University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

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


CASE ADDITIONS
October 17, 2017
Carson v. Heigel
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00045-MGL (D.S.C.)
PB-SC-0005
In 2016, a same-sex married couple filed this Civil Rights Act of 1871 complaint in the District Court of South Carolina (Columbia Division). Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of their fundamental right to marry and other protected liberties related to the differential treatment of birth records for children with same-sex married parents. Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs and a consent decree entered ordering South Carolina to make changes to the policies of their birth-record keeping, as well as the issuance of corrected birth certificates to the Plaintiffs and all who qualified under the new policies and requested such a correction. The parties reached an undisclosed settlement for attorney’s fees and the case closed in June 2017.
View Case Detail (PB-SC-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 16, 2017
Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:17-cv-02921-GJH (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0005
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-MD-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Meganathan v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00497 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0037
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Kambala v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00498 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0038
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0038)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Joseph v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00324 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0036
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0036)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Marimuthu v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00499 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0039
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0039)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-LA-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Achari v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-06218 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0012
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-LA-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Singh v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-00732 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0016
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-LA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Samuel v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0035
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Thomas v. Kent
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-08013-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0048
In 2014, individuals with disabilities receiving Medicaid-funded care at their homes filed this lawsuit against the California Department of Health Care Services in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that they were at risk for institutionalization in violation of the Americans with Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. After over 2 years of discovery and multiple Statements of Interests filed by the United States, this case remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0048)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. SafetyNet Youth, Inc.
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-00519-CG-B (S.D. Ala.)
MH-AL-0002
In the Southern District of Alabama in October 2013, the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program brought this lawsuit against SafetyNet, Inc., claiming that the defendant had failed to allow the plaintiff access to its facilities as required by the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI), the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (PADD Act), and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Program of 1993 (PAIR). In December 2013, the defendant filed a third-party complaint against the Alabama Department of Human Resources. After all three parties moved for summary judgment, on December 12, 2014,the court granted the plaintiff’s motion, holding that the defendant was required to grant the plaintiff access to its facilities by law and awarding injunctive and declaratory relief to the plaintiff.
View Case Detail (MH-AL-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Chakkiyattil v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-06219 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0013
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-LA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 15, 2017
Krishnakutty v. Signal International LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-06220 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0014
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-LA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 13, 2017
Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-02276-JST (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0360
On April 27, 2016, the plaintiff, a certified public accountant over the age of forty, filed this class and collective action against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The defendant moved for a judgement on the pleadings and was denied. As of October 12, 2017, the parties remain engaged in discovery. The deadline for the motion for conditional certification of the ADEA collective class remains vacated. The next telephonic case management conference is scheduled for November 17, 2017.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0360)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 13, 2017
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty v. State of New York
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 2:04-cv-00705-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.)
ED-NY-0017
Homeless children and their parents living in Suffolk County, New York, filed suit against various State and County agencies and fourteen school districts, alleging that they had been denied access to a free and appropriate public school education in violation of the McKinney Vento-Homelessness Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11431-11435; New York Education Law § 3209; and various other laws and regulations thereunder. The Plaintiffs alleged that homeless children in Suffolk County were often turned away at the schoolhouse door, experienced significant delays in enrolling in public school, or were denied access to transportation or other basic services. The Plaintiffs reached three settlement agreements with the school district defendants, New York State defendants, and Suffolk County defendants, respectively.
View Case Detail (ED-NY-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 13, 2017
Avitia v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-04818-R-SK (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0127
In June 2016, a deaf resident of California, together with the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that the City of Santa Ana's failure to provide ASL interpreters or auxiliary aids to deaf and hard of hearing inmates at the city's jail violated Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. In February 2017, the parties reached a settlement requiring Defendants to pay $140,000 in damages to Plaintiffs and to develop measures to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing jail inmates would receive appropriate accommodations and services. The case closed in May 2017.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0127)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2017
Wood v. Ryan
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-01447-NVW (D. Ariz.)
CJ-AZ-0002
Several citizens and residents of Arizona subject to the death penalty brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) and several associated governmental employees. The plaintiffs argued that the ADC's lethal injection procedure violated their First Amendment right to access governmental proceedings, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Federal Supremacy Clause. The parties came to a stipulated agreement prohibiting the defendant from using certain chemicals for execution, among other limitation. The case is ongoing as an appeal continues in the Ninth Circuit as to first amendment issues.
View Case Detail (CJ-AZ-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2017
U.S. v. State of Connecticut
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 3:09-CV-85 (D. Conn.)
MH-CT-0003
On January 20, 2009, the Department of Justice filed and settled a lawsuit with the State of Connecticut for practices at the Connecticut Valley Hospital, a state-run psychiatric facility, that violated the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (CRIPA). In the settlement, Connecticut agreed to a wide variety of practice changes and a period of supervised operation. On May 22, 2015, the Court approved the State’s notice of substantial compliance and motion to terminate the settlement agreement, however, news suggests that as late as mid-2017, patients at the Connecticut Valley Hospital continued to suffer from widespread abuse.
View Case Detail (MH-CT-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2017
Remick v. Utah
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-00789 (D. Utah)
PD-UT-0001
A class-action lawsuit was brought against the State of Utah and the Attorney General of Utah under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate legal representation to indigent adults accused of crimes in Utah’s District and Justice courts for which there is a possibility of incarceration.
View Case Detail (PD-UT-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2017
Moussazadeh v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:07-CV-574 (S.D. Tex.)
