the multiple supplemental injunctive relief orders entered.
View Case Detail (PN-AZ-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 13, 2017
CRIPA Investigation, Alabama men's prisons
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: (No Court)
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. The investigation will be conducted under CRIPA. As of April 13, 2017, the investigation is not listed on the Special Litigation Section’s Cases and Matters webpage. It is unclear whether the investigation commenced and whether it is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-AL-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 13, 2017
ACLU of Michigan v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-11149-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.)
NS-MI-0005
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of Michigan filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Detroit Field Office. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through the Detroit Field Office" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The complaint stated that "Michigan residents were among those most severely impacted by the Executive Orders...Of the major metropolitan areas in the United States, Detroit has the highest number of residents per capita from the seven countries barred under Executive Order No. 1." On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-MI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 12, 2017
DOJ Investigation of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: (No Court)
PN-CA-0040
The DOJ opened a civil pattern-or-practice investigation into the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, focusing on allegations that the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department systematically used jailhouse informants to elicit incriminating statements from specific inmates who had been charged and were represented by counsel.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0040)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 12, 2017
DOJ Investigation of Georgia Department of Corrections re: LGBT Treatment
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: (No Court)
PC-GA-0019
On February 5, 2016, the DOJ notified the Attorney General of Georgia of its investigation into the treatment of transgender and gay prisoners in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections.
View Case Detail (PC-GA-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 12, 2017
Ball v. Kasich
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio)
PB-OH-0008
On March 31, 2016, individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State and State departments. They claimed that they were experiencing, or were at risk of experiencing, pervasive and widespread isolation and segregation in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C., and the Social Security Act. On March 23, 2017, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case. On March 27, 2017, the court granted class certification, but the defendants subsequently asked for reconsideration, so, as of April 12, 2017, the class certification issue is still open.
View Case Detail (PB-OH-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 10, 2017
Kress v. CCA of Tennessee
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:08-cv-00431-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0019
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming that the conditions of confinement and the medical care at a CCA facility in Indiana violated their Eighth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the jail regarding conditions of confinement; however, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision.
View Case Detail (JC-IN-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 10, 2017
Pinzon v. Lane
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 87 C 4542 (N.D. Ill.)
CJ-IL-0010
A class of Cook County parolees were denied preliminary parole revocation hearings for periods of a month to two years despite the fact that State regulations determined these hearings were to be held within ten days. The plaintiffs sued the State of Illinois, the Illinois State Prisoner Review Board, and the Illinois Department of Corrections under color of state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Due Process. A preliminary injunction followed by a settlement agreement ensured that parolees brought in on new charges would not have to wait an excessively long time while imprisoned for their preliminary hearings.
View Case Detail (CJ-IL-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 10, 2017
Willard v. Snyder
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:01-cv-01884 (N.D. Ill.)
CJ-IL-0008
On March 16, 2001, plaintiffs on parole in Cook County, Illinois filed this action in the Northern District of Illinois suing the Illinois Department of Corrections under state law and 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging violations of their constitutional right to due process. Plaintiffs were allegedly denied their constitutional right to prompt preliminary parole revocation hearings nearby the site of their arrest and were instead transferred hundreds of miles from Cook County and forced to waits months, all according to Department policy. In a stipulated dismissal, the Illinois Department of Corrections changed their policies with regard to parolees arrested for technical violations to be more reflective of those parolees' constitutional rights.
View Case Detail (CJ-IL-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 10, 2017
Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 04-cv-02686-WDM-MEH (D. Colo.)
EE-CO-0063
This case was brought by employees of El Paso Corporation against their employer alleging violations of ERISA and the ADEA as a result of the conversion of their pension plans to a cash balance formula. However, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the defendant’s conversion to a cash balance plan was legal, as were the means the company utilized to transition to the new pension plan.
