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:


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 26, 2021
Challenging USCIS for Delays in Renewal of Employment Authorizations
American Immigration Council
Date: Nov. 11, 2021
By: American Immigration Council
This nationwide class action lawsuit challenges USCIS’ failure to timely renew work authorizations for asylum workers in the United States and seeks to compel USCIS to take necessary steps to address delays and timely adjudicate employment authorization renewal applications for asylum applicants.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 24, 2021
USCIS’ Unlawful Denial of H-1B Petitions Spurs Class Action Lawsuit
American Immigration Counsel
Date: Nov. 1, 2021
By: American Immigration Counsel
This nationwide class action lawsuit challenges U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) pattern and practice of arbitrarily denying H-1B nonimmigrant employment-based petitions for market research analyst positions filed by United States businesses. *
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2021
Azad v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00706 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0084
Two lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the U.S. initiated this challenge to President Trump's January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) banning non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, from being admitted to the U.S on January 29, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a joint habeas petition and civil complaint against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. They claimed that despite their LPR status, agents of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained them upon their arrival from a trip to Iran and would not permit them to enter the U.S. The plaintiffs also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against CBP. However, later on the 29, the plaintiffs filed a notice that they had been released from detention and were withdrawing their ex parte application. An amended habeas petition and complaint (one document) was filed on the 29 that listed three individuals and five organizations as plaintiffs. The district court terminated the original two plaintiffs as parties to the action and added the three individuals and five organizations as plaintiffs; treating the amended habeas petition and complaint as the operative pleading The plaintiffs claimed that despite their valid entry documents (tourism and work visas), they were detained by CBP agents as soon as they arrived at the Airport and were prohibited from leaving LAX to enter the U.S. The organization plaintiffs (five public interest law groups) alleged that CBP denied their attorneys access to speak to the individual plaintiffs and other travelers affected by the EO-1. Represented by the ACLU of Southern California, the plaintiffs argued that their continued detention at LAX pursuant to EO-1 and inability to access counsel amounted to violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights of the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To remedy these violations, the plaintiffs asked the court for a writ of habeas corpus to undo their unlawful detention by the federal government, declaratory and injunctive relief “to prevent such harms from occurring,” and an order, directing CBP to allow all individuals detained at LAX pursuant to EO-1 access to counsel. The Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and President Donald Trump in his official capacity were named as defendants. In a minute order from February 3, 2017, the district court explained that in a motion to withdraw one of their two active ex parte applications, the individual plaintiffs indicated that they were no longer being detained at LAX. In this order, the court set a February 7 deadline for the plaintiffs to submit a memorandum explaining: why their claims were not moot, why the organizational plaintiffs would have standing to challenge EO-1 if the individual plaintiffs were dismissed from the action, and whether they intended to file a second amended complaint. While the plaintiffs submitted the requested memorandum by the deadline, they moved to dismiss their claims 10 days later on February 17. The district court ordered the case dismissed on February 28. This case is now closed. Many of this case’s filings are not publicly available.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0084)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2021
Wilson v. Williams
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-00794 (N.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0034
Individuals incarcerated in a northern Ohio prison seek relief from exposure to COVID-19. Preliminary injunctive relief was granted, and the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and a motion for a stay pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied the defendant's request for a stay. On May 21, the defendants applied for a stay of the preliminary injunction to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied on May 26, noting that the defendants had not yet appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit and moved to stay the order pending appeal scheduled the next day, which was granted by the Supreme Court on June 4. On June 9, the Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in July and, between September 2020 and March 2021, the defendants filed joint motions to stay all proceedings. The defendants continued to file daily status reports through April 2021. In January and May 2021, the plaintiffs filed two notices of stipulated dismissal, which terminated their claims.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2021
T.R. v. Dreyfus
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:09-cv-01677-TSZ (W.D. Wash.)
PB-WA-0007
Children with psychiatric and behavioral disorders filed a class action complaint alleging that Washington's system of mental health services for Medicaid-eligible children was inadequate. The parties reached a settlement agreement for expanded intensive home- and community-based services for all Medicaid-eligible children statewide. Implementation was completed by September 2, 2021.
View Case Detail (PB-WA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2021
Busbee v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02401-CCC-SES (M.D. Pa.)
PC-PA-0052
On November 11, 2019, correctional officers at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections pepper sprayed an asthmatic incarcerated person who then suffered an asthma attack and passed away from asphyxiation as a result. The decedent's mother filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and various individual defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated her son’s Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to prolonged and excessive pepper spray exposure, failing to provide appropriate and timely medical care, and leaving him in solitary confinement despite his obvious medical distress. On September 7, 2021, the parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court that required the defendants to pay $8.5 million and to provide mandatory training for corrections and medical staff regarding the increased risk pepper spray may pose to incarcerated persons with asthma or other respiratory disease. The judge granted the motion for settlement and dismissed the case on October 18, 2021.
View Case Detail (PC-PA-0052)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
B.B. v. Hochul
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-06229 (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0012
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CW-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
MadKudu Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-02653 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0178
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0178)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
Irving v. Berryhill
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01730 (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0065
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0065)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2021
Davis v. City of Chicago
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03691 (N.D. Ill.)
CJ-IL-0014
This lawsuit is a constitutional challenge the City of Chicago’s vehicle impound program. The plaintiffs, individuals whose cars had been impounded by the city, filed this putative class action suit in Illinois state court (Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division) on April 29, 2019. Represented by attorneys from the Institute for Justice and a private law firm, they claimed that the city impounded cars in connections with offenses not committed by their owners, required the owners of impounded cars to pay administrative penalties prior to the entry of judgment in their cases, did not provide adequate notice of disposal and other proceedings to impounded car owners, and held cars as collateral while their owners paid their fines. The plaintiffs, bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that these practices violated their Eighth Amendment rights to be free from excessive fines, their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and their analogous rights under the Illinois Constitution. Additionally, they brought a separate count demanding the return of tools and other items seized from the car of one of the named plaintiffs. They asked the court for the certification of a class, declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages of $1, and attorneys’ fees. Before any significant litigation could occur in state court, the city removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where it was eventually assigned to District Judge Mary M. Rowland. On August 21, 2020, Judge Rowland partially granted a motion to dismiss by the defendants. As of November 2021, the plaintiffs are continuing to litigate their remaining claims.
View Case Detail (CJ-IL-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2021
Freeman v. Riverside County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: RIC2001772 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0027
This case is about whether the parents of children who interact with the juvenile justice system can be forced to pay the costs of those services in the absence of legal process. The plaintiffs in this case, parents and grandparents of children who were involved in the juvenile justice system in Riverside County California allege that they were ordered to pay “juvenile administrative fees” to cover the cost of their children’s interactions with the system, including the cost of juvenile detention.This putative class action lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court on June 1, 2020. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the National Youth Center for Youth Law and the Western Center on Law & Poverty, brought several claims under the California Constitution and various state statutes. They requested reimbursement of juvenile administration payments already made by class members, a writ of mandate ordering the defendants to return those payments, a court order preventing the defendants from collecting such fees in the future, and attorneys' fees.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2021
District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md.)
PR-MD-0001
In 2017, Maryland and the District of Columbia filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the State of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that President Donald Trump’s continued ownership of and involvement in the Trump Organization violated the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. In 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the case for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Upon rehearing en banc, the appeals court reversed in favor of the plaintiffs. Subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, the case was dismissed as moot since Donald Trump was no longer president. The district court closed the case on May 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (PR-MD-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2021
Florida State Conference Of Branches and Youth Units Of the NAACP v. Lee
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla.)
VR-FL-0175
In May 2021, The Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida, and Common Cause brought this suit against the Secretary of State of Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida challenging SB-90, Florida's voter suppression law. The plaintiffs alleged that the law violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. They asserted that the bill created an undue burden on the right to vote, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, constituted race discrimination, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations under Title II of the ADA. After the court partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, the defendants moved for summary judgment. That motion is pending and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-FL-0175)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 18, 2021
Update on Ramos v. Nielsen
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Date: Sep. 10, 2021
By: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
On Sept. 14, 2020, in Ramos et al. v. Wolf et al., No. 18-16981 (9th Cir., Sept. 14, 2020) (PDF, 374.01 KB), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction that prohibited DHS from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2021
Davis v. Jury Commission of Montgomery County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 66-cv-c2479 (M.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0018
In this case, a Black man charged with a crime in Montgomery County Alabama challenged the County's policy of systematically excluding Black people from jury service. On November 5, 1966, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, where it was assigned to then-District Judge Frank M. Johnson. Bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgement Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), the plaintiff claimed that the exclusion of Black people from criminal juries violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Johnson denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order on November 10, noting that the plaintiff had yet to be indicted, so no constitutional violation had yet occurred. 261 F. Supp. 591. However, he also set a preliminary injunction hearing for January of 1967. The status of the case after that date is unclear, but it is presumably now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2021
Rabinowitz v. United States
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: (M.D. Ga.)
CJ-GA-0014
In these federal criminal cases, a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) member, as well as four Black civil rights demonstrators, were charged and convicted of perjury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. On appeal, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, in an opinion by Judge Richard Rives, that the Middle District's jury commissioner violated the Civil Rights Act of 1957 when he selected a jury that did not include any Black members. 366 F.2d 34. The Court of Appeals reversed the defendants' convictions and ordered that the indictments against them be dismissed, ending their criminal cases.
View Case Detail (CJ-GA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2021
Quintanilla Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-00755 (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0029
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0029)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2021
Carden v. Town of Harpersville
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01381 (N.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0025
This case is a follow on case to Burdette v. Town of Harpersville, Alabama (CJ-AL-0005). On August 14, 2015, after the Burdette litigation was finished, a woman who had been fined by the Harpersville Municipal Court and "supervised" by JCS filed a class action lawsuit against the City in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiff, bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgement Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), claimed that the City's actions violated her Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as Alabama state law. After several years of litigation, which included multiple amendments to the plaintiff's complaint and motions to dismiss by the defendants, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the case on May 18, 2018. It appears from the docket that named plaintiff—and possibly others—were able to reach a monetary settlement with the City. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2021
Brionez v. United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA")
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 4:01-cv-03969 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0369
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0369)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2021
M.G. v. Cuomo
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 7:19-cv-00639 (S.D.N.Y.)