PC-TX-0018
On October 12, 2005, an inmate of Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), its executive director and the warden of the Eastham Unit under 42 U.S.C. §2000 and Texas State Code §110.001. The plaintiff alleged that the TDCJ and specifically the Eastham Unit have denied his access to a kosher diet, which he requires as part of his sincere religious belief. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, claiming violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). After a number of motions to dismiss and appeals, the parties eventually reached a private settlement agreement which was granted on March 31, 2017 wherein the plaintiff was transferred to a prison with access to a Jewish dietary program.
View Case Detail (PC-TX-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2017
Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 16-cv-4219-NKL-P (W.D. Mo.)
PC-MO-0015
On July 14, 2016, inmates at the Missouri Department of Corrections filed this class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Plaintiffs sued the MDOC under U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants failed to provide medically acceptable care to HCV+ inmates and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants filed a motion to oppose class certification, but on May 11, 2017, Chief Judge Laughrey granted the plaintiffs class certification. MDOC defendants also filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, but on May 11, Judge Laughrey denied defendant MDOC's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs plausibly stated claims under both the Eighth Amendment and the American Disabilities Act.
View Case Detail (PC-MO-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 12, 2017
Fowler v. Turco
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 15-cv-12298-NMG (D. Mass.)
PC-MA-0045
OnJUne 10,2015, inmates of the Massachusetts Department of Correction filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare LLC (“MPCH”) and the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have repeatedly shown deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of plaintiffs and the members of the class also infected with the Hepatitis C virus. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Discovery is ongoing with a trial date set for April 30, 2018.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0045)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 11, 2017
County of Santa Clara v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-05813 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0106
This suit, brought on October 10, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are Santa Clara County and a union representing thousands of county employees, and they seek to enjoin the government from ending the program. Not only do the DACA recipients stand to lose benefits and security they have relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that their employers and communities stand to lose the benefits these recipients provide to them. As a result, the plaintiffs contended that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek equitable estoppel, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0106)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2017
T.H. v. Walcott
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-08777-JLC (S.D.N.Y.)
DR-NY-0015
In 2013, children with disabilities in New York City sued the New York Department of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that New York City Schools frequently misused emergency medical services to remove students with disabilities in non-emergency situations, in violation of federal disability laws, among other claims. In 2014, the parties reached a stipulated agreement that required the City change its policies and practices relating to its handling of children with disabilities and awarded monetary damages to the plaintiffs. The period of the stipulation agreement runs until June 30, 2018.
View Case Detail (DR-NY-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2017
Hacker v. Cain
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:14-cv-00063-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.)
PC-LA-0018
In 2014, a prisoner at Louisiana State Penitentiary who suffered from cataracts filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiff alleged that the policy of delaying "elective surgery," failing to make reasonable work accommodations, and excluding prisoners with disabilities from beneficial prison programs violated the American with Disabilities Act and his Eighth Amendment rights. After filing his initial lawsuit, plaintiff received cataracts surgery, but the lawsuit continued over the broader discriminatory policies. The case went to a jury trial in 2017, which returned a verdict for the defendants. The jury said that plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a disability under the ADA before his cataracts surgery and that the defendants did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights by delaying surgery and requiring him to do manual work despite his visual impairment. The plaintiff motioned for a new trial in March 2017. The case remains open and active.
View Case Detail (PC-LA-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 9, 2017
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) v. Alford
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00757-WCO (N.D. Ga.)
IM-GA-0009
On March 9, 2016, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) and students within the University System of Georgia filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They alleged the students, who had been granted legal status under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, were entitled to in-state tuition, and that the defendants had created an unconstitutional two-tiered system of residency in violation of the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These proceedings have been stayed since February 16, 2017 as a parallel suit in the Georgia Supreme Court could answer the question of whether denying in-state tuition to DACA students violated state statutory law and Board of Regents policies. As DACA was recently rescinded by the Trump Administration, it is unclear how either case will proceed.
View Case Detail (IM-GA-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2017
Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:17-cv-02942-RWT (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0006
This suit, brought on October 5, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are a series of nonprofit organizations and DACA recipients who seek to enjoin the government from ending the program. Not only do the plaintiffs stand to lose benefits and security they have relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that the rescission is motivated by discriminatory animus toward individuals from Mexico and Central America. As a result, the plaintiffs contended that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek equitable estoppel, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. In 2012, President Obama created DACA program by executive order. The program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless congress acts within the next six months. As the complaint highlights, the Obama administration in promoting DACA made key promises to immigrants: that any information they provided in the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement, and that barring criminal activity or fraud in their DACA applications, DACA recipients would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits. The plaintiffs include a series of nonprofit organizations devoted to civil rights, and in particular immigrant rights. The plaintiffs also include individuals who came to the U.S. as children from various nations in South America. Some are students, others are working, and still others have started families in the U.S. They argued that the DACA rescission will lead to loss of work authorization and many vital benefits, loss of the ability to attend college, risk of deportation, breaking up of families. Further, the plaintiffs highlighted that the government has issued "guidance suggesting an intention to welch on those promises and to share that information with ICE and CBP." The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-MD-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2017
Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:09-cv-04182-KES (D.S.D.)
PC-SD-0007
On December 9, 2009 Plaintiffs are comprised of (1) the Native American Council of Tribes, the lead Plaintiff, and (2) the individual Plaintiffs of the case, current and former Native American inmates in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Native American inmates in the South Dakota State ...
View Case Detail (PC-SD-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2017
Sonnenberg v. Disability Rights Idaho, Inc.
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 1:14-cv-00369-EJL (D. Idaho)
MH-ID-0003
Disability Rights Idaho (DRI) sought records pertaining to the death of an individual, who had been residing in an inpatient behavioral health unit of an Ada County hospital. The Ada County Coroner refused to provide the documents and DRI counterclaimed that the Coroner was obligated to provide the documents due to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI). Judge Edward J. Lodge entered a judgment in favor of DRI instructing the Coroner to release the records.
