University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are the cases added to the Clearinghouse, or updated, over the past 90 days:


CASE ADDITIONS
August 11, 2020
LaRose v. Simon
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 62-CV-20-3149 (State Court)
VR-MN-0016
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-MN-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 10, 2020
Williams v. Witte
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-00304 (N.D. Ala.)
IM-AL-0011
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-AL-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 10, 2020
Collins v. Adams
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00375 (W.D. Ky.)
VR-KY-0009
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-KY-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 10, 2020
Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Benson
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 20-000108-MM (State Court)
VR-MI-0078
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-MI-0078)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 7, 2020
Alhman v. Barnes
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-00835 (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0143
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0143)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 6, 2020
Lewis-McCoy v. Wolf
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01142 (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0078
In February, 2020, a group of New York residents filed this class-action lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration retaliated against New York for allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers licenses by blocking New York residents from participating in the Global Entry program, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. In July, DHS voluntarily reversed the policy in question, after admitting that they had made misleading and inaccurate statements to the court. As of August 8, 2020, this case is still pending. The court is currently determining the extent the government’s misstatements and deciding if the case should be dismissed as moot.
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0078)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 6, 2020
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00303 (D. Nev.)
PR-NV-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PR-NV-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 6, 2020
Don't Shoot Portland v. Wolf
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02040 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0016
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 5, 2020
Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-05441 (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0050
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0050)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 4, 2020
Black Lives Matter v. Wolf
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-04319 (N.D. Ill.)
PN-IL-0026
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-IL-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 3, 2020
Scott v. Louisville Metro Government
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00535 (W.D. Ky.)
PN-KY-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-KY-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 2, 2020
Clark v. Edwards
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00308 (M.D. La.)
VR-LA-0120
This suit was brought on May 19, 2020, by two non-profit organizations and three voter plaintiffs against the state of Louisiana to challenge Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the Excuse and Witness Requirement, as well as provide absentee voters with notice and opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballots for all elections in 2020 held in Louisiana. On June 22, the court dismissed the case.
View Case Detail (VR-LA-0120)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 2, 2020
Democracy NC v. NC BOE
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 20-cv-457 (M.D. N.C.)
VR-NC-0085
This suit was filed on May 22, 2020, by two non-profit organizations and six individual plaintiffs against the state of North Carolina to challenge various election laws in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. No outcome yet.
View Case Detail (VR-NC-0085)


CASE ADDITIONS
August 1, 2020
Defy Ventures v. Small Business Administration
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01838-CCB (D. Md.)
CJ-MD-0006
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-MD-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 31, 2020
Brown v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00945 (D. Md.)
PC-MD-0014
On March 30, 2016, nine current and former blind prisoners at Roxbury Correctional Institute brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS). The plaintiffs alleged that the DPSCS and its employees discriminated against the inmates on the because of their blindness in violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not provided access to the courts and grievances producers, that they were not provided with reasonable accommodations and aids that would allow them to live and learn independently, and that they were subjected to serious harm including physical and sexual abuse. The parties reached a settlement agreement in May of 2019 whereby the defendants paid $1,400,000 in damages and attorneys fees and agreed to modify the prison and procedures to better accommodate blind inmates. DPSCS agreed to provide instructors and equipment to improve independence and opportunities for blind inmates. The parties voluntarily dismissed the case in June 2019 after reaching the settlement agreement.
View Case Detail (PC-MD-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 30, 2020
Whorley v. Northam
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-255 (E.D. Va.)
PC-VA-0026
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-VA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 30, 2020
D.A.M. v. Barr
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 20-cv-1321 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0082
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0082)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 29, 2020
Gomes v. US Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00453 (D.N.H.)
IM-NH-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-NH-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 29, 2020
Urdaneta v. Keeton
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00654 (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0030
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-AZ-0030)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2020
Jones v. Hill
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02791-ELR (N.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0025
Inmates at the Clayton County Jail sued the Sheriff of Clayton County, alleging that the jail was not sufficiently protecting its inmates against the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. They alleged that the jail was infested with mold, cockroaches, and rodents, inmates were given insufficient personal protective equipment, social distancing was impossible, and many prisoners were forced to sleep on the floor next to open toilets. They brought this petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking, on behalf of a class, an order requiring the jail to immediately release prisoners in an effort to de-densify, and to take other precautions against a possible outbreak of COVID-19.
View Case Detail (PC-GA-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2020
Powell v. Benson
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-11023 (E.D. Mich.)
VR-MI-0080
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-MI-0080)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2020
Barnes v. Jeffreys
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02137 (N.D. Ill.)
CJ-IL-0015
Dozens of Murphy v. Raoul class members, still waiting to be released from prison years after their release dates, brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, they sought court orders compelling the Illinois Department of Corrections to release them from custody. In three successive orders from April–June 2020, the court ordered the release of the named plaintiffs. On July 1, 2020, the court granted class certification, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. As of July 27, 2020, their summary judgment motion is pending.
View Case Detail (CJ-IL-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2020
Denbow v. Maine Department of Corrections
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00175 (D. Me.)