MH-NY-0012
In 2019, six indigent prison inmates with mental illness whom the defendants held in secure prisons past their release dates filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of other prisoners in similar situations. The plaintiffs alleged that the New York State and its Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) failed to make available community-based housing and supportive services that the plaintiffs require upon release, thereby holding the plaintiffs in state prison past their lawful release dates. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (MH-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Lee and United States of America v. Macon County School Board (S.D. Ala. cases)
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 1:70-cv-05945-M (S.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0022
This Clearinghouse entry discusses the post 1970 proceedings in Lee v. Macon County, a seminal Alabama desegregation case. That case originated in the Middle District of Alabama and was transferred to a three judge district court which supervised school desegregation across the state. However, after 1970, the statewide case was dissolved and desegregation cases in individual school districts were sent to the judicial districts that encompassed them. This Clearinghouse entry is for cases in the Southern District of Alabama after 1970. To read about what happened between 1963, when the case was filed, and 1970, you can go to Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed. (SD-AL-0002)
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
La Riva v. D.C. Board of Elections
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01937 (D.D.C.)
VR-DC-1175
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-DC-1175)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Blankenship v. Newsom
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-04479 (N.D. Cal.)
VR-CA-0170
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-CA-0170)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00173 (D. Alaska)
VR-AK-0014
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-AK-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed.
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: Civ. A. No. 604-E (M.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0002
This case began on January 28, 1963 with a group of frustrated African American students and parents seeking to desegregate the twenty public schools of Macon County, Alabama. This was one of many such cases dealing with school desegregation on a school system-by-system basis. However, after interference from Governor George Wallace and other state officials in the county's efforts to comply with the initial court order, the Middle District of Alabama eventually responded by issuing an unprecedented statewide order that would serve as a legal basis for the enforcement of desegregation across all Alabama's public school and as an example for similar statewide orders across the country.
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Seaport House Hopkins v. Cuomo
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-10932 (S.D.N.Y.)
PR-NY-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2021
Lee and United States of America v. Macon County School Board (M.D. Ala. cases)
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 3:70-cv-00846-MHT-DRB (M.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0023
This Clearinghouse entry discusses the post 1970 proceedings in Lee v. Macon County, a seminal Alabama desegregation case. That case originated in the Middle District of Alabama and was transferred to a three-judge district court which supervised school desegregation across the state. However, after 1970, the statewide case was dissolved and desegregation cases in individual school districts were sent to the judicial districts that encompassed them. This Clearinghouse entry describes the Lee litigation in the Middle District of Alabama after 1970. To read about what happened between 1963, when the case was filed, and 1970, please see Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed. (SD-AL-0002)
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0023)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Azar
ACLU of Washington
Date: Jun. 28, 2019
By: ACLU of Washington
On March 7th, 2019 the ACLU filed a complaint on behalf the Nation Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and Cedar River Clinics challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to fundamentally alter the Title X family planning program, which provides care to 4 million low-income ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
American Medical Association v. Becerra
SCOTUSBlog
Date: May 17, 2021
By: SCOTUSBlog
Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services' rule for the Title X family planning program — which prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion-related information but requiring information about non- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Dec. 3, 2020
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Under current law, Tennessee automatically strips anyone convicted of a felony of the right to vote. The result of this policy is that more than 9% of the total voting age population of Tennessee — and more than 21% of the African-American voting age population — cannot vote. Tennessee has the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Campaign Legal Center 2021
Date: Apr. 13, 2021
By: Campaign Legal Center
Tennessee disenfranchises more than 451,000 of its residents for past felony convictions, about 9.1% of its total voting age population. These individuals remain unable to vote for life unless they are able to restore their voting rights.

Over 14 years ago, the Tennessee Legislature ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Campaign Legal Center 2021
Date: Apr. 13, 2021
By: Campaign Legal Center
Tennessee disenfranchises more than 451,000 of its residents for past felony convictions, about 9.1% of its total voting age population. These individuals remain unable to vote for life unless they are able to restore their voting rights.

Over 14 years ago, the Tennessee Legislature ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities
Whitehouse.gov
Date: Jan. 20, 2021
By: Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The policy of the Biden Administration is to protect national and border security, address the humanitarian challenges at the southern border, and ensure public health and safety. The Biden Administration will reset the policies and practices for enforcing civil immigration laws to align ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 14, 2021
Executive Order on Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border
Whitehouse.gov
Date: Feb. 2, 2021
By: Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The Biden Administration will implement a multi-pronged approach toward managing migration throughout North and Central America that reflects the Nation’s highest values. They will work closely with civil society, international organizations, and the governments in the region to: establish a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1915-65 (D.D.C.)
VR-DC-1172
In 1965, two New York voters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to block the federal government from enforcing Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. New York required Puerto Ricans to have completed their education at least through the sixth grade entirely or predominantly in English to be able to vote. However, Section 4(e) prohibited denying the right to vote to anyone educated through sixth grade in Puerto Rico in a language other than English. The plaintiffs alleged Section 4(e) unconstitutionally violated New York’s right to regulate its own elections and diluted their own votes. After the District Court sided with the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling Section 4(e) was proper congressional use of its authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which allowed Congress to enact appropriate legislation to implement and enforce the Equal Protection Clause.
View Case Detail (VR-DC-1172)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Tawfeeq v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00353 (N.D. Ga.)
IM-GA-0008
The plaintiff in this case, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the U.S., was held and questioned at the Atlanta International Airport on January 29, 2017, after arriving from a trip to Iraq following the President Trump’s January 27, 2017, suspending entry into the United States of nationals of Iraq and other majority-Muslim countries. On January 30, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by the federal government. This case is different from many of the other cases in the Travel Ban collection as it challenged the legality of the executive order as applied to LPRs, instead of arguing that the executive order was invalid on its face. Prompted by developments in Washington v. Trump, the President rescinded the January 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2) on March 6, 2017. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging EO-2, and the government moved to dismiss. On August 11, 2017, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. This case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-GA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Nuest v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 0:21-cv-01572 (D. Minn.)
PB-MN-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-MN-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Rogers v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-01779 (D. Colo.)
PB-CO-0009
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-CO-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
Carpenter v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 0:21-cv-00103 (D. Wyo.)
PB-WY-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-WY-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2021
E.E. v. California
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-07585-SI (N.D. Cal.)
ED-CA-0040
In 2021, public school students in California with disabilities filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that a newly passed state law, which established Independent Study as the primary avenue, discriminated against students disabilities in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts. On June 30, 2021, the court granted a TRO requiring defendants to maintain the status quo from the previous school year, prior to the new state law. The case ongoing as of November 14, 2021.
View Case Detail (ED-CA-0040)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 12, 2021
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Oyez
Date: Jun. 13, 1966
By: Oyez
New York voters sought declaratory judgment in a New York federal district court to prevent compliance with Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section provided that no person who successfully completed the sixth grade in a school accredited by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 12, 2021
Manker v. Del Toro
JND Legal Administration
Date: Oct. 7, 2001
By: JND Legal Administration
A lawsuit was filed alleging that since the start of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy and Marine Corps discharged thousands of Sailors and Marines with Other Than Honorable ("OTH") or General (Under Honorable Conditions) ("GEN") statuses due to misconduct attributable to post- ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Rose v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-04254 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0064
Several blind taxpayers filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They alleged that the Internal Revenue Service had sent them notices they could not read, leading them to incur tax penalties. After a year of litigation, the parties reached a settlement on July 14, 2020.
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0064)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
In the Matter of JPay, LLC
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2021-CFPB-0006 (No Court)
PC-DC-0035
In an administrative proceeding, The CFPB stated that JPay, LLC (a prison services company) engaged in unfair and deceptive consumer practices by requiring consumers to opt-in to their fee-bearing prepaid card service in order to receive money consumers were entitled to upon release from prison or jail. The program's fee structure was, in many instances, misleading, unclear, and unstated in cardholder agreements. As part of their Consent Order, the CFPB required JPay to pay $4 million in damages and $2 million in fines.
View Case Detail (PC-DC-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Drewniak v. C.B.P.
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00852 (D.N.H.)
IM-NH-0002
After being stopped and detained without a warrant at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoint 90 miles from the Canadian border, the plaintiff brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on August 11, 2020, challenging CBP's practice of using checkpoints for general crime control. The plaintiff delineated two separate counts in their complaint: that the agents who stopped and detained the plaintiff without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and that there was a substantial risk the plaintiff's rights would again be violated. On April 8, 2021, the court granted motion to dismiss for the Fourth Amendment claim and denied the motion to dismiss for the second claim, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated Article III standing at the pleading stage. As of November 3, 2021, the case is pending trial.
View Case Detail (IM-NH-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Anderson v. Cornejo
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:97-cv-07556 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0025
This is a case about a class of African-American women who alleged that they were subjected unconstitutional searches, including cavity searches, when entering Customs at Chicago O'Hare Airport. In October of 1997, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. The parties eventually settled for $1.93 million.
View Case Detail (IM-IL-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
Rodriguez v. Todd Greiner Farms Packing
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00227-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich.)
IM-MI-0008
The plaintiffs, two farm workers, filed this class action case against a Michigan produce producer in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on April 20, 2021. Represented by attorneys from the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and the Sugar Law Center, they alleged that their employer violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) (29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq) and Michigan state law. According to the plaintiffs, their bosses forced them to work long hours, six or seven days a week, and exposed them to dangerous pesticides. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class of people who had worked at a facility operated by the defendants in Jackson, Michigan, as well as declaratory relief, monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Paul L. Maloney and, as of September 2021, is being actively litigated.