View Case Detail (MH-ID-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 8, 2017
EEOC v. EAGLE PRODUCE
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-1921-NVW (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0046
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-AZ-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 7, 2017
Muslim Advocates v. U.S. Department of State
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-02080-TSC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0033
On Oct. 5, 2017, the organizations Muslim Advocates, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs sued the Department of State (DOS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the latter's component Customs and Border Protection (CBP), under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations promoting civil rights and civil liberties. According to their complaint, they seek information on persons affected by the Trump administration's travel ban, so that they may advise and assist travelers. Plaintiffs noted that, according to both the Executive Orders and the latest Proclamation, CBP is authorized to grant case-by-case waivers for people whom the travel ban would otherwise exclude. The complaint alleged that on June 27, 2017, plaintiffs had submitted a FOIA request to defendants seeking records regarding the waiver process, but had received no substantive response. On Oct. 6, the case was assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0033)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 7, 2017
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective v. Duke
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-02048-MWF-SHK (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0105
On Oct. 5, 2017, the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective and one of its members sued DHS, USCIS, and CBP. Represented by the ACLU's Southern California chapter and its Immigrants' Rights Project, plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The organizational plaintiff is a grassroots association led by immigrant youth. The individual plaintiff, a DACA recipient, is one of its members whose status ICE revoked after unsubstantiated allegations of criminal conduct. Plaintiffs alleged that in addition to this one incident, defendants were revoking other DACA recipients' status based not on disqualifying convictions, but on minor incidents in criminal records or unsubstantiated suspicions of criminal conduct, including arrests and charges later resolved in the applicants' favor. These terminations lacked advance notice, a hearing, or an opportunity for reinstatement. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. They argued that, in terminating DACA status without notice and hearing, defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Plaintiffs also sought certification of a nationwide class of people whose DACA status had unlawfully revoked.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0105)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 6, 2017
Remick v. Utah (2016)
By: ACLU of Utah
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 6, 2017
Homeless Claim L.A. Blew Off Court Orders
Courthouse News
Date: Apr. 16, 2013
By: Matt Reynolds
Homeless Claim L.A. Blew Off Court Orders, https://www.courthousenews.com/homeless-claim-l-a-blew-off-court-orders/ (last visited Oct 6, 2017)
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 6, 2017
L.A. agrees to pay nearly $950,000 in two cases involving the homeless
L.A. Times website
Date: Jun. 14, 2016
By: Emily Alpert Reyes
L.A. agrees to pay nearly $950,000 in two cases involving the homeless Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-attorney-fees-homeless-case-20160613-snap-story.html (last visited Oct 6, 2017)
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2017
Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:07-cv-00403-TFH (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0079
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an individual lawsuit against the Department of Justice for failure to respond to a FOIA request regarding orders and guidelines that allegedly authorized surveillance of international communications when there was a probably cause to believe one of the communicants was a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization. The case was dismissed in summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the defendant successfully showed that the requested documents were exempted from FOIA.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0079)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2017
United States v. Marion County Nursing Home District
Case Category: Nursing Home Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-00026-RWS (E.D. Mo.)
NH-MO-0001
The United States sued a Marion County-owned skilled nursing facility under the ADA and CRIPA for alleged violations of the residents' constitutional and statutory rights. Concurrently with the complaint, the parties submitted a settlement agreement, requiring the Defendant to meet certain requirements related to terms of placement in the most integrated settings, conditions of care and treatment, and protection from harm. The District Judge issued an order entering the settlement agreement as an order of the court. After the parties agreed that the Defendant had met the Agreement's requirement of two years of substantial compliance, the parties filed a joint stipulation and motion for dismissal, and the case was dismissed.
View Case Detail (NH-MO-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2017
Lavan v. City of Los Angeles
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:11-cv-02874-PSG (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0041
Eight homeless individuals sued the City of Los Angeles for seizing and destroying their property. After Plaintiffs won a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that survived several appeals, the City agreed to pay an $822,000.00 settlement.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0041)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 6, 2017
S.S. v. Springfield
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 3:14-cv-30116 (D. Mass.)
ED-MA-0004
On June 27, 2014, the plaintiffs, a mentally disabled student and his mother, joined by the Parent/Professional Advocacy League, filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the ADA. On December 16, 2016, Judge Mastroianni denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the First Circuit, where litigation continues.
View Case Detail (ED-MA-0004)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
October 5, 2017
SUMMARY:The Nationwide Perez-Fuñez Permanent Injunction Provisions for Unaccompanied Children in DHS Custody
www.nilc.org
Date: June 2014
By: National Immigration Law Center (National Immigration Law Center)
The Perez-Fuñez injunction is a nationwide class action permanent injunction that requires the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take certain steps before removing unaccompanied children to their countries of origin via voluntary departure. The injunction was originally entered in 1984, ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
October 5, 2017
Graham v. Parker
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 16-cv-01954 (M.D. Tenn.)
