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
January 13, 2021
Parga v. Tulsa County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:18-cv-00298-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla.)
CJ-OK-0006
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-OK-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 12, 2021
Winston v. Polis
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: D162020CV31823 (State Court)
PC-CO-0036
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-CO-0036)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 11, 2021
In re: Extension of time for Absentee and Mail-in Ballots
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=118
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
The Delaware County Board of Elections submitted an emergency petition to allow it to extend the deadline to accept and tabulate mail-in ballots for the June Primary. As of the date of the Primary on June 2, 2020, about 400-500 ballots still had not been mailed out. The Delaware County Board of ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
State of California v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05235-MEJ (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096
Several states filed this lawsuit on September 11, 2017, challenging President Trump’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). The plaintiffs alleged that the government's decision to end DACA violated due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In November 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction to preserve the program. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0096)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
City of San Jose v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05329 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098
On Sept. 14, 2017, the City of San Jose filed this lawsuit in response to the Trump Administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), arguing that such a rescission violates the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on Jan. 9, 2018 to keep DACA in place, which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0098)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
Garcia v. United States of America
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05380 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0099
A group of DACA recipients filed this lawsuit on Sept. 18, 2017, challenging President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The plaintiffs argued that revoking DACA violates due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. On Jan. 9, 2018, the court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0099)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01907-CRC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0032
On September 18, 2017, the NAACP sued DHS for ending the DACA program, alleging that rescission violated due process and the APA. Several labor unions joined as co-plaintiffs. On January 18, 2018, the case was consolidated with Trustees of Princeton University v. U.S.A.. On April 24, 2018, the Court held that the DHS’ rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious, and vacated the DHS decision. In August 2018, the government appealed to the DC Circuit Court, and the District Court granted a limited stay of its April 24, 2018 order as it applied to initial DACA applications and applications for DACA-based advance parole. The defendants later sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in this and two other DACA cases. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The district court remanded the case to DHS for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. The plaintiffs in this case declined to challenge the July 28 memo, but the plaintiffs in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump challenged the memo and the court in those cases ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0032)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 10, 2021
County of Santa Clara v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05813 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106
Santa Clara County and a labor union filed this lawsuit on October 10, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging President Trump's revocation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs argued that revoking DACA violated due process, equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to keep DACA in place, which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and oral argument was heard on Nov. 12, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. As of January 10, 2021, this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0106)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 9, 2021
Frateschi v. Fennessy
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1700910/2020 (State Court)
PC-NY-0084
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-NY-0084)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 5, 2021
Don't Shoot Portland v. Wolf
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02040 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0016
This lawsuit arose out of President Trump's decision to send federal agents to Portland, Oregon in order to quell protests there in July of 2020. The decision came following months of protest against racial inequality and policing, largely in response to the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint alleged that federal police were illegally stopping protests, using excessive force, and foregoing due process in an attempt to quell the unrest. The plaintiffs, two activist organizations and several individual plaintiffs, sued six federal agencies and their heads, demanding declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 15, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. A group of current and former prosecutors, Attorney Generals, and former attorneys for the federal government filed an amicus brief expressing concerns about the deployment of federal law enforcement in Portland and elsewhere. The Constitutional Accountability Center also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. Then, on December 17, the plaintiffs requested to file an amended complaint. The court granted them leave to do so and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. The case is ongoing as of January 5, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 4, 2021
Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County v. City of Seattle
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00887 (W.D. Wash.)
PN-WA-0005
This lawsuit was brought by Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County against the Seattle Police Department. In the protests following the murder of George Floyd, the Seattle Police Department unlawfully used excessive force against the protesters in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, according to the complaint. A temporary restraining order was granted against the SPD. This TRO was made into a preliminary injunction, but plaintiffs later filed a contempt motion arguing that the defendant violated the injunction by targeting journalists, legal observers, and medics, as well as firing indiscriminately into crowds of protesters. On December 7, the court found the court violated the preliminary injunctions in four incidents and directed the plaintiffs' to file a motion with proposed sanctions. The defendant's responded by filing a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court applied the wrong standard and incorrectly found that the four incidents violated the orders. The case is ongoing as of January 4, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-WA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 4, 2021
Nightingale v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:19-cv-03512 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0150
On June 16, 2019, plaintiffs--three immigration attorneys and two noncitizens who filed FOIA (FOIA) requests for individual immigration case files (known as A-Files)--filed this class-action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs, represented by the American Immigration Council and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, sought declaratory relief that defendants’ failure to make timely determinations on plaintiffs’ and proposed classes’ A-File FOIA requests violates FOIA, and a nationwide injunction requiring defendants to make timely determinations. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief and ordered the defendants to provide quarterly reports on their compliance with the FOIA.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0150)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 3, 2021
Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland
ACLU Oregon
Date: October 9, 2020
By: ACLU Oregon
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon and Braunhagey & Borden LLP filed a class-action lawsuit on June 28, 2020 on behalf of journalists and legal observers who were targeted and attacked by the police while documenting protests in Portland over the killing of George Floyd. The ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Black Lives Matter v. Wolf
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-04319 (N.D. Ill.)
PN-IL-0026
This is a lawsuit brought by several black activist groups, legal organizations, and news media outlets, against the heads of various federal agencies, including the DHS, ICE, Federal Protective Services, and the DOJ. They argued that the deployment to Chicago of these federal agencies by President Trump during the protests that ensued after the police killing of George Floyd were unlawful and unconstitutional. They argued that the defendants violated the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments by using these agents, and that they were in conspiracy to deprive Chicago residents of their rights. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim on October 2. The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-IL-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Buchanan v. Trump
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01542 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0015
This lawsuit was filed in response to President Trump's use of chemical weapons on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square Park. Plaintiffs sued the President, Attorney General William Barr, and other military and law enforcement officials under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. They also sued under Bivens and the Posse Comitatus Act. On September 3, 2020, the plaintiffs amended the complaint adding numerous officials and officers from the Metropolitan Police Department (the D.C. police), the United States Park Police, and the Arlington County Police Department as defendants. Each group of defendants then filed motions to dismiss the claims asserted against them. These motions remain pending as of January 2, 2021. The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Anti Police-Terror Project v. Oakland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-03866 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043
This class-action lawsuit claims that Oakland, California police tactics used to quell protests following the killing of George Floyd were violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and also represented a Monell violation on the part the City of Oakland. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and attorneys from the National Lawyers Guild. They brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief. On July 29 the court entered a preliminary injunction against the defendants, which limited the OPD's use of "less-lethal" weapons, mandated body cameras, and required further training. The parties both sought modifications to the injunction in October 2020. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to modify the preliminary injunction and instead granted the defendants' motion to modify the injunction on October 28, 2020. The Court acknowledged the defendants' concern about demonstrations in relation to the upcoming presidential election and how OPD's mutual aid partners had largely withdrawn support after the preliminary injunction. It found that the combination of the lack of mutual aid and the potential demonstrations was a significant change in the facts meriting a change in the injunction to properly balance the equities of the parties and the public interest. OPD officers still were required to ensure that mutual aid partners were briefed on OPD's prohibited weapons and force to the extent possible. This case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0043)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Ruiz v. City of Sacramento
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01229 (E.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0045
This class action lawsuit was brought on June 18, 2020 in response to the Sacramento Police Department using allegedly illegal tactics to quash the protests that arose after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution, the California state constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Bane Act. The plaintiffs amended the complaint on August 14, adding additional plaintiffs and state tort claims. The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0045)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 2, 2021
Black Lives Matter 5280 v. City and County of Denver
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01878 (D. Colo.)
PN-CO-0004
This case arose out of the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint alleges that during the protests in Denver, city police and state patrol officers used less-lethal weapons against protesters in violation of the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments' prohibitions on excessive force and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition. This case was consolidated with Cruz v. County of Denver on August 4. Later in October, it was also consolidated with Acker v. City and County of Denver. The litigation in all cases continues as of January 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PN-CO-0004)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 30, 2020
Judge Halts ‘Public Health’ Expulsions of Children at the Border
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/politics/trump-migrant-children.html
Date: Nov. 18, 2020
By: Zolan Kanno-Youngs (New York Times)
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a public health emergency decree did not give the Trump administration authority to expel unaccompanied children before they could request asylum.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 27, 2020
Castillo v. Whitmer
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00751 (W.D. Mich.)
PR-MI-0006
In August 2020, a group of Latino agricultural migrant workers and two limited liability companies that employ agricultural migrant workers filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs alleged that one of the state's emergency health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against Latino workers and their employers. The plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief was denied by the district court, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision. On September 9, the case was closed when the plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal.
View Case Detail (PR-MI-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 25, 2020
Arab American Institute v. Office of Management and Budget
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00871-ABJ (D.D.C.)
PB-DC-0011
On April 13, 2018, the Arab American Institute sued the Office of Management and Budget under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. AAI alleged that OMB violated FOIA by failing to disclose requested records pertaining to OMB’s decision not to include a combined race and ethnicity question or a Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) category on the 2020 Census. In May, the court ordered OMB to file a dispositive motion or a status report setting a schedule for OMB’s production of documents to AAI. Over the next two years, the parties filed several joint status reports detailing which documents OMB had disclosed to AAI and which documents were still outstanding or disputed. OMB produced a number of documents to AAI but withheld some, claiming they were FOIA exempt. AAI objected to five claimed exemptions. The parties both filed motions for summary judgment. After conducting in camera review, on August 13, 2020, the court granted OMB’s motion for summary judgment and denied AAI’s cross-motion, finding that the disputed documents were predecisional and exempt from FOIA. As of December 25, 2020, AAI has not appealed the court’s decision.
View Case Detail (PB-DC-0011)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, and Turning Point for Women and Families -AGAINST- The City of New York
https://www.stopspying.org/hijab
Date: Mar. 11, 2019
By: Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Inc. (The Urban Justice Center)
STOP and our co-counsel are pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit to end the NYPD policy of forcing arrestees to remove religious head coverings, including turbans, wigs, hats, and the hijab. Our plaintiffs include a survivor of domestic violence who was traumatized by the NYPD when she was ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
Chicagoans for an End to the Gang Database v. City of Chicago
https://www.macarthurjustice.org/case/chicagoans-for-an-end-to-the-gang-database/
Date: Sep. 3, 2020
By: Vanessa del Valle (MacArthur Justice Center)
The MacArthur Justice Center represents the Chicagoans for an End to the Gang Database, a coalition of individuals and community organizations, in a federal class action lawsuit against the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department (CPD) targeting the widespread use of an inaccurate, racially ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
A Critical Legal Rhetoric Approach to In Re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=jcred
Date: Jun. 1, 2010
By: Lolita Buckner Inniss (St. John's Law Scholarship Repository)
Critical legal rhetoric is a means of explicating the way in which rhetoric and ideology relate to law. It names the rhetorical practices and clarifies the ideologies that go into making up the law's articulations. Critical legal rhetoric is, in other words, a way of understanding not only why law ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 24, 2020
Fazaga v. FBI
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/cases/fazaga-v-fbi
Date: Feb. 21, 2011
By: ACLU of Southern California
Fazaga v. FBI is a case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation for illegally spying on the Muslim community in Orange County, California.

In June 2006, FBI agents sent an informant to one of the largest, most diverse mosques in Orange County, California, who posed as a convert to ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 24, 2020
DOJ v. Amtrak
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-3503 (D.D.C.)