PC-ME-0006
COVID-vulnerable inmates of the Maine Department of Corrections, seeking to represent a class of medically vulnerable and disabled inmates, brought this habeas action in an effort to force the Department to de-densify its prisons by releasing prisoners. Filed May 15, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, the complaint alleged that the Department had refused to grant medical furlough or home confinement to inmates; they alleged that this was in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The action was assigned to Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. Although the Department reported its first case of COVID in May 2020, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief in June 2020. Motions to dismiss the case and to convert the case to a different form of habeas were pending as of July 28, 2020.
View Case Detail (PC-ME-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 28, 2020
Priorities USA v. Nessel
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-13341 (E.D. Mich.)
VR-MI-0079
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (VR-MI-0079)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 27, 2020
Williams v. Brann
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 451069/2020 (State Court)
JC-NY-0074
During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals particularly susceptible to the virus in pretrial detention at Rikers Island and other New York County jails sought immediate release. The petition was denied by the judge who found that continuing to hold the inmates did not constitute deliberate indifference to the risk of serious medical harm. On appeal, the court denied habeas corpus, affirming the judgment of the lower court.
View Case Detail (JC-NY-0074)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 27, 2020
Grinis v. Spaulding
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-10738 (D. Mass.)
PC-MA-0054
Medically vulnerable prisoners in the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts, brought this petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 15, 2020. They alleged that continuing to incarcerate medically vulnerable prisoners, in facilities where social distancing was not possible, was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. They sought to represent a class of all inmates at FMC Devens, and sought an injunction or a writ of habeas corpus ordering the prison to release enough prisoners to allow social distancing in the prison. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctive relief. On June 11, 2020, the court ruled that habeas corpus was not the proper vehicle for the relief that the plaintiffs sought. Instead, they must reframe their action as a civil complaint, compliant with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, in order to proceed. After the plaintiffs declined that invitation, the court dismissed the action on July 2, 2020. As of July 27, 2020, there has been no appeal.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0054)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 24, 2020
Paul v. Trump
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-1188 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0005
This case deals with President Trump's deployment of federal law enforcement officers to Portland, Oregon in response to the protests that took place there after the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint was filed on July 21, 2020, and alleged that the federal officers used excessive force against protesters and violated the protesters First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government. It also alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985 and 1986. The plaintiff, a private individual, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The case is ongoing as of August 6, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 24, 2020
Rosenblum v. John Does 1-10
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01161 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0006
This case was brought on July 17, 2020 by the state of Oregon through the Attorney General of Oregon, Ellen Rosenblum. It sued several federal agencies including the DHS, CBP, USMS, and Federal Protective Services, as well as ten unnamed and unidentified officers. The suit came as President Trump ordered federal law enforcement agencies to exert force in Portland, Oregon, following months of protests against racial inequality after the killing of George Floyd. The complaint alleged that the federal agencies were detaining people off the streets without warrants, putting them into unmarked vans, and taking them to the courthouse without telling them the crime for which they were detained. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, prohibiting the agencies from arresting people without warrants, mandating that the agents identify themselves and the agencies they work for, and explaining to all detainees the crime for which they would be arrested. The case is ongoing as of August 6, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 24, 2020
Wise v. Portland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01193 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0007
This case was filed by four private individuals who were administering medical assistance to those injured during the protests in Portland, Oregon that followed the police killing of George Floyd. The plaintiffs sued the City of Portland and federal law enforcement for violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights, claiming that they were illegally attacked while peacefully protesting. They also argued that the federal law enforcement's tactics represented a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. They also sought attorney's fees and costs. The case is ongoing as of August 6, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 23, 2020
Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-1035 (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 23, 2020
NAACP v. Peterman
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-613 (M.D. N.C.)
PN-NC-0003
This complaint, filed on July 2, 2020, came amidst the nationwide protests that occurred after the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint alleged that a local ordinance in Graham, North Carolina violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ordinance required would-be protesters to acquire a permit at least twenty-four hours in advance of their protest, and the Chief of Police had the authority to issue the permits. Plaintiffs, including the NAACP of Alamance County, the national NAACP, and several individual plaintiffs, sought injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Mayor of Graham, the Graham Chief of Police, and the Sheriff of Alamance County. The city repealed the ordinance on July 14. Then on July 17, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which focused on the ability to protest at the historic courthouse, which contained a Confederate monument. They claimed that anti-racist groups were consistently denied permits to protest at the courthouse, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case is ongoing as of August 5, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-NC-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 23, 2020
Western States Center v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-01175-JR (D. Or.)
PN-OR-0004
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-OR-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 23, 2020
League of Women Voters New Jersey v. Way
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-05990 (D.N.J.)
VR-NJ-0042
This lawsuit was brought by two nonprofit organizations and an individual voter against the Secretary of the State of New Jersey, to challenge New Jersey’s signature matching procedure. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On June 3, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On June 17, the parties reached an agreement for the July primaries and the court granted the preliminary injunction in a stipulation and order. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-NJ-0042)


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


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2020
Calvary Chapel of Ukiah et al v. Newsom et al
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01431 (E.D. Cal.)
