The Barbara McDowell Foundation has supported since 2011 the litigation of 60 social justice cases with nearly $1,200,000 in grants to 45 organizations. While the causes benefiting from these litigation efforts have varied, they all have been in support of the overarching mission of the Barbara McDowell Foundation: to improve the economic well-being, social conditions, and civil liberties of disadvantaged persons in the United States.
The following results, organized by issue area, highlights the impact of the cases that the Foundation has funded demonstrating the amazing work of our grantees.
Click on each issue area below to see the results of the Foundation's grant-funded cases.
You can also click the link below to read the Foundation's Tenth-Anniversary Special Report on the Results of our Grant-Funded Cases.
Withholding or delaying the payment of public benefits, such as food stamps to the poor, or doing so on a discriminatory basis, causes human suffering for which litigation is often the only recourse.
The following grantees filed lawsuits in order to correct those injustices.
The results of the Foundation grant to Legal Services, Alabama was that a successful suit was filed against the Alabama Department of Human Resources for implementing a law which limited the ability of “able-bodied” adults to receive food stamps thereby removing thousands of people from the food stamps roll. The suit also challenged the Department’s failure to give notice of the termination of food stamp benefits. Shammyane Nettles v. Alabama Department of Human Resources
The suit resulted in the reinstatement of benefits and systematic changes that would foreclose the problem from happening again in the future.
Michael Forton, Director of Advocacy: “Receiving support from the Barbara McDowell Foundation helped us to provide assistance to many people beyond just our individual clients.”
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Below are the results of the Foundation's support for three National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) cases litigating on behalf of access to public benefits.
Undertook successful enforcement of a consent decree it had obtained against the State of Colorado to ensure the rights of low-income people to have access to food stamps, Medicaid, and child health benefits in a timely manner. As a result of the state’s delays in processing applications, tens of thousands of eligible households could not access food aid and medical benefits. Continued monitoring occurred until 2017 when the State achieved the timely processing of food stamps and other benefits. Davis v. Hennebury
“With the support from the Foundation, tens of thousands of low-income households gained access to subsistence benefits necessary to sustain life and health,” said the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Negotiated changes in access to Medicaid benefits in Hawaii where low-income persons were experiencing long delays in processing their applications and obtained adjustments to the State’s recertification procedures so that families did not have to submit repeated applications in order to access health benefits.
As a result of these efforts, the State dramatically improved its ability to process new Medicaid applications. Booth v. Koller
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Obtained a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Connecticut on behalf of low-income people to enforce their rights to food stamps. Because of unjustified denials and delays in processing food stamp applications 40% of the eligible households in Connecticut could not access food stamps in a timely manner leaving families going hungry for weeks and months. Extensive discovery occurred in the case after which the district judge ordered the parties to utilize experts to negotiate a remedy.
Subsequently, in March of 2017 the district court approved a comprehensive class action settlement. Briggs v. Bremby
“At the beginning of the litigation, Connecticut was last in the nation in terms of the timely processing of food stamps. Now, it is in the forefront of delivering food stamps to households in a manner that will help them put food on the table,” said Greg Bass, Senior Attorney.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
The suit alleges that the Navy failed to provide ratings for Category II disability conditions resulting in the improper denial of medical retirement to thousands of Navy and Marine Corps service-members. The government filed an answer on February 9, 2021, in which they conceded that they did not rate Category II conditions. At that time, the name of the case changed to Springs v. Harker, to reflect a new Acting Secretary of the Navy. The government filed the amended administrative record on May 27, 2021. On June 15, 2021, NVLSP and co-counsel filed a motion for class certification. NVLSP expects a full briefing on the motion for class certification in the coming months. Following a decision on that motion, they anticipate cross motions for summary judgment.
2022 Update
On March 11, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Briefing on cross motions for summary judgment is currently underway.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Utilized their grant funds to file a class suit against the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for failure to process food stamps within the 30-day federally mandated timeframe thereby disadvantaging hundreds of households. Leiting-Hall v. Philips
After the class was certified settlement occurred whereby the Department agreed to process 96% of the applications within 30 days and provide monthly reports to Nebraska Appleseed!
“The Barbara McDowell Foundation’s support gave us the capacity to engage in extensive discovery and see the case through a long period of settlement negotiations so that thousands of Nebraskans have access to food stamp benefits that they need,” said Molly McCleery, staff attorney.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Filed suit on behalf of migrant farmworkers not being paid properly by labor contractors who brought foreign workers to fill temporary agricultural jobs. The contractors did not properly report hours worked and required workers to pay the costs of their visas and transportation to the United States.
The case was resolved and has helped to deter other labor contractors from using similar practices. Gallegos Gallegos v. Becerra Enterprises
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports the positive settlement of their suit to compel Maryland’s Department of Human Resources to comply with the time limit requirements for processing Medicaid benefits for disabled and blind persons. At the time of the settlement, there were over 9,000 delayed cases. The named plaintiff in the case was waiting over 233 days for an eligibility determination! Magee-Kern v. Dallas
Executive Director John Nethercut said, “The Barbara McDowell Foundation grant enabled our Health Rights project staff to prioritize a time-sensitive case and push it to a speedy resolution that benefitted many thousands of low-income Marylanders waiting for vital health care.”
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Children suffering abuse and neglect must often rely upon litigation to secure protection and to afford them their basic constitutional rights.
The Foundation made grants supporting the following cases aimed at protecting children.