View Case Detail (IM-MI-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2021
State of Washington v. Azar
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-03040-SAB (E.D. Wash.)
PR-WA-0001
On March 5, 2019, the State of Washington filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for violating Title X’s “Nondirective Mandate,” the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Title X generally, and the Administrative Procedure Act. On March 4, 2019, HHS published a Final Rule, scheduled to go into effect on May 3, 2019, which would alter longstanding regulations governing Title X grants for family planning services. Washington sought declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the Final Rule and prohibit HHS from implementing or enforcing it, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 18, 2019, this case was consolidated for pretrial proceedings with a separate case filed by the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), a Washington-based NFPRHA member organization, and two health care professionals that challeneged the same HHS Rule. On April 25, 2019, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Final Rule nationwide. The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted cert, but before a decision was made, the newly-instated Biden Administration issued a memorandum directing HHS to review and reconsider the Final Rule. The case was dismissed on June 11, 2021.
View Case Detail (PR-WA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education, Inc. v. Maryland Higher Education Commission
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-02773-CCB (D. Md.)
SD-MD-0002
In 2006, a non-profit corporation centered on ending racial discrimination in higher education filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiff alleged that the state's unequal funding at HBCUs and TWIs, undermining the value of unique academic programs at HBCUs, and disparities in faculty resources violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a prior agreement relating to this issue. After several years and an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the parties reached a settlement agreement to provide additional funding to HBCUs and create programs aimed at remedying further disparities. Upon approval of this agreement, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. The case closed in June 2021.
View Case Detail (SD-MD-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
Scharff v. Shah-Gavnoudias
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 10-cv-04208 (E.D.N.Y.)
DR-NY-0018
Three visually-impaired named plaintiffs and the Long Island Council of the Blind filed suit against the County of Nassau and the Commissioner of the Nassau County of Public Works for failing to install accessible pedestrian signals (APS) on September 15, 2010. Plaintiffs alleged that the lack of APS at busy intersections violated civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement on November 24, 2015, with the plaintiffs as the prevailing party. The consent decree contained both monetary and non-monetary terms, and defendants were ordered by the court to pay attorney’s fees. A monitor for the obligations of the consent decree was appointed by the court on July 15, 2016.
View Case Detail (DR-NY-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
NAACP v. Lee
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.)
CJ-TN-0016
In 2020, the NCAAP and individual plaintiffs filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs alleged that Tennessee's voter restoration scheme, which was error-riddled and charged applicants administrative fees, violated applicants' Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendment Rights. In 2021, the parties agreed to a consent decree that ended administrative fees for applicants. The case is on-going.
View Case Detail (CJ-TN-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2021
Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-02431-WFK-LB (E.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0062
In 2015, twenty Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Police Department, and various individual police officers and officials. The plaintiffs alleged the county and police department showed deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ rights by failing to remedy the police department's practice of conducting race-based stops and searches in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs also alleged that police officers, including two of the individual defendants, perpetrated a stop-and-rob scheme that involved stopping Latino individuals and stealing money from them. Discovery lasted from 2015 to 2020. On April 5, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' injunctive class certification. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0062)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
Hagig v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00289 (D. Colo.)
IM-CO-0010
This action, filed on January 31, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by a Libyan lawful permanent resident, challenged President Trump’s January 27 travel ban (EO-1). The plaintiff claimed that although he was not in danger of being removed from the U.S. EO-1 limited his ability to visit his family in Libya as he feared it would prevent him from re-entering the U.S. The plaintiff sought to certify a class of similarly situated individuals and litigation continued over subsequent months as the Trump Administration revised the executive order. The case was then stayed, pending the outcome of the Hawaii and IRAP cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiff in this case then voluntarily dismissed all of his claims on May 2, 2019, and the case was closed.
View Case Detail (IM-CO-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
Cole v. County of Santa Clara
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:16-cv-06594-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0132
In 2016, prisoners in the Santa Clara County Jail System filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that the jail facilities were not accessible to inmates with mobility disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. In 2019, the parties jointly settled the case under a consent decree which would force Santa Clara County to make its jails accessible. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0132)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
Ali v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-00135 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0028
This class action, filed January 30, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO-1) ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The plaintiffs included U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and applicants for visas. The plaintiffs claimed that either their own immigration process or that of an immediate family member was negatively affected by the travel ban. They argued that EO-1 violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. Developments in this case followed the progression of the litigation in Hawaii v. Trump, beginning with a stay of proceedings by this court after the District of Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction on the enforcement of EO-1. President Trump would issue two more Executive Orders banning travel and the Supreme Court ultimately upheld his third EO in Hawaii v. Trump. That EO banned immigration from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, Somalia, and certain groups of non-immigrants from these countries. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hawaii case, the plaintiffs in this case filed an unopposed notice for voluntary dismissal in 2018. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2021
DOJ Investigation of Brown University
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: No Docket (No Court)
DR-RI-0005
The Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division entered into a three year agreement with Brown University following an investigation into the university’s alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The university was alleged to have inconsistent and discriminatory policies towards students seeking to return to the school following a medical leave of absence for mental health reasons between 2012 and 2017. In the settlement agreement, the university agreed to pay the United States no more than $684,000.00 (to be distributed to individuals affected by the university’s policies) and a three-year agreement to implement revised policies for readmission, provide ADA training to relevant faculty and staff and send semiannual reports to the Disability Rights Section including any denials of a student’s request for readmission, details on ADA training, and any complaints filed against the school alleging disability-based discrimination in federal or state court.
View Case Detail (DR-RI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2021
Al Homssi v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00801 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0019
On January 31, 2017, four days after President Trump’s Travel Ban (EO-1) went into effect, this Syrian citizen and resident physician at the University of Illinois Chicago/Advocate Christ Hospital (who held valid J-1 and B1/B2 visas) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that EO-1 prevented him from boarding a flight to the U.S. from Abu Dhabi International Airport in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, his Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and U.S. obligations under international law including the Refugee Convention. Following a status hearing on February 1, 2017, before the District Judge, the plaintiff was allowed to enter the U.S. on February 2. As a result, the case was voluntarily dismissed on February 9, 2017. This case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-IL-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 5, 2021
National Fair Housing Alliance v. S.C. Bodner Co.
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:10-cv-00993 (S.D. Ind.)
FH-IN-0008
Begun in 2010, this is a case about fair housing and discrimination against people disabilities. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, three nonprofits sued eighteen different companies that build, own, or rent out housing properties. After the defendants' unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case, the parties engaged in settlement talks with each of the defendants ultimately entering into settlement agreements to make internal and external design changes to their properties in order to meet requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act. With official dismissals in the record of all but one defendant by December 2016 and no further docket activity, there is no reason to think that the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FH-IN-0008)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 4, 2021
J/J Doe Plaintiffs #1-21, Individually and O/B/O All Others
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Date: Apr. 29, 2015
By: Latino Justice
LatinoJustice and co-counsel filed this class action lawsuit in May 2015 o/b/o Latinx Long Island residents who had been racially profiled and “stopped & robbed” by uniformed Suffolk Police over the past decade. After an undercover sting operation in January 2014 resulted in the arrest of a ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2021
Collins v. Meyers
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-02713 (D. Colo.)
PB-CO-0008
Resort Meeting Source, a Colorado-based event planning company, and its CEO filed suit in the District of Colorado against the Executive Director of the Colorado Office of Economic and International Trade (OEIT) for a clause in OEIT’s COVID relief program that appeared to give preference to “minority-owned businesses.” Though the Court initially granted a TRO enjoining OEIT from “giving any effect to the minority-owned business preference,” the case was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff eventually received funds from OEIT’s program despite not being a minority-owned business.
View Case Detail (PB-CO-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2021
Becker v. District of Columbia
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:01-cv-00811 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0017
This case is a class-action suit arising out of the mass arrest of more than 670 people at an April 2000 protest near the World Bank and International Monetary Fund offices in Washington, D.C. An initial group of 33 named plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 13, 2001, against the District of Columbia, District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the United States, and various federal law enforcement agencies. They sought monetary and declaratory relief for violations of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and battery. They also sought expungement of the arrest records of all class members by both the District of Columbia and the federal government. The court approved a final settlement between 14 remaining named plaintiffs and the District of Columbia defendants on July 15, 2010. That agreement included a total of $13,302,500 in monetary relief; new training and policy change requirements for MPD in its handling of First Amendment and mass demonstration issues; and a number of steps D.C. would take to expunge the records of class members and seek similar expungements from the federal government and other states where applicable. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0017)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 31, 2021
JPay, LLC
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Date: Oct. 19, 2021
By: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On October 19, 2021, the Bureau issued a consent order against JPay, LLC (JPay). JPay, headquartered in Miramar, Florida, contracts with Departments of Corrections around the country to provide financial products and services to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals. JPay provided ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
Manker v. Spencer
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-00372-CSH (D. Conn.)
PB-CT-0011
Former US Navy and Marine veterans claim that the Naval Discharge Review Board failed to consider the effect of PTSD when reviewing their less-than-Honorable discharge upgrade applications. Upon returning to civilian life, veterans struggled to address PTSD and other mental health issues, which in some cases had lead to their less-than-Honorable discharge. This caused permanent stigma and prevented veterans from accessing essential benefits like the GI bill and much-needed mental health care. The Board was directed by former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to consider PTSD and related conditions as “potential mitigating factors" in veterans' discharges. The plaintiffs claimed that the Board had rejected most such applications in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. In October 2021, the court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement providing for the reconsideration of veterans who have a less-than-honorable discharge status. As of November 16, 2021, the settlement remains subject to final approval after the Fairness Hearing scheduled for December 16, 2021.