PR-CA-0005
Three California churches sued state and county officials, challenging COVID-19-related restrictions on singing and chanting during worship services. They alleged that the restrictions, applicable only to worship services, were a violation of the churches' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
View Case Detail (PR-CA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 21, 2020
Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 96-2410-JWL (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0029
In September 1996, an employee of General Electric filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiff alleged that a policy of age discrimination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In 2001, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court's order to decertify the collective action that joined multiple plaintiffs alleging the same discrimination. In 2002, the case closed.
View Case Detail (EE-KS-0029)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Abrams v. Chapman
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-11053 (E.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0047
This is a class action filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking improved conditions for all inmates in the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought preliminary relief, including protective equipment, soap and sanitizer, social distancing, adequate health care, testing, and quarantine for all members within the class. After a Sixth Circuit decision vacating the injunction in Wilson v. Williams , the case was stayed.
View Case Detail (PC-MI-0047)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Remick v. City of Philadelphia
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01959 (E.D. Pa.)
PC-PA-0050
This action, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sought to secure better conditions for inmates in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons (PDP), in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought relief on behalf of all those within PDP through a TRO and preliminary injunction, but before the court ruled on these motions, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement.
View Case Detail (PC-PA-0050)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Benavides v. Gartland
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00046 (S.D. Ga.)
IM-GA-0015
This is an action filed regarding the conditions of detention in the Folkston ICE Processing Center, on behalf of medically vulnerable inmates seeking release from detention. The plaintiffs alleged that their continued detention, in light of COVID-19, was unconstitutional, and that release from detention was the only appropriate remedy. The court denied a TRO on April 18, and then later on July 8 denied a preliminary injunction, staying discovery until the resolution of the motion to dismiss.
View Case Detail (IM-GA-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Martinez v. Donahue
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 7:20-cv-00062 (M.D. Ga.)
IM-GA-0016
This is a habeas action brought in the Middle District of Georgia, alleging unconstitutional conditions in ICE detention facilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought release from detention, or in the alternative, improved conditions that adhered to CDC guidelines. The court denied the TRO on April 10, and denied a preliminary injunction on June 3, finding that the plaintiffs had not proved constitutional violations in the detention centers.
View Case Detail (IM-GA-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Black Lives Matter - Los Angeles v. Garcetti
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-04940 (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0044
This case challenged curfews in Los Angeles and San Bernardino, California. The curfews were issued in response to the nationwide protests following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The complaint argued that these curfews were violations of the free speech and free assembly, free movement, and Due Process. It also argued that the San Bernardino curfew violated the Establishment Clause. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case on July 7, 2020, because the city had rescinded the curfews and not attempted to reinstate them.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0044)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Bergamaschi v. Cuomo
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02817 (S.D.N.Y.)
JC-NY-0081
This is a class action brought on behalf of all those who are or will be detained on parole violations via New York's mandatory detention laws. In light of COVID-19 and the health risks posed by detention, the plaintiffs filed this action to secure an injunction of the mandatory detention laws and for due process in the parole violation hearings. The court denied to enter preliminary relief on April 20 and the case remains ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-NY-0081)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Jeffery v. City of New York
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-02843 (E.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0049
This class action lawsuit arose out of the curfews imposed in New York City amidst the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd. Plaintiffs were three individuals who had been taken into custody during the curfew, though not when they were at protests. They sued the City of New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and fifty unnamed police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They sought declaratory and monetary relief. The case is ongoing as of August 5, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-NY-0049)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 20, 2020
Crane v. Fort Wayne
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00240 (N.D. Ind.)
PN-IN-0004
This case arose out of the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The plaintiffs in this case allege that police used illegal tactics in order to quell the protests, thereby violating their constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. Plaintiffs were several individuals and, later, two organizations. Defendants were the City of Fort Wayne and the Allen County Sheriff. Plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The case is ongoing as of August 4, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-IN-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 19, 2020
Tamayo Espinoza v. Witte
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00106 (S.D. Miss.)
IM-MS-0003
This is a habeas action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, seeking the release of seven medically vulnerable detainees in light of COVID-19, citing constitutional violations associated with their continued detention. The plaintiffs sought a TRO, but it was denied on June 3, 2020 and no further actions have been taken in the case.
View Case Detail (IM-MS-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 17, 2020
Cruz v. Denver
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01922 (D. Colo.)
PN-CO-0005
This class action lawsuit was filed in response to police actions amidst the nationwide protests that ensued following the police killing of George Floyd. The complaint, filed by seven private individuals, argues that the police use of weapons like pepper balls, pepper spray, and rubber bullets constituted violations of the protesters' First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The suit established two classes of plaintiffs, the Arrest Class and the Direct Force Class. The case is ongoing as of July 17, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-CO-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 17, 2020
Indy 10 Black Lives Matter v. Indianapolis
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01660-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind.)
PN-IN-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-IN-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 17, 2020
Black Lives Matter 5280 v. City and County of Denver
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01878 (D. Colo.)