View Case Detail (EE-CO-0063)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 9, 2017
American Immigration Council v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 1:11-cv-01972 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0018
On November 8, 2011, an immigrants' rights non-profit organization filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, against the U.S. Department of Human Services and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs sought records concerning individuals' access to counsel during their interactions with CBP. In May 2012 the parties entered a consent motion setting out a timetable for a rolling production of responsive documents over a period of six to nine months. Following the rolling production of documents, nine documents remained at issue. A briefing schedule was therefore set and in November 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In March 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed as moot the plaintiff's claims regarding the remaining document. In October 2014, the plaintiff argued for fees and costs because the plaintiff substantially prevailed and met all factors for fee entitlement. In March 2015, the Court agreed in part and granted fees and costs in the total amount of $82,513.42 to the plaintiff. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 9, 2017
United States v. Alabama
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:11-cv-2746 (N.D. Ala.)
IM-AL-0005
On August 1, 2011, the United States filed a lawsuit under the Immigration and Nationality Act against the State of Alabama for declaratory and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court of Alabama, Northern District. The United States sought to prevent the implementation of the recently enacted state legislation H.B. 56 as preempted by federal law and therefore a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. H.B. 56 was designed to address numerous aspects of immigration regulation and enforcement. The United States claims that the emphasis on maximum enforcement of immigration status laws ignores other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system and undermines the federal government's balance of immigration objectives and priorities. The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of certain provisions of H.B. 56. Plaintiffs appealed, seeking an injunction for further sections of H.B. 56. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit expanded the injunction to further sections and found that section 28 violated the Equal Protection Clause. In November 2013, the Court enjoined defendants from enacting most of H.B. 56 and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims without prejudice.
View Case Detail (IM-AL-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 9, 2017
Lewis v. City of Chicago
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:98-CV-05596 (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0268
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-IL-0268)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 8, 2017
30 Related School Desegregation Cases in the Southern District of Mississippi
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: (S.D. Miss.)
SD-MS-0035
This is a consolidation of many school desegregation cases that came before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court and Fifth Circuit approved many of the school districts' desegregation plans and many of the schools remain under court supervision as of May 2017.
View Case Detail (SD-MS-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 8, 2017
United States of America v. Morehouse Parish School Board
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 3:69-cv-14429-RGJ-KLH (W.D. La.)
SD-LA-0019
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-LA-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 8, 2017
Brandon A. v. Donahue
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:00-cv-00025 (D.N.H.)
EE-NH-0010
The plaintiff with learning disabilities brought a class action against the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE), alleging that the plaintiffs have been denied their right under the IDEA to a due process hearing and a decision within 45 days after a request for a hearing is filed with the NHDOE. The case was closed after the State implemented new regulations.
View Case Detail (EE-NH-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 7, 2017
DOJ Investigation of the St. Louis County Family Court
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: (No Court)
CJ-MO-0019
The St. Louis County Family Court and the U.S. Department of Justice reached an agreement to resolve allegations of violations of due process and equal protection rights by the court. The agreement required the court to address racial disparities among youth during the juvenile justice process.
View Case Detail (CJ-MO-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 6, 2017
DOJ Investigation of Lorain Police Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: (No Court)
PN-OH-0009
The U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into allegations that Lorain police officers have used excessive force pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141. The DOJ closed its investigation after four years, concluding that while those issues existed in the past, there is no longer a pattern of such misconduct by officers. Nevertheless, the DOJ recommended LPD implement policy consisent with the technical assistance.