View Case Detail (PB-CT-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association v. Abbott
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: D-1-GN-20-002034 (State Court)
CJ-TX-0017
This case is a challenge against the Governor of Texas’ order to limit bail, filed by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and sixteen Harris County Judges. On March 29, Governor Abbott removed the discretion from judges regarding who can receive personal bonds, and banned the use of personal bonds for detainees accused of violent offenses. The plaintiffs alleged that the order discriminated against those unable to afford cash bail and hampered efforts to reduce jail populations during the pandemic. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the order was unconstitutional, as well as a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing it. The plaintiffs also sought a TRO (temporary restraining order) to preserve the status quo pending the decision on the validity of the defendant’s order. On April 10, the court granted the TRO. The following day, the defendants filed an appeal to the Texas Supreme court, and the Texas Supreme Court issued a stay on the TRO, reviving Abbott’s order. On April 23, the Texas Supreme Court overturned the district court’s decision, after finding that the judicial plaintiffs lacked standing and therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs dismissed the case on November 4, 2020.
View Case Detail (CJ-TX-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
In re Descendants of African Slavery
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:02-cv-07764 (N.D. Ill.)
PB-IL-0015
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-IL-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 31, 2021
Holman v. Vilsack
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-1085 (W.D. Tenn.)
PB-TN-0011
This case is one of several challenging the American Rescue Plan’s (ARP) and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) classification of “socially disadvantaged groups.” Sections 1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan Act direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Farm Services Agency (FSA) to forgive loans made to “socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.” 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(6) defines socially disadvantaged to mean “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” The plaintiff in this case, a white farmer, alleged that the socially disadvantaged group category was a racial classification and its inclusion in the ARPA denied him government benefits because of his race. The plaintiff claimed that this policy violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennesse granted the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, finding that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The case remains pending.
View Case Detail (PB-TN-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2021
Machovec v. Palm Beach County
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 502020CV006920XXXXMB (State Court)
PR-FL-0003
This is a case where citizens sued the county for imposing a mask mandate, arguing that it was an infringement of their right to privacy in making medical decisions. The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order, which was denied by the district court on July 27, 2020. The plaintiffs appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal on August 10, but the court affirmed the lower court's decision on January 27, 2021. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, which it declined on July 2, 2021. Back in the district court, proceedings remain ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-FL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2021
Public Counsel v. Presiding Judge, Superior Court of LA Cty
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 21STCV05124 (State Court)
CJ-CA-0028
In this case, various attorneys filed a lawsuit to stop the Los Angeles Superior Courts from requiring in-person appearances for non-essential civil matters, like traffic and unlawful detainer matters. The plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order, but a month later filed a dismissal. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2021
Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00296 (E.D. Va.)
ED-VA-0007
On March 3, 2021, an organization of primarily Asian American parents advocating against the new admissions policy named the Coalition for TJ filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff alleged that the Fairfax County School Board’s new admissions procedures at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ) violated the Equal Protections Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment because it negatively impacted only Asian American applicants. On September 20, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff’s most recent motion for preliminary injunction. As of October 15, 2021, the case is undergoing discovery proceedings.
View Case Detail (ED-VA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2021
Kemp v. Bottoms
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2020CV338387 (State Court)
PR-GA-0001
This is a case where the governor of Georgia sued the mayor of Atlanta over passing COVID-19 orders (related to masks and social gatherings) that were more or less restrictive than the governor's own orders. The governor sought to enjoin the mayor from passing such orders and filed a motion for an injunction on July 17, 2020. The parties engaged in mediation and settlement discussions, at the request of the court. However, after not being able to achieve a full resolution, the governor withdrew the lawsuit and resolved to add relevant language allowing local jurisdictions to impose mask mandates into a new executive order on August 15, 2020. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PR-GA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 29, 2021
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-02596 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0041
On December 5, 2017, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) brought this suit in D.D.C., suing DHS and ICE under FOIA. Plaintiff sought records concerning ICE's use of mobile biometric devices and applications and DHS's investigations of civil rights or civil liberties in their use. This parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on September 18, 2020. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0041)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 28, 2021
Carpenter v. Vilsak
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Date: 2021
By: Southeastern Legal Foundation
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Biden, Congress created a farm loan forgiveness program for non-white farmers. Under the program the U.S. Department of Agriculture automatically forgiving federal farm loans at 120 percent of the loan value, unless the farmer is ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 28, 2021
Leisl Carpenter v Tom Vilsack and Zach Ducheneaux
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Date: Jul. 8, 2021
By: Mountain States Legal Foundation
In March 2021, the Biden administration signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) COVID-19 stimulus plan, providing $4 billion to forgive loans for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. But white farmers and ranchers are excluded in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 28, 2021
Sara M. Rogers v. Thomas J. Vilsack and Zach Ducheneaux
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: Mountain States Legal Foundation
White farmers and ranchers are excluded from the American Rescue Plan Act’s “Socially Disadvantaged” Farmer and Rancher Debt Relief Program solely due to their race, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We are suing the Biden administration on behalf of our client, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2021
Reina Moran v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00696 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0175
In April, 2020, three immigrant detainees filed this lawsuit in the Central District of California. Citing COVID-19 concerns, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and release. The TROs were granted and the court issued a partial stay order on April 24, 2020, which ordered that the plaintiffs remain released until final resolution of a related case in which a preliminary injunction was issued. In June, the plaintiffs moved to certify class and for a preliminary injunction. The defendants moved to dismiss the case and, following a hearing in August, the motion for preliminary injunction was to remain under submission pending the outcome of related cases. However, in March 2021 the plaintiffs orally withdrew the motion and the court closed the case without prejudice.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0175)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 25, 2021
In Re HCV Prison Litigation
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:19-cv-00577 (D. Nev.)
PC-NV-0018
Eight named plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the Nevada Department of Corrections challenging its Hepatitis C policies and protocols. The lawsuit sought a court order requiring NDOC to identify and monitor inmates with Hepatitis C, provide medical care that meet the current medical standards of care and treat their symptoms and complications, and prevents discrimination against inmates with Hepatitis C. On October 29, 2020, the court approved a consent decree; it is expected to be in place for four years, and monitoring is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-NV-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 24, 2021
Asali v. DHS
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00447 (E.D. Pa.)
IM-PA-0014
In 2017, shortly after the enactment of the first of President Trump’s travel ban executive orders (EO-1), a family of Syrian-born immigrants filed this complaint and habeas petition against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs alleged that EO-1’s entry ban on non-U.S. citizen nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries to the U.S. violated the Constitution and federal statutes. A Republican Congressman intervened and the family was admitted to the U.S. in February 2017. Following their admission to the country, the district court stayed proceedings for 60 days so that the parties could discuss settlement, but the family filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in April 2017. The Clearinghouse does not have access to this notice so we are unsure if a settlement was reached.
View Case Detail (IM-PA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 24, 2021
Messina v. City of Fort Lauderdale
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 0:21-cv-60168-RKA (S.D. Fla.)
FA-FL-0010
In January 2021, two men of limited means sued the City of Fort Lauderdale challenging two statutes that prohibited panhandling in a variety of public places. The plaintiffs alleged that the statutes violated their First Amendment rights through a content-based prohibition of protected speech. After the claim survived a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the statutes. After the ruling granting the preliminary injunction, the parties entered mediation, which is to be completed by December 6, 2021.
View Case Detail (FA-FL-0010)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 23, 2021
Hall v. Warren
Moskovitz Law
Date: Apr. 5, 2021
By: Moskovitz Law
After decades of unchecked violence by the Rochester Police Department against people of color and people protesting the Department’s racist policing practices, ten individuals, Free the People Roc, and the Rochester Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild filed this class action lawsuit to end the ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 23, 2021
Unite Oregon v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00179 (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0005
This action, filed on February 1, 2017, challenged President Trump’s travel ban EO. The plaintiff was Unite Oregon, a nonprofit organization with immigrant and refugee members from the majority Muslim countries targeted by the travel ban. Represented by the ACLU of Oregon and private counsel, Unite Oregon argued that EO-1 violated federal law and the Constitution and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. With the IRAP v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump, cases moving through the federal court system, the parties jointly-moved to administratively close this case until those matters were resolved. In March 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint.
View Case Detail (IM-OR-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 23, 2021
Asgari v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-10182 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0008
On February 1, 2017, an Iranian-born researcher and J-1 visa holder filed this lawsuit after being prevented from boarding a flight to the United States on both January 28, 2017, and January 30, 2017, pursuant to the first iteration of the “Travel Ban” executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. On February 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion seeking a Temporary Restraining Order against the defendants, but on February 3, 2017, the plaintiff requested that the hearing on the TRO be cancelled, as she was able to travel to the United States and clear customs. On March 6, 2017, the President rescinded the January 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one (EO-2). On May 31, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, citing the Fourth Circuit's injunction of EO-2 in IRAP v. Trump. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 22, 2021
Brown v. Warren
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-07907-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.)
JC-NJ-0027
In 2020, eight inmates at the Cumberland County Correctional Facility filed this putative class action complaint pro se in the U.S District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of the jail, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights and their Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court later appointed counsel for the case. In May 2020, the parties agreed on the appointment of a Special Master, who was directed to review the jail's COVID-19 protocols. As of October 2021, the Special Master has filed two reports and recommendations concerning the jail's testing and cleaning procedures. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-NJ-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 22, 2021
D.P. v. School Board of Palm Beach County
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 9:21-cv-81099 (S.D. Fla.)
MH-FL-0003
On June 22, 2021, four students of color and one white student with disabilities who qualified for Exceptional Student Education (ESE) and were enrolled in the School District of Palm Beach County filed this putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (through 42 U.S.C. § 1983), the ADA, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs claimed that SPDBC used the Baker Act, a Florida state law, to initiate at least 1,216 involuntary examinations of its students. SDPBC seized Black children for involuntary examination at twice the rate of white children, a disparity that worsened for young children. As of October 22, the case is pending discovery proceedings.
View Case Detail (MH-FL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 22, 2021
Arroyo et al. v. Eischen et al.
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-01687 (D. Colo.)