PC-TN-0015
On July 25, 2016, inmates at the Tennessee Department of Corrections filed this class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs sued the Tennessee Department of Corrections under U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants failed to provide medically acceptable care to HCV inmates and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants filed a motion to oppose class certification, but on May 4, 2017, Chief Judge Crenshaw granted the plaintiffs class certification. As of October 1, 2017 the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-TN-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 5, 2017
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-07572 (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0057
This suit seeks to compel the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) to release certain records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The plaintiff - a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech and press - sought "records concerning the exclusion or removal of individuals from the United States based on their speech, beliefs, or associations." The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. It argued that pursuant to President Trump's immigration policies, DHS and DOS created new policies with which to vet visa applicants and refugees. In particular, the Knight Institute pointed to the development of a questionnaire that asked for "any social media platforms and handles used during the last five years," as well as a new policy proposal slated to go into effect October 18, 2017 to have DHS' immigration records "include the 'social media handles, aliases, [and] associated identifiable information,' as well as 'publicly available information obtained from the internet,...and information obtained and disclosed pursuant to information sharing agreements.'" The Knight Instituted argued that these changes would have an expansive affect, reaching visa applicants, naturalized U.S. citizens, and lawful permanent residents. The Knight Institute submitted a FOIA request to DHS and DOS seeking information on these new vetting policies as well as the government's rationale that it can "base immigration decisions on individuals’ speech, beliefs, or associations." ICE released only one document in response to this request, prompting the plaintiff to bring this suit. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0057)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 5, 2017
Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Department of State
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-07520-JGK (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0056
On Oct. 2, 2017, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Represented by Muslim Advocates and private counsel, plaintiff sued the Department of State (DOS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiff is an organization with a mission "to advance effective national security policies that respect the rule of law and constitutional values." Plaintiff sought information about President Trump's Sept. 24, 2017 Proclamation. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0056)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 5, 2017
City of Los Angeles v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-07215 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0104
This action, filed by the City of Los Angeles, California on Sept. 29, 2017, challenged the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)'s imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. Plaintiff, represented by private counsel, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff argued that the requirements violated the U.S. Constitution's Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses (by usurping Congress' ability to set conditions for funding), the Tenth Amendment (by usurping plaintiff's power over its own municipal policy), and the Administrative Procedure Act (as arbitrary and capricious). Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and also moved for a preliminary injunction. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0104)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 4, 2017
Doe v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00097 (W.D. Va.)
IM-VA-0006
On Oct. 4, 2017, a minor in immigration detention filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff sued the owner and operator of his detention facility. Plaintiff also sought class action certification for all similarly situated minors who were or would be detained at his facility. Plaintiff alleged that he and other juvenile immigrant detainees at the SVJC were "subjected to unconstitutional conditions that shock the conscience, including violence by staff, abusive and excessive use of seclusion and restraints, and the denial of necessary mental health care." Additionally, plaintiff alleged that SVJC staff treated the Latino immigrant detainees (who were held for civil immigration offenses) more harshly than the mostly white, non-immigrant detainees (who were held for criminal offenses). Defendant had violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plaintiff asserted, by using excessive force against and displaying deliberate indifference to civil detainees, as well as discriminating against immigrant detainees based on their race and national origins. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-VA-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 2, 2017
Kalwasinski v. Maxymillian
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 9:09-cv-00214-GHL (N.D.N.Y.)
MH-NY-0010
On February 20, 2009, a Muslim prisoner at the Central New York Psychiatric Center filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The pro se plaintiff sued affiliates of CNYPC under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for various constitutional violations which he alleged denied him of freedom to freely practice his faith. After both parties were denied summary judgment, the parties settled on February 7, 2012, agreeing that the defendants would take measures to ensure the inmate’s religious requirements were met.
View Case Detail (MH-NY-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 2, 2017
29 Related School Desegregation Cases in the Western District of Louisiana
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: (W.D. La.)
SD-LA-0037
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-LA-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 1, 2017
Juarez v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:14-cv-05107-KBF (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0291
In the Southern District of New York in July of 2014, a lawfully-present alien alleged he was denied employment contract because of his alienage status and brought a class action suit against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Inc under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging discrimination based on alienage in the making of employment contracts. In May of 2015, the case settled out of court with a favorable outcome for the plaintiff.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0291)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 29, 2017
Owning Property Without Privacy: How Lavan v. City of Los Angeles Offers Increased Fourth Amendment Protection To Skid Row's Homeless
Date: Apr. 1, 2013
By: Benjamin G. Kassis (Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Law Student)
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 28, 2017
Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:11-cv-00939-RJL (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0082
In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. § 552. EFF sought to obtain a document that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel had prepared to assess the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f) to gather telephone records without legal process. In 2012, the District Court held that the DOJ had rightly withheld the document. In 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed this decision. In October 2014, the Supreme Court refused EFF’s request to hear the case. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0082)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 28, 2017
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:10-cv-04334-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0289
This case addresses the scope of Title VII's ban on sex discrimination, and asks if employers are barred from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation under the statute. A gay man filed this suit on Sept. 23, 2010 against Altitude Express and its CEO, arguing that he was terminated from his employment there on the basis of his sexual orientation. In so doing, the plaintiff argued that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation and so violated Title VII and New York gender and sexual orientation discrimination state law. Title VII is a federal law part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is charged with enforcing Title VII. The plaintiff sought damages for the defendants’ conduct. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco. Trial was held in October of that year. The jury returned its verdict on Oct. 28, ruling for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed on Nov. 20, 2015 to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit confirmed the lower court judgment in a per curiam opinion on Apr. 18, 2017. The court argued that it would not overturn an opinion issued by a prior Second Circuit panel (Simonton v. Runyon). On May 2, the plaintiff moved for a rehearing en banc, which was granted. The EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff, and the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants. After both sides submitted a series of briefs, the en banc hearing was held on Sept. 26, 2017. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0289)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 26, 2017
Devitri v. Cronen
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-11842 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0011)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 25, 2017
Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats
www.whitehouse.gov
Date: Sep. 24, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2017
Georgia Advocacy Office v. Shelp
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 1:09-CV-2880-CAP (N.D. Ga.)