PN-CO-0004
This case arose out of the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The complaint alleges that during the protests in Denver, city police and state patrol officers used less-lethal weapons against protesters in violation of the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments' prohibitions on excessive force and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition. The case is ongoing as of August 4, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-CO-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 17, 2020
League of Women Voters of Minnesota Education Fund v. Simon
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 0:20-cv-01205 (D. Minn.)
VR-MN-0017
This lawsuit was brought on May 19 by the League of Women Voters of Minnesota Education Fund and an individual voter to challenge Minnesota’s absentee voting laws requiring the physical presence of a witness. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the defendant to waive the witness requirement for the August 2020 primaries and the November 2020 general elections. No outcome yet.
View Case Detail (VR-MN-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 17, 2020
Chicago Freedom School v. Chicago
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-03718 (N.D. Ill.)
PN-IL-0025
This case arose out of the protests that followed after the police killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. Plaintiffs, an activist organization and its directors, sued the City of Chicago, members of the Chicago Police Department, and members of the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants illegally raided their organization, accusing plaintiffs of housing and preparing food for protesters outside the scope of their business license. The lawsuit claims that defendants' actions were in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as Illinois state law. The case is ongoing as of July 20, 2020.
View Case Detail (PN-IL-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 16, 2020
Wayne County Jail Inmates v. Wayne County Sheriff
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 173-217 (State Court)
JC-MI-0005
In 1973, prisoners of the Wayne County Jail were successful when the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the trial court's power to issue an injunction and appoint a monitor for the Wayne County Jails. The Wayne County Circuit Court found conditions that violated the constitution and state housing laws. In 1988, after serial noncompliance, the circuit court appointed the Wayne County Executive as a receiver. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the appointment as appropriate in light of the 15 years of noncompliance. In 2020, the plaintiffs requested a TRO and preliminary injunction in light of COVID-19. The court amended the consent order to require testing and greater sanitation within the jail, however the court denied the TRO finding the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proved deliberate indifference.
View Case Detail (JC-MI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 16, 2020
Lichtenwalter v. DeWine
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2020-0401 (State Court)
PC-OH-0033
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, an Ohio prisoner filed a petition for writ of mandamus or, alternatively, writ of habeas corpus, asking the Ohio Supreme Court to release him to avoid contracting the virus. He argued that the correctional facility was not doing enough to prevent the spread of the virus, and requested release. The court denied release on April 16. A month later, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the prisoner's request, but allowed the ACLU of Ohio to submit an amicus brief on the petitioner's behalf.
View Case Detail (PC-OH-0033)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 16, 2020
NC NAACP v. Cooper
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 20CVS500110 (State Court)
PC-NC-0019
In this case, several non-profit groups, public interest groups, and individual plaintiffs sued the North Carolina Governor and Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections seeking increased action to care for prisoners amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint was filed on April 20, 2020 in North Carolina state court. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' failure to take care of the inmates constituted a violation of the state constitution's clause against cruel and unusual punishment. While the court denied a temporary restraining order and the writ of mandamus, they eventually granted a preliminary injunction on June 16, 2020. They told the parties to come up with a plan to test inmates and prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the prisons.
View Case Detail (PC-NC-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 15, 2020
University of Oregon v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 6:20-cv-01127 (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0011
This lawsuit was filed in response to a July 6, 2020 directive by ICE that would have effectively forced international students to either attend in-person classes or risk deportation. Twenty public and private universities filed this suit against DHS and ICE, arguing that the directive was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. However, just two days later, plaintiffs in a separate case over the same directive came to an agreement with the government to get them to rescind the order. The court in this case asked the parties to confer and discuss how they would like to proceed given the rescission. The case is ongoing as of July 15, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-OR-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 15, 2020
Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-11311 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0021
This lawsuit, brought by seventeen states and Washington D.C., was leveled against U.S. DHS and ICE over a July 6, 2020 directive that would have effectively forced all international students to attend in-person classes or risk deportation. The lawsuit alleged two violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. First, the directive was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore illegal. Second, the defendants did not engage in notice-and-comment rule-making, and therefore the directive was unlawful on procedural grounds. The case is ongoing as of July 15, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0021)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 15, 2020
Busby v. Bonner
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-02359 (W.D. Tenn.)
JC-TN-0012
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was brought by two inmates in Shelby County Jail in Tennessee. Petitioners requested release from the jail for themselves and others similarly situated, given the impact of COVID-19 on jails and prisons. They claimed that failure to take sufficient precautions regarding the virus represented violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office opposed the relief, claiming that they already had a procedure in place to ensure the safety of the inmates. An Independent Inspector was tasked with inspecting the jail to evaluate the conditions. While praising the defendants' professionalism, he wrote that several adjustments needed to be made in order for the jail to be a safe place for inmates. We are awaiting an order from Judge Lipman regarding a temporary restraining order that would release some inmates. The case is ongoing as of July 15, 2020.