CJ-CO-0006
On June 8, 2021, several employees of the United States Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Business Office filed suit in the U.S. District Court of Colorado against fellow BOP employees who are members Special Operations Response Team (“SORT”) for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, intentional infliction of emotional eustress (“IIED”), and Civil Conspiracy. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. The plaintiffs allege that on June 20, 2019, the defendants conducted a mock hostage exercise that inexplicably escalated to a point where the defendants caused substantial physical and mental harm to the plaintiffs.
View Case Detail (CJ-CO-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 22, 2021
Hallinan v. Scarantino
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:20-CT-3333-M (E.D.N.C.)
PC-NC-0022
In 2020, inmates at Federal Correctional Complex Butner filed this class action lawsuit and habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs alleged that the facility's COVID-19 procedures violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. On May 11, 2021, the Court stayed the case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-NC-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 20, 2021
De Dandrade v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-09604-PKC (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0073
In December 2017, several disabled lawful permanent residents pursuing the citizen naturalization process and two immigrant advocacy organizations filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' (DHS and USCIS) practice of denying waivers that would exempt the plaintiffs from taking a required citizenship test violated their statutory and constitutional rights. After the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Second Circuit. On September 15, 2020, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0073)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 19, 2021
Republican National Committee v. Newsom
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01055 (E.D. Cal.)
VR-CA-0168
National and local Republican organizations challenged an executive order that permitted Californians to vote by mail in the upcoming elections. They argued that the order unconstitutionally violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Electors and Elections Clauses, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The executive order was later superseded by a law passed by the California legislature. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action on July 9, 2020.
View Case Detail (VR-CA-0168)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 19, 2021
Giroir v. Leblanc
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-00108-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0015
On February 19, 2021, an incarcerated person in DOC’s custody filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiff claimed that DOC had a pattern or practice of over-detaining people, as they did not have a policy in place, nor did they try to create one, which would ensure that incarcerated people were released within 48 hours of their legal release date. The plaintiff additionally alleged that the Secretary was deliberately indifferent to this mass false imprisonment. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss and the court has not yet ruled on the motion. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 19, 2021
Lewis v. Dallas County Sheriff
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: DC-20-11810 (State Court)
JC-TX-0028
This is a case brought against the Dallas County Sheriff by a Detention Service Officer working in the Dallas County Jail. On behalf of himself and other Detention Service Officers, the plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Sheriff allowed conditions to exist at the Jail that promoted the spread of COVID-19 and posed a health and safety danger to officers, their families, and their communities. The trial court granted the defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction, finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint and dismissing the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the lower court’s ruling, terminating the case.
View Case Detail (JC-TX-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 18, 2021
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. After President Biden revoked the Executive Order challenged in the case, the plaintiffs dismissed the lawsuit on June 15, 2021. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (FA-DC-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 18, 2021
Campbell v. Barnes
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 30-2020-01141117-CU-WM-CXC (State Court)
JC-CA-0145
This is a class action brought by a group of medically vulnerable people and people with disabilities detained at the Orange County Jail seeking immediate release or transfer and an order requiring the Orange County Jail to take steps to mitigate the risk of harm from COVID-19. The Superior Court of California, County of Orange, agreed with the petitioners and declared that the respondent’s deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm from COVID-19 infection violated the petitioners’ rights under the California Constitution. The court granted the petitions for writ of habeas corpus and writ of mandate, ordering the Orange County Jail to reduce jail population by 50%, enforce proper social distancing, and impose and maintain a strict policy of facemask wearing compliance by all staff. The plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition and a statement of clarification on May 27 and on June 18, the court dismissed the amended petition.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0145)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 18, 2021
Oakland v. Wells Fargo
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-04321-EMC (N.D. Cal.)
FH-CA-0028
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (FH-CA-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 17, 2021
Butler v. City of New York
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:15-cv-03783 (S.D.N.Y.)
PB-NY-0039
In 2015, homeless residents of New York City with disabilities filed this class action complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs alleged that New York City's Department of Homeless Services' practices and systems violated the American with Disabilities Act. The parties reached a settlement in 2017 and agreed to compensatory damaged in 2018. However, in July of 2021, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to end or reduce congregate housing for class members given the dangers posed by COVID-19. The parties reached a new settlement on August 20, 2021.
View Case Detail (PB-NY-0039)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 17, 2021
Department of Education OCR Title IX Investigation of Ohio State University
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 15-10-6002 (No Court)
ED-OH-0005
On June 23, 2010, The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) notified Ohio State University (OSU) that it was initiating a proactive review of the university's compliance with Title IX. OCR's Cleveland branch conducted the investigation, which included evaluations of OSU's policies, procedures, and responses to Title IX complaints. Between when the investigation was initiated and the announcement of a Resolution Agreement between the university and OCR in 2014, the university took several steps to improve its compliance. OSU appointed its first Title IX Coordinator, created the Office of University Compliance and Integrity to oversee Title IX compliance, and began training staff and students on Title IX policies and procedures. OCR recognized these steps in the Resolution Agreement, issued September 8, 2014. In the agreement, OSU agreed to make a number of substantive changes including maintaining documentation of all aspects of Title IX investigation procedures, provide training to staff and students, conduct climate assessments, and take specific steps to address the culture of sexual harassment within the OSU Marching Band. According to the OSU website, the agreement remains in effect to this day. OCR initiated three other investigations into OSU's compliance with Title IX. The third investigation was closed for insufficient evidence. However, the second and fourth investigations remain active as of October 17, 2021.
View Case Detail (ED-OH-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2021
Hall v. Warren
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 6:21-cv-06296 (W.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0060
On April 5, 2021, residents of the City of Rochester filed this putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that the Rochester Police Department (RPD) used disproportionate force–both frequency and severity–against people of color and that the City of Rochester and RPD were deliberately indifferent to the widespread and decades-long racially disparate use of force by RPD officers against people of color. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants retaliated against them for engaging in speech and/or conduct protected by the First Amendment during the September protests in the wake of George Floyd and Daniel Prude. As of September 15, 2021, the case is pending the defendants’ answers to an amended complaint.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0060)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2021
Brandt v. Rutledge
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 4:21-cv-00450 (E.D. Ark.)
FA-AR-0001
In May 2021, four families of transgender minors, and their physicians, sought to enjoin an Arkansas law (the SAFE Act) that would have banned the provision of medically necessary and potentially lifesaving healthcare to transgender adolescents. The families sued in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas, on the basis of the Fourteenth and First Amendments. On July 21, the court granted a preliminary injunction against the SAFE Act. The decision is currently on appeal.
View Case Detail (FA-AR-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2021
National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 4:16-cv-03362 (S.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0478
In 2013, named plaintiff and the National Coalition for Men filed a class action suit in the Central District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the Selective Service System requirement unconstitutionally discriminated against men, violating Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Equal Protection Clause. After issuing an initial decision and having the decision reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice due to lack of standing (in the case of NCFM) and improper venue (named plaintiff not a resident of CA). The case was transferred to the Southern District of Texas, where the court ruled that the male-only SSS requirement was unconstitutional but denied injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in 2020 on the basis that the lower court lacked authority to overrule Supreme Court precedent and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in June 2021 out of deference to Congress’ ongoing review of SSS policies.
View Case Detail (EE-TX-0478)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 14, 2021
Holman V. Vilsack
Mountain States Legal Foundations
Date: Aug. 2, 2021
By: Mountain States Legal Foundations
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Biden, Congress created a farm loan forgiveness program for non-white farmers. Under the program the U.S. Department of Agriculture is automatically forgiving federal farm loans at 120 percent of the loan value, unless the farmer ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 14, 2021
Holman v. Vilsak
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Date: Aug. 2, 2021
By: Southeastern Legal Foundation
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Biden, Congress created a farm loan forgiveness program for non-white farmers. Under the program the U.S. Department of Agriculture is automatically forgiving federal farm loans at 120 percent of the loan value, unless the farmer ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 14, 2021
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Concerning Access to Shelter for Individuals with Disabilities in the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) Shelter System
Coalition for the Homelessness
Date: Sep. 2, 2017
By: Coalition for the Homelessness
In 2015, disabled people in shelter sued DHS in a federal class action lawsuit called Butler v. City of New York 15-CV-3783 (RWS) (JLC). This is a Class Action case, which means that it was brought on behalf of a group of people. Both sides in the case want to settle it now, and have asked the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 14, 2021
Biden Administration Denies Aid to White Farmers and Ranchers
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: Mountain States Legal Foundation
White farmers and ranchers are excluded from the American Rescue Plan Act’s “Socially Disadvantaged” Farmer and Rancher Debt Relief Program solely due to their race, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We are suing the Biden administration on behalf of our client, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 14, 2021
CRIPA Investigation of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
Case Category: Juvenile Institution
Trial Docket: N/A (No Court)
JI-TX-0005
On October 13, 2021, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announced that it had opened a statewide investigation into the conditions in five secure juvenile correctional facilities run by the Teas Juvenile Justice Department. The investigation was intended to determine whether Texas provided children reasonable protection from excessive use of restraints, excessive use of isolation, and physical and sexual abuse by staff and other residents. The investigation is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JI-TX-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 14, 2021
Saleh v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:05-cv-02467 (D. Colo.)
FA-CO-0010
In 2005, an individual incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Prison in Florence, Colorado (ADX) filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff alleged that, immediately in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the policy of transferring certain incarcerated Arab-Muslim men to ADX and denying them access to the Step-Down program violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights. The case was consolidated in 2007 with two other plaintiffs who had filed separate, similar federal lawsuits regarding their confinement at ADX. In 2008, the parties reached a stipulated settlement agreement that resolved the plaintiffs’ claims regarding violations of their right to free exercise of their religion. In 2010, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in 2012.