DR-DC-0009
On December 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, by failing to make its intercity rail stations accessible to individuals with disabilities by July 26, 2020, as required by the Act. The case was never properly docketed or assigned to a judge, however, because the government announced its settlement with Amtrak on the same day. The settlement agreement required Amtrak to design at least 135 accessible stations, complete construction at 90 stations, and be in the process of constructing at least 45 stations within 10 years of the settlement date. The agreement also required Amtrak to train staff on ADA compliance, establish a monitor-approved process for managing ADA complaints, and create a settlement fund to compensate individuals who were harmed by Amtrak’s most inaccessible stations. The settlement was monitored by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Department of Justice.
View Case Detail (DR-DC-0009)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Drenth v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Joseph Drenth and National Federation of the Blind in Pennsylvania brought a civil rights case under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act asserting that Pennsylvania's election policies violated the rights of the blind by not providing accessible ballots for blind ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
People Not Politicians Oregon v. Clarno
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
In light of COVID-19 issues, Petitioner attempted to meet the signature requirements using online and mail, but was not able to meet the threshold required to add petitions to the November ballot. Petitioner requests that the Secretary of State adjust both the deadline (to mid-August) and threshold ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
The Obama administration released the 2009 interrogation/rendition task force report I sued them for under the Freedom of Information Act
https://charliesavage.com/?p=1423
Date: 12/06/2016
By: Charlie Savage
President Obama is today scheduled to deliver his last major speech about national security, which will summarize and defend his counterterrorism legal policy and strategy over the past eight years. Ahead of that, the administration released a pile of documents yesterday. These included a 61-page ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Here’s a previously top secret 2005 Bush Justice Department memo on Stellarwind surveillance and prosecutors’ discovery obligations
https://charliesavage.com/?p=1579
Date: Mar. 31, 2017
By: Charlie Savage
In response to one of the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits I am fighting with The New York Times’ lawyer David McCraw and our annual First Amendment Fellow, Ian MacDougal, the government has turned over a May 2005 memorandum by Patrick Rowan, who was then a top national-security prosecutor in ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Don’t cite the Prism v. Upstream collection numbers from Judge Bates’ 2011 FISC opinion anymore
https://charliesavage.com/?p=1714
By: Charlie Savage
Among surveillance legal policy specialists, it is common to cite a set of statistics from an October 2011 opinion by Judge John Bates, then of the FISA Court, about the volume of internet communications the National Security Agency was collecting under the FISA Amendments Act (“Section 702”) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-17/pdf/2020-27856.pdf
Date: Dec. 17, 2020
By: Chad R. Mizelle (U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
On July 16, 2019, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DOJ,’’ ‘‘DHS,’’ or, collectively, ‘‘the Departments’’) published an interim final rule (‘‘IFR’’) governing asylum claims in the context of aliens who enter or attempt to enter the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Class Action Lawsuit Challenges California Cities' For-Profit Prosecution Scheme
https://ij.org/case/indio-fines/
Date: Jan. 1, 2020
By: Institute for Justice
There is a new sheriff in town in Indio, California and he’s coming after residents who find themselves caught in the city’s outrageous new code enforcement law.

That sheriff is a private, for-profit law firm called Silver and Wright, which was hired by Indio in 2014 to serve as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
McCarter v. Brown
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 28, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff sought a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction asking for multiple types of relief due to the Governor of Oregon and various local county officials’ executive orders’ violating plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights afforded under the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
NILA’s Affirmative Litigation Docket
https://immigrationlitigation.org/impact-litigation/
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: National Immigration Litigation Alliance
NILA’s impact litigation in the federal courts seeks procedural or substantive change either to extend the rights of noncitizens or to eliminate systemic obstacles they or their immigration counsel routinely face. It includes affirmative suits in district court as well as select circuit level ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Featured Issue: USCIS’s Blank Space Policy
https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/all/featured-issue-usciss-blank-space-policy
Date: Dec. 21, 2020
By: American Immigration Lawyers Association
As a result of class action litigation in Vangala v. USCIS challenging USCIS's “No Blank Space” policy, USCIS has agreed to stop implementing the rejection policy for asylum applications and U visa petitions starting December 28, 2020. Read AILA's practice alert for more details.

*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Wright v. Oklahoma
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Stephen Christopher Wright is challenging Oklahoma statute Title 26 §26511 as creating barriers to running for office. The Statute allows 2 methods for candidates to get on the ballot; (i) pay a filing fee, and (ii) gather physical signatures of voters in the district. COVID-19 has caused the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Manning v. Rogers
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Facts/claims: Secretary of State has delayed signature counting and verification for a State Question (law prohibiting extreme sentencing) due to COVID-19 related difficulties. Court agreed and directed Secretary of State to begin signature count to consider petition.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Hawkins v. Ziriax
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Green Party nominee for President and registered voters in the State of Oklahoma brought an action against the Oklahoma State Election Board seeking: (i) a declaratory judgment that certain Oklahoma statutes (Okla. Stat. tit. 26 Sec. 5-112 and 10-101.1) (the "Oklahoma Election Statutes") are ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Ohio ex rel. Speweik v. Wood Cnty. Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Facts/Claims: Plaintiff candidate for an Ohio county court of common pleas sued the Ohio Secretary of State and the Wood Country Board of Elections, alleging violation of election laws for changing the primary date from March 17 when the state legislature had not elected to move the primary date ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Ohio ex rel. ODP v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
After Ohio Department of Health ordered the closing of polling places the day before the March primary, the Secretary of State issued a directive to extend absentee voting through June 1 and set June 2 as the date for in-person voting. The Ohio Democratic Party challenged the Secretary of State's ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 10, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The Ohio Democratic Party and other plaintiffs seek a declarative judgment that Ohio law does not limit counties to one drop box for absentee ballots, nor does it limit their location to county boards of elections, despite the Secretary of State's earlier instruction to the contrary. The plaintiffs ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
LWV of Ohio v. LaRose II
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Signature matching procedures and standards are inconsistent across different counties in Ohio. The State also fails to provide sufficient opportunity for voters to correct any signature mismatches. The voters most susceptible to signature mismatches are the elderly, disabled, ill and non-native ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Hawkins v. DeWine
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs seek to modify or enjoin both the State's ballot access provisions for independent political candidates and the State's requirements for formation of a minor political party. Specifically, they challenge the in-person nominating petition signing requirements and nominating petition ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 22, 2020
Duncan v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff is a presidential candidate, arguing that the signature requirement to appear on the Ohio ballot is unconstitutional in light of the Gov.'s stay at home order; P moved for a PI to either waive the signature requirement or put P on the ballot.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 22, 2020
State Of Arizona v. Maricopa County Community College District Board
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: CV2013-009093 (State Court)
IM-AZ-0023
In 2013, the State of Arizona filed this lawsuit against the Maricopa County Community College District Board. The plaintiff argued that 8 USC §1623(a) and ARS §15-1803(B) both prohibit granting in-state tuition to students based on state residency when they are not lawfully in the United States, thus, the defendant could not allow DACA recipients to pay in-state tuition rates. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Arizona confirmed, and the case was remanded with instructions to enter a judgment enjoining the Maricopa County Community College District Board from granting in-state tuition to DACA recipients.
View Case Detail (IM-AZ-0023)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 21, 2020
Brockman v. LaRose
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, two individuals over 65 years of age (Reardon and Brockman), enjoined the court to delay Ohio’s primary election, scheduled to take place on March 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020, as was recommended by the Governor and Secretary of State of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that, if not enjoined, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 21, 2020
James Madison Project v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00597 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0146
On April 4, 2017, the James Madison Project (a Washington, DC-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting public transparency in the intelligence community) and a USA Today national security reporter filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking for any information on surveillance of the Trump 2016 campaign under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This case led to the disclosure of some of the Carter Page FISA warrants. It features extensive briefing on the use of President Trump's Twitter account and the White House press office as mechanisms to order declassification of records. The case closed in 2020.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0146)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 21, 2020
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-01854 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0147
On August 7, 2018, Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning nonprofit specializing in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation to expose government mismanagement, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552) against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking records surrounding surveillance of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. The records sought in this case may impact the Carter Page FISA warrants. The parties have agreed to a document production schedule, and document disclosure is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0147)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
Vangala v. USCIS
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-08143 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0172
On November 19, 2020, three noncitizens filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on behalf of themselves and all individuals who had been or would be harmed by USCIS’s “blank space” policy, which required applicants for immigration benefits to fill in every response field on their applications, even fields that did not apply to them. Represented by National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and the Van Der Hout law firm, the plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Mandamus and Venue Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, alleging that the government violated the APA by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy, failing to follow proper procedures when adopting the policy, and defying USCIS regulations. The plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting USCIS from enforcing the policy and requiring USCIS to notify individuals whose applications were rejected as a result of it. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0172)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
Morales v. The City of Indio
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: RC 1803060 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0024
This case dealt with the practice of a private law firm collecting attorney's fees from plaintiffs who were charged with code violations. It was settled.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. HUD
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-11765-MGM (D. Mass.)
FH-MA-0007
On September 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and Housing Works, Inc. filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of HUD in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued the defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-703, alleging that a new HUD rule (“the 2020 Rule”) limiting disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from implementing the 2020 Rule until after this case was resolved and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on October 6, 2020. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on October 25, 2020, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the 2020 Rule was arbitrary and capricious. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FH-MA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2020
County of Nevada v. Superior Court of Nevada County
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: C0740504 (State Court)
JC-CA-0113
In 2013, the commander of the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility, a county jail in California, informed the inmates that lawyers would no longer be able to meet face-to-face with their clients. Instead, lawyers would have to meet with clients through glass walls, speaking into telephones. Both ...
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0113)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 19, 2020
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-04756 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0051
A Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient living in New York filed this suit against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas enjoining the expansion of DACA, USCIS had unlawfully revoked a three-year employment authorization that had previously been granted to him. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the revocation unlawful and in violation of the procedures required under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and restoring his three-year employment authorization. A nationwide injunction was issued, and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5 which was granted on July 3, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. On July 28, 2020, the purported Acting Secretary of DHS issued a memorandum effectively suspending DACA while DHS reviewed it. The plaintiffs challenged the memorandum on the grounds that (1) the Acting Secretary did not have the authority to issue the memorandum, and (2) the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. While the parties awaited the court’s decision, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging various constitutional and statutory violations pertaining to the Acting Secretary’s appointment and agency action following the Supreme Court’s decision. On November 14, 2020, the district court found that the Acting Secretary was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of DHS and thus did not have the authority to issue the memorandum. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 4, 2020, the court vacated the memorandum and ordered DHS to resume processing DACA applications. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0051)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 17, 2020
Donald J. Trump for Pres., Inc. v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 22, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Trump Campaign, four Republican members of Congress, the RNC, and two PA residents sued the PA Secretary of State, and the County Election Boards of all 67 PA counties. The general theme of the complaint is that mail-in-voting is the “single greatest threat to free and fair elections.” The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 17, 2020
Disability Rights Penn. v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Disability Rights Pennsylvania; SeniorLAW Center; Southeast Asian Mutual Assistance Associations Coalition, Inc. (SEAMAAC); Suzanne Erb; The Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia (Petitioners), challenged the constitutionality of sections 1302, 1302.1, 1302.2, and 1308 of the 2019 Omnibus ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 17, 2020
Delisle v. Boockvar
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The case concerns an emergency petition for an extension of time to allow the Bucks County, PA, Board of Elections to count the Voted Absentee and Mail-in Ballots that were received during the 2020 Pennsylvania Primary Election. On May 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
Western Native Voice v. Stapleton
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: DV-2020-0377 (State Court)
VR-MT-0016
Voting organizations and seven tribes in Montana sued to block the Ballot Interference Prevention Act, which would constrain the organizations ability to collect ballots from rural Native American tribal members. The Court permanently enjoined the statute, finding that it infringed the Plaintiffs' fundamental rights to vote, free speech, and due process.