View Case Detail (PN-OH-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 6, 2017
Handschu v. Special Services Division
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:71-cv-02203-CSH-SCS (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0007
In May 1971, residents of New York filed a civil rights lawsuit against the NYPD, alleging that the Special Services Division had conducted unlawful surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities against plaintiffs and the political action groups to which they belonged. In May 1985, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that called for the NYPD to adopt new guidelines governing their conduct. There was no recorded activity in the case for 15 years. Then after 9/11, the NYPD sought a modification of the original guidelines to more effectively combat terrorism. After several revisions of the guidelines and a motion by the plaintiffs to enjoin enforcement of the new guidelines, the parties entered into an agreement in March 2011. Under the agreement the court would vacate findings in favor of the plaintiff in exchange for defendants paying plaintiffs' attorneys fees. Then in February 2013, perceiving violations of the guidelines in the NYPD's monitoring of Muslims in the New York area, plaintiffs sought equitable relief. On October 28th, 2016 the court disapproved the proposed settlement, viewing it as not fair and reasonable to Muslim community. On March 13, 2017 Judge Haight approved a revised settlement agreement with increased power and responsibility for the Civilian Reporter.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 5, 2017
DOJ Investigation of Riverside Police Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: (No Court)
PN-CA-0037
After the fatal police shooting of a black teenager on December 28, 1998, the Department of Justice launched a civil investigation into the Riverside Police Department's use of force and treatment of minorities. It took the Riverside Police Department five years to satisfy all the requirements of the findings.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 4, 2017
Marie O. v. Edgar
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 94-ED-1471 (N.D. Ill.)
ED-IL-0003
Four families of children with disabilities filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Chicago against the Governor, seeking to force the state to meet Congress' mandate to provide early intervention services. The court granted the plaintiffs the requested declaratory relief as well as injunctive relief. The defendants appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.
View Case Detail (ED-IL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 3, 2017
Doe v. Oak Park
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 94-ED-6449 (N.D. Ill.)
ED-IL-0002
The court found that the School properly found the plaintiff's misconduct was not related to his learning disability after the plaintiff filed a complaint asserting the his expulsion violated his due process rights.
View Case Detail (ED-IL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 2, 2017
United States v. Covington County School District
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 2:66-cv-02148-KS (S.D. Miss.)
SD-MS-0008
This is an ongoing school desegregation case that arose out of Covington County, Mississippi. It was part of a group of twenty-five school desegregation cases consolidated under the name United States v. Hinds County School Board.
View Case Detail (SD-MS-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 2, 2017
In re Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 5:16-cm-00010-SP (C.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0022
On February 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) with accessing the iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters. The order required Apple to remove the auto-erase function and the limit on the number of passwords one can enter on the iPhone. The order also indicated that Apple could be asked to write custom software to access the iPhone. 2016 WL 618401. On February 25, 2016, Apple filed a motion to vacate the order and opposition to government’s motion to compel assistance. On March 28, 2016, the government notified the court that it has successfully accessed data stored on the iPhone and no longer required the assistance from Apple. The government officially withdrew its legal action against Apple. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 2, 2017
Currier v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01799 (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0023
Plaintiff Cora Currier, an employee of First Look Media Works and staff reporter for The Intercept, sued the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, the plaintiff sought disclosure of records concerning the development and implementation of travel restrictions barring nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. pursuant to President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 2, 2017
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00548 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0108
On Mar. 27, 2017, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Plaintiff alleged that defendants had violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and requested injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges that that DHS' component Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has since 2009 been authorized to conducts searches of individuals' electronic devices at the US borders, without individualized suspicion, and to detain indefinitely these devices. To learn more about CBP's activity, plaintiff filed FOIA request with DHS, CBP, and ICE, for records detailing the government's searches since 2012. Plaintiff made these requests on Mar. 15, 2017 and requested expedited processing. Plaintiff argued the topic was of urgent public interest, given the increase in border searches since early 2017, and reports of some CBP officers coercing travelers into surrendering their devices. As of the filing of the Mar. 27 complaint, none of the agencies had communicated any decision on the FOIA requests, thus failing to meet their 10-day statutory deadline to do so. Because no administrative remedies exist, plaintiff is now suing for an injunction.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0108)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 1, 2017