2021 Update
The Barbara McDowell Foundation provided support to our ongoing case, Georgia Advocacy Office, et al v. State of Georgia, et al. The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, along with co-counsel the Center for Public Representation, the Georgia Advocacy Office, the Arc of the United States, the law firm of DLA Piper, and the Goodmark Law Firm, assert that the State of Georgia is discriminating against thousands of public school students with disabilities by placing them in the separate and unequal Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Supports Program (GNETS). The complaint, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that GNETS students are unnecessarily segregated and denied the opportunity to be educated in local schools alongside their non-disabled peers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The current status of the case is that the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and we are waiting on a decision from the Court. In addition, we are preparing to file a motion for class certification.
This case will have significant impact in Georgia. Approximately 5,200 students with disabilities are in the GNETS system. As described in our complaint, GNETS operates 53 segregated “centers,” where only children with disabilities are enrolled, as well as satellite classrooms, also segregated by disability, attached to numerous neighborhood schools. In addition, GNETS students are disproportionately children of color – 54 percent versus 37 percent in all public schools statewide. In half of the GNETS schools, the number of African-American students is more than 50 percent. And in one program, 9 out of every 10 students are African American.
Legal Director Ira Burnim states, “The grant from the Barbara McDowell Foundation allowed us to make a significant investment in the case, allowing it to move forward, including recruiting a team of impressive experts."
2022 Update
On March 19, 2020, the court overseeing the case denied the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding for plaintiffs on all issues. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ contentions that unnecessary segregation in GNETS schools and classrooms stigmatizes students with disabilities, in violation of the ADA, and held that the State must demonstrate a substantial interest in segregating the students to show that such segregation is constitutional. The court’s decision permitted fact-finding in the case to begin and we are currently in the discovery phase. The Court denied our (delayed) request that our case be consolidated with a parallel case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice being heard by another judge. Nonetheless, we and DOJ are collaborating. One of our experts will soon tour some of the regional GNETS programs. It looks like the funding structure for GNETS may be changing, in large part as a result of our case. If that change occurs, we will need to evaluate its impact. One possibility is that we will join some local school districts as defendants.
The Atlantic, “The Separate, Unequal Education of Students with Special Needs,” March 21, 2017, by Timothy Pratt: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/the-separate-unequal-education-of-students-with-special-needs/520140/
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia psychoeducational schools an unconstitutional 'dumping ground,' new suit claims,” October 11, 2017, by Alan Judd :https://www.ajc.com/blog/investigations/georgia-psychoeducational-schools-unconstitutional-dumping-ground-new-suit-claims/698hchLBUFX35kriOQGRkK/
The New Yorker, “Georgia’s Separate and Unequal Special –Education System,” September 24, 2018, by Rachel Aviv: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/georgias-separate-and-unequal-special-education-system
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
CAI filed its complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in February 2019. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of more than 5,000 children and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would require appointment of licensed attorneys to represent children in Child in Need of Services proceedings. At this writing, the case is nearing the end of discovery and dispositive motions are due to be filed in March 2020. CAI and its co-counsel have provided expert declarations on the need for counsel that constitutionally compels it from two of the nation’s leading experts, Professor Clark Peters of the University of Missouri and Don Duquette of the University of Michigan School of Law and leader of the federally-funded major study of child legal representation in dependency court. Trial is scheduled to commence in December 2020.
“The Children’s Advocacy Institute is truly grateful for the funding provided by the Barbara McDowell Foundation,” said CAI Executive Director Robert C. Fellmeth, Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. “The Foundation’s support enabled us to lay the groundwork for this critically important lawsuit—which if successful, will ensure that all of the nation’s abused and neglected children are represented by legal counsel in the judicial proceedings that determine every aspect of their lives.”
Press coverage:
2022 Update
After the grant concluded, CAI filed its complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit sought certification of a class of more than 5,000 children and sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would require appointment of licensed attorneys to represent children in Child in Need of Services proceedings. Unfortunately, we did not succeed, despite making every effort possible. The District Court dismissed the case, we lost on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for writ of certiorari.
However, on a related front, CAI has been urging Congress for years to amend CAPTA to require the appointment of counsel to foster children involved in legal proceedings. We are cautiously optimistic that this might finally become a reality as part of the pending CAPTA Reauthorization Act.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Received support for three cases on behalf of disadvantaged children and reported the following positive developments in each suit.
Concluded a successful suit challenging abusive practices in Texas’ foster care system where children languish for long periods prior to adoption or reunification with their birth family. A federal district court order, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, required the state agency to reduce caseloads, investigate abuse and neglect claims, and increase capacity for foster care placements. M.D. v. Abbott
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Received class certification approval in a case against the State of Arizona for failing to investigate reports of abuse and neglect in foster care, to provide health services to the children, and to recruit sufficient foster home placements. The Court of Appeals affirmed class certification and the case is back at district court for trial. B.K. v. McKay Since its filing the case has received press coverage in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
The first-class action lawsuit to shine a federal spotlight solely on the overuse of psychotropic medications among vulnerable, at-risk populations, M.B. v. Tidball addresses longstanding, dangerous, unlawful and deliberately indifferent practices by Missouri’s child welfare system, including:
Children’s Rights settled M.B. v. Tidball in 2019, and early data suggests a decline in the number of children on psychotropic medications. One of the most significant achievements to date is the development and publication of the first Psychotropic Medication Excessive Dosage Guidelines for Children in Foster Care by the settlement-created Psychotropic Medication Advisory Committee (PMAC). The publication of these guidelines by the PMAC represents a greatly needed advancement in the provision of mental health care to children in foster care and provides a template for other states to follow. This document can be accessed from the dedicated Psychotropic Medication Settlement page maintained by the Missouri Department of Social Services: https://dss.mo.gov/notice-of-proposed-class-action-settlement.htm.