View Case Detail (VR-MT-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
[Redacted Caption] Gov't Ex Parte Submission of Reauthorization Certifications & Related Procedures, Ex Parte Submission of Amended Certifications & Request for an Order Approving Such Certifications & Amended Certifications (Dec. 2019) (702, Boasberg J.)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0145
In September 2019, the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence submitted the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) to the FISC for their annual review. This was a little later than usual, given the delays associated with appeals during the 2018 annual review. Judge James E. Boasberg approved the new procedures and provided an update on compliance with promises made during the 2018 approval process.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0145)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 8:11-cv-00301 (C.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0030
In February 2011, three Muslim individuals filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that the FBI had used an informant to gather information on hundreds of Muslims based solely on their religion, violating their First and Fifth Amendment rights and FISA. After United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney dismissed the majority of their claims, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of three judges held that the district court had erred in determining sua sponte that particular claims warranted dismissal under the state secrets privilege. In finding that Congress intended FISA procedures to displace the state secrets privilege and the common law dismissal remedy with respect to electronic surveillance, the panel remanded the case back to the district court to be analyzed under the FISA procedures. The Ninth Circuit released a revised opinion in July 2020 with a new concurrence and dissent after a failed vote to rehear the case en banc. The defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 18, 2020; the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0030)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2020
A.N.S.W.E.R. v. Norton
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:05-cv-00071-PLF (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0022
On January 14, 2005, a group of anti-war demonstrators including the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition (ANSWER), the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, the National Council of Arab Americans, a pastor at a congregational church, and a civilian whose son died in the Iraq War sued the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, and the Director of the Secret Service under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3)–(4) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, the plaintiffs alleged that the government violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, and their right to equal protection under the law by violating National Park Service (“NPS”) regulations by exempting the Presidential Inauguration Committee (“PIC”) from the regular permit process for reserving space along the Inauguration Day Parade route and by banning sign supports from the Parade. The plaintiffs alleged that these actions together prevented the public from accessing the Parade route and from exercising their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the government’s actions unconstitutional and to enjoin the NPS from setting aside its regulations for the PIC in the future. The district court found that the NPS’ regulatory set aside violated NPS regulations but was not unconstitutional. The court also upheld the government’s sign support ban. The D.C. Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision on appeal.
View Case Detail (FA-DC-0022)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 16, 2020
NSA Declassifies Internet Surveillance Files from 2011 Case
The New York Times Company
Date: Oct. 11, 2017
By: Charlie Savage
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The New York Times, the National Security Agency has declassified these previously secret documents from the docket of a 2011 case before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The case concerned problems with the NSA's so-called " ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 16, 2020
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of California, State of Delware, District of Columbia, State of Maine, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of North Carolina v. Louis DeJoy and the United States Postal Service
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs PA, CA, DE, DC, ME, MA, and NC bring suit against DeJoy, Duncan (chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors), and USPS challenging recent changes to USPS policies resulting in delay of the mail with impacts on the election. Under the Postal Reorganization Act, USPS is required to ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 16, 2020
Page v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03149 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0143
On October 21, 2019, an informal advisor to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign filed a complaint against the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act seeking release of documents he requested in 2017 related to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against him and injunctive relief to halt the DOJ from releasing more private and untrue information about him. The DOJ filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019, noting that the plaintiff had not fully responded to questions surrounding his initial FOIA request and that releases of information about his FISA warrants were done in response to FOIA requests from The New York Times. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice on September 11, 2020.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0143)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 16, 2020
Page v. Comey
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03460 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0144
On November 27, 2020, an informal foreign policy advisor to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and various former DOJ and FBI officials that sought the warrant against him in their personal capacity violated his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures in connection with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants issued against him during the 2016 campaign. He sought $75 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees for this case and a related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case used to gain information for this litigation under FISA, Bivens, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Privacy Act. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0144)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2020
In re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters Submitted to the FISC
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 19-02 (FISC)
NS-DC-0138
In response to late 2019 disclosures showing "inaccuracies and omissions" in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications against Trump 2016 campaign official Carter Page, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) released a series of orders asking the FBI to reform its FISA warrant application process and training on FISA warrants. The government is working to comply with these orders, though the FISC granted several extensions for reporting requirements in 2020 due to COVID-19 concerns.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0138)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2020
In re [Redacted], Non-U.S. Persons
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 19-218 (FISC)
NS-DC-0142
On March 5, 2020, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a warrant to monitor foreign persons in line with section 1805(a)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a redacted version of the opinion on September 23, 2020 because it clarified the definition of "facility" in section 1805(a)(2)(B) and the probable cause standard surrounding the term. With the warrant granted, the case is presumed to be closed.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0142)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2020
In re Opinions & Orders of this Court Addressing Bulk Collection of Data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA Docket Misc. 13-08, FISCR docket 20-1]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 13-08 (FISC)
NS-DC-0026
On June 12, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIAC) (collectively, "movants") filed a motion in the FISC for release of court records including opinions that address the legal authority for the NSA's bulk telephony metadata program. After various motions surrounding the specific data the movants were seeking and if the movants had standing to bring the case, Judge Rosemary Collyer denied the motion in 2020, saying that while the movants had standing, the First Amendment does not confer an unqualified right to access the material at issue and that this information should remain classified. The movants appealed the decision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR), but they denied the appeal on jurisdictional grounds in April 2020. The case was not appealed to the Supreme Court, closing the case.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0026)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
A. Philip Randolph Inst. of Ohio v. LaRose
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=222
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
USPS operational changes may delay receipt of mailed absentee ballots and result in voided ballots. Ohio now allows absentee voters to drop off absentee ballot applications and ballots in secure drop boxes rather than mailing materials via USPS. But Ohio Secretary of State LaRose also restricts ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Sinner v. Jaeger
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=77
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Suit challenged North Dakota constitutional and statutory provisions governing the signature process to place a constitutional amendment on the November 3, 2020 ballot that would create a nonpartisan legislative redistricting process. These provisions require persons to sign a petition in the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Stringer v. North Carolina
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=73
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
The suit challenges (1) the State's failure to provide accessible in-person voting opportunities that comply with social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) vote-by-mail restrictions (postage at voters' expense, witness requirement, untenable absent ballot receipt deadline ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=180
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs, North Carolina State Conference of NAACP branches and individual registered voters residing in counties using the ExpressVote machine, sued North Carolina State Board of Elections and Board of Elections of various North Carolina Counties to enjoin them from employing the ExpressVote to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Chambers v. North Carolina
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=74
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs were in ill-health, some were senior citizens and all live alone and are following social distancing guidelines. They all intend to vote via absentee ballot and are concerned about the witness requirements exposing them to COVID-19.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Advance N.C. v. North Carolina
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=72
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
North Carolina has "no-excuse" absentee voting by mail which requires an application for an absentee ballot. Until 2018, voters could submit completed applications directly or through a third party. Following enactment of SB 683, most third party organizations and individuals were prohibited from ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Yin v. Cuomo
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=93
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
After Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.23, which canceled the June 23, 2020 Special Election for Queens Borough President, Dao Yin and Jay Yee, two candidates, filed a complaint seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Executive Order. The Court denied ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Yang v. Kellner
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and certain pledged delegates sue New York State Board of Elections for canceling the presidential primary. The legal claims are: (1) undue burden on and denial of the right to vote under the 1st and 14th Amendments, (2) denial of procedural due process ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Quinn v. Cuomo
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
After Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.23, which canceled the June 23, 2020 Special Election for Queens Borough President, Jim Quinn, a Democratic candidate in the election, filed a complaint seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Executive Order. The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 14, 2020
Puliafito v. Bd. of Elections in the City of NY
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Seawright filed a petition designating her a candidate for the office of Member of the Assembly for the 76th District on the Democratic Party primary ballot. This petition required a cover sheet, which Seawright failed to file prior to the March 20 deadline. Seawright also filed a petition ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 14, 2020
[Redacted caption] Gov't Ex Parte Submissions of Reauthorization Certification and Related Procedures, Amended Certifications, and Request for an Order Approving Such Certification and Amended Certifications (April 2011) (702, Bates, J.)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0057
In 2013, the government released previously classified documents regarding the authorization of the government's collection of electronic data under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702 authorizes the surveillance of foreigners who are abroad. The released documents included three court opinions identifying deficiencies in the government's minimization procedures and the steps the government took to fix those deficiencies. A subsequent Freedom of Information Act request from The New York Times released more government submissions further clarifying the scope of the collection problems and an additional hearing transcript.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0057)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 13, 2020
Murray v. Cuomo
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
On March 14, Governor issued Executive Order 202.2, which reduced the time to collect designating petition signatures (changing date from April 2 to March 17) and reduced the number of required signatures (from 5% to 1.5%) of registered party members. After submission of designating petition, NYC ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
Mujumder v. Bd. of Elections in the City of NY
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioners filed designating petitions in order to be placed on the ballot for the Democratic Party primary election in June 2020. Petitioners failed to timely file cover sheets required in connection with such designating petitions, which delays they attributed to the effects of the Covid-19 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
Mejia v. Bd. of Elections in the City of NY
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Joselin Mejia submitted a petition to validate her application to be a candidate on the ballot for the Democratic Party primary election held on June 23, 2020. She had filed her application without a cover sheet, which the Board of Elections for the City of New York found to be a wholly uncurable ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Kosinski
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 22, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Facts/Claims: The League of Women’s Voters of the United States, the League of Women’s Voters of New York, and an individual voter sued Commissioners and Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections, alleging the State’s absentee voting procedures unconstitutionally violate (i) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 12, 2020
Jasikoff v. Comm’rs of the Westchester Cnty. Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioner circulated petitions to run in the Democratic Party primary election as a candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 88th Assembly District. On March 18, 2020, the Legislature passed an act requiring that a designating petition for the June 2020 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 10, 2020
Hernandez v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs claim violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for New York State Board of Election's failure to provide accessible paper ballot for individuals who cannot independently mark a paper ballot due to their disabilities*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 10, 2020
Hawatmeh v. NY State Board of Elections
MIT-Stanford Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Petitioner filed a designating petition on March 20, designating Petitioner a Conservative Party candidate for the public office of Member of the US House of Representatives for the 19th Congressional District. Petitioner mailed to the Board of Elections the required certificate of acceptance on ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Corona v. Cegavske
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Facts: Plaintiffs challenge a series of Nevada practices. The Nevada Secretary of State announced that mail-in ballots would be mailed to active (but not inactive) registered voters. The vote by mail signature cure period is only seven days, which plaintiffs argue is not sufficient time to cure ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
New Approach Mont. v. Montana
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Montana Constitution permits citizens to enact laws by initiative, but sets forth requirements for collecting and submitting signatures. New Approach Montana alleges emergency circumstances relating to the coronavirus pandemic nullifies its ability to gather the signatures required to qualify ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Donald J. Trump for President v. Bullock
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Governor Bullock enacted an executive order granting universal vote-by-mail balloting. Plaintiffs allege that (1) such a system is vulnerable to voter abuse and fraud; (2) only the state legislature has the authority to enact universal vote-by-mail. In doing so, Plaintiffs claim violations of the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
American Women v. Missouri
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 10, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After the Missouri officials realized the pandemic would affect the November 3 election, they passed a new bill loosening many of its previous requirements, but only for some voters and not others. These plaintiffs challenge five restrictions that either remain after or were imposed by these rule ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Parham v. Watson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Mississippi law allows those with permanent or temporary disability to vote absentee if in-person voting could reasonably cause danger to the voter or others. New legislation further establishes that individuals under physicain-imposed quarantine and those caring for such individuals count as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Oppenheim v. Watson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 8, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs sued Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson for a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of the absentee ballot provision in Mississippi law (Section 23-15-713(d)) and who can vote absentee in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including clarification regarding the meaning ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