Crisman v. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:12-cv-1871 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0091
On November 19, 2012, an individual plaintiff and National Security Counselors filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued Department of Justice, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., as amended (“FOIA”), the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq. (collectively “FOIA/PA”), the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., the Fifth Amendment, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0091)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 1, 2017
City of Seattle v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00497-BAT (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0033
The City of Seattle commenced this lawsuit on March 29, 2017 to challenge President Trump's January 25, 2017 Executive Order (No. 13,768). The EO denies federal funding to "sanctuary cities," or cities that resist enforcing the President's immigration policies. On Mar. 29, Seattle filed a complain in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking declaratory relief. According to the complaint, Seattle decided "that their law enforcement personnel and other employees should not inquire into the immigration status of any person unless specifically required to do so by law or court order" so as to encourage immigrants "to cooperate with law enforcement personnel in preventing and solving crime, and to seek health assistance when necessary." To be designated as a "sanctuary jurisdiction," the city would have to violate 8 U.S.C. 1373, which states that "a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual." If, as provided for by the EO, the federal government were to designate Seattle a "sanctuary jurisdiction," the effect on Seattle would be "devastating" and would be "denying it significant funding that it uses for such essential purposes as home care for the disabled elderly and nutrition assistance for needy children." Accordingly, Seattle requests that the Court declare it to be in compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. Seattle further seeks declaration that the EO violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause. The case was originally assigned to Judge Brian A. Tsuchida, but was reassigned to Judge Richard A Jones on May 26. It is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0033)


CASE ADDITIONS
April 1, 2017
A.B. v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-01178-MJP (W.D. Wash.)
JC-WA-0011
In 2014, advocates for a class of legally incompetent criminal defendants in Washington filed suit against the Washington Department of Social and Health Services seeking both injunctive and declaratory relief for the cruel and unusual punishment, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and violation of due process rights that stem from prolonged in-jail detention prior to transfer to a mental health facility. After a bench trial, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring the provision of competency services within seven days. The defendants appealed the injunction. During the litigation, the court considered restraining orders due to safety issues at two facilities - the safety issues were later resolved. On July 7, 2016, the court issued an order of civil contempt. The court imposed monetary sanctions on the defendants, to be continued until the defendants complied by providing timely services. As for the issue on appeal, the parties reached a settlement - the parties await approval of the settlement by the district court. As of March 30, 2017, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-WA-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 31, 2017
Johnson v. Jackson Parish School Board
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 3:65-cv-11130-RGJ-KLH (W.D. La.)
SD-LA-0012
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-LA-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 31, 2017
American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice / Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-00214-RCL (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0096
On February 7, 2006, the plaintiffs, the ACLU and National Security Archive Fund, brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, seeking the immediate release of records requested by the plaintiffs from the defendant DOJ. This was consolidated with another case, Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice, in which plaintiff Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) brought a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ. On February 16, 2006, the district court (Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.) granted the EPIC’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered that DOJ shall complete the processing of EPIC’s December 16, 2005 FOIA requests and produce or identify all responsive records. This case was dismissed in March 2014.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0096)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 31, 2017
ACLU v. NSA
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-09198-AT (S.D.N.Y.)
NS-NY-0011
Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, and National Security Agency (“NSA”) in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), seeking the release of records that describe the government's understanding of its surveillance authority under Executive Order 12,333 ("EO 12,333") as well as the rules that regulate the government's acquisition, retention, use, and dissemination of the communications of Americans swept up in that surveillance. The plaintiffs requested injunctive relief. On March 16, 2015, Judge Analisa Torres entered the Stipulation and Order which requires National Security Division (“NSD”) of the Department of Justice’s document searches for production of the identified documents that were currently in effect or created after September 11, 2001. The case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-NY-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 31, 2017
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:05-cv-3061 (E.D. Wash.)
EE-WA-0118
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-WA-0118)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 31, 2017
Emma C. v. Eastin
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:96-cv-04179-TEH (N.D. Cal.)