MH-GA-0001
On October 16, 2009, the Georgia Advocacy Office (GAO) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief guaranteeing them access to investigate state hospitals in Georgia. Judge Pannell Jr. approved a stipulated agreement on September 30, 2011, requiring the defendants to grant access to their institutions and documents when the GAO sought to investigate.
View Case Detail (MH-GA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2017
Defenders of Wildlife v. Duke
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01873-JM-AGS (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0101
This suit, filed on Sept. 14, 2017, challenged President Trump's authorization of the construction of a border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. Plaintiffs, environmental advocacy organizations (the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund), sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to comply with existing laws and for taking actions beyond the scope of its authority. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0101)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2017
Sierra Club v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-05273-KAW (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0100
On Sept. 12, 2017, the Sierra Club sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In its complaint, plaintiff described itself as "the nation’s oldest grassroots environmental organization, [which] . . . has long advocated to protect and preserve the cultures of the borderland communities, as well as the region’s land, wildlife, and environment." Plaintiff feared potential environmental damage that could result from President Trump's Executive Order (EO) No. 13767, authorizing expansion or replacement of portions of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Under FOIA, plaintiffs sought disclosure of agency records by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Specifically, plaintiffs sought records regarding the environmental impacts of DHS's plans to implement the EO.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0100)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2017
City of San Jose v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05329 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0098
On Sept. 14, 2017, the City of San Jose filed this lawsuit against the federal government in response to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum issued on Sept. 5, 2017 ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0098)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 24, 2017
Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01215-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0103
On June 15, 2017, the Center for Biological Diversity filed this lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Plaintiff filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and the case was assigned to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. According to the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff is "an environmental conservation organization that works to protect native wildlife species and their habitats." In the wake of President Trump's Executive Order (EO) No. 13767, authorizing expanded border wall construction, plaintiff feared that such construction would harm the environment, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other environmental statutes. Plaintiff was also concerned that the border wall would harm plaintiff's members who frequented borderland wildlife areas. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, by being nonresponsive to plaintiff, had violated FOIA or alternatively the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Plaintiff also alleged that in waiving the applicability of the environmental statutes, defendant had violated IIRIRA, NEPA, and ESA, as well as the U.S. Constitution's Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers Doctrine, Non-Delegation Doctrine, and Presentment Clause.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0103)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 23, 2017
People of the State of California v. United States of America
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01911-W-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0102
This suit, filed on September 20, 2017, challenged President Trumps authorization of the construction of a border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The plaintiffs sued the federal government for failing to comply with existing laws and taking actions beyond the scope of its authority. President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) No. 13767 on Jan. 25, 2017, which directed DHS to "allocate all sources of Federal funds for the planning, designing and construction of a physical wall along the southern border." The EO cites as its authority the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). According to the complaint, IIRIRA "allows the Secretary of DHS to waive any law he or she deems necessary to expeditiously construct reinforced fencing authorized under that section." The complaint asserted that DHS twice attempted to exercise this waiver on Aug. 2 and Sept. 12, 2017 with respect to portions of the California border. According to the complaint, DHS seeks to enforce the EO through the "construction of a Border Wall, which includes but is not limited to the construction of prototype walls and fences, the construction of barriers and roads that are not in areas of high illegal entry, the construction of barriers that are not in areas where the fencing would be most practical and effective, and the replacement of existing walls and fencing along the United States-Mexico border." In so doing, the complaint argued that DHS violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The plaintiffs also sought declaration that the IIRIRA waiver provision does not apply to DHS' proposed activities pursuant to the EO, that the two California waivers do not comply with the IIRIRA waiver provision, and that both the California waivers and the IIRIRA provision itself violate Fifth Amendment due process, the separation of powers doctrine, and the Tenth Amendment. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0102)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 22, 2017
Gonzales v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-01411-MJP (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0007
A consortium of immigrant rights advocacy groups filed this case in the Western District of Washington to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's policy of denying applications for "Permission to Reapply for Admission After Deportation or Removal" filed on form I-212 (I-212 waiver application) when ten years had not elapsed since the applicants' last departure. Plaintiffs asserted that this practice violated Ninth Circuit precedent in Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Fifth Amendment. While the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed, finding that the courts owed deference to an administrative interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that disposed of plaintiffs' claim. However, following the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in a related case, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its decision, vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case. The parties eventually settled, and the District Court approved the settlement agreement on July 21, 2014. The Court certified class, who were entitled to reopening of their immigration case based on the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 22, 2017
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Henry
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:08-cv-00109 (W.D. Okla.)