“Children’s Rights is grateful to the Barbara McDowell Foundation for providing support that led to serious oversight improvements to protect kid’s health and safety,” said Sandy Santana, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported results in the litigation they brought concerning the treatment of children with complex mental health issues residing in North Carolina state institutions and eligible to receive services under Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment provisions. The suit alleged that these children had an intellectual disability and mental health diagnosis that, because of failures by the State, resulted in cyclical hospitalizations, long-term institutionalization in psychiatric facilities, or going without services.
The case was settled successfully with the State agreeing to develop and implement a process to identify children with complex needs to link them to diagnostic testing and appropriate services. Disability Rights N.C. v. Brajer
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
As a result of their Foundation grant Louisiana Center for Children's Rights was able to file suit in a case against the Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice on behalf of incarcerated children alleging the denial of counsel to children to enable them to protest violent and inhumane conditions. Despite its pending status, the litigation is effectively serving to improve conditions and provide proper access to counsel. R.B. v. Dr. Mary Rivers
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
In a landmark ruling in the Lucas R. lawsuit in March 2022, a federal judge held that unaccompanied children in federal immigration custody are entitled to greater constitutional protections than they are currently afforded.
Among other things, the order:
1. Requires the government to employ a clear and convincing evidentiary standard in deciding when a minor should be stepped up to a more restrictive placement and gives minors the opportunity to immediately appeal their placement in a restrictive setting, with the assistance of counsel.
2. Extends the right to appeal the denial of a sponsorship application beyond just parents of a child in custody to their siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Moreover, the Court required the government to ensure written notice to denied sponsors to inform them of their right to appeal and be represented by counsel.
3. Requires broader access to counsel for detained children, including notice to counsel of placement in restrictive facilities, access to counsel to appeal step-up decisions and sponsor denials, and access to class members’ case files upon request.
The Court’s holding applied to three of the five claims in the Lucas R. lawsuit. Over the coming months NCYL will continue negotiating with the administration in an effort to come to agreement on the remaining two claims regarding (1) children who are administered psychotropic medications and (2) children with disabilities. If we are unable to reach agreement on these two additional claims, a trial will take place in November 2022.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports the successful results in a case brought in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at the Berks County Detention Center. The suit claimed that detained immigrant children suffered serious deprivations related to health services, mental health care, and language access, as well as traumatic night-checks that repeatedly interrupt children’s sleep.
Families detained at the facility will now be able to file a petition to intervene in the state licensing dispute brought against the detention center and have their voice heard for the first time. Doe v. Mici
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Those facing physical and mental challenges often need litigation to combat discrimination in order to secure and protect the same fundamental rights available to the general population.
Protecting the rights of disabled individuals formed the basis for the following grantees to rectify serious deprivations.
2021 Update
The Barbara McDowell Foundation provided support to our ongoing case, Georgia Advocacy Office, et al v. State of Georgia, et al. The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, along with co-counsel the Center for Public Representation, the Georgia Advocacy Office, the Arc of the United States, the law firm of DLA Piper, and the Goodmark Law Firm, assert that the State of Georgia is discriminating against thousands of public school students with disabilities by placing them in the separate and unequal Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Supports Program (GNETS). The complaint, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that GNETS students are unnecessarily segregated and denied the opportunity to be educated in local schools alongside their non-disabled peers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The current status of the case is that the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and we are waiting on a decision from the Court. In addition, we are preparing to file a motion for class certification.
This case will have significant impact in Georgia. Approximately 5,200 students with disabilities are in the GNETS system. As described in our complaint, GNETS operates 53 segregated “centers,” where only children with disabilities are enrolled, as well as satellite classrooms, also segregated by disability, attached to numerous neighborhood schools. In addition, GNETS students are disproportionately children of color – 54 percent versus 37 percent in all public schools statewide. In half of the GNETS schools, the number of African-American students is more than 50 percent. And in one program, 9 out of every 10 students are African American.
Legal Director Ira Burnim states, “The grant from the Barbara McDowell Foundation allowed us to make a significant investment in the case, allowing it to move forward, including recruiting a team of impressive experts."
2022 Update
On March 19, 2020, the court overseeing the case denied the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding for plaintiffs on all issues. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ contentions that unnecessary segregation in GNETS schools and classrooms stigmatizes students with disabilities, in violation of the ADA, and held that the State must demonstrate a substantial interest in segregating the students to show that such segregation is constitutional. The court’s decision permitted fact-finding in the case to begin and we are currently in the discovery phase. The Court denied our (delayed) request that our case be consolidated with a parallel case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice being heard by another judge. Nonetheless, we and DOJ are collaborating. One of our experts will soon tour some of the regional GNETS programs. It looks like the funding structure for GNETS may be changing, in large part as a result of our case. If that change occurs, we will need to evaluate its impact. One possibility is that we will join some local school districts as defendants.
The Atlantic, “The Separate, Unequal Education of Students with Special Needs,” March 21, 2017, by Timothy Pratt: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/the-separate-unequal-education-of-students-with-special-needs/520140/
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia psychoeducational schools an unconstitutional 'dumping ground,' new suit claims,” October 11, 2017, by Alan Judd :https://www.ajc.com/blog/investigations/georgia-psychoeducational-schools-unconstitutional-dumping-ground-new-suit-claims/698hchLBUFX35kriOQGRkK/
The New Yorker, “Georgia’s Separate and Unequal Special –Education System,” September 24, 2018, by Rachel Aviv: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/georgias-separate-and-unequal-special-education-system
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Plaintiffs and Defendants resolved the lawsuit on April 5, 2022, after negotiating terms for a year and a half. The New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE) agreed to implement a state-wide uniform Remote Accessible Vote by Mail (RAVBM) absentee ballot system that allows voters with print disabilities the ability to request, receive, and mark an absentee ballot in an accessible way. NYS BOE will implement an RAVBM system that is HTML-based and managed by a third-party vendor. The system will meet all accessibility standards required under the settlement agreement. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs of $400,000. DRNY received $161,474.52 of the award.