View Case Detail (JC-TN-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 14, 2020
Johns Hopkins University v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01873 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0081
Johns Hopkins University commenced this lawsuit against DHS and ICE after a July 6 directive by ICE that would effectively force international students at American universities to take in-person classes or risk deportation. The lawsuit alleged that the directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act as well as Due Process rights and academic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The lawsuit sought injunctive relief prohibiting the government from enforcing the new order, declaratory relief that would call the order illegal, an order vacating and setting aside the directive, and attorney's fees and costs. The case is ongoing as of July 14, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0081)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 14, 2020
State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-04592 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0167
This case was filed in response to the July 6, 2020 directive by ICE that would effectively force international students studying under F-1 and M-1 visas to attend in-person classes or risk deportation. The state of California filed this suit against ICE and DHS on July 9, arguing that the directive was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in two ways. First, the directive was arbitrary and capricious in that it failed to take into account students' and universities' reliance interests and the defendants gave no reasoned basis for the new order. Second, the defendants were in violation of procedural elements of the APA, because they failed to use proper notice-and-comment rule-making when issuing the new order. On July 14, Judge Jon S. Tigar found that another case which had been subsequently filed was related to this case. He therefore reassigned that case to himself. The case is ongoing as of July 14, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0167)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 13, 2020
State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-01070 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0045
The state of Washington sued the Department of Homeland Security and ICE following the July 6, 2020 directive that would effectively require international students to take in-person classes or be subject to deportation. Washington argued that this violated several provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and sought injunctive relief and a court order vacating the directive. The case is ongoing as of July 13, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0045)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 13, 2020
Z.W. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-01220 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0166
Seven unnamed individuals sued ICE and DHS over their new directive that would effectively force international students to take in-person classes or risk deportation. The suit alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the directive and an order vacating the directive.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0166)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 13, 2020
In Re: J.B., L.H., L.S., R.P.
Case Category: Juvenile Institution
Trial Docket: COA-MISC-0019-2019 (State Court)
JI-MD-0005
Facing the threat COVID-19, four inmates in Maryland juvenile detention centers filed this petition requesting that the court grant their release and the release of all others similarly situated. They called on the court to establish a procedure by which inmates would be automatically released based on expression of symptoms, co-morbidities, severity of offense, and age. They also requested that the court do an individualized assessment of all other inmates in Maryland juvenile courts. The Appeals Court denied this relief because the Chief Judge would soon issue a directive to Maryland state courts detailing the procedure for release of inmates in juvenile detention centers. This directive came later that day, and Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera told courts to work with the juvenile detention centers to identify candidates for release. She outlined criteria to follow when considering candidates for release, including expression of symptoms, co-morbidities, whether the release posed a risk to the juvenile or others, and whether the inmate's release was "in the interest of justice." The case is closed.
View Case Detail (JI-MD-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 13, 2020
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Newsom
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: S261829 (State Court)
IM-CA-0163
The plaintiffs, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Southern California Chapter), filed this petition for writ of mandate on April 24, 2020. They were represented by attorneys from the ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego, and ACLU of Northern California. Respondents were Governor Gavin Newsome and Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Petitioners argued that the state continued to send non-citizen detainees to ICE detention centers, knowing that those centers were doing an inadequate job at attempting to halt the spread of COVID-19. Petitioners argued that the continued transfers constituted a violation of the Due Process rights guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution and the California state constitution. Meanwhile, respondents argued that the responsibility for the conditions at the detention centers lied with ICE and the federal government, and that litigation in the federal courts provided an adequate remedy for petitioners. The California Supreme Court ultimately sided with the respondents. They held that the respondents had no duty to take the requested action. However, they issued the ruling without prejudice, so that future lawsuits could be brought forward.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0163)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2020
Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC v. Whitmer
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00414 (W.D. Mich.)
PR-MI-0004
This lawsuit was filed by four medical providers and an individual seeking medical services to challenge the state’s executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On May 28, the court filed a notice of hearing regarding certification of issues to the Michigan Supreme Court. On June 16 the court stayed the case until the Michigan Supreme Court resolved the state law questions. On June 25, the defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-MI-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2020
Doe v. Trump
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:20-CV-02531 (N.D. Ill.)
PB-IL-0014
This is a class action filed on April 24 against the U.S. government to challenge the Exclusion Provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a temporary restraining order (TRO). On July 7, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case against all defendants other than the United States of America. No outcome yet.
View Case Detail (PB-IL-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2020
R.V. v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-01148-PWG (D. Md.)
PB-MD-0007
This is a putative class action complaint filed by seven children and their parents against the Secretary of the Treasury and the U.S.A., challenging the social security number (SSN) requirement of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the refusal of economic impact payments due to the parents’ undocumented status, as well as monetary damages. On May 22, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss which was denied on June 19. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-MD-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2020
Does v. Trump
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00704 (E.D. Wis.)
PB-WI-0004
This is a putative class-action complaint filed on May 8 challenging the requirement for a social insurance number to qualify for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) stimulus checks. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the SSN requirement and requiring the defendants to hold in escrow funds for the issuance funds to the proposed class. On June 30, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the case given that similar complaints already were filed in six different U.S. District Courts. The case is ongoing. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-WI-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2020
Does v. Trump
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00430-jdp (W.D. Wis.)
PB-WI-0005
This is a class action filed on May 6 against the U.S. government to challenge the Exclusion Provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a TRO prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the Exclusion Provision. On June 12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative, to stay the case given that similar complaints already were filed in seven different U.S. District Courts. No outcome yet.