View Case Detail (FA-CO-0010)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 13, 2021
Tiegs v. Vilsack
Pacific Legal Foundation
Date: Jul. 6, 2021
By: Pacific Legal Foundation
When the pandemic struck, much of the U.S. agriculture industry felt the financial crunch. Julie Owen, James Tiegs, Abraham and Cally Jergenson, and Chad Ward were initially encouraged when Congress passed a COVID-19 relief law that included a farm loan forgiveness provision for economic hardship ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 13, 2021
Colorado company sues after being disadvantaged for COVID-19 relief because of race
Pacific Legal Foundation
Date: Oct. 7, 2021
By: Pacific Legal Foundation
Today, an Alma-based event planning company filed a lawsuit to stop Colorado from using racial preferences to distribute COVID-relief funds.

Like so many other small businesses, Resort Meeting Source, an event-planning business, has suffered revenue losses stemming from the pandemic ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2021
Lee and United States of America v. Macon County School Board (N.D. Ala. Case)
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: 70-0251 (N.D. Ala.)
SD-AL-0007
This Clearinghouse entry discusses the post 1970 proceedings in Lee v. Macon County, a seminal Alabama desegregation case. That case originated in the Middle District of Alabama and was transferred to a three judge district court which supervised school desegregation across the state. However, after 1970, the statewide case was dissolved and desegregation cases in individual school districts were sent to the judicial districts that encompassed them. This Clearinghouse entry is for cases in the Northern District of Alabama after 1970. To read about what happened between 1963, when the case was filed, and 1970, you can go to Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Ed. (SD-AL-0002)
View Case Detail (SD-AL-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2021
One Fair Wage v. Darden Restaurants
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-02695 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0365
In 2021, One Fair Wage, an advocacy organization focused on eliminating the subminimum cash wage, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Darden Restaurants. The plaintiff argued the defendant's policy of paying tipped employees the lowest legally permissible cash wage and using tips to cover the difference violated of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by causing employees to experience sexual harassment and racial discrimination. On September 14, 2021, Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the case with prejudice because the plaintiff was not an employee of Darden and so did not have standing to sue under Title VII. The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit on October 12, 2021. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0365)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 11, 2021
Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center v. Trump
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-07741-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
FA-CA-0016
In November 2020, eight plaintiffs involved in LGBTQ+ advocacy and health care, racial justice, and HIV treatment sued President Donald Trump and his administration in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged President Trump’s Executive Order banning government agencies and organizations receiving government funding from discussing unconscious racial or sexual bias in employee trainings violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. In late December 2020, Judge Beth Labson Freeman prohibited the Trump administration from enforcing the policy on government contractors and federal grantees. The order was allowed to be enforced in government agencies and the military. After the new Biden administration took office in January 2021, the legal proceedings were temporarily suspended to allow President Biden to review existing Executive Orders. In May 2021, after the Executive Order was revoked, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice.
View Case Detail (FA-CA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2021
Katz v. Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:08-cv-01698 (E.D.N.Y.)
FH-NY-0027
In 2008, a soon-to-be family filed suit against Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, a NYC-based real estate firm. The plaintiffs alleged that BHS consistently refused to rent or show the plaintiffs housing units because either they thought the unit was not “suitable” for children or because the landlords of the units did not want to rent to couples with children in violation of federal, state, and local housing laws. In 2009, the parties settled and the terms remain confidential.
View Case Detail (FH-NY-0027)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2021
Belton v. Gebhart, Bulah v. Gebhart
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: Civ. A. Nos. 258, 265 (State Court)
SD-DE-0001
Belton v. Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart were desegregation actions filed in Delaware. In both actions, plaintiffs sued the State of Delaware challenging Delaware state constitutional provisions and laws requiring public school segregation as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs had been denied access to Claymont High School and Hockessin School No. 29, schools only open to white students that were better funded and had substantially greater resources than schools open to Black students. Though Belton and Bulah were filed separately, they were combined for the purposes of trial. The cases were tried before the Delaware Court of Chancery with Chancellor J. Seitz presiding over the trial. In his opinion following trial, Chancellor Seitz considered two questions: 1) whether school segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and 2) even if state-mandated segregation was not unconstitutional, whether the schools open to Black students were substantially unequal to those that admitted exclusively white students. (32 Del. Ch. 343). Chancellor Seitz held that, as a lower court judge, he was bound by the doctrine of "separate but equal" and could not provide relief to plaintiffs under that theory. However, he concluded that the facilities available to Black students were substantially inferior to those available to white students and ordered the admission of Black students to the white schools. He issued two injunctions ordering the plaintiffs' admission to Claymont High School and Hockessin School No. 29. Both parties appealed the injunctions to the Delaware Supreme Court, which affirmed both injunctions. (33 Del.Ch. 144). Defendants later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. (73 S.Ct. 213). Belton and Bulah were consolidated with other school desegregation cases as part of the Brown v. Board of Education litigation. In 1954, the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal" and ordered all schools to desegregate. (75 S.Ct. 753). Belton was the only case that the Supreme Court partially affirmed on appeal. (301).
View Case Detail (SD-DE-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 10, 2021
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 magistrate judge recommended the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and deny all other motions as moot; the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal on May 18, 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-NM-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2021
Arriaga Reyes v. Decker
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-03600 (D.N.J.)
IM-NJ-0012
On April 2, 2020, five men detained in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release. Due to underlying medical conditions, the plaintiffs asserted that they were at heightened risk of severe COVID-19 infections, and that such risks were exacerbated by the close quarters and poor administration of medical treatment in ICE prisons. In light of the increased risk to health and safety, the plaintiffs claimed that their continued detention violated their Due Process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. On April 12, 2020, the court issued a temporary restraining order ordering the plaintiffs’ immediate release, subject to appropriate conditions. In December 2020, the temporary restraining order was deemed a preliminary injunction, and has since been extended until January 23, 2022.
View Case Detail (IM-NJ-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2021
City of San Jose v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-05167 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0168
In 2020, the City of San Jose, CA and other parties filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that an executive order written by President Trump directing the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to exclude illegal aliens from the 2020 census violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Apportionment Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause, as well as the Census Act of 1954. The district court judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, awarding declaratory relief to invalidate the order. The defendants appealed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions. The case closed in January 2021.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0168)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 7, 2021
Goodlaxson v. City of Baltimore
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-01454-BPG (D. Md.)
DR-MD-0002
Three residents of Baltimore, Maryland, with mobility disabilities filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that Baltimore’s sidewalks and similar pedestrian infrastructure do not give equal access to people with mobility disabilities and sought a court order requiring Baltimore to ensure its sidewalks and city infrastructure are accessible to individuals with mobility disabilities. The case is currently pending.
View Case Detail (DR-MD-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2021
Amaya-Cruz v. Adducci
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00789 (N.D. Ohio)
IM-OH-0007
In 2020, four ICE detainees in Ohio county jails filed this habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that their detention, in light of their medical conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic, amounted to a violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights by subjecting them to punishment. The plaintiffs later added six additional detainees to the action. The Court ordered the release of three of the original plaintiffs in April 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-OH-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2021
AsylumWorks v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03815 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0092
The plaintiffs, three non-profits and 18-noncitizen-asylum seekers, sued DHS asserting that the agency violated the APA in promulgating rules that curtailed access to Employment Authorization Documents. The plaintiffs claimed that the rules were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act. EADs serve in assisting asylum seekers to obtain government services, housing, healthcare, and work. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0092)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 5, 2021
Arriaga Reyes, et al. v. Decker, et al.
ACLU of New Jersey
Date: Apr. 13, 2020
By: ACLU New Jersey
This case was initially filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. After it was transferred to the District of New Jersey, on April 6, 2020, the ACLU of New Jersey, the Legal Aid Society, the Bronx Defenders, the ACLU National Prison Project and the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 5, 2021
D.S. v. Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 2:21-cv-00113 (W.D. Wash.)
CW-WA-0002
In 2021, Disability Rights Washington, along with three children with behavioral and developmental disabilities in the care of Washington State, filed this class action complaint against the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families in District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that DCYF violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Substantive Due Process rights of children with behavioral and mental disabilities in the DCYF’s care. The court granted a preliminary injunction limiting placement options for children in the state's care and laying out specific requirements for what DCYF must provide to children in its care. As of October 5, 2021, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (CW-WA-0002)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 3, 2021
Brown v. The Board of Education
Brown65
Date: May 8, 2019
By: Brown65
In the fall of 1950, members of the Topeka, Kansas chapter of the agreed to again challenge the “separate but equal” doctrine governing public education.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 3, 2021
Davis v. Prince Edward County
Brown65
Date: May 8, 2019
By: Brown65
In April 1951, Barbara Rose Johns, a Moton High School student in Farmville, Va., organized a two-week-long student strike to protest poor school conditions.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 3, 2021
Briggs v. Elliott
Brown65
Date: May 14, 2019
By: Brown65
In 1947 a chance encounter between Rev. James Hinton, president of the South Carolina NAACP, and Rev. J.A. DeLaine, a local school teacher, led to a push to improve access to public education for African American children living in Summerton, S.C.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 3, 2021
Belton v. Gebhart
Brown65
Date: May 14, 2019
By: Brown65
Two cases in Delaware, Belton v. Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart, were consolidated into Belton (Bulah) v. Gebhart when two groups of parents were frustrated with inequitable conditions in black schools.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 3, 2021
The Women's Student Union v. U.S. Dep't of Education
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:21-cv-01626 (N.D. Cal.)