IM-OK-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-OK-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 22, 2017
Chintakuntla v. INS
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:99-cv-05211-MMC (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0023
On December 8, 1999, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the INS denial of employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant visa petitions that were filed by U.S. employers and immigrants who sought to obtain work visas for immigrants with certain employment skills and experience. The issue in plaintiffs' complaint was the INS policy of denying EB-2 applications when form ETA 750 specified a Bachelor's degree plus five years of "Progressive Experience" in lieu of a Master's degree. The District Court (Judge Maxine M. Chesney) entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, granted provisional class certification and issued a preliminary injunction on May 4, 2000. Judge Chesney ordered the INS to permit some EB-2 immigrant visa petitioners to file untimely motions to reconsider the decisions in their cases in light of the March 20, 2000, Service Memorandum.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 22, 2017
Perez-Funez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: CV 81-1457 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0036
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0036)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 21, 2017
Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security)
"This memorandum rescinds the June 15, 2012 memorandum entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,' which established the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ('DACA'). For the reasons and in the manner ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 21, 2017
Catholic Social Services v. Ashcroft
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:86-cv-01343-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 19, 2017
Garcia v. United States of America
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05380 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0099
This suit, brought on September 18, 2017, challenges President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs are DACA recipients who seek to enjoin the government from ending the program. Not only do the plaintiffs stand to lose benefits and security they have relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that the communities in which they reside also stand to lose valuable contributing members. The complaint argued that the DACA program made promises to its recipients upon which they have relied for their entire lives in America. As a result, the plaintiffs contended that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. They seek equitable estoppel, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. In 2012, President Obama created DACA program by executive order. The program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless congress acts within the next six months. As the complaint highlights, the Obama administration in promoting DACA made key promises to immigrants: that any information they provided in the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement, and that barring criminal activity or fraud in their DACA applications, DACA recipients would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0099)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 19, 2017
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:06-cv-02371 (N.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0003
This case is one of four lawsuits filed against the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, to challenge a city ordinance that required apartment owners and managers to determine the citizenship or immigration status of their tenants and imposed penalties for their failure to do so. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Judge Sam A. Lindsay) issued a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and finally, on August 29, 2008, a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the law as preempted by federal law. A new, similar law, however, has since been passed. (See IM-TX-0028 for the case on that law.) This case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 19, 2017
Muniz v. Gallegos
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:09-cv-02865 (N.D. Ohio)
IM-OH-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-OH-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 17, 2017
Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:05-cv-03604-DDP-RZ (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0051
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0051)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 15, 2017
Gonzalez Torres v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01840-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0097
On Sept. 11, 2017, an individual private plaintiff in San Diego filed this lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. Private counsel represented plaintiff and filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In the complaint, plaintiff stated that he had been a two-time DACA recipient since 2013. He alleged that defendant in May 2016 had apprehended him in a raid, detained him for a month, initiated removal proceedings against him solely for unlawful presence, and because of the removal proceedings automatically terminated his DACA status (including his employment authorization, leading to his job loss). Plaintiff argued that this automatic status termination, with no notice or opportunity to respond, ran contrary to USCIS' DACA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and thus violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. He also alleged that it violated his Fifth Amendment due process right. Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief for his DACA to be reinstated and not terminated prior to notice and an opportunity to respond, as required in the SOP. Judge Miller on Sept. 29 issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants' revocation of plaintiff's DACA status, so that plaintiff may apply for an extension. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0097)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 15, 2017
State of California v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05235-MEJ (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0096
In 2012, President Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Created by executive order, the program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless congress acts within the next six months. Against that backdrop, the State of California sued the Department of Homeland Security challenging the government's decision to revoke DACA. In its complaint, California notes that it is home to more DACA recipients, or "Dreamers," than any other state in the country - more than 200,000. DACA, the complaint argues, has provided invaluable protections to young people across the state, allowing them to pursue education and jobs. In turn, they have contributed to the California economy and educational experiences of students in California's school systems. In their complaint, plaintiffs argued that rescinding DACA leaves Dreamers "violates fundamental notions of justice" by leaving Dreamers without access to jobs and making them vulnerable to deportation. The complaint also alleged that DACA recipients were required to divulge confidential information in order to apply for the program, including information about their immigration status and address; recipients were assured that the information would be kept confidential. By revoking DACA, plaintiffs argued that the government created a "confusing and threatening situation" in which that private information is at risk of being used against recipients in future immigration proceedings. Joined by the states of Minnesota and Main, the complaint alleged that the government's decision violated the fifth amendment due process clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Plaintiffs also alleged that the government violated the Equal Protection Cause. They sought equitable estoppel to prevent the government from divulging DACA recipients personal information as well as an order from the court enjoining the government from rescinding the program. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on September 11. It is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0096)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 15, 2017
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-02546 (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0019
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-AZ-0019)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 13, 2017
Smith Barney Gender Discrimination
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/employment/smith-barney/
Date: August 2008
By: Outten & Golden
The lawsuit, Fassbender Amochaev v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., dba Smith Barney, alleges that Smith Barney has engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its female financial consultants in account distribution, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 13, 2017
Age Discrimination Class Action seeks Fair Employment for Older PwC Applicants
http://www.pwcagecase.com/
Date: Apr. 27, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
On April 27, 2016, Steve Rabin, an older CPA who was denied employment at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), filed an age discrimination class and collective action on behalf of himself and all other unsuccessful PwC accountant applicants aged 40 and over from 2013 to the present. The lawsuit ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 13, 2017
State of California v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-04701 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0094