View Case Detail (PB-WI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 12, 2020
Doe v. Trump
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-00858 (C.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0055
This is a class action filed on May 6 against the U.S. government to challenge the Exclusion Provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a TRO prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the Exclusion Provision. On July 8, the court denied the TRO restraining order application.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0055)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 11, 2020
The Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-04621 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0165
This lawsuit was filed in response to a July 6, 2020 ICE directive that would effectively force out of the country many international students studying remotely during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. The University of California filed suit claiming that the directive was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and an order vacating and setting aside the policy. They also sought declarative relief and attorney's fees. The case is ongoing as of July 11, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0165)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 10, 2020
ACLU of Southern California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS (C.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0026
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Southern California and Nevada filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Defendants began producing documents in December of 2017 and finished the production in March of 2018. Attorneys' fees and costs were settled privately and the case is now closed.
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 10, 2020
Alvarez v. LaRose
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00782 (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0164
This is a habeas action filed in the Southern District of California, brought by individuals in the Otay Mesa Detention Center, seeking release due to COVID-19. The plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction was denied on June 7, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0164)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 9, 2020
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-11283 (D. Mass.)
IM-MA-0020
This lawsuit was filed in response to a July 6, 2020 ICE directive that would effectively force out of the country many international students studying remotely during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Harvard and MIT filed suit claiming that the directive was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting defendants from enforcing the directive, and an order vacating and setting aside the policy. They also sought declarative relief and attorney's fees. The case was originally assigned to Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, but he then recused himself and was replaced by Judge Allison D. Borroughs. The case is ongoing as of July 9, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-MA-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 9, 2020
Cooper v. Raffensperger
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-1312 (N.D. Ga.)
VR-GA-0168
Two third-party nominees for the Georgia State House of Representatives filed this case alleging that, in light of public health risks associated with COVID-19, requiring them to collect over 20,000 signatures to get on the ballot violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On July 9, the court ordered the defendants to reduce the relevant signature requirements by 30% for the 2020 general election.
View Case Detail (VR-GA-0168)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 9, 2020
American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-00182-JDL (D. Me.)
IM-ME-0002
On May 8, 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. The ACLU sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. By October of 2019, plaintiffs and defendants came to a dispute regarding certain redacted materials, and they asked Judge Levy to adjudicate the issue. In July of 2020, the court issued their findings. Most of the documents that plaintiffs had requested were protected by Exemption 7(E) of FOIA, but some were not covered. The court ordered that defendants release the unprotected documents by July 20, 2020.
View Case Detail (IM-ME-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 8, 2020
American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:18-cv-00176-JDL (D. Me.)
IM-ME-0001
This was one of a pair of lawsuits filed by the ACLU of Maine in May 2018 after its FOIA requests concerning federal immigration enforcement practices in Maine and neighboring states went unanswered. The ACLU filed both lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. The particular FOIA request in this case related to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)'s citizenship checkpoints, bus searches, and cooperation with local, state, and federal law enforcement. In July 2018, upon the parties' joint motion, CBP agreed to review and produce documents responsive to the ACLU's request; according to a status report filed in August, it further agreed to review and produce any additional documents by September. By December of 2018, the parties could not agree what to do with several documents that plaintiffs had requested, and they asked the court to adjudicate the matter in camera. Judge Levy found that some documents were covered under Exemption 7(E) of FOIA, while others were not. The plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case in July of 2019, and the case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-ME-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 8, 2020
Coreas v. Bounds
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 8:20-cv-00780 (D. Md.)
IM-MD-0016
This is a habeas action seeking the release of immigration detainees housed in ICE facilities in Maryland. The court initially denied the detainees' TRO, but eventually granted 2 preliminary injunctions that ordered the release of several detainees from their respective detention centers. The defendants appealed the preliminary injunctions and the appeal is pending.
View Case Detail (IM-MD-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 7, 2020
United States v. Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:16-cr-00181 (N.D. Ill.)
NS-IL-0003
In January 2016, the defendant was charged in a criminal complaint that was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California following his arrest. He was arrested on a federal charge of making a false statement involving international terrorism. In March 2016, the defendant was indicted by a grand jury in Sacramento in the Northern District of Illinois for attempting to provide material support to acts of violence overseas. The defendant voluntarily pled guilty in October 2018 subsequent to superseding information filed by the United States Attorney and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 20 years of parole.
View Case Detail (NS-IL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2020
Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: Civ. No. 5-88-163 (D. Minn.)
EE-MN-0087
This case is the first time a sexual harassment claim was successfully brought against an employer as a class action. On August 15, 1988, a group of three women who worked in the Eveleth iron mine filed suit against the mine under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. They sought class action certification as a class of "all women who have applied for, or have been employed in hourly positions at Eveleth Mines at any time since December 30, 1983, and who have been, are being, or as the result of the operation of current practices, will be discriminated against with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment because of their sex, "an injunction forcing the mine to adopt a sexual harassment policy, and damages. The class was certified in 1991, and Judge James M. Rosenbaum also granted injunctive relief. The trial was subsequently bifurcated to consider liability and damages separately. Judge Richard Kyle found the mine liable under both Title VII and the MHRA on the charges of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in promotion. Class members endured grueling depositions in preparation for a damages trial, and the subsequent damages awarded by special master Judge Patrick J. McNulty were vacated by the Eighth Circuit with a remand for jury trial. Plaintiffs settled with the mine company for $3.5 million before the jury trial began.