ED-CA-0038
The Women's Student Union, a student organization seeking to reduce the sexual harassment experienced by students at Berkeley High School, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Education on March 8, 2021. The Student Union asserted that the amended regulations issued in 2020 under then-Secretary Betsy DeVos fail to adequately effectuate Title IX and weakened protections for students experiencing sexual harassment. On September 9, 2021, Judge Edward M. Chen granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs amended the complaint on October 4, 2021, and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (ED-CA-0038)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 3, 2021
D.A.M. v. Barr
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 20-cv-1321 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0082
This lawsuit and petition for writs of habeas corpus was filed in May of 2020 amidst the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. The plaintiffs were immigrants subject to deportation, and they brought this suit against the Attorney General and Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. They argued that their deportations during the pandemic would would likely expose them to the virus in violation of their due process rights and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The court refused to grant a temporary restraining order on July 23, 2020 and again on September 15, 2020. The defendants moved to dismiss on September 18. A year later, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal and the court dismissed the action.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0082)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 2, 2021
T.R. v. Dreyfus
National Center for Youth Law
Date: Aug. 30, 2013
By: National Center for Youth Law
NCYL is co-counsel in the case of T.R. v. Dreyfus, a child welfare reform class action lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). Plaintiffs seek the establishment and implementation of a system that focuses on intensive home and community-based mental ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 2, 2021
Wright v. Anderson
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-03704 (D.N.J.)
IM-NJ-0015
In 2020, ten immigration detainees filed this habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The petitioners alleged that their continued detainment in light of the COVID-19 pandemic violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights by subjecting them to punishment without a conviction. The Court granted a temporary restraining order for five of the petitioners and ordered their release. Later, the Court severed all petitioners from the action except the first named petitioner and converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NJ-0015)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 1, 2021
Recovering Untold Stories: An Enduring Legacy of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision
Date: Jan. 1, 2018
(The Brown Foundation for Education Equity, Excellence and Research)
The book linked in this resource captures the first-person narratives of individuals who were plaintiffs or whose families were represented in the five cases consolidated by the United States Supreme Court in an opinion announced on May 17, 1954.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 1, 2021
Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:21-cv-00100 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0096
In 2021, families of asylum- and refugee-seekers who had been detained by the Department of Homeland Security filed this class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Suing the federal government, the families alleged that the federal government had illegally interpreted Title 42 U.S.C. § 265 (“Title 42 Process”) to summarily expel asylum-seeking families on the pretext of COVID-19. In September 2021, the court certified the class and issued a preliminary injunction. That decision is currently on appeal. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s motion for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0096)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 30, 2021
AsylumWorks v. Wolf
UC Hastings College of the Law
Date: Jun. 2, 2021
By: UC Hastings College of the Law Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (UC Hastings College of the Law)
The Trump administration promulgated new rules that drastically curtail access to work authorization for people who flee to the United States and apply for asylum protection. Employment authorization documents (EADs) are integral to asylum seekers’ ability to sustain themselves and their families ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 30, 2021
Evenson-Childs v. Ravalli County Sheriff's Office
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 9:21-cv-00089 (D. Mont.)
CJ-MT-0004
Plaintiff, a homeless resident of the state of Montana, filed this putative class action against Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office on August 9, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. She challenged the Office’s practice of charging pre-trial arrestees released on bail for various forms of pre-trial supervision, such as ankle monitors and breathalyzers, and of requiring pre-trial arrestees to sign a contract stating that they can be criminally charged with felony theft and criminal mischief if they do not maintain contact with their pre-trial officer or if they damage the supervision device. Plaintiff had already accrued more than $5,000 in pre-trial fees. She brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process and equal protection rights and her Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. She also brought state law claims alleging violation of equal protection and social condition discrimination, false imprisonment, and coercive contracts in violation of due process. Plaintiff, represented by Equal Justice Under Law and Upper Seven Law, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen was assigned. As of September 30, 2021, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-MT-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 30, 2021
Castañeda Juarez v. Asher
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00700-JLR-MLP (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0047
On May 8, 2020, persons detained by ICE in the state of Washington petitioned for release via habeas corpus. Plaintiffs were at-risk for severe illness or death should they contract COVID and sought to represent a class of similarly at-risk detained persons. They alleged that ICE was unable to sufficiently protect them. The court has granted class certification and issued a temporary injunction. The case is on-going.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0047)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 30, 2021
Florida v. U.S.A.
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:21-cv-00541 (M.D. Fla.)
IM-FL-0030
On March 8, 2021, the State of Florida filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The state claimed that the Biden administration was attempting to shirk its non-discretionary duty to detain and remove criminal aliens under an interim policy during which they conduct a review of policies and practices surrounding immigration and deportation. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction precluding the federal government from implementing and enforcing interim immigration policies set forth in the memoranda from DHS and ICE. Plaintiff appealed the denied preliminary injunction on May 19, 2021. The case is stayed pending appeal.
View Case Detail (IM-FL-0030)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 29, 2021
Women's Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education
National Center for Youth Law
Date: Aug. 5, 2021
By: National Center for Youth Law
The Women’s Student Union (WSU) at Berkeley High School in Berkeley, California filed a legal challenge to Trump-era Department of Education regulations that put students nationwide in greater danger and represent a radical departure from the way previous Democratic and Republican administrations ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 27, 2021
The Women's Student Union vs. U.S. Department of Education
https://www.publicjustice.net
Date: Sep. 26, 2021
This is a lawsuit brought under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge key provisions of the Title IX regulations promulgated in 2020 by the U.S. Department of Education under the leadership of former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. The regulations limit the rights of students who ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 24, 2021
TN NAACP v. Lee
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Dec. 3, 2020
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law is suing Tennessee Governor William Lee and other state officials to restore the right to vote for more than 451,000 Tennesseans with felony records.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 23, 2021
E.B. et al v. Louisiana Attorney General
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Dec. 13, 2019
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law filed a class-action lawsuit against Louisiana’s Attorney General and state and local court officials to help 300,000+ Louisianans who are prevented from rebuilding their lives due to inability to pay expungement fees.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 23, 2021
Cynthia and Terry Easley v. Hot Spring County
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Sep. 2, 2021
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Arkansas is the only state that criminalizes failure to pay rent. Our lawsuit aims to end this draconian law (known as the failure to vacate statute, or Ark. Code §18-16-101), claiming the scales of justice are tipped too far in favor of landlords looking for a cheap workaround from tenant ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 21, 2021
Wilson v. Ponce
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/cases/wilson-v-ponce
Date: May 16, 2020
By: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU of Southern California)
More than 700 people, including several staff members, have tested positive for COVID-19 on Terminal Island in Los Angeles. At least nine have died.

This crisis need never to have reached such horrific proportions. Through a series of unconscionable delays, blunders, and failures to ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 21, 2021
Brown v. Precythe
MacArthur Justice Center
Date: Feb. 11, 2021
By: MacArthur Justice Center
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions holding mandatory life without parole sentences for youthful offenders unconstitutional, the Missouri Supreme Court denied resentencing hearings for impacted youthful offenders.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 20, 2021
Arnold Baker et al. v. Minnesota Department of Corrections
ACLU Minnesota
Date: Dec. 10, 2021
By: ACLU Minnesota
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit to force the Minnesota Department of Corrections to protect people in its custody from COVID-19. The lawsuit was filed in Ramsey County District Court against the DOC and its Commissioner Paul Schnell.*
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
September 19, 2021
"Will Singer, Judicial Intervention and Juvenile Corrections Reform: A Case Study of Jerry M. v. District of Columbia"
Date: Jun. 1, 2012
By: Will Singer (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology)
102 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 901 (2012)
In January 2007, Vincent N. Schiraldi was the head of the District of
Columbia’s juvenile corrections agency.1
By that time, the agency had
struggled for decades to comply with a comprehensive consent decree
aimed at remedying constitutionally deficient conditions of ...
View Case Study Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 19, 2021
Lessons Learned from Georgia’s 2010 Olmstead Settlement: The Good, the Bad, and the Limitations of a Justice Department Olmstead Settlement
By: Talley Wells (Journal of Legal Medicine)
40 J. Legal Med. 45 (2020).
We were crushed.
It was Thursday, January 15, 2009, the day Captain Sully piloted his aircraft onto the Hudson River.1 It was five days before President George W.
Bush left office. And, it was the day the United States Justice Department
and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue entered ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Harold v. Richards
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Jan. 10, 2018
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Pennsylvania targeted people with drug-related convictions in a particularly severe way — unlike for all other criminal offenses, the state automatically suspended the driver’s license of any person whose conviction involved drugs. These suspensions made social reentry nearly impossible; they ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
DiFrancesco v. Bullock
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Aug. 31, 2017
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Every year, Montana was suspending the licenses of an estimated 10,000 drivers because they were unable to pay court debts. The automatic suspensions were designed to coerce payment -- but this practice can never accomplish its intended goal. No punishment can increase the likelihood that a person ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Fowler v. Johnson
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: May 4, 2017
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law successfully settled with the state of Michigan
to ensure that, before the state suspends licenses for unpaid court
debt, individuals are given proper notice and the opportunity to show their inability to pay.

For those unable to pay, an ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Watlington v. City of McCrory
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Jan. 5, 2017
By: Equal Justice Under Law
Equal Justice Under Law is arguing defendants banish from the city those who are too poor to live in homes worth $7 ,500 or more.