NAACP Minn. v. Simon
MIT-Stanford Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Complaint challenges two Minnesota voting-by-mail requirements: (1) each absentee ballot be witnessed by a registered Minnesota voter, a notary, or person otherwise authorized to administer oaths (the “Witness Requirement”), Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, and (2) unless a voter is located in a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 9, 2020
Gallagher v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs requested declaratory relief with respect to the validation of ballots that were incorrectly or untimely postmarked by the USPS, despite defendants' assurances that such ballots would be valid. Plaintiffs allege that under New York Executive Order 202.26, pre-paid postage would be ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Minn. Voters Alliance v. Walz
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs argue that the mask mandate in public places passed by Executive Order by the governor of Minnesota at the start of the pandemic conflicts with a Minnesota statute prohibiting the wearing of a mask in public. The plaintiffs argue that the prospect of being prosecuted either for wearing a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff sued City Clerk for the City of Detroit, Detroit Department of Elections, and Detroit Election Commission for violating her procedural and substantive due process rights by mailing of an unsolicited absentee voter application. Plaintiff voted in person in the August 4, 2020 democratic ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Kishore v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs filed action challenging Michigan's ballot-access requirements for independent candidates for President of the United States. The plaintiffs had filed to run for President/Vice-President with the FEC but did not file the qualifying petition or collect the requisite signatures under ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Jobs for Downriver v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, duly-formed local ballot question committees, challenged various municipal charter provisions and Michigan statutes related to the number of signatures required to submit local ballot questions, and the deadlines to submit the signatures to place questions on the November 3, 2020 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Fair and Equal Mich. v. Benson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Michigan’s constitution allows its citizens to propose legislation through initiatives, which result from petitions: (a) signed by at least eight percent of the total vote cast for all gubernatorial candidates in the prior election, with such signatures collected at least 180 days before filing ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Eason v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 15, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
A candidate for The House of Representatives and voter in MI argues that MI’s ballot access procedures in combination with emergency declarations issued in MI violate his 1st and 14th amendment rights both as a voter and a candidate. He claims that independent candidates are required to gather ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 8, 2020
Davis v. Wayne Cnty. Election Comm’n
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs brought an action against the Wayne County Election Commission and individual county and City of Detroit officials claiming that the Commission had certified the Defendant Jones to appear on the ballot as a candidate for US Congress for the 13th Congressional District despite the fact ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Davis v. Benson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff sued the Secretary of State for the State of Michigan for violating his constitutional and statutory rights by mailing of an unsolicited absentee voter application. Defendant mass mailed unsolicited absentee voter applications to plaintiff and other registered voters in the State of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Beard v. Whitmer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 16, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff Beard asserts that her first and fourteenth amendment rights were violated by the Michigan Governor's Executive Order 2020-21. Due to the Executive Order state offices including the Secretary of State, through which all judicial candidates must file, require the office to be closed until ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Grossman v. Galvin
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
For its September 1st primary election, Massachusetts has allowed applications to be received until August 26, but the state has not adjusted its receipt deadline from September 1st. Plaintiffs sue under the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions to require the state to count all ballots postmarked ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Brady v. State Ballot Law Comm'n (same as Campbell v. Galvin)
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Petitioner Helen Brady’s appealed the State Ballot Law Commission's (SBLC) order that Brady had failed to appropriately collect a sufficient amount of electronic signatures from registered voters in the 9th District in order to appear on the September 1, 2020 state electoral ballot. Because of a ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Bertin v. Galvin
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Massachusetts residents and voting rights groups entered petition for writ of mandamus against Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin to force his office to comply with a new law requiring the secretary to send mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters in the state by July 15 2020, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
National Urban League v. DeJoy
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 13, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
USPS enacted operational changes in July 2020 that reduced postal service worker hours, forbade overtime, and directed mail-carriers to leave mail behind under certain circumstances. Plaintiffs claim that USPS (1) intentionally delayed the mail and threatens to unconstitutionally burden voters' ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Md. Green Party v. Hogan
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs the Green Party and Libertarian Party of Maryland sued the Governor and State Administrator of Elections, alleging the governmental restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19 have hindered their effects to gather signatures. Under MD election law, the Green Party and the Libertarian ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Ivey v. Lamone
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Candidate challenged State of MD's 1% threshold requirement for inclusion on General Election ballot. Plaintiff candidate claimed 1st and 14th amendment right violations as a result of the enforcement of the signature requirement. Candidate requested relief from the 1% threshold requirement as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 7, 2020
Dhillon v. Wobensmith
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff is a prospective, unaffiliated mayoral candidate for Baltimore City in the Nov. 2020 election and seeks to challenge the Maryland election law's signature-gathing requirements for unaffiliated candidates in light of the difficulty created by the COVID-19 crisis to obtain such signatures ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 6, 2020
Merrill v. Dunlap
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, who are blind or legally blind, claimed ADA, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., and Maine Human Rights Act violations relating to Maine's refusal to provide accessible electronic voting/vote-by-mail means. Plaintiffs demanded that Maine implement a remote, accessible vote by mail system.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 4, 2020
Eisen v. Cuomo
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
The Governor of NY issued an Executive Order to suspend the collection of signatures for petitions of candidates seeking nominations of a major political party; however, the Executive Order did not reduce the number of signatures for independent candidates or extend the deadline to file those ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 4, 2020
New Mexico ex rel. Riddle v. Oliver
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Petitioners are County Clerks and therefore responsible for administering elections and the election process in each county of New Mexico. Petitioners are (1) required to appoint and confirm the willingness of all Election Boards to work on the primary and general elections by April 21, 2020, (2) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2020
Gusciora v. McGreevey
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs submitted a letter brief to enforce a final order issued over ten years ago, which banned online voting permanently in New Jersey because online votes can be hacked. The State confirmed through the media and a phone call that the May 12th election will have an online voting system for ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 2, 2020
Donald J. Trump for President v. Murphy
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 6, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
New Jersey Governor Murphy issued Executive Order 177 mandating that November 3 elections will be all-mail, that all active voters will automatically receive mail-in ballots, that ballots postmarked on or before elections day will be counted even if received after election day, and that all in- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 2, 2020
Libertarian Party of NH v. Sununu
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 21, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Under New Hampshire law, a candidate unaffiliated with a party must secure nomination papers from registered voters to be placed on the ballot. They need 3,000 for the positions of President, Vice President, U.S. Senator and Governor, and 1,500 for the position of U.S. Representative. Due to the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Jorgensen v. Dunlap
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiff is the Libertarian Party of Maine candidate for U.S. President in the Nov. 2020 election and seeks to challenge the Maine's petition signature requirements for independent candidates in light of the difficulty created by the COVID-19 crisis to obtain such signatures. Defendant is the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Dunlap
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 9, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is suing Defendants Maine Secretary of State and Attorney General, claiming that 6 provisions related to absentee voting are unconstitutional and deny people’s fundamental rights. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the 6 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Harding v. Edwards
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 18, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana who raise concerns about certain provisions of LA law that, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in LA (described as being among the most dire in the U.S.), create an undue burden on the right to vote (1st and 14th Amendments, Voting Rights Act) with provisions ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Sterne v. Adams
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
KY issued order to allow "fear of COVID-19" to be a reason for absentee ballots for the primary and they are seeking to extend that for the November Elections. In addition, KY has recently implement a new ID requirement in order to receive a ballot and the recent shutdown of Government offices due ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Nemes v. Bensinger
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After Kentucky legislators gave election officials greater flexibility to change the state’s voting laws, the election officials (Board of Elections, Governor, Secretary of State) submitted plans to curtail in-person voting, including having one polling location in the state’s largest counties ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
RNC v. Weipert
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 16, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Trump campaign and the RNC sued the Johnson County auditor who sent voters absentee ballot applications prepopulated with some of their voter information, in contravention of the guidance of the Iowa Secretary of State. This is in light of a law passed this summer that would have required ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
RNC v. Miller
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Plaintiffs brought suit requesting an injunction on the Auditor of Linn County's action, whereby absentee ballots were prepopulated before being mailed to every active registered voter, even though the Sec. of State's emergency election directive asked for blank ballots to be distributed ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
RNC v. Gill
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 6, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Trump campaign and the RNC sued the Woodbury County auditor who sent voters absentee ballot applications prepopulated with some of their voter information, in contravention of the guidance of the Iowa Secretary of State. This is in light of a law passed this summer that would have required ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
LULAC of Iowa v. Pate
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 6, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Iowa doesn’t require voters to provide an excuse to submit an absentee ballot, but voters must complete an absentee ballot request that requires certain identifying information and an affidavit. Election officials were able to use available voter database information to fill in any missing ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
DSCC v. Pate
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
After being denied the opportunity to intervene in the RNC's lawsuits against the Johnson, Linn, and Woodbury county auditors, the DSCC, DCCC and the Iowa Democratic Party filed this lawsuit alleging that a Directive written by the Iowa Secretary of State was invalid under the Iowa Constitution, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Frye v. Gardner
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
With the current COVID-19 pandemic, New Hampshire has extended its absentee voting system to all voters. However, the system relies on printed forms and ballots, which print-disabled voters (such as blind adults or those who have muscle-weakness related disabilities) cannot read or mark ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
American Fed. of Teachers v. Gardner
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 7, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
New Hampshire has traditionally been an in-person registration and voting state, with 90% of the electorate voting in person in the 2016 and 2018 elections. Plaintiffs contend that the absentee registration request process is unduly cumbersome and would lead to disenfranchisement of New Hampshire ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Bertrand v. Woodbury Cnty
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
A former Republican state senator filed a lawsuit against the Woodbury County auditor, fighting the auditor's decision to open only two polling places in Woodbury County on the June 2nd primary. Bertrand argued that Republicans and men tend to vote on Election Day and the emphasis on absentee ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Frederick et al v. Lawson et al
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Indiana law statutorily provides a right to vote absentee to certain groups of voters. In order to vote absentee, voters must submit an application for an absentee ballot affixed with a signature. A signature on an affidavit attached to the final absentee ballot must match this first signature, as ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 15, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Common Cause Indiana, a nonprofit, non-partisan, public interest group, sued the Indiana Secretary of State, Indiana Election Commission, the Indiana Election Division, four county election officials in their official capacities as county election officials and as representatives of all 280 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 1, 2020
Fight Back Fund v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The Collective Bargaining Freedom Act became law in Illinois in April 2019. That Act provides that the authority to enact laws / rules restricting the use of union security agreements vests exclusively with the Illinois General Assembly. Plaintiffs support Illinois House Joint Resolution ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Paher v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs claim that a universal mail voting plan violates the right to vote (1st and 14th Amendments). They further claim that the plan violates the Purcell principle, violates Article I, § 4 of the Constitution, and violates Article IV, § 4 as well as the Nevada Constitution. State ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Fight for Nevada v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff is an organization attempting to obtain the signatures required to recall Nevada's governor. Plaintiff filed a TRO to extend end the statutory deadline to obtain the required signatures (~250K) due to delays/difficulties related to Covid-19.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
With Lives of Immigrant Detainees at Risk to COVID-19, Federal Judge Forces ICE's Hand
prisonlegalnews.org
Date: Jul. 1, 2020
By: Christopher Zoukis
As a result of a ruling June 5, 2020, hundreds of immigrant detainees held by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in south Florida may have to be released. That day a federal judge for the Southern District of Florida agreed the agency was likely “[shuffling] people around the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Judge Abruptly Reverses Order to Have a Fact-Finder Investigate South Florida ICE Jails
miamiherald.com
Date: Jul. 6, 2020
By: Monique Madan
Just hours after appointing an independent fact-finder to investigate possible “inhumane conditions, deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual punishment” at three South Florida immigration detention centers, a Miami federal judge abruptly reversed her order on Monday without explanation ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Moreno v. Denney
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Voting for Idaho's 2020 Primary election was available only by absentee ballot due to COVID-19 concerns. The absentee ballot request website crashed on the last day for voters to request absentee ballots. Voters and a principal political campaign committee sued the Secretary of State to extend the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 30, 2020
Griffin v. Hawaii
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
This pro se plaintiff is a candidate for Hawaii's 1st Congressional District. He is seeking a preliminary injunction of Hawaii's mail-in voting program. Specifically, he alleges that voter fraud will result from ballots being intercepted or thrown out by accident; that the system is unfair to the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2020
The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-07020 (S.D.N.Y.)