View Case Detail (EE-MN-0087)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2020
Doe v. Plyler
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: TY-77-261-CA (E.D. Tex.)
ED-TX-0006
On September 6, 1977, a group of undocumented Mexican immigrant children filed a class action complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief from a policy in Tyler Independent School District (TISD) requiring undocumented children to pay tuition of $1,000 per school year in order to attend TISD schools. This policy was authorized by a Texas statute (§ 21.031), passed in 1975 in response to concerns about overcrowding in Texas schools due to increased migration from Mexico of both legally present and undocumented immigrants. Plaintiffs, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), argued that this policy was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Texas statute was preempted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Judge William W. Justice found the statute to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and found it to be preempted by federal law. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the equal protection holding. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed on June 15, 1982, holding that undocumented persons are covered by the Equal Protection Clause, and that the Texas statute denying undocumented children access to schools on equal footing with other students could not be justified under any standard of review. 457 U.S. 202.
View Case Detail (ED-TX-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2020
People First of Alabama v. Merrill
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-00619-AKK (N.D. Ala.)
VR-AL-0268
This lawsuit was filed by Alabama voters to temporarily enjoin Alabama’s voting law provisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs challenged the witness and photo ID requirement, requiring absentee voters to obtain witness or notary signatures, and submit a photocopy of their ID with their ballot. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the Witness and ID requirement and to allow curbside voting during the primary, municipal, and general election in 2020. On June 15, the preliminary injunction was granted in part in favor of the plaintiffs, pertaining to the July 14 primary runoff. The defendants appealed to the Eleventh Circuit; the court denied the defendant’s motion for stay pending appeal on June 25. The defendants then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which granted the stay on July 2. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-AL-0268)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 6, 2020
Vaughn v. City of Seaside
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 5:99-cv-20462-RMW (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0029
On May 19, 1998, police shot and killed a man with schizophrenia in Seaside, California. The family members of the decedent sued the City of Seaside and the Monterey County Mental Health Department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. After a private agency released an investigation report of the incident, the family settled the case with the city and the mental health department for undisclosed amounts. After a private settlement was reached in 2001, the case was dismissed with prejudice. This case changed the way police officers interact with individuals with mental illness. The family members of the decedent established a Crisis Intervention Training Program for police officers in Monterey County to teach them how to de-escalate situations and cooperate with mentally ill individuals.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0029)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 5, 2020
Thompson v. DeWine
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:20-cv-02129 (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0085
On April 27, 2020, ballot petition circulators and three Ohio voters filed this lawsuit against the Director of Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Secretary of State, challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s in-person signature and witness requirements for ballot initiatives in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as a temporary restraining order. The court granted preliminary injunction on May 19, which was stayed by the Sixth Circuit on May 26. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s application to vacate the stay on June 25. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-OH-0085)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 5, 2020
Crossey v. Boockvar
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 266-MD-2020 (State Court)
VR-PA-0116
On April 22, 2020, three Pennsylvania voters and the Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans filed this lawsuit against the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Director of the Bureau of Election Services and Notaries. The petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief against restrictions in vote by mail in Pennsylvania. They also sought a preliminary injunction as to the June 2 primary election which the court denied on May 28. The plaintiffs appealed but Supreme Court later dismissed the appeal as moot on June 4 as the primary election was held on June 2.
View Case Detail (VR-PA-0116)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 5, 2020
Bailey v. Andino
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2020-000642 (State Court)
VR-SC-0080
On April 22, 2020, two Democratic candidates, the South Carolina Democratic Party, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed this lawsuit against the South Carolina State Election Commission. The petitioners sought declaratory relief that in the context of the COVID-19, all South Carolina voters are physically disabled persons within the meaning of the South Carolina statute and are eligible to vote absentee. The Supreme Court of South Carolina dismissed the case on May 27.
View Case Detail (VR-SC-0080)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
Mays v. Thurston
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-00341 (E.D. Ark.)
VR-AR-0193
This suit was filed against the State of Arkansas by two individual voters and a non-profit organization seeking to waive Arkansas’ Election Day Receipt deadline for the March runoff elections. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a temporary restraining order. On March 30, the emergency TRO was denied. On March 31, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
View Case Detail (VR-AR-0193)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich.)
VR-MI-0077
This suit was brought by three voters and an advocacy organization seeking to place an initiative on Michigan’s 2020 general election ballot. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the defendants to enjoin the ballot-access signature requirement and filing deadline. The plaintiffs also filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the defendants from enforcing the deadline. On June 11, the preliminary injunction was granted, and the defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit denied to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-MI-0077)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
League of Independent Fitness Facilities and Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00458 (W.D. Mich.)