In September of 2016, the City of McCrory Arkansas passed a Trailer-Banishment Ordinance, forbidding anyone within the city limits from residing in a mobile ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Mar. 11, 2020
By: Equal Justice Under Law
This critical lawsuit aims to relieve hundreds of people currently detained unjustly pending immigration proceedings. The class action lawsuit includes immigrants detained in Richwood, Louisiana with Department of Justice immigration proceedings in Batavia, New York. Individuals who are not being ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 16, 2021
Buffin v. San Francisco
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Mar. 4, 2019
By: Equal Justice Under Law
The City and County of San Francisco kept some of its poorest residents in jail because of their inability to make a monetary payment. In San Francisco, the poorer you are, the worse the system treats you. A wealthy individual could simply purchase his or her freedom whereas someone without means ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Rodriguez v. Providence Community Corrections
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Oct. 1, 2015
By: Equal Justice Under Law
In 2015, Equal Justice Under Law went on a six-month investigation — initially led with a team of Harvard Law School Students on Spring Break — and exposed rampant corruption, racketeering, and constitutional violations pervading the Rutherford County probation system.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Evenson-Childs v. Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office
Equal Justice Under Law
Date: Aug. 9, 2021
By: Equal Justice Under Law
On August 9, 2021, Equal Justice Under Law filed a lawsuit against the Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office on behalf of hundreds of individuals being extorted money through pre-trial fees before ever being found guilty of a crime.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
EPIC v. U.S. Postal Service
EPIC
Date: Aug. 12, 2021
By: EPIC
EPIC v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 21-2156 (D.D.C. filed August 12, 2021) is a lawsuit under the E-Government Act of 2002 to stop the U.S. Postal Service's law enforcement arm from using facial recognition and social media monitoring tools.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections
MacArthur Justice Center
Date: Oct. 28, 2020
By: MacArthur Justice Center
The MacArthur Justice Center and the ACLU of Missouri jointly filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) systematic denial of potential life-saving medication to inmates with chronic Hepatitis C (HCV).*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections
ACLU Missouri
Date: Dec. 6, 2018
By: ACLU Missouri
The ACLU of Missouri and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center (MJC) at St. Louis jointly filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of Missourians who are asking for their constitutional and statutory rights to life-saving treatment while in prison.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2021
Review of the Use of Monitors in Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees Involving State and Local Government Entities
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 9/13/2021
By: Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assoc. AG Vanita Gupta (U.S. Department of Justice)
Today, the Justice Department will begin implementing a set of principles and specific recommendations regarding the use ofmonitors in civil settlement agreements and consent decrees involving state and local governmental entities. These actions are the result of a review conducted by the Associate ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2021
City of Baltimore Consent Decree
Date: Apr. 7, 2017
(City of Baltimore)
On April 7, 2017, the City of Baltimore and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Consent Decree, which is a court enforceable agreement to resolve DOJ's findings that it believed the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) had engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct that violates the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2021
Arctic Village Council v. Meyer
ACLU Alaska
Date: Oct. 13, 2020
By: ACLU Alaska
The lawsuit, Arctic Village Council v. Meyer, seeks to waive a provision of state law for the November general election that requires voters who submit a mail-in absentee ballot to have a witness sign their ballot return envelope even in the midst of a highly contagious and deadly pandemic. *
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2021
Alaska Ballot Witness Law (Arctic Village Council et al. v Meyer et al.)
Native American Rights Fund
Date: Oct. 13, 2020
By: Native American Rights Fund
Alaska’s witness signature requirement for casting an absentee ballot is unconstitutional, and immediate injunctive and declaratory relief must be granted, a lawsuit filed on September 8, 2020 against Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer, Director of the Alaska Division of Elections Gail Fenumiai, and ...
View Link Detail  


CASE STUDIES
September 10, 2021
"Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings"
Columbia Law Review
Date: Jan. 1, 1976
By: William R. Stein (Columbia Law School Law Student)
William R. Stein, Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings, 76 COLUM. L. REV. 674 (1976)
Student Note in the Columbia Law Review that discusses Avant with fair detail under the umbrella of use immunity and its relevance in criminal proceedings*
View Case Study Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 10, 2021
Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings
Columbia Law Review
Date: Jan. 1, 1976
By: William R. Stein (Columbia Law School Law Student)
William R. Stein, Resolving Tensions between Constitutional Rights: Use Immunity in Concurrent or Related Proceedings, 76 COLUM. L. REV. 674 (1976)
Student Note in the Columbia Law Review that discusses Avant with fair detail under the umbrella of use immunity and its relevance in criminal proceedings*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
March 2017 Stop & Frisk Report
ACLU
Date: Jul. 11, 2017
By: ACLU Illinois
March 24, 2017 -- Independent consultant and former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys released his first semiannual report pursuant to the 2015 investigatory stop and protective pat down agreement between the City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department and the ACLU of Illinois.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
Robinson v. Martin
MacArthur Justice Center
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Locke Bowman and Alexa Van Brunt
The MacArthur Justice Center partnered with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. and Civil Rights Corps to file a federal class action targeting Cook County’s unconstitutional pay-for-release cash bail system, which results in the pre-trial detention of legally innocent men and women who cannot ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
Independent Consultant Releases New Stop & Frisk Report for the City of Chicago
ACLU
Date: Mar. 7, 2018
By: ACLU Illinois
Former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys today released the latest report on investigatory stops and protective pat downs by Chicago Police officers. The report is the most recent evaluation of data gathered and analyzed as part of an agreement between the City of Chicago, Chicago Police ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 9, 2021
Period 3 and 4 - Stop and Frisk Report, CY2017
ACLU
Date: Oct. 17, 2019
By: ACLU Illinois
This is the third report conducted by retired Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys as a result of a 2015 agreement between the City of Chicago and the ACLU. The agreement followed an ACLU report showing that stop and frisk was used more than four times as often in Chicago as compared to New York City ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 8, 2021
"You're Destroying Families"
ProPublica Illinois
Date: Jun. 20, 2019
By: Melissa Sanchez and Duaa Eldeib
When his son was born in 2014, Jorge Matias held the infant in the hospital and sang him the lullabies he had learned as a child in Guatemala. He teased the boy’s mother that he would raise their son to speak Spanish, and one day the two of them would talk in secret around her.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 8, 2021
2015 Stop and Frisk Report
ACLU Illinois
Date: Mar. 20, 2015
By: ACLU Illinois
Chicago has failed to train, supervise and monitor law enforcement in minority communities for decades, resulting in a failure to ensure that officers’ use of stop and frisk is lawful. This report contains troubling signs that the Chicago Police Department has a current practice of unlawfully ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 7, 2021
“The Judge Didn't Sentence Me to Be Raped”: Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections: A 15-Year Battle Against the Sexual Abuse of Women Inmates in Michigan
Women & Criminal Justice
Date: Jul. 9, 2012
By: Rachel Culley
This research traces the history of Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections, a class action lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections that alleged the sexual abuse of women prisoners spanning more than two decades. The litigation resulted in combined jury verdicts of more than ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 7, 2021
New Jersey Settles NAACP Lawsuit
State Police New Jersey
Date: Mar. 1, 2000
By: New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety
New Jersey and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and a class of unhired trooper applicants have settled a four-year-old lawsuit against the State Police by agreeing to a plan to emphasize both stringent educational standards and the need for diversity in the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 7, 2021
Davis v. Jeffreys
Uptown People's Law Center
Date: 2021
By: Uptown People's Law Center
In June 2016, UPLC brought a case against the Illinois Department of Corrections on behalf of six prisoners who were facing or had faced, extreme isolation in Illinois prisons. These individuals had been held in extreme isolation for between 6 months and 17 years. The conditions described by the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 5, 2021
Kennedy v. City of Zanesville
Relman Colfax PLLC
Date: 2008
By: Relman Colfax
On July 10, 2008, a federal court jury returned verdicts totaling nearly $11 million against the City of Zanesville, Ohio, Muskingum County, Ohio, and the East Muskingum Water Authority for illegally denying water service to a predominately African-American community on the basis of race. The sixty- ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 1, 2021
Terrill v. State of Oregon
Disability Rights Advocates
Date: Apr. 20, 2021
By: Disability Rights Advocates
On April 20, 2021, Disability Rights Advocates and Lynn S. Walsh filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) on behalf of current and former people with disabilities who are incarcerated and who have been charged for the costs of the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 1, 2021
Florida Parents Partner with IJ to Shut Down Dystopian "Predictive Policing" Program
Institute for Justice
Date: Aug. 4, 2021
By: Institute for Justice
The Sheriff’s Office of Pasco County, Florida, harasses people in their own homes using a method they call “predictive policing.” The program has unfolded like a dystopian nightmare for the Pasco County residents it has ensnared, who have been subjected to near-constant police surveillance ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 31, 2021
Messina v. City of Fort Lauderdale
Florida Justice Institute
Date: Jul. 2, 2021
By: Florida Justice Institute
The Florida Justice Institute (FJI), in partnership with Fort Lauderdale lawyers Mara Shlackman and Frantz J. McLawrence, filed a lawsuit challenging a pair of the City of Fort Lauderdale’s anti-panhandling ordinances as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. One ordinance prohibits ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 31, 2021
Avendaño v. Asher
ACLU Washington
Date: Dec. 11, 2020
By: ACLU Washington
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Washington, and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement today on behalf of immigrants detained at the Tacoma Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. The legal organizations seek the ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 30, 2021
ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Migrant Transportation Order
American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Aug. 5, 2021
By: ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas are suing Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over his executive order that bars the transportation of certain migrants in the state.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 30, 2021
Publisher Again Challenges Censorship of Publications by Florida DOC
Human Rights Defense Center
Date: Aug. 10, 2021
By: Human Rights Defense Center
The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) has filed suit in the United States Southern District of Florida to challenge censorship by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) and Secretary Mark S. Inch, as well as Jose Colon, warden of the Everglades Correctional Institution. The lawsuit alleges ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
Oyez
Date: Jun. 29, 2021
By: Oyez
Respondents are a class of noncitizens subject to reinstated removal orders, which generally are not open to challenge. However, if a noncitizen has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in the countries designated in their removal orders, the person may pursue withholding of removal. That is ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
G: The Miseducation of Larry P
WNYCStudios
Date: Jun. 7, 2019
By: Radiolab
Are some ideas so dangerous we shouldn’t even talk about them? That question brought Radiolab’s senior editor, Pat Walters, to a subject that at first he thought was long gone: the measuring of human intelligence with IQ tests. Turns out, the tests are all around us. In the workplace. The ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
Biden v. Texas
SCOTUSBlog
Date: Aug. 24, 2021
By: SCOTUSBlog
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should issue a stay of a district court’s injunction requiring the federal government to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols.*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 29, 2021
The Story of Sale v. Haitian Centers Council: Guantanamo and Refoulement
Columbia University
Date: 1993
By: Harold Hongju Koh & Michael J. Wishnie
Nearly two decades before September 11, 2001, thousands of foriegn nationals without due process at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.*
View Link Detail