NS-NY-0026
On September 7, 2016, the New York Times and one of its reporters focusing on national security issues filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act for documents on forced interrogation policy, statistics on the National Security Agency's (NSA) upstream internet surveillance program, and on issues related to discovery in classified terrorism cases. The parties amicably agreed to a document release schedule, and the case closed on October 26, 2017. Of interest in the released documents is the revelation that the government may have been collecting different percentages of communications through upstream surveillance than previously believed.
View Case Detail (NS-NY-0026)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
De Jean v. Nago
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Khistina De Jean, independent presidential candidate, seeks to add her name to the 2020 ballot without meeting the threshold number of petition signatures (4,377) before the August 8 primary.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Ga. Ass’n of Latino Elected Officials v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration and Elections Closed
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 15, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger used CARES Act funds to mail English-only absentee ballots to Georgia's 6.9 million active voters. Plaintiffs challenge this as unlawful under Sections 203 and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Anderson v. Raffensperger
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 22, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The Democratic Party of Georgia, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and three Georgia residents filed suit against several state and local election officials, alleging local election administration policies result in extended waiting times at the polls, deterring citizens from voting ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Grimes v. Fla. Dep’t of State
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
A trio of voters have asked a state court to order Florida officials to send mail-in ballots to all registered voters both for the state's Aug. 11 primary and the November general election. A retired police captain who helps the elderly, an Ocala minister and a Miami man confined to his home have ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Vote Forward et al v. DeJoy et al
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
The lawsuit brings claims focusing on: (1) the delay in the delivery of mail ballots caused by the policy changes, which will place unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote during the ongoing pandemic; and (2) the Postmaster General’s failure to seek approval from the Postal Regulatory ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Robinson v. Bd. of Elections
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Washington DC's Board of Elections closed 14 of 17 polling stations in Ward 8, an area that is over 92% African-American, in response to COVID-19. Plaintiffs claim that since at least 2019, an unknown number of Ward 8 residents have not received mail-in ballots. The voters who do not receive mail- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff political action committee, along with individual plaintiffs, sought to place an initiative on the Nevada November 2020 ballot that would amend Nevada’s State Constitution to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to combat partisan gerrymandering. In light of COVID- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 29, 2020
Cook County Republican Party v. Pritzker
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 18, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Republican Party brought suit challenging Illinois' law SB 1863 which mails a mail-in ballot to every voter who voted in elections in the past 2 years. Plaintiffs allege lead to fraudulent votes being counted, ballots being collected by partisan political operatives who will not turn them in (voter ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Bambenek v. White
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
The named Plaintiffs, who are representatives for two political associations, filed a petition for injunctive relief and declaratory relief of state requirements to put non-binding ballot initiatives on the ballot. They relied on the court's decision in Libertarian Party of Illinois v. Pritzker, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Donald J. Trump for President v. Cegavske
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 23, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs filed their action to enjoin the enforcement of Nevada bill AB4, which expanded the use of mail-in and absentee voting in elections that are impacted by a pandemic or other disaster. The bill would expand absentee voting in the November election. Plaintiffs argue that this will result in ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Reclaim Idaho v. Little
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Reclaim Idaho, a political action committee, is seeking a preliminary injunction in relation to its “Invest in Idaho” educational funding initiative. Under Idaho law, petitioners must meet certain deadlines and requirements, including an 18-month window to collect over 55,000 statewide ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Richardson v. Trump
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=204
Date: Nov. 6, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs are individuals in TX, PA, NY and WI who applied for absentee ballots but did not receive them in the mail. Therefore they were either unable to vote in primay elections or were forced to risk exposure to coronavirus to do so. The compliant spends a good deal of time discussing Trump's ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
La Riva v. D.C. Bd. of Elections
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=155
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
The District of Columbia reduced signature requirements for ballot access for every local and national office other than the office of president. Plaintiffs asserts requiring her to obtain the number of signatures required by the the original legislation (1% of registered voters or5007 signatures) ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Alliance Party v. D.C. Bd. of Elections
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=206
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs are a third party and that third party's candidate for president seek a bar to the D.C. deadline for filing election petitions. D.C. lowered its signature requirements initially for all candidates for office other than those running as independent or third party candidates for president ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
League of Women Voters of Delaware v. Delaware Department of Elections
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=227
Date: Oct. 22, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
This action seeks a declaratory judgment that, under pandemic circumstances, Delaware's Election Day return deadline for mail ballots violates the Elections Clause and Right to Vote Clause of the Delaware Constitution, and an injunction requiring election officials to count votes that are mailed on ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
The Republican State Committee of Delaware v. The State of Delaware Department of Elections
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=215
Date: Oct. 31, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
A new Delaware law allows all voters to vote absentee, regardless of reason. The Delaware Constitution, however, enumerates permissible reasons for voters voting absentee. Plaintiffs claim that the new law, HB 346, violates the Delaware Constitution's limitations on permissible reasons for casting ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=25
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
In May 2020, the Connecticut Secretary of State issued a Memorandum of Opinion that allowed any registered voter with a pre-existing illness to vote by absentee ballot if the illness would prevent the voter from appearing at their designated polling place safely due to COVID-19. The Memorandum of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Libertarian Party of Conn. v. Merrill
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 19, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Libertarian Party and Independent party of Connecticut challenged the State petition requirements for Ballot access for minor parties on the grounds that they create an undue burden on the parties and deprives voters of an effective choice of candidates. The ballot access requirements were modified ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 28, 2020
Fay v. Merrill
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Congressional candidates challenged the Sec. of State's implementation of no-excuse absentee voting due to COVID. Plaintiffs claim that neither the Sec. of State nor the Governor can change absentee voting rules, only legislature. Court held that original jurisdiction proceeding in the Supreme ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2020
Augusto v. Moniz
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-10685 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0024
In this case filed April 7, 2020, after the COVID-19 outbreak, civil immigration detainees at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility (PCCF) requested habeas and injunctive relief in the form of immediate interim release from detention. The plaintiffs claimed that the health and safety measures being taken by PCCF were insufficient to curb the spread of the virus and protect the health and safety of detainees within the facility. On June 8, the court certified a class of "all civil immigration detainees who are Petitioners in this action (i.e., who signed the original petition) or are otherwise presently detained in Unit C-3 at the PCCF." The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2020
Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-04834 (E.D.N.Y.)
PR-NY-0010
A group of Orthodox Jewish synagogues brought this lawsuit against the Governor of New York on October 8, 2020, alleging that the governor's restrictions on gatherings in light of surges in COVID-19 cases violated the Free Exercise Clause. After the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, they appealed to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the injunction in part to block the enforcement of the executive order's attendance caps pending the outcome of the appeal in the Second Circuit. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0010)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 27, 2020
Conn. State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. Merrill
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
After Connecticut adjusted its mail voting requirements only for the August primary, the Plaintiff brought this action for failing to allow mail voting for all residents in the upcoming November election. The Plaintiff alleges that Connecticut's narrow absentee voting requirements violate Section 2 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 27, 2020
Schneider v. Griswold
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
The El Paso County Republican Party held its County Assembly online on March 22, 2020. The party instructed delegates to submit their votes to nominate candidates to a specific email address. In the middle of the voting period, however, the party experienced a technical issue and had to re-direct ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 27, 2020
Smith v. Dewine
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-2471 (S.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0036
On May 15, 2020, four prisoners filed this putative class action lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, claiming violations of the Sixth and Eighth Amendments and the Ohio Constitution. The court denied the plaintiffs' demand for a preliminary injunction on August 3, 2020 and the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal on November 13, 2020.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0036)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 26, 2020
Ritchie v. Polis
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
On May 15, 2020, the Governor issued an executive order to temporarily suspend requirements that govern ballot issue petitions to minimize the risks of COVID-19. The Order suspends certain provisions from Title 1, Article 40 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, including one that requires a petition ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 25, 2020
Garcia v. Griswold
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 16, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs Garcia and her campaign organization filed a complaint to place Garcia on the 2020 Democratic Primary ballot as a candidate for US Senate. Defendant Secretary of State determined that plaintiff had collected 89.5% of the required number of valid signatures. Plaintiff alleged that the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 25, 2020
Bray v. Griswold
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 5, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Diana Bray petitioned the Court seeking to be placed on the 2020 Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Senate after Defendant Colorado Secretary of State issued a Statement of Insufficiency of signatures Bray had collected for her petition to be on the ballot. Bray sought the following ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 25, 2020
Sangiacomo v. Padilla
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Proponents of ballot initiative seek a suspension or extension of the usual 180-day deadline for collecting petition signatures for such an initiative. They allege that COVID restrictions have impeded their ability to collect signatures, and that a failure to relax the deadline would, among other ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 25, 2020
Macarro v. Padilla
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Proponents of ballot initiative seek a suspension or extension of the usual 180-day deadline for collecting petition signatures for such an initiative. They allege that COVID restrictions have impeded their ability to collect signatures, and that a failure to relax the deadline would, among other ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 25, 2020
RNC v. Newsom
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
California Republicans have filed a pair of similar federal lawsuits seeking to block Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's order to send mail ballots to all California voters for the November general election. One suit was brought by the RNC, NRCC, and the California Republican Party ("RNC Plaintiffs") ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 25, 2020
Kishore v. Newsom
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 6, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Third party candidates (Socialist Equality Party) allege that deadline and signature-threshold requirements for ballot access, as applied to them under the current pandemic circumstances, effectively prevent their addition to the ballot and therefore violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Gallagher v. Newsom
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 19, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs challenge the Governor's Executive Orders which alter legislative acts defining "choices voters have with regard to voting and the places and manner of casting votes" and argue that this is an overreach of executive authority.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Fugazi v. Padilla
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
In the San Joaquin County Presidential Primary Election, the first and second place candidates continue to the general election. In the March 3, 2020 election, the third-place finisher and named plaintiff, Ms. Fugazi, requested a recount and also to prevent that recount from being completed without ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Eilenberg v. City of Colton
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Nov. 5, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff is managing the effort to get an initiative (allowing food trucks in the City of Colton, CA) on the City's 11/20 ballot. The California Elections Code requires local initiative proponents to gather and submit signatures within 180 days. Plaintiff alleges that he began the signature ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Common Sense Party v. Padilla
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs of the Common Sense Party (CSP), a political “party-in-formation” challenge the constitutionality of the California Elections Code §5151 (c) as it applies to them. The code requires new political parties to secure 68,180 voter registrations in order to qualify for the November 2020 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Cal. Republican Party v. Newsom
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 4, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
After Governor Newsom’s executive order required all non-essential workers to stay home (“Stay at Home Order” of March 19), the California Republican Party (CAGOP) sought declaratory judgment as to whether ballot harvesters are to be considered "essential employees" within the meaning of the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Blankenship v. Newsom
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
According to their summary as of 11/05/2020,
In California, nomination papers for an independent nominee for President must be circulated for signatures and receive the signatures of 1% of the statewide registered voters for the nominee to appear on the ballot. California issued social
...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Miller v. Thurston
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs, who seek to place a constitutional amendment on the Arkansas ballot, filed suit alleging Arkansas' ballot access requirements are unconstitutional as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. They allege the orders and warnings relating to the pandemic make it impossible for Plaintiffs to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
LWV of Ala. v. Merrill
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: 09/12/2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Facts: The LWVAL and plaintiff voters filed suit over the state’s lack of safe and accessible voting processes amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Claims: (1) Expiration of Secretary of State’s emergency waiver of ‘no-excuse’ absentee voting is violation of the fundamental right to vote under ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
Baker v. Thurston
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 1, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs (Arkansas residents) filed suit against Arkansas Sec. of State challenging the State's limitations on eligibility to vote absentee. Arkansas law permits absentee voting only by those who fall into one of four statutorily defined categories: (i) “Any person who will be unavoidably ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2020
di Genova-Chang v. Ducey
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 5, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Citing multiple federal laws (Public Health & Welfare, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Help America Vote Act 2002, National Voter Registration Act of 1993; Voting Accessibility for the Elderly & Handicapped Act of 1984), Plaintiff (Arizona resident) filed suit against Arizona's ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Yazzie et al v. Hobbs
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 31, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs allege that state law requiring that mailed ballots be received, not postmarked, before 7PM on Election Day to be counted is unconstitutional given unique circumstances for Navajo Nation, COVID-19, and USPS reorganizational issues.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: September 23, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Alaska LT. governor and Division of Elections only mailed absentee ballots to registered voters over age 65. Plaintiffs allege intentional age discrimination that violates Alaska Constitution, the 1st, 14th and 26th Amendments of the US Constitution, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Case ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Arctic Village Council vs. Meyer, Kevin
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: October 15, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiffs argue that the notarization/witness requirement for mail-in ballots leaves self-isolated, immunocomprimised citizens with an untenable choice between risking their health to vote and not voting at all. Plaintiffs ask for the court to grant injunctive and declaratory relief, ordering ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 23, 2020
Hoffard v. Cochise Cnty., No. 4:20-cv-00243 (D. Ariz.)