ED-CA-0001
This Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") class action case was filed on November 18, 1996, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against a local school district which failed to provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities. The lawsuit prompted a state investigation into the allegations, which resulted in the implementation of a Corrective Action Plan. The Court ordered the school district and the state department of education to pay attorneys fees and is closely monitoring the school district's progress in its compliance with the corrective action plan. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (ED-CA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 30, 2017
Gomez v. Vernon
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 91-299 (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0003
Inmates, represented by the ACLU National Prison Project, filed a class action lawsuit on June 21, 1991 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Idaho State Correctional Institution and the Idaho Maximum Security Institution in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The suit, filed against prison officials, alleged retaliation for exercise of their rights to court access and an inadequate law library. After a trial, the courts found for plaintiff entering declaratory relief and injunctive relief for six plaintiffs to prevent any form of retaliation. On July 10, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed and awarded a total of 102151.66 in attorney's fees were awarded.
View Case Detail (PC-ID-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 30, 2017
Rasho v. Walker
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:07-CV-1298-HAB-JAG (C.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0031
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0031)


CASE STUDIES
March 29, 2017
"Flint’s Lead Pipes Will Be Replaced Under Settlement in Federal Safe Drinking Water Case"
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2017/170328
Written: Mar. 28, 2017
(The Natural Resources Defense Council )
Citizen suit brings funding and timeline for pipe replacement, more water quality testing, transparency, and other resources to help Flint.*
View Case Study Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
March 29, 2017
Cohen v. Brown University
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: Civ. A. No. 92-0197 (D.R.I.)
ED-RI-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (ED-RI-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 27, 2017
Trowbridge v. Cuomo
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-03455 (S.D.N.Y.)
CJ-NY-0012
In May 2016, individuals who were arrested in the Bronx for misdemeanors filed a class action complaint in the S.D.N.Y. against the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and the administrators of New York State's Unified Court System for Bronx Criminal Court's failure to provide the constitutionally guaranteed rights to a speedy trial and due process per Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state law that requires a speedy trial timetable. Plaintiffs further alleged that Bronx Criminal Court had inordinate delays compared to other boroughs and sought a declaratory and equitable relief. The case was assigned to Judge George B. Daniels and the Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. In December 2016, following defendants' motion to dismiss, the court removed Governor Cuomo as a defendant and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint because the plaintiffs had an adequate standing. In January 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 27, 2017
United States v. South Carolina
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:11-cv-02958 (D.S.C.)
IM-SC-0002
This is a challenge brought by the federal government to the constitutionality of a South Carolina immigration law which requires state and local law enforcement officers to investigate the immigration status of any individual they stop, detain, or arrest whenever they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual lacks immigration status, allows law enforcement officers to arrest individuals solely for failing to carry registration documents, makes it a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant or to be harbored or transported by others if one is an undocumented immigrant, and imposes civil liability on the police for failing to enforce its provisions to the maximum extent possible. The law was patterned after Arizona's SB 1070. In December 2011, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law; this was reaffirmed in major part in November 2012, after the Supreme Court addressed the similar Arizona statute in United States v. Arizona. On March 4, 2015, Judge Gergel permanently enjoined the State from implementing Sections 4, 5, 6(B)(2), and 15 of South Carolina's Act 69.
View Case Detail (IM-SC-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 27, 2017
Center for Independent Living v. Wal-Mart Stores
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 3:12-cv-03885-CRB (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0038
On July 25, 2012, the Center for Independent Living, a non-profit disability advocacy and support organization, and several named individual plaintiffs with disabilities necessitating the use of wheelchairs or scooters filed a class-action law suit in Federal Court, against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged that Wal-Mart's refusal to provide wheelchair-accessible point-of-sale (POS) terminals at its many of its California stores, when accessible alternatives were readily available, was illegal discrimination against people with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State law. On June 18, 2013 the parties began settlement negotiations. On January 23, 2017, Judge Breyer entered an order dismissing the case and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The agreement required specified Wal-Mart locations to install certain Point of Sale devices accesible to individuals with disabilities.