The State of California's Attorney General, on behalf of the State, filed this lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ), including its component Office of Justice Programs (OJP), on Aug. 14, 2017. Plaintiff and its political subdivisions receive federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program administered by defendant. Plaintiff noted that the latest DOJ requirements for FY2017 program funding imposed new conditions on recipients: "to: (a) provide federal immigration enforcement agents with the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') access to detention facilities to interview inmates who are 'aliens' or believed to be 'aliens' (the 'access condition'); and (b) provide 48 hours’ advance notice to DHS regarding the scheduled release date of an 'alien' upon request by DHS (the 'notification condition')." Plaintiff believed that its relevant laws (the TRUST Act and TRUTH Act statutes, governing DHS' access to inmates in state and local custody) in fact complied with these conditions but that defendant misinterpreted its laws as non-compliant. In any event, plaintiff argued that the conditions were so ambiguous that defendant could continue to wrongly deny plaintiff the funding. Additionally, plaintiff believed that Congress did not intend these immigration-related conditions in the Byrne JAG statute. By imposing these conditions on this funding, plaintiff alleged, the requirements threatened the implementation of plaintiff's state laws while threatening a critical source of state and municipal funding to "support law enforcement programs, reduce recidivism, conduct prevention and education programs for at-risk youth, and support programs for crime victims and witnesses." Plaintiff argued that the access and notification requirements would compel it to choose between either maintaining federal funding or maintaining its own sovereignty over public safety, but not both. Plaintiff argued that the access and notification requirements violated the U.S. Constitution's Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses (by usurping Congress' ability to set conditions for funding), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (as arbitrary and capricious and exceeding defendant's statutory authority). Furthermore, plaintiff argued that the requirements would force plaintiff to violate the Fourth Amendment by holding detainees past their ordinary release time. In advance of the imminent Sept. 5, 2017 city deadline and Sept. 25, 2017 state deadline to apply for FY2017 Byrnes JAG funding, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff asked the court to declare that plaintiff complied with relevant federal law, and that the notification and access requirements were invalid. Plaintiff also asked the court to enjoin defendant from conditioning funding on the notification and access requirements or otherwise withholding funding based on plaintiff's existing relevant laws. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0094)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
September 12, 2017
Microsoft Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
The class action complaint alleges that Microsoft has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against female employees in technical and engineering roles (“female technical employees”) with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
September 12, 2017
City of Chicago v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-05720 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020
This action, filed by the city of Chicago, Illinois on Aug. 7, 2017, challenged Attorney General Sessions' imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. Plaintiff, represented by private counsel, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that it complied with § 1373 and that defendant's immigration-related conditions on Byrne JAG law enforcement funding were unconstitutional. It asked for an injunction of defendant's imposing these conditions in advance of the upcoming Sept. 5, 2017 deadline to apply for Byrnes JAG funding. Additionally, plaintiff on Aug. 10 moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from imposing the new conditions. The case was assigned to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber on Aug. 7, 2017. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-IL-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 10, 2017
City of Philadelphia v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-03894-MMB (E.D. Pa.)
IM-PA-0015
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-PA-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 9, 2017
Regents of University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-05211 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0095
The Regents of the University of California (UC) and Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California, filed this lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). According to the complaint, DACA has kept approximately 800,000 individuals brought to the U.S. as children “through no choice of their own.” Under DACA, children who met certain criteria were eligible for deferred immigration action for two-year periods, pending approval of their applications. The plaintiffs stated that these individuals - known as Dreamers - have enabled the nation and UC to greatly benefit from their presence as students and employees at the university. Plaintiff Janet Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security who oversaw DACA’s inception in 2012. But the revocation of DACA, the plaintiffs argued, threatened the Dreamers with “expulsion from the only country that they call home.” Moreover, the plaintiffs argued, DHS did not offer any “reasoned basis” for revoking DACA and did so in violation of legally required procedures. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’ revocation of DACA violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0095)


CASE ADDITIONS
September 7, 2017
State Of New York et al v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-05228 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0055
Sixteen states filed this law suit against the federal government on September 6, 2017 in response to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum issued on Sept. 5 ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The states seek to enjoin the federal government from carrying out portions of the DHS memorandum and from using information about DACA grantees gathered in their applications to enforce immigration policy. The states argued that these grantees will now lose their protections and be at risk for deportation, especially since the grantees provided the federal government with sensitive information in their applications. The states pointed out that over half of DACA grantees are of Mexican origin and thus ending DACA "is a culmination of President’s Trump’s oft-stated commitments...to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots." Further, the states argued that the grantees' sensitive information is at risk since President Trump took "affirmative steps to reduce the privacy protections applicable to DACA data." The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0055)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 20, 2017
City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-04642-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0093
The City and County of San Francisco filed this lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Aug. 11, 2017. The City argued that following a series of Trump administration maneuvers to target sanctuary cities, the administration released a new such policy on July 25, 2017. The latest policy imposed two new conditions on federal funding recipients: the City is "to (1) provide federal immigration officials access to local detention facilities to interrogate any suspected aliens held there ('Access Requirement'); and (2) provide the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') with 48 hours’ notice before releasing an individual, where the federal government has requested notice in order to take that individual into custody for immigration reasons ('Notice Requirement') (together, the 'Notice and Access Requirements')." The City argued that the Notice and Access Requirements could compel City officials "to unlawfully hold inmates longer than they otherwise would to ensure that DHS receives the required 48 hours of advance notice" and would force the City to ignore its own laws. As such, the City argued that the Notice and Access Requirements violate the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and spending clauses. The City sought declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure it retains federal funding while preventing the DOJ from enforcing its newest policy. The complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0093)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 15, 2017
Immigration Nationality Act § 1226
Date: Jun. 27, 1952
(Legal Information Institute)
Text of the Immigration Nationality Act § 1226 (8 U.S.C. § 1226).*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 15, 2017
Date: Jun. 27, 1952
(Legal Information Institute)
Text of the Immigration Nationality Act § 1225 (8 U.S.C. § 1225).*
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 15, 2017
The Oyez Project, Jennings v. Rodriguez
Date: Nov. 30, 2016
Summary of the Jennings v. Rodriguez questions at issue before the Supreme Court, link to audio recording of November 30, 2016 oral argument, summary of the facts of the case.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 6, 2017
[Caption Redacted] Government's Ex Parte Submission of [Redacted] and Related Procedures and Request for an Order Approving [Redacted] and Procedures (August 2008)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0116
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0116)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 3, 2017
Oyez.com | Frew v. Hawkins
Date: Apr. 14, 2004
A brief and helpful summary of the main issues presented and questions answered in the Supreme Court appeal of Frew v. Hawkins. The website also contains recordings of oral argument and the opinion announcement.*
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 2, 2017
Council on American-Islamic Relations - Connecticut v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-01061-AVC (D. Conn.)