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: November 7, 2020
By: Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Plaintiff is an individual with severe physical disabilities which limit her ability to stand, walk, etc. and her medication suppresses her immune system (which makes her particularly susceptible to Covid-19). Plaintiff participated in curbside voting in Cochise County prior to the November 2018 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 21, 2020
US Supreme Court Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1201.html
By: Supreme Court of the United States
Keith Preston Gartenlaub, Petitioner v. United States*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 21, 2020
Whitfield v. Thurston
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 7, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs are independent candidates for public office in Arkansas seeking access to the Arkansas ballot. They filed suit against the Secretary of State of Arkansas, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Arkansas prohibiting the enforcement of ballot access provisions setting May 1, 202 ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 21, 2020
De La Fuente v. Hobbs
Healthy Elections Project
Date: Oct. 29, 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiffs Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente, the 2020 nominee of the Alliance Party for the Office of President of the United States and the Alliance Party filed this lawsuit against Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arizona. The plaintiff’s seek injunctive and ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2020
Lopez v. Riveland
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:93-cv-01030 (W.D. Wash.)
PC-WA-0023
This § 1983 suit was filed in 1993 by Spanish-speaking prisoners at the Washington State Reformatory in Monroe, which, contrary to policy, did not have materials available in Spanish. The parties settled in 1995, and the defendants agreed to make materials in Spanish available over a period of 18 months, after which, their agreement would be enforced for 12 months. The enforcement period ran without any further docket activity, and the case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PC-WA-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2020
NAACP v. Department of Commerce
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01682 (D. Conn.)
PB-CT-0014
In 2017, the NAACP filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Dept. of Commerce for failure to provide it with records under the FOIA concerning its preparations for the 2020 census. The plaintiffs alleged the Census Bureau was failing to adhere to deadlines, failing to confirm certain requests, and refusing to disclose documents in a timely manner in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552 and 15 C.F.R § 4.6. In 2019, the parties reached a settlement that required disclosure of the documents within several weeks and awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. The case likely closed in September 2019.
View Case Detail (PB-CT-0014)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 19, 2020
DNC v. Reagan (also titled Feldman v. Arizona Sec'y of State)
https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=184
Date: Sep. 1, 2020
By: Stanford University
Plaintiff registered voters sued state and county officials alleging that the allocation of polling locations discriminated against Hispanics and African Americans in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 19, 2020
Garcia Ramirez, Et Al. v. ICE, Et Al.
National Immigrant Justice Center
Date: Jul. 2, 2020
By: National Immigrant Justice Center
Garcia Ramirez et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., is a nationwide class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for transferring unaccompanied minors who reach their 18th birthdays to ICE adult ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 19, 2020
Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs
Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
Date: Sep. 13, 2020
By: COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker
Arizona law permits all registered voters to submit mail-in ballots. Arizona's Elections Procedures Manual establishes a cure period, between 3 and 5 Business Days after an election (depending on the type of election), for the cure of signature mismatches on mail-in ballots. In the case of a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2020
James v. Global TelLink Corp.
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-04989 (D.N.J.)
PC-NJ-0026
In 2013 New Jersey prisoners and their loved ones filed this class action complaint against Global Tel*Link, a major prison telecommunications provider, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants high billing rates and unjust billing practices violated New Jersey law, the Federal Communications act, and the Fifth Amendment's Takings clause through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In October of 2020, the parties reached a settlement in which the defendants agreed to pay $25 million to the plaintiffs and other class members. This case remains open for settlement enforcement purposes.
View Case Detail (PC-NJ-0026)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 17, 2020
Coronavirus Order For Miami Detention Facility Dashed on Appeal
Bloomberg Law
Date: Jun. 15, 2020
By: Porter Wells
A jail within the Miami-Dade County system doesn’t have to abide by the coronavirus-related requirements of a trial court’s order, a split Eleventh Circuit said Monday.

*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 17, 2020
Alaska Libertarian Party v. Fenumiai
Healthy Elections Project
Date: 2020
By: Healthy Elections Project
Plaintiff, the Libertarian party, sought a waiver of the signature requirements to get on ballot, citing COVID restrictions, claiming violation First, Fifth, Fourteen Amendments. Court held a preliminary hearing and noted it was likely going to deny the request for injunctive relief, noting that ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2020
Anderson v. Garner
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:96-cv-00322 (N.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0016
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-GA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2020
Banks v. Booth
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00849 (D.D.C.)
JC-DC-0015
On March 30, 2020, detainees in D.C. jails filed this lawsuit on behalf of all the detainees in D.C. jails in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They sought immediate relief for 1,600-plus detainees at the D.C. jail and its adjacent custodial treatment facility in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, the plaintiffs requested the immediate release of individuals sentenced for misdemeanors, who number nearly 100, immediate appointment of an expert to recommend further releases, and the implementation of 18 precautionary measures in the D.C. Jail. On June 18, the district court granted in part the preliminary injunction and ordered defendants to provide a detailed plan for the review and possible reductions of the DOC population by July 1. On June 18, the district court granted the preliminary injunction in part but refused to order releases. On July 16, the defendants moved to vacate the preliminary injunction and also appealed to the D.C. Circuit. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-DC-0015)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 15, 2020
G.T. v. Kanawha County
bazelon.org
Date: Jan. 27, 2020
By: Bazelon Center
January 27, 2020 – The Bazelon Center and other advocates represent The Arc of West Virginia and parents of an autistic child in a class action in federal court in Charleston, West Virginia, alleging widespread failures by Kanawha County Schools (KCS) to educate children with disabilities, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2020
Porter v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00763-MPK (W.D. Pa.)
PC-PA-0051
On July 5, 2017, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution in Greene County, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by public interest organizations, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. He claimed that the defendants keeping him in solitary confinement despite his perfect disciplinary record in DOC custody and well after his death sentence was vacated in 2003 was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and violated the plaintiff's rights to liberty, equal protection, and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on August 8, 2017, which was denied on September 15. The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on November 9, 2018. On September 1, 2020, the appeals court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the substantive due process and Eighth Amendment claims, and the appeals court reversed summary judgment for the procedural due process claim and remanded the case to the district court to determine damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. 974 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2020). This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-PA-0051)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2020
McPherson v. Lamont
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00534 (D. Conn.)
PC-CT-0022
On April 20, 2020, five individuals held at the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) filed a class action, alleging that the conditions of confinement posed an unreasonable risk of COVID-19 in violation of detainees’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied on May 4, the court noting that the normal grievance process is “practically . . . incapable of use” for COVID-19 purposes due to the imminent health threat it poses. The class was certified on June 12. On July 17, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for a variety of specific mitigation measures to improve COVID-19-related sanitation, hygiene, testing, and medical monitoring at every Connecticut DOC facility, and discretionary release that prioritizes prisoners who are 65 or older, or with a medical score of 4 or 5. The agreement was approved and the case was dismissed on July 22.
View Case Detail (PC-CT-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2020
K.O. v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:18-cv-40149 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0022
In 2018, a a group of child Plaintiffs who were forcibly separated from their parents and detained, filed a class action on behalf of similarly situated children across the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump Administration's policy of separating migrant children from their parents violated the children's due process rights and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The case was dismissed in Massachusetts and transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DC District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on June 23, 2020. The plaintiffs appealed. The case is ongoing as of November 5, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2020
Kiakombua v. McAleenan
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-01872 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0062
In 2019, IRAP, on the behalf of five asylum seekers, filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that a set of instructions issued by the Trump administration were designed to turn back as many asylum seekers as possible and violated the credible fear process and their due process rights. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin ICE from continuing to apply these instructions during the credible fear process. On October 31, 2020, Judge Jackson granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0062)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 13, 2020
Migrant Justice, et al. v. Nielsen, et al.
National Immigration Law Center
Date: 2020
By: National Immigration Law Center
ICE, DHS, and Vermont DMV retaliating against activist immigrant leaders.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2020
Central American Resource Center v. Cuccinelli
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02363 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0088
Immigrants with Temporary Protected Status filed suit to enjoin USCIS from implementing a new policy that would block their route to permanent residency status. Plaintiffs argued the policy violated the INA and equal protection, and that its implementation violated the APA, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the appointments clause. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0088)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2020
Hawkins v. HUD
Case Category: Public Housing
Trial Docket: 8:90-cv-55 (D. Neb.)
PH-NE-0001
On February 2, 1990, four public housing residents filed a class action lawsuit against the Omaha Housing Authority (OHA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the City of Omaha. They alleged that the manner in which federal housing assistance programs were administered in Omaha was discriminatory and served to maintain a system of racially segregated housing. They agreed to a settlement on January 21, 1994. The settlement agreement included “the demolition and replacement of public housing units, issuance of new Section 8 subsidies, establishment of a housing mobility program, and inspections of properties accepting Section 8 subsidies.” By October 1998, four of the five elements had been satisfied, and only replacement housing was left undone. On February 2, 2005, the parties modified the settlement, and by November 17, 2005, the settlement was satisfied in its entirety. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PH-NE-0001)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 12, 2020
Evidence Shows Montgomery Residents Were Illegally Jailed for Inability to Pay Fines
Public Justice
Date: Jul. 16, 2020
By: Leslie Bailey
The City of Montgomery, Alabama and its contractor, for-profit probation company Judicial Correction Services, “pocket[ed] millions” while knowingly “perpetuating a cycle of debt and unlawful imprisonment.” That’s how federal judge Royce Lamberth described the system under which hundreds ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2020
Migrant Justice v. Nielsen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:18-cv-00192 (D. Vt.)