PR-MI-0005
This lawsuit was filed against the state of Michigan by 22 individual companies operating fitness businesses in Michigan and an organization representing over 150 fitness facilities in the state. The suit was filed to enjoin orders that required the plaintiffs to keep their facilities closed. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction which was granted on June 19. The defendants filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, with a motion for a stay pending appeal. The district court denied the stay on June 22 but the Sixth CIrcuit granted the stay pending appeal on June 24. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PR-MI-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
Voto Latino Foundation v. Hobbs
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:19-cv-05685 (D. Ariz.)
VR-AZ-0056
On November 26, 2019, two organizations filed this lawsuit to challenge Arizona’s Election Day Receipt Deadline, which requires mail-in ballots to be received by county election officials before 7 PM on Election Day. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from rejecting ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrives within five business days of Election Day. The plaintiff later argued that COVID-19 further increased voting burdens. The parties entered into a settlement on June 18. Under the terms of the settlement, the Election Day deadline remained but the defendant agreed to expand their efforts for voter outreach. On June 19, the court dismissed all claims.
View Case Detail (VR-AZ-0056)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
The New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-01986 (N.D. Ga.)
VR-GA-0169
Voters and a non-profit organization sued the Georgia Secretary of State, the Georgia State Election Board, and the Board of Registration and Elections of various counties to enjoin absentee voting laws during COVID-19. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They also moved for a preliminary injunction for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election. No outcome yet.
View Case Detail (VR-GA-0169)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
A. Phillip Randolph Institute v. Hargett
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.)
VR-TN-0070
On May 1, 2020, two qualified voters and five organizations filed this lawsuit against the Tennessee Secretary of State, the Tennessee Coordinator of Elections, and the Shelby County district attorney general, challenging Tennessee’s restrictions on absentee voters, its criminal penalties against those who aid voters to obtain absentee ballots, and the inability for absentee voters to fix their ballots if they are rejected due to errors such as a signature mismatch. The petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (VR-TN-0070)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 4, 2020
Lewis v. Hughs
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 5:20-cv-00577 (W.D. Tex.)
VR-TX-0450
On May 11, 2020, the Texas State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, and six individuals filed this lawsuit against the Texas Secretary of State, challenging the constitutionality of the laws restricting vote by mail. No outcome yet.
View Case Detail (VR-TX-0450)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 3, 2020
Moran v. Landrum-Johnson
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:19-cv-13553-CJB-KWR (E.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0013
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 2, 2020
Anti Police-Terror Project v. Oakland
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:20-cv-03866 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0043
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0043)


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


CASE ADDITIONS
July 1, 2020
Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:02-cv-439 (E.D. Va.)
NS-VA-0005
Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in Louisiana but allegedly joined the Taliban at age 20. He was captured alongside enemy forces in Afghanistan in the post-September 11 conflict. His petition for writ of habeas corpus reached the Supreme Court and set a new standard for detaining American citizens alleged to be "enemy combatants." The Supreme Court held that the US government may detain enemy combatants through the powers granted in AUMF, but they must provide them a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention.
View Case Detail (NS-VA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
July 1, 2020
Five Percenters v. Moore
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:96-cv-05555 (D.S.C.)
PC-SC-0010
This is a consolidated action of 49 individual cases filed by inmates in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Each inmate was placed in administrative segregation due to their affiliation with the Five Percent Nation of Islam, following increased violence the group was involved with. They brought suit alleging violations of their First and Eighth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment on all issues except the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to be free from defendants' total restriction on literature and granted a preliminary injunction. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which made the preliminary injunction permanent, allowing the plaintiffs access to properly censored Five Percenter literature. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit, which which affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. The case then closed after settling the issue of attorneys' fees
View Case Detail (PC-SC-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 30, 2020
In re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters Submitted to the FISC; In re Carter W. Page, a U.S. Person [FISA Dockets Misc. 19-02, 16-1182]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: Misc. 19-02 (FISC)
NS-DC-0138
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0138)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 30, 2020
Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:19-cv-01546 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0147
In August 2019, 15 individuals who are currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs, as well as two nonprofit groups who advocate for immigrant rights, filed a class action suit against U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for violating their Fifth Amendment rights, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is ongoing and is in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and immigration reform. In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiffs sought emergency relief to obtain protection against the disease. The court granted preliminary injunction on April 20, which the defendants appealed and plaintiffs sought to enforce the injunction.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0147)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 30, 2020
In re Carter W. Page: A U.S. Person [FISA dockets 16-1182, 17-52, 17-375, 17-679]
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 16-1182 (FISC)
NS-DC-0127
This entry summarizes the content of the declassified, redacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and renewals for surveillance of Carter Page, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump 2016 campaign.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0127)


CASE ADDITIONS
June 29, 2020
Soos v. Cuomo
Case Category: Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Trial Docket: 1:20-cv-00651 (N.D.N.Y.)
PR-NY-0007
When mass protests against police violence were exempted from New York’s COVID-19 gathering restrictions, but congregational worship continued to be prohibited, two Catholic priests and three Orthodox Jews brought this lawsuit, alleging that New York officials were discriminating against people of faith. The court granted a preliminary injunction on June 26, 2020.
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0007)