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0038)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 27, 2017
Universal Muslim Association of America v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00537 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0027
On March 24, 2017, the Universal Muslim Association of America and two individual Yemenis filed this lawsuit against President Donald Trump in a challenge to his March 6, 2017 Executive Order 13,780. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Executive Order subjects the plaintiffs and all Muslims residing in the U.S. to "hostile treatment under the law and...stigma upon them based on their religious affiliation." The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Additionally, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in conjunction with the complaint. Specifically, the complaint argues that the EO discriminates on the basis of religion and national origin. As such, it violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause and Fifth Amendment Equal Protection. The UMAA further argues that the EO also violates the First Amendment Free Speech clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Universal Muslim Association of America is (UMAA) is a nonprofit organization whose membership constitutes the largest organization of Shi'a Muslims in the U.S. UMAA seeks to build mutual understanding between Shi'a Muslims and their fellow Americans, while encouraging its members to be active in their communities. The EO prevents the organization from conducting its activities. Specifically, UMAA is unable to bring speakers and paying attendees from abroad for its upcoming national convention. Moreover, UMAA's members are harmed in various ways, including in their ability to visit their countries of origin or obtain visas for their family members living in one of the nations targeted by the EO. The two individual plaintiffs are Yemeni nationals currently residing in the U.S. under asylum status. In the wake of civil war in Yemen resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, the plaintiffs, who are a family, came to the U.S. on visas. However, they could not afford to bring two of their five children. While in the U.S., the plaintiffs applied for visas for their two children, who fled to Djibouti for safety while awaiting their visa interviews. Without further financing, the children will be forced to return to Yemen in the absence of visas. The same day, the plaintiffs also filed notice that this case is related to Pars Equality Center v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-00255) currently pending in the same court. The case is currently assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 27, 2017
Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative et al v. Hogan et al
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-1021 (D. Md.)
CJ-MD-0004
The Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting for prisoners' rights, and three inmates who, as juveniles, were sentenced to life in prison, filed a § 1983 suit against Governor Hogan and officials from the Department of Corrections, alleging that Maryland's parole system violated the Eighth Amendment by providing no meaningful opportunity for parole for juvenile lifers.
View Case Detail (CJ-MD-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 26, 2017
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00260-JEB (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0098
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a communication shutdown procedure (SOP 303) intended to prevent the remote detonation of bombs without publicly disclosing the content of the procedure. The Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) filed a FOIA request in July 2012 for SOP 303, and the DHS was reluctant to disclose it. It responded to EPIC's FOIA request by saying the document could not be located, and did not respond timely to EPIC's administrative appeal of that response. EPIC filed this law suit on February 27, 2013 for injunctive relief to compel DHS to disclose the entirety of SOP 303. On May 20, 2013, the judge ordered the disclosure of any segregable portions of SOP 303. On June 28, 2013, DHS disclosed portions of the document and withheld other based on FOIA exemptions DHS believed applied to the procedure. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Judge Boasberg granted the EPIC's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that DHS did not properly apply the exemptions. The DC Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case to determine whether there were segregable portions of SOP 303 that could be disclosed. DHS then submitted a redacted version of SOP 303 to Judge Boasberg, who decided that the document was disclosed liberally enough and granted judgment in favor of DHS.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0098)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 26, 2017
City of Richmond v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01535 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0090
This action, filed by the city of Richmond, California, on Mar. 21, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order 13768, dealing with immigration enforcement, which threatens to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary jurisdictions" and take enforcement action against any locality that impedes the federal government's immigration law. In its complaint, plaintiff asked for a declaration that Richmond complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, and that the Executive Order violated the Tenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, would require plaintiff to violate the Fourth Amendment, and violated the Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0090)


CASE ADDITIONS
March 26, 2017
Adams v. Richardson
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: Civ. A. 3095-70 (D.D.C.)
SD-DC-0001
This desegregation case was a class-action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who alleged that the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (and later the U.S. Department of Education) failed to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly as it related to higher education. The case lasted for nearly twenty years.
View Case Detail (SD-DC-0001)