IM-VT-0002
In 2018, Migrant Justice and four individual members of the organization filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Plaintiffs alleged that the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) implemented retaliatory policies in response to their activism on behalf of immigrant farm workers, including extensive surveillance and false imprisonment, in violation of their First Amendment Rights and that the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) aided these practices by consistently and intentionally sharing personally identifying information about the plaintiffs with ICE in a manner that violated their Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights. On January 21, 2020, the plaintiffs and the DMV settled, and the DMV agreed to implement new protocols to protect against disclosing immigration and citizenship information with ICE. The plaintiffs then settled with the remaining defendants on October 28, 2020. The settlement agreement included $100,000 in damages, deferred action for the plaintiffs so they would not be deported, and ICE informing its employees that all immigrants are protected by the First Amendment.
View Case Detail (IM-VT-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2020
Schultz v. Alabama
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00270-MHH (N.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0022
This is a federal class action lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging Alabama’s bail system. The plaintiffs argued that indigent defendants are routinely jailed pretrial due to their inability to afford a predetermined bail bond required for release, which the plaintiffs allege deprives indigent defendants of their right to due process, equal protection, pretrial liberty and the protection against excessive bail. On February 21, 2017 and in multiple amended and intervenor complaints thereafter, plaintiffs brought suit against the State of Alabama, a number of court administrative offices and personnel, the sheriff, and a number of magistrate and district judges. The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Civil Rights Corps joined in the suit seeking to end the allegedly unlawful detention scheme. The case proceeded before Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala through discovery. On September 4, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining the Cullman County Sheriff from detaining indigent defendants who cannot afford to post a property bond or a surety bond as a condition of pretrial release. The following day, the court denied the Sherriff’s motion to dismiss, originally filed on March 28, 2018. The following week, on September 13, 2018, the defendants filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, appealing the judgment on the preliminary injunction and the order dismissing the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss. The court did not stay the preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeal. As of November 2020, the appeal on the preliminary injunction remains ongoing. Oral argument is scheduled for December 16, 2020. The district court case also remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2020
Carter v. City of Montgomery
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-00555 (M.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0021
The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of indigent individuals who have been incarcerated or sentenced by the Montgomery Municipal Court to probation with Judicial Correction Services, Inc. (“JCS”) for failure to pay fines, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on August 3, 2015. Represented by The Evans Law Firm, P.C., the plaintiff sued the City of Montgomery, an attorney hired by the City, and JCS under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3)-(4). The plaintiff alleged that the City exceeded its authority under Alabama law by requiring the municipal court to attach probation and fees to all court orders, even orders to pay fines. The plaintiff also alleged that the City violated the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by allowing JCS, a private party hired by the City, to imprison indigent offenders for failing to pay fines without giving them a hearing or effective assistance of counsel. Lastly, the plaintiff alleged that the attorney hired by the City failed to provide the plaintiff with adequate counsel. The plaintiff requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and demanded that the Court void the contract between the City and JCS. The plaintiff also asked the Court to enjoin the City from outsourcing fine collection and probation services to a private party. Finally, the plaintiff sought damages for himself and all class members. The case was assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Although the Court declined to certify the class and dismissed many of the plaintiff’s claims, this case is ongoing, and many of the plaintiff’s due process, equal protection, and Sixth Amendment claims against the City and JCS remain.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0021)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 8, 2020
Chalmers v. New York
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03389 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0297
Fire protection inspectors (FPIs) and associate fire protection inspectors brought this class action suit against the Fire Department of New York (FDNY), alleging racial discrimination. The plaintiffs argued that FDNY racially discriminates against FPIs and associate fire protection inspectors by compensating them less than building inspectors (BIs), who perform similar tasks to fire protection inspectors. BIs are 50% white, while 30% of FPIs are white. The plaintiffs filed suit for disparate impact under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and disparate treatment under Title VII and under the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs also brought disparate impact claims for the subclass under Title VII and the New York city Human Rights Law. The case is currently in discovery, with a case management conference set for 3/15/2021.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0297)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2020
County of Butler v. Wolf
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00677 (W.D. Pa.)
PR-PA-0002
In May 2020, Pennsylvania residents, counties, and businesses filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations regarding the state's COVID-19 shutdown orders. On September 14, 2020, the court granted declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs, finding violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. An appeal to the Third Circuit by the defendants is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-PA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2020
Baker v. Florissant
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:16-cv-01693 (E.D. Mo.)
CJ-MO-0024
On October 31st, 2016, a group of Plaintiffs who had been jailed for their inability to pay fines owed to the City of Florissant, Missouri for traffic tickets or other minor municipal offenses, sued the City for this violation of due process. This case is still in the discovery stage and has been ongoing for four years.
View Case Detail (CJ-MO-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 5, 2020
In re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Orders Requiring the Production of Call Detail Records
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0141
On December 31, 2015, Judge Thomas Hogan released a memorandum opinion analyzing a U.S. government Verified Application for Orders Requiring the Production of Call Detail Records in accordance with Sections 101 and 103 of the USA FREEDOM Act, which came into force shortly after the application was granted on November 30, 2015. This was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's (FISC) first opportunity to analyze the new sections; Section 103 "requires that a specific selection term . . . be used as the basis for the production of tangible things sought," and Section 101 sets distinct requirements for call detail records provided on an ongoing basis. The FISC granted the application, redacting many of the identifying details from the application. The case is presumed to be closed.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0141)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 4, 2020
Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-05883-JSW (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0170
This case is about the legality of a rule change by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule, for the first time in U.S. history, would charge all asylum seekers a non-waivable fee of $50 plus $580 to obtain their first employment authorization. Eight non-profit organizations that provided a variety of services for low income applicants for immigration benefits sued to enjoin enforcement of the rule. On August 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Jeffery S. White granted the motion on September 29, 2020 and stayed the rule's effective date pending resolution on the merits.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0170)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 3, 2020
Lewis v. Cain (Angola Medical)
laaclu.org
Date: Apr. 1, 2020
By: American Civil Liberties Union
In May 2015, the ACLU of Louisiana, along with The Promise of Justice Initiative (PJI), the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Cohen Milstein), and the Advocacy Center (AC), filed a complaint against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) and Angola’s wardens ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 3, 2020
J.N. v. Oregon Department of Education
youthlaw.org
Date: Sep. 2, 2020
By: National Center for Youth Law
The State of Oregon has effectively denied hundreds of children with disabilities the opportunity to attend school for a full day, in violation of federal laws, the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act.

Children ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2020
Hernandez v. Houston
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:16-cv-03577 (S.D. Tex.)
CJ-TX-0019
In 2016, individuals who had been arrested without warrants and held by Houston city police for longer than 48 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause filed this class action lawsuit against the City of Houston. The plaintiffs alleged that this was a violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In 2020, the parties reached a settlement providing the plaintiffs with financial compensation in exchange for indemnity for the City of Houston.
View Case Detail (CJ-TX-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2020
Criswell v. Boudreaux
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01048 (E.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0144
In July 2020, incarcerated individuals and a criminal defense advocacy nonprofit filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the Tulare County Sheriff's Office violated their First, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Provisional class certification and a temporary restraining order was granted in part on September 2, 2020. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0144)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 2, 2020
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance File Suit Against Trump Administration; African American Policy Forum Launches #TruthBeTold Campaign
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Date: Oct. 29, 2020
By: NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Today, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the National Urban League (NUL), and the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” on the grounds that it ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 2, 2020
Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”
PACER
Date: Jul. 28, 2020
By: Chad F Wolf
On June 15, 2012, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano established the policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) through a memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” Ever since, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Bayley's Campground, Inc v. Mills
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00176 (D. Me.)
PR-ME-0001
On May 25, 2020, several rural campgrounds and individuals wishing to travel to Maine filed this suit against Governor Mills in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Plaintiffs challenged Maine's executive orders, which required individuals traveling into Maine to self-quarantine for 14 days, alleging that the orders violated their right to interstate travel, as well as their due process and equal protection rights. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest suggesting that the executive orders likely violated plaintiffs' right to interstate travel. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the plaintiffs appealed on June 1 and moved for reconsideration. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and the case was stayed on June 8. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-ME-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Hallinan v. Scarantino
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:20-hc-02088 (E.D.N.C.)
PC-NC-0020
Individuals incarcerated at FCI Butner filed this class action, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement due to inadequate protection from COVID-19. They sought release and improved social-distancing and hygiene measures. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and writ of habeas corpus on June 11, 2020. On June 29, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.
View Case Detail (PC-NC-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
National Urban League v. Trump
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03121 (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0023
This is a case about President Trump's executive order that prohibits racial sensitivity training in federal agencies, contractors, and grant recipients. On October 29, 2020, the National Urban League and National Fair Housing Alliance filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, the Secretary of Labor, and the Department of Labor, seeking an injunction, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. They claimed that the executive order violated freedom of speech under the First Amendment by denying benefits to private entities that express ideas the Trump Administration doesn't like. The plaintiffs also argued that the executive order violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the order was too vague and created with an intent to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and/or gender. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FA-DC-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Southern Poverty Law Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00760-CKK (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0046
This suit, filed on April 4, 2018, challenged the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy and practice of deliberately keeping detainees in immigration prisons from access to legal resources. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) brought the suit, arguing that DHS created and maintained substantial barriers for detainees in immigration prisons to meaningful access to and communication with attorneys. SPLC argued that in so doing, DHS violated Fifth Amendment due process with respect to SPLC's clients as well as SPLC's First Amendment right to represent civil detainees. SPLC sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2020, SPLC sought a temporary restraining order in response to COVID-19, and the court partly granted this motion. Defendants have appealed the grant of the temporary restraining order to the D.C. Circuit and litigation remains ongoing in the district court.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 2, 2020
Waddell v. Taylor
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00340-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss.)
PC-MS-0011
On May 14, 2020, plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit to challenge the Mississippi Department of Corrections's ("MDOC") inadequate response to the COVID-19 outbreak at Mississippi's two largest prisons: Central Mississippi Correctional Facility ("CMCF") and South Mississippi Correctional Institute ("SMCI"). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that MDOC's failure to adequately implement baseline protection measures at CMCF and SMCI violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 on May 25, but later withdrew the motion and moved to stay the proceedings on September 15. The parties then entered settlement negotiations and the next status conference was set for February 22, 2021.
View Case Detail (PC-MS-0011)


LINKS TO THE CLEARINGHOUSE
November 1, 2020
Argument by Raymond Vasvari in Hanrahan v. Mohr 8-3-2018 Sixth circuit
Prison Radio
Date: Aug. 7, 2018
By: Raymond Vasvari
This is a recorded opinion from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirms the judgment of the Southern District Court of Ohio in the case of Hanrahan v. Mohr. The appeals court affirms the district court's finding in favor of the defendants, which dismissed the case after the defendant (Ohio ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
Hanrahan v. Mohr
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-01212 (S.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0035
In 2013, prisoners involved in the 1993 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) prison uprising and media outlets filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs sued the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and ODRC's Communications Chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In 2017, summary judgment was granted against four of the prisoners and the SOCF approved all of the media plaintiff’s requests to interview the remaining prisoner plaintiff. The District Court dismissed the case on mootness, the plaintiffs appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
J.N. v. Oregon Board of Education
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 6:19-cv-00096-AA (D. Or.)
ED-OR-0002
In this case, a 6-year-old plaintiff brought a class action suit against the Oregon Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs had been deprived of their right to a free appropriate public education and had been subject to shortened school days, which hindered their learning and social relationships. After the filing of the initial complaint, the parties participated in settlement talks; however, they did not reach an agreement. In September 2020, the presiding Judge Ann L. Aiken denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged standing. Oral argument regarding the motion to certify the class and memorandum in support is set for November 15, 2020. The case remains open.