NS-CT-0001
This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint, filed on June 27, 2017, seeks to enhance knowledge about discriminatory immigration policy regarding Muslims, Latinos, and other members of groups disfavored by the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs are two non-profit organizations: Council on American-Islamic Relations - Connecticut (CAIR-CT) and Make the Road New York (MRNY). In the complaint, they cited various examples of anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric from President Trump, as well as the Trump administration's Executive Orders banning individuals from certain Middle Eastern countries. The plaintiffs argued that these incidents directly impacted their work of enhancing public understanding of Islam and empowering immigrant and working-class communities. The plaintiffs submitted three FOIA requests in furtherance of their work to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and DOS. According to the complaint, the FOIA requests sought greater understanding of the administration's immigration enforcement policies out of a concern that the defendants have targeted individuals on the basis of actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or national origin in enforcing their immigration policies. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought "disclosure of agency policies, communications, and statistics related to visa processing and visa issuances for individuals applying abroad; to adjudication of entry document applications; and to screening and searching of individuals arriving at U.S. ports of entry." After the defendants did not produce any responsive records, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and "to compel the disclosure and release of urgently needed records." The case was assigned to Judge Alfred V. Covello. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (NS-CT-0001)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
August 1, 2017
ACLU Sues Missouri Over Disastrous Public Defender System
Date: Mar. 9, 2017
By: ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Missouri, along with the MacArthur Justice Center, and the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Missouri over its public defender office’s inability to provide adequate defense to poor ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
August 1, 2017
Frew v. Traylor
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: No. 3:93-cv-00065 (E.D. Tex.)
PB-TX-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-TX-0011)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 31, 2017
Pierce County v. Washington
www.bazelon.org
Date: 2017
By: The Bazelon Center (The Bazelon Center)
Caught in the vicious cycle that’s all too common across the U.S. today, hundreds of people with serious mental illnesses in Pierce County, Washington, have been committed to the hospital for short-term interventions, then discharged to a community with inadequate resources to meet their needs, ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 31, 2017
Sampson v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
www.bazelon.org
Date: 2017
By: The Bazelon Center (The Bazelon Center)
The lawsuit, known as Sampson v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, asked the court to require the hospital to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates “reasonable accommodation” of an individual’s disability. In this case, that would involve waiving the search ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 31, 2017
Church v. State of Missouri
Case Category: Indigent Defense
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-04057-NKL (W.D. Mo.)
PD-MO-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PD-MO-0003)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 30, 2017
Bravo v. Board of Commissioners of Dona Ana County
http://www.bazelon.org/
Date: 2017
By: The Bazelon Center (The Bazelon Center)
Filed in federal court in New Mexico, Bravo challenges the lack of mental health services and release planning in the county jail and discriminatory arrest practices by local law enforcement officers. According to the complaint, 30-40% of the approximately 900 detainees crowded into the 850-bed ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 30, 2017
Montgomery Public Schools
http://www.bazelon.org
Date: 2017
By: The Bazelon Center (The Bazelon Center)
On behalf of Montgomery school children, in May 2011 the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP), the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the Law Offices of Sears & Sears, PC, filed three complaints with the Alabama State Department of Education. The complaints allege ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 30, 2017
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
Case Category: Presidential Authority
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01320-CKK (D.D.C.)
PR-DC-0005
On July 3, 2017, the Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC") filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff sued the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, individual members of the Commission, the Department of Defense, and the Director of the White House Information Technology. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated U.S. statutes and the U.S. Consititution when it started to collect private voter information without first releasing a Privacy Impact Assessment to the public. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied the Plaintiff's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiff appealed, and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-DC-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 30, 2017
[Caption Redacted] Government’s Ex Parte Submission of Reauthorization Certifications and Related Procedures, Amended Certifications, and Request for an Order Approving Such Certifications (September 2016)
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: [Redacted] (FISC)
NS-DC-0113
Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, 50 U.S.C. § 1881a et seq., permits the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance targeting the communications of non-U.S. persons located abroad. The government need not ...
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0113)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
July 25, 2017
Blackman. v. District of Columbia
http://www.bazelon.org/blackman-v-district-of-columbia/
Date: 2017
By: The Bazelon Center (The Bazelon Center)
Blackman. v. District of Columbia is a class action originally filed in 1997 to challenge the city public school system’s failure to comply with requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law that guarantees children with disabilities the right to a free and ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
July 25, 2017
In re Opinions and Orders of this Court Containing Novel or Significant Interpretations of Law
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 16-01 (FISC)
NS-DC-0117
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0117)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 24, 2017
James Madison Project (Daily Beast) v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01281 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0115
On June 29, 2017, plaintiffs the James Madison Project, Noah Shachtman, and Betsy Woodruff sued the defendant agencies under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Plaintiffs sought disclosure of agency records by Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), as well as by DHS's subordinate entities: the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Specifically, plaintiffs sought the disclosure of records clarifying the extent to which U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were coerced into surrendering their residency statuses, once DHS began implementing President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order 13769 but before DHS stopped enforcing it on Feb. 4. According to plaintiffs, lawyers for some travelers affected by the EO claimed their clients were, during this implementation period, pressured to sign I-407 forms surrendering their LPR status.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0115)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 24, 2017
In re Opinions and Orders of this Court Addressing Bulk Collection of Data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA Docket Misc. 13-08]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 13-08 (FISC)
NS-DC-0026
On June 12, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIAC) filed a motion in the FISC for release of court records including opinions that address the legal authority for the NSA's bulk telephony metadata program. There has been no activity on this docket since December 2013.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0026)