DRNY and co-counsel issued a press release of the settlement agreement: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qnqjob6n6l9f2iw/2022.04.05%20Hernandez%20v.%20NYSBOE%20Settlement%20Press%20Release-joint-final%20%28002%29.pdf?dl=0
The press release contains links to the settlement agreement and the approved court order.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported results in the litigation they brought concerning the treatment of children with complex mental health issues residing in North Carolina state institutions and eligible to receive services under Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment provisions. The suit alleged that these children had an intellectual disability and mental health diagnosis that, because of failures by the State, resulted in cyclical hospitalizations, long-term institutionalization in psychiatric facilities, or going without services.
The case was settled successfully with the State agreeing to develop and implement a process to identify children with complex needs to link them to diagnostic testing and appropriate services. Disability Rights N.C. v. Brajer
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported the positive results of their Foundation funded case partnering with other Florida-based justice advocacy organizations in helping inmates with severe and persistent psychiatric disabilities get the treatment they need. The negotiated deal that was the result of a multiyear investigation into several deaths, including suicides, within Florida prisons.
Under the terms of the settlement the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) will have to provide individually tailored treatments to mentally ill inmates and enact policies that increase the amount of time these inmates spend outside of their cells in therapeutic activities. In addition, the FDC agreed to provide more training to its medical providers and security staff working with mentally ill patients.
“We are honored and fortunate to have received critical support from the Foundation. On behalf of our organization and the many thousands of people who have benefitted from the work made possible by your support, we thank you for the strategic investments you have made in high impact advocacy across the country,” Christopher M. Jones, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports the positive settlement of their suit to compel Maryland’s Department of Human Resources to comply with the time limit requirements for processing Medicaid benefits for disabled and blind persons. At the time of the settlement, there were over 9,000 delayed cases. The named plaintiff in the case was waiting over 233 days for an eligibility determination! Magee-Kern v. Dallas
Executive Director John Nethercut said, “The Barbara McDowell Foundation grant enabled our Health Rights project staff to prioritize a time-sensitive case and push it to a speedy resolution that benefitted many thousands of low-income Marylanders waiting for vital health care.”
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Denying the basic and fundamental rights of persons in protected groups provided for by the Constitution and Statutes perpetuates inequality that often only litigation can remedy.
Litigating to obtain constitutional rights for a protected group formed the basis for the following grantees' cases.
The case was dismissed without prejudice following executive actions taken by the Biden administration. In light of litigation in this case and those brought by other organizations, President Biden issued an Executive Order rescinding both Executive Order 13880 of July 11, 2019 (Collecting Information About Citizenship Status in Connection with the Decennial Census) and the Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2020 (Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census). The Census Bureau then terminated producing a Post-2020 Census Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) Special Tabulation. Public representations and assurances were made that appropriate measures would be adopted by the Census Bureau during post data collection processing to ensure data quality of the census count. The Census Bureau has since released redistricting data on August 12, 2021, in “legacy” format and on September 16, 2021, in a more user-friendly format. These data are now being used in redistricting by states. Our case had a very positive outcome. We thank the Barbara McDowell Foundation for its generous support.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports
On January 18, 2022, we were to begin a jury trial against Thrifty White and George Badeaux, the pharmacist, who refused to fill the Plaintiff’s prescription for Emergency Contraception. A new trial date has been set for August 1, 2022.
We believe that we will be successful at trial. The question is whether the pharmacy denied Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of their goods and services because of her sex. “Sex” under the Minnesota Human Rights Act includes pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions. It would thus include emergency contraception.
The pharmacy owner was fully aware that its chief pharmacist was refusing to fill emergency contraception prescriptions before he refused to fill Plaintiff’s prescription. The pharmacy put no measures in place to ensure that the Plaintiff and others like her with an emergency contraception prescription can get the medication they need in a timely manner.
We expect that this case will set an important precedent about the rights of pharmacy patients to access care with no barriers. The precedent will be important for all pregnancy-related care, including abortion care.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
As a result of their Barbara McDowell Foundation grant, National Center for Law and Economic Justice brought a class action lawsuit suit to redress and reform unconstitutional police ticketing practices by the Buffalo Police Department which had conducted thousands of “traffic safety” stops at police checkpoints overwhelmingly concentrated in low- income communities of color to generate revenue for the City.
The litigation continues with wide-based community support seeking to change the Buffalo Police Department’s discriminatory ticketing practices. Black Love Resists in the Rust v. City of Buffalo
“Turning around the Buffalo Police Department is a herculean task, but one we must undertake to advance racial and economic justice in New York,” said Claudia Wilner, Director of Litigation and Advocacy.
2022 Update
In 2019, the Foundation awarded NCLEJ $30,000 in support of Black Love Resists in the Rust v. City of Buffalo, a class action lawsuit intended to redress and reform racially discriminatory policing practices. Before filing, the Buffalo Police Department (BPD) had conducted thousands of "traffic safety" stops at police checkpoints overwhelmingly concentrated in low-income communities of color. So common were the Checkpoints that Buffalo's East Side residents lived their daily lives under near-constant police surveillance. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants targeted and continue targeting them for increased police enforcement to generate revenue for the City budget, as in Ferguson, Missouri. We engaged in extensive discovery and community outreach efforts with the Foundation's support. Because the City refused to turn over basic data on ticketing practices, we successfully subpoenaed this information from third parties. We then hired experts to help us interpret and analyze the data. After the grant period ended, we amended our complaint to include new allegations of discriminatory ticketing practices outside of Checkpoints, and we added five new named plaintiffs, whose stories fill out the range of discriminatory ticketing practices employed by the BPD.
Since our last update, we have continued to litigate the case aggressively despite extraordinary intransigence by the City in refusing to comply with basic discovery obligations. We had to file four separate motions to compel, and the district court eventually ordered sanctions against the City, which spurred the City to produce documents. We have subpoenaed and are analyzing updated ticketing data for 2020 and 2021. We have reviewed nearly 90,000 documents, with review ongoing. We have conducted ten depositions and expect to take at least another ten during Summer 2022. We expect to conclude discovery and move for class certification in September 2022. We featured this case and our community clients at our 2021 Catalyst Awards celebration – the video is here: https://awards.nclej.org/watch-now. The case continues to generate local media attention. A few noteworthy stories are below:
•Racial profiling in Buffalo traffic enforcement hard to gauge with imperfect data | News 4Buffalo (wivb.com)
•Buffalo Council president says racial disparity in police traffic stops does exist | News 4Buffalo (wivb.com)
• EXCLUSIVE: Critics say Buffalo Police's traffic enforcement targets minorities – and there's data that supports their claims | News 4 Buffalo (wivb.com)
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
The Foundation's $40,000 grant in 2019 enabled NCLEJ to play the lead role in a significant class action entitled McCullough v. City of Montgomery. This case challenges a series of interwoven policies and practices of the City of Montgomery, Alabama, designed to increase municipal budgets at the expense of low-income people of color. The City does this by repeatedly ticketing them, subjecting them to coercive private "probation" schemes, jailing them when they could not pay, and forcing them to work while jailed to pay off their debt.
The case was initially filed by a retired law professor and a well-known but under-resourced civil rights law firm. They survived motions to dismiss through the 11th Circuit but lacked the resources to pursue the surviving claims through discovery, summary judgment, and trial. Without the support from NCLEJ and the additional pro bono resources we secured from Dentons, the litigation could not have survived.
The McCullough litigation challenges discriminatory policing and debt collection practices that have subjected communities of color in Alabama to unreasonable intrusion and relentless revenue harvesting. Though previous lawsuits have challenged some of this same conduct, those lawsuits never succeeded in forcing the City to change its practices, and the City and its contractor have never been held accountable to the thousands of people harmed by these unlawful and discriminatory practices.
During the grant year, NCLEJ engaged in intensive litigation on a highly compressed schedule. We completed discovery in three months, after which we immediately began summary judgment briefing, a Herculean effort involving full-time effort from almost every member of NCLEJ's staff. We survived summary judgment and proceeded to class certification alongside a companion case, Carter v. City of Montgomery.
The district court ruled in July 2020 that the case could proceed to trial on claims for damages for violations of federal constitutional due process, equal protection rights and state tort law prohibiting false imprisonment and abuse of process. Since July 2020, NCLEJ and their partners have focused on obtaining class certification and are awaiting decision on their second appeal of a denial of class certification.
2022 Update
As previously reported, the parties initially briefed class certification during the summer of 2020, culminating in a two-day evidentiary hearing. On December 24, 2020, the district court denied class certification because we did not have an administratively feasible method of identifying class members. Still, we successfully appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed, sending the case back to the district court. In May 2021, the district court again denied class certification, and we sought leave to appeal.
Since our last report, the Eleventh Circuit granted our motion for leave to appeal, and a briefing is underway. There has been no significant media coverage or court decisions since our last report.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
Received support for two lawsuits Equal Rights Advocates v. DeVos and Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos.
The NWLC’s case, Equal Rights Advocates v. DeVos, brought with co-counsel from Democracy Forward and filed in the Northern District of California in 2018, challenged an interim Guidance issued in 2017 by the Department of Education that required schools to implement mandates for survivors of sexual harassment with respect to reporting incidents of sexual harassment. This interim Guidance was followed with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in November 2018, which sought to codify many of the aspects of the interim guidance and added new provisions, including requiring schools to dismiss many allegations of sexual harassment absent any investigation whatsoever. The final Title IX regulations incorporating these provisions were issued on May 6, 2020, with an effective date of August 14, 2020.
The NWLC also filed Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos in early June 2020 in the District of Massachusetts with co-counsel Morrison and Foerster and Diane Rosenfeld of Harvard Law School which challenges the Department’s final Title IX regulations on sexual harassment, arguing that the regulations and the process by which they were issued violate the Administrative Procedures Act and constitute sex discrimination in violation of the Constitution.
In November 2019, the district court granted summary judgment to the Department of Education in Equal Right Advocates, based on its conclusion that the interim guidance did not constitute final agency action. NWLC appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit and the parties agreed to a consent motion to stay the appellate proceedings. The motion reasoned that if the Title IX regulations survive legal challenge, this will likely moot the appeal in Equal Rights Advocates v. DeVos, while if the regulations are vacated in whole or in part, it may be appropriate to proceed with the appeal. This consent motion was granted by the Ninth Circuit.
In Victim Rights Law Center, the NWLC filed an amended complaint in July 2020 adding seven student survivors of sexual harassment as plaintiffs, who face educational, psychological, and emotional harm if the new regulations go into effect. NWLC also moved for a preliminary injunction staying the effective date of the regulations, which was argued on September 2, 2020. Rather than ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction, the district court judge consolidated the preliminary injunction motion with a bench trial on the merits, which went forward on November 12, 2020. During the bench trial, the judge expressed concerns that the Department of Education rule would potentially prohibit schools from considering a wide range of relevant evidence in determining responsibility for sexual harassment. Since November 2020, the NWLC has been awaiting a decision on the merits from the district court.
On March 8, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order instructing the Department of Education to initiate a review of the Title IX rule for consistency with law and administration policy and to consider suspension, revision, or rescission of its prior rule. In June 2021, the Department of Education held a week of virtual hearings to hear feedback from stakeholders regarding the rule. The most recent Unified Regulatory Agenda does not anticipate that a new proposed rule will be put forward until May 2022 at the earliest.
2022 Update
On July 28, 2021, the court in Victim Rights Law Center partially vacated the DeVos Title IX rule, in a significant win. The court held unlawful the portion of the rule which required postsecondary schools to exclude all oral or written statements made by any party or witness who did not submit to cross-examination at a live hearing. This provision meant that college and graduate school survivors were required to submit to cross-examination by their harasser or abuser’s advisor in order for the statements in their formal complaint or Title IX interview to be considered as evidence. The exclusionary rule also meant that Title IX respondents could exclude a confession or apology from the evidence by simply refusing to be cross-examined. Similarly, schools could not consider statements in a text message, email, rape kit, police report, etc. if the person who wrote the statements was not available or was too afraid to appear for cross-examination. In vacating the exclusionary rule and remanding it to the Department of Education, the judge remarked that this exclusionary rule rendered Title IX hearings “a remarkably hollow gesture.” After all, while complainants would have to submit to cross-examination at a live hearing for their evidence to be admitted, a respondent could simply refuse to attend the hearing and persuade other witnesses not to attend and then “rest easy knowing that the school could not subpoena other witnesses to appear.” He noted that “[t]his is not some extreme outlier or fanciful scenario.” As a result, he concluded “the Department failed, even implicitly, to consider the consequences” of the exclusionary rule. The Department of Education is no longer enforcing this provision. Unfortunately, the court held that the remainder of the rule survived our APA challenge. We appealed this decision to the First Circuit, but have agreed to stay the appeal pending the Department of Education’s issuance of a NPRM revising the Title IX rule; the NPRM is expected to be released this month.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Was supported by Foundation grants in two separate cases addressing both housing and discrimination. They report the following successful case results:
Suit in 2017 against the Alexander County Housing Authority for discrimination in assignment of public housing units based on race, where African Americans were placed in inferior units needing repair. Paul Lambert v. Alexander County Housing Authority
While settlement terms are not authorized to be disclosed publicly, the Shriver Center views the settlement to be strong and a positive outcome for their clients and provide a model for advocacy for similar cases across the country.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Suit challenging the enforcement of a local “chronic nuisance ordinance” aimed at predominantly African American neighborhoods, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and Illinois Civil Rights Act. Case is set for trial in July 2020.
The lawsuit claims that African Americans face eviction for conduct that does not result in the eviction of whites. Hope Fair Housing Center v. City of Peoria
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Domestic violence deprives the abused of human dignity and mental and emotional safety necessitating litigation to vindicate the oppressed, incarcerate the abusers, and rectify the harm.
Litigating to correct the harm caused by domestic violence served as the basis for the cases of the following grantees.
Represented, in two instances, a mother appealing to the D.C. Court of Appeals an award of joint legal and physical custody to her batterer. E.J. v. D.J. (1&2)
The case briefs are recognized by national experts as effective training tools for attorneys representing and protecting battered mothers.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported results in their unique suit on behalf of a woman, an Iraq war veteran, who had been abused by her former spouse. The plaintiff sought services from the Washington State Department of Social Services, which instead of assisting her, took custody of her son and garnished her veteran’s benefits. Viklund v Department of Social and Health Services
The case settled with the State providing her an extremely large cash settlement and with an agreement by the State to review its procedures relating to victims of partner violence.
“We could not have done this work without the generous assistance of the Barbara McDowell Foundation, which is known for its commitment to social justice and the rights of all people to equal justice under the law,” Lisa M. Stone, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Fairness and equitable treatment by due process for all in the provision and implementation of our Country's laws is an alienable right protected by our Constitution. To violate that protection affronts the bedrock in which our Country was established.
Litigating to protect the fair and equitable treatment by due process for all served as the basis for the cases of the following grantees.
Reported on the results of their three grant-funded cases.
Challenged the federal government’s failure to provide thousands of immigrant children nationwide with counsel when trying to deport them in immigration court. F.L.B. v. Barr
While the case was ultimately dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the fight to ensure that children are not forced into immigration court without the assistance of counsel continues. Supported with the information obtained in F.L.B. about the government’s treatment of unrepresented children in immigration court, the litigation partners continue to raise the issue in individual children’s cases.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Discussing settlement after a nationwide class was certified and summary judgment was granted to resolve a claim that the Department of Homeland Security failed to give asylum seekers notice of the one-year statute of limitations to file an asylum claim. Mendez-Rojas v. Johnson
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
In another grant funded case, decision is pending on motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction in a case challenging a Homeland Security policy that blocks otherwise eligible noncitizens holding temporary protected status from becoming lawful permanent citizens (green card) through sponsorship by a United States citizen family member. Moreno v. Nielsen
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
CAI filed its complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in February 2019. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of more than 5,000 children and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would require appointment of licensed attorneys to represent children in Child in Need of Services proceedings. At this writing, the case is nearing the end of discovery and dispositive motions are due to be filed in March 2020. CAI and its co-counsel have provided expert declarations on the need for counsel that constitutionally compels it from two of the nation’s leading experts, Professor Clark Peters of the University of Missouri and Don Duquette of the University of Michigan School of Law and leader of the federally-funded major study of child legal representation in dependency court. Trial is scheduled to commence in December 2020.
“The Children’s Advocacy Institute is truly grateful for the funding provided by the Barbara McDowell Foundation,” said CAI Executive Director Robert C. Fellmeth, Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. “The Foundation’s support enabled us to lay the groundwork for this critically important lawsuit—which if successful, will ensure that all of the nation’s abused and neglected children are represented by legal counsel in the judicial proceedings that determine every aspect of their lives.”
Press coverage:
2022 Update
After the grant concluded, CAI filed its complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit sought certification of a class of more than 5,000 children and sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would require appointment of licensed attorneys to represent children in Child in Need of Services proceedings. Unfortunately, we did not succeed, despite making every effort possible. The District Court dismissed the case, we lost on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for writ of certiorari.
However, on a related front, CAI has been urging Congress for years to amend CAPTA to require the appointment of counsel to foster children involved in legal proceedings. We are cautiously optimistic that this might finally become a reality as part of the pending CAPTA Reauthorization Act.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Received support for three cases on behalf of disadvantaged children and reported the following positive developments in each suit.
Concluded a successful suit challenging abusive practices in Texas’ foster care system where children languish for long periods prior to adoption or reunification with their birth family. A federal district court order, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, required the state agency to reduce caseloads, investigate abuse and neglect claims, and increase capacity for foster care placements. M.D. v. Abbott
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Received class certification approval in a case against the State of Arizona for failing to investigate reports of abuse and neglect in foster care, to provide health services to the children, and to recruit sufficient foster home placements. The Court of Appeals affirmed class certification and the case is back at district court for trial. B.K. v. McKay Since its filing the case has received press coverage in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
The first-class action lawsuit to shine a federal spotlight solely on the overuse of psychotropic medications among vulnerable, at-risk populations, M.B. v. Tidball addresses longstanding, dangerous, unlawful and deliberately indifferent practices by Missouri’s child welfare system, including:
Children’s Rights settled M.B. v. Tidball in 2019, and early data suggests a decline in the number of children on psychotropic medications. One of the most significant achievements to date is the development and publication of the first Psychotropic Medication Excessive Dosage Guidelines for Children in Foster Care by the settlement-created Psychotropic Medication Advisory Committee (PMAC). The publication of these guidelines by the PMAC represents a greatly needed advancement in the provision of mental health care to children in foster care and provides a template for other states to follow. This document can be accessed from the dedicated Psychotropic Medication Settlement page maintained by the Missouri Department of Social Services: https://dss.mo.gov/notice-of-proposed-class-action-settlement.htm.
“Children’s Rights is grateful to the Barbara McDowell Foundation for providing support that led to serious oversight improvements to protect kid’s health and safety,” said Sandy Santana, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported results in the litigation they brought concerning the treatment of children with complex mental health issues residing in North Carolina state institutions and eligible to receive services under Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment provisions. The suit alleged that these children had an intellectual disability and mental health diagnosis that, because of failures by the State, resulted in cyclical hospitalizations, long-term institutionalization in psychiatric facilities, or going without services.
The case was settled successfully with the State agreeing to develop and implement a process to identify children with complex needs to link them to diagnostic testing and appropriate services. Disability Rights N.C. v. Brajer
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
The case challenges Kentucky’s arbitrary process for voting rights restoration for felons. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight former felons. Kentucky is one of three states that deny the right to vote to all former felons until they petition for rights restoration.
On April 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the earlier judgment dismissing the case (Harbin v. Bevin) as moot. The plaintiffs (Fair Elections Center and their partners) still believe this decision is incorrect, so they appealed to the United States. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 4, 2021. The appeal asks the Court to find that the case is not moot and that the District Court erred by deciding the merits of the case while dismissing the case as moot. Fair Elections Center and their partners expect to receive a decision from the appellate court once the issue has been fully briefed by both parties.
2022 Update
In October 2021, Fair Elections Center won reversal of the district court's ruling dismissing our federal lawsuit as moot. The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was unanimous 3-0. The case was remanded to district court and has been pending for the better part of a year on the cross-motions for summary judgment that were fully briefed as of December 5, 2019. The district court must now rule on the merits, and we anticipate a decision soon.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Had many successes from their grant funded cases, including the following positive results:
Preserved protections for individuals seeking asylum involving gender-or gang-based claims contrary to ICE’s narrow reading of the category, “Particular Social Group,” in the immigration statute.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Overturned the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) practice of using directives to local law enforcement to detain alleged noncitizens for pickup by ICE based solely on vague database information without more to support a probable cause determination. Moreno v. Napolitano
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Challenged successfully the constitutionality of ICE’s requests to issue arrest requests based on error-ridden data base used in the Central District of California and entered by ICE’s Pacific Enforcement Response Center. Gonzalez v. ICE
A similar successful result was achieved in interpreting similar statutory language related to a protected group. Gonzalez-Ruano v. Barr
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports on the results of the class suit they filed on behalf of public housing residents contending that the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority systematically overcharged residents for their utilities. Settlement of the case included direct payments to tenants and led to similar cases in two other Virginia cities. Lewis et al v. Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority et al
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
The results of the Foundation grant to Legal Services, Alabama was that a successful suit was filed against the Alabama Department of Human Resources for implementing a law which limited the ability of “able-bodied” adults to receive food stamps thereby removing thousands of people from the food stamps roll. The suit also challenged the Department’s failure to give notice of the termination of food stamp benefits. Shammyane Nettles v. Alabama Department of Human Resources
The suit resulted in the reinstatement of benefits and systematic changes that would foreclose the problem from happening again in the future.
Michael Forton, Director of Advocacy: “Receiving support from the Barbara McDowell Foundation helped us to provide assistance to many people beyond just our individual clients.”
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported results in their unique suit on behalf of a woman, an Iraq war veteran, who had been abused by her former spouse. The plaintiff sought services from the Washington State Department of Social Services, which instead of assisting her, took custody of her son and garnished her veteran’s benefits. Viklund v Department of Social and Health Services
The case settled with the State providing her an extremely large cash settlement and with an agreement by the State to review its procedures relating to victims of partner violence.
“We could not have done this work without the generous assistance of the Barbara McDowell Foundation, which is known for its commitment to social justice and the rights of all people to equal justice under the law,” Lisa M. Stone, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
As a result of their Foundation grant Louisiana Center for Children's Rights was able to file suit in a case against the Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice on behalf of incarcerated children alleging the denial of counsel to children to enable them to protest violent and inhumane conditions. Despite its pending status, the litigation is effectively serving to improve conditions and provide proper access to counsel. R.B. v. Dr. Mary Rivers
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Below are the results of the Foundation's support for three National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) cases litigating on behalf of access to public benefits.
Undertook successful enforcement of a consent decree it had obtained against the State of Colorado to ensure the rights of low-income people to have access to food stamps, Medicaid, and child health benefits in a timely manner. As a result of the state’s delays in processing applications, tens of thousands of eligible households could not access food aid and medical benefits. Continued monitoring occurred until 2017 when the State achieved the timely processing of food stamps and other benefits. Davis v. Hennebury
“With the support from the Foundation, tens of thousands of low-income households gained access to subsistence benefits necessary to sustain life and health,” said the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Negotiated changes in access to Medicaid benefits in Hawaii where low-income persons were experiencing long delays in processing their applications and obtained adjustments to the State’s recertification procedures so that families did not have to submit repeated applications in order to access health benefits.
As a result of these efforts, the State dramatically improved its ability to process new Medicaid applications. Booth v. Koller
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Obtained a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Connecticut on behalf of low-income people to enforce their rights to food stamps. Because of unjustified denials and delays in processing food stamp applications 40% of the eligible households in Connecticut could not access food stamps in a timely manner leaving families going hungry for weeks and months. Extensive discovery occurred in the case after which the district judge ordered the parties to utilize experts to negotiate a remedy.
Subsequently, in March of 2017 the district court approved a comprehensive class action settlement. Briggs v. Bremby
“At the beginning of the litigation, Connecticut was last in the nation in terms of the timely processing of food stamps. Now, it is in the forefront of delivering food stamps to households in a manner that will help them put food on the table,” said Greg Bass, Senior Attorney.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
The Foundation's $40,000 grant in 2019 enabled NCLEJ to play the lead role in a significant class action entitled McCullough v. City of Montgomery. This case challenges a series of interwoven policies and practices of the City of Montgomery, Alabama, designed to increase municipal budgets at the expense of low-income people of color. The City does this by repeatedly ticketing them, subjecting them to coercive private "probation" schemes, jailing them when they could not pay, and forcing them to work while jailed to pay off their debt.
The case was initially filed by a retired law professor and a well-known but under-resourced civil rights law firm. They survived motions to dismiss through the 11th Circuit but lacked the resources to pursue the surviving claims through discovery, summary judgment, and trial. Without the support from NCLEJ and the additional pro bono resources we secured from Dentons, the litigation could not have survived.
The McCullough litigation challenges discriminatory policing and debt collection practices that have subjected communities of color in Alabama to unreasonable intrusion and relentless revenue harvesting. Though previous lawsuits have challenged some of this same conduct, those lawsuits never succeeded in forcing the City to change its practices, and the City and its contractor have never been held accountable to the thousands of people harmed by these unlawful and discriminatory practices.
During the grant year, NCLEJ engaged in intensive litigation on a highly compressed schedule. We completed discovery in three months, after which we immediately began summary judgment briefing, a Herculean effort involving full-time effort from almost every member of NCLEJ's staff. We survived summary judgment and proceeded to class certification alongside a companion case, Carter v. City of Montgomery.
The district court ruled in July 2020 that the case could proceed to trial on claims for damages for violations of federal constitutional due process, equal protection rights and state tort law prohibiting false imprisonment and abuse of process. Since July 2020, NCLEJ and their partners have focused on obtaining class certification and are awaiting decision on their second appeal of a denial of class certification.
2022 Update
As previously reported, the parties initially briefed class certification during the summer of 2020, culminating in a two-day evidentiary hearing. On December 24, 2020, the district court denied class certification because we did not have an administratively feasible method of identifying class members. Still, we successfully appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed, sending the case back to the district court. In May 2021, the district court again denied class certification, and we sought leave to appeal.
Since our last report, the Eleventh Circuit granted our motion for leave to appeal, and a briefing is underway. There has been no significant media coverage or court decisions since our last report.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
In a landmark ruling in the Lucas R. lawsuit in March 2022, a federal judge held that unaccompanied children in federal immigration custody are entitled to greater constitutional protections than they are currently afforded.
Among