View Case Detail (ED-OR-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
Lewis v. Cain
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-00318 (M.D. La.)
PC-LA-0015
In 2015, inmates currently incarcerated at Louisiana State Penitentiary filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the Louisiana State Penitentiary and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The class was certified on February 26, 2018, and settlement discussions are in progress.
View Case Detail (PC-LA-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2020
Malam v. Adducci
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-10829 (E.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0006
In March 2020, during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Michigan, a civil immigration detainee critically vulnerable to the infectious disease filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff filed a habeas petition, suing ICE and its directors for violation of her constitutional rights. The plaintiff argued that continued detention in the face of a potential outbreak in the detention facility, which would expose the plaintiff to substantial harm, amounted to punishment and failed to ensure their safety and health, in violation of the Due Process Clause. On April 5, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order seeking immediate release from the detention center. On April 9, the court also granted an intervenor's motion for temporary restraining order and required him to be released immediately. After issuing five injunctions for thirteen detainees, the court on July 31 granted class certification. The court established a class of immigrant detainees at Calhoun and a subclass seeking habeas release of those detainees who faced one or more medical problems that increased risk of serious illness or death. The court then instituted procedures for processing bail applications from detainees qualifying as members of the subclass. On August 4, Judge Levy issued an order establishing bail hearing procedures for the members of the habeas litigation subclass. On August 19, Judge Levy issued an order amending the class and habeas litigation group definition to include detainees with functionally identical claims who had individually applied for release and were no longer in custody, but still faced re-detention should their order or injunction expire or be overturned. Between September 28 and October 22, Judge Levy issued four orders granting bail applications for six detainees, noting that Calhoun County Correctional Facility at that time had twelve positive cases for COVID-19. After notice of positive cases in the facility, the court required the defendants to produce a public health plan, which ultimately included testing and social distancing measures. The defendants appealed the releases on October 2. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-MI-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2020
Carranza v. ICE
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00424 (D.N.M.)
IM-NM-0002
On May 4, 2020, two individuals in ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody sued ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. They claimed that restrictions to telephone access by impsing costs and denying access to incoming calls during the COVID-19 pandemic when in-person visitations have been rendered impossible is unconstitutional. Specifically, they alleged that their Fifth and First Amendment rights had been violated by preventing communication with counsel, denying their right to legal representation, and other resources critical to support their cases. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NM-0002)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 30, 2020
Frequently Asked Questions About Gomez v. Trump
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Date: Oct. 21, 2020
By: American Immigration Lawyers Association
AILA, the Justice Action Center, and the Innovation Law Lab provide a resource for those with questions regarding the Gomez v. Trump litigation against President Trump’s proclamations banning immigrants and nonimmigrants; these FAQs will be updated with information on the case.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 30, 2020
Status of Current Challenges to Presidential Proclamations
Joseph & Hall P.C.
Date: Aug. 4, 2020
By: Joseph & Hall P.C.
On April 22, 2020 and June 22, 2020 President Trump signed two Presidential Proclamations suspending the entry of certain immigrants, those applying for permanent residence, and nonimmigrants, those coming to the United States temporarily for work. These Proclamations have had massive impacts on ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 30, 2020
2020 DV Lottery Information Page
Law Office of Curtis Morrison
Date: Oct. 29, 2020
By: Curtis Morrison Law
Gomez Docket (that includes Mohammed, Aker, Fonjong and Kennedy filings after August 7, 2020)*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2020
Chua v. City of Los Angeles
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS(x) (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0046
Protestors in downtown LA alleged they were unlawfully detained, searched, interrogated, and some arrested during demonstrations in November, 2014. They brought a class action lawsuit against the City alleging violations of their 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights, as well as California state rights. A settlement was reached on May 11, 2020, granting plaintiffs $750,000 of attorney's fees, court fees, and class damages.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2020
Cervantes v. Baldwin
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: Civil No. 92-70-JE (D. Or.)
PC-OR-0010
On January 21, 1992, an Oregon state prisoner brought suit against the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution for allegedly segregating Hispanic prisoners in celling. The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and a settlement agreement was given final approval on August 28, 1996.
View Case Detail (PC-OR-0010)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 29, 2020
NAACP Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc. V. U.S. Department Of Justice
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Date: Oct. 12, 2018
By: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
On January 15, 2019, in a case brought by other groups, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York ruled against the Trump administration’s plan to add a citizenship status question to the 2020 census, rejecting the administration’s transparent attempts to deceptively ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 29, 2020
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund v. United States Dep't of Justice
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
Date: Jul. 14, 2020
By: Brennan Center for Justice
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to compel the Department of Justice to release documents related to its request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 29, 2020
Housing Settlement
Westchester County
Date: Aug. 9, 2010
By: Westchester County
In 2009, Westchester County entered into a stipulation and order with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to increase its efforts to affirmatively further fair and affordable housing. Among other things, the agreement required Westchester build 750 units of affordable housing in 31 ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v. Executive Office of Immigration Review
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00852 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0072
In March 2020, during the outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States, immigrant detainees and organizations comprised of immigration attorneys filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued EOIR, ICE, and their directors for violations of statutory and constitutional rights. The plaintiffs challenged defendants' failure to implement a uniform policy suspending in-person court appearances and provide for remote communications. In April, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, seeking the suspension of in-person court appearances and access to remote communications. The court denied this motion in late April. On June 2, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0072)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
N.S. v. Hughes
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-101 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0085
In January 2020, an individual detained by the U.S. Marshals Services (USMS) sued the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia Superior Court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by a public defender, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff alleged that the USMS lacked authority to enforce immigration law. On May 7, 2020, the court preliminarily enjoined the USMS from seizing individuals for suspected civil immigration violations and certified a class of indigent criminal defendants detained by the USMS. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0085)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
In re [redacted], a U.S. Person
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: PR-TT 15-52 (FISC)
NS-DC-0140
On June 18, 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) denied appointment of an amicus for a June 16, 2015 application for a pen register/tap and trace (PR/TT) warrant. The government was seeking a retroactive Emergency Authorization of this particular warrant, and due to the time-sensitive nature of Emergency Authorization and the newness of the recently passed USA FREEDOM Act, finding eligible amici and allowing them to write a compelling brief would not be possible. The outcome of the authorization request was not publicly disclosed.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0140)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2020
Murray v. Santa Barbara
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-08805 (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0129
This 2017 class action lawsuit was brought by several prisoners of the Santa Barbara County Jail in the U.S. District for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs' alleged that the defendant violated the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. The plaintiffs were granted class certification and the parties agreed to a settlement in plaintiffs' favor in 2020. The defendants agreed to implement a remedial plan to provide adequate mental health and medical care, limit use of solitary confinement, prevent discrimination against people with disabilities, and improve living conditions for people incarcerated at the jail.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0129)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2020
NAACP v. DOJ
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-09363 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0037
This is a case about a FOIA request concerning the Department of Justice's role in requesting to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. On December 12, 2018, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the Department of Justice. The plaintiff sought to compel the DOJ to disclose the requested records in addition to injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff claimed that the DOJ violated FOIA by failing to adequately respond to the FOIA request. On May 29, 2020, the court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the DOJ to conduct an adequate search. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2020
Rodriguez v. Hayes
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:07-cv-03239-TJH (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0063
On May 16, 2007, an immigration detainee who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing while in removal proceedings petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the Department of Homeland Security was violating his Due Process rights and the INA. A class of detainees was eventually certified. On September 13, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction that requires the government to provide bond hearings to those detained according to INA sections 1225(b) and 1226(c). On February 8, 2013, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, requiring the government to hold bond hearings for all current and future class members by their 181st day of detention. The Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the District Court, except with respect to non-citizens who had been ordered removed, as they were not class members. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and issue an opinion on February 27, 2018, reversing the Ninth Circuit's ruling as to the plaintiffs' claims that the INA required bond hearings after six months. The Supreme Court remanded to the Ninth Circuit for consideration of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims and for a reexamination of whether class certification continues to be proper. The Ninth Circuit then remanded those issues to the District Court. On July 11, 2019, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add a new plaintiff, reassert a statutory claim that had not been appealed previously, and add an Eighth Amendment claim. In November, the District Court dismissed the newly-added plaintiff and revived statutory claim. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0063)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 27, 2020
M.B. V. Howard
National Center for Youth Law
Date: 2020
By: National Center for Youth Law
Kansas’s child welfare system is failing to protect the safety and well-being of foster children and youth in the custody of the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF). This lawsuit addresses two fundamental systemic failures creating this danger.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 26, 2020
National Urban League v. Ross
Brennan Center for Justice
Date: Aug. 14, 2020
By: Brennan Center
The National Urban League is leading a coalition of counties, cities, advocacy organizations, and individuals in a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the U.S. Census Bureau’s Covid-19 plans and rush the data-collection and data-processing timelines for the 2020 Census ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 26, 2020
Farber v. Rizzo
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 72-2052 (E.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0020
In October of 1972, several protesters gathered near Independence Hall in Philadelphia. President Nixon was to arrive the next day in order to sign the Revenue Sharing Act. The protesters were upset with the United States' continued involvement in Vietnam. They were told they would have to surrender their placards and signs if they wanted to stay. When they refused, the Philadelphia police arrested them. Police involvement continued even after a federal court issued a temporary restraining order allowing the protest, which led to this successful petition to hold certain police officials liable for contempt of court.
View Case Detail (PN-PA-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 26, 2020
National Urban League v. Ross
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-05799 (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0056
On August 18, 2020, a coalition of counties, cities, Indian tribes, advocacy organizations, and individuals sued the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department Secretary, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Bureau Director in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by abandoning the Bureau’s Covid-19 plans and pursuing a “rush plan” that would truncate 2020 Census timelines, undercount communities of color, and produce inaccurate census results. The plaintiffs asked the Court to declare the rush plan unconstitutional under the Enumeration Clause and unlawful under the APA; to vacate the rush plan and reinstate the Covid-19 Plan; and to enjoin the defendants from implementing the rush plan or otherwise interfering with the Covid-19 plan. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay and for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited defendants from implementing the rush plan. After several appeals, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction, allowing the Census Bureau to cease its counting operations in accordance with the rush plan. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0056)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 25, 2020
Trump v. New York
Supreme Court of the United States
Date: Oct. 20, 2020
By: Supreme Court of the United States
SCOTUS Docket*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 25, 2020
M.B. v. Colyer
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-02617 (D. Kan.)
CW-KS-0002
In 2018, children in the foster care system of Kansas filed a class action suit against the Governor, the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF), the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services. The children had experienced dozens and even hundreds of moves during their time in the system, and the state had failed to fulfill its requirements to provide screening and treatment for mental and behavioral conditions. The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Medicaid Act. The parties reached a settlement in July 2020, which offered comprehensive relief for class members and required the state to take systemic action to end practices harming children's health. The court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in September, 2020. The final approval hearing is set for January 2021.
View Case Detail (CW-KS-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 25, 2020
Millien v Madison Square Garden Co.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-04000-AJN-SLC (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0299
In April 2017, an individual denied employment sued The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P. (MSG) in New York County Supreme Court for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensation for damages and reasonable attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that MSG failed to provide job applicants with copies of their background check reports and other required notices before making adverse employment decisions. The parties reached a class settlement that provided for $500,000 in damages, $750,000 in attorneys' fees, and policy changes that limited the defendants' reliance on the criminal histories of job applicants in hiring decisions. The settlement is set to remain in effect until at least 2022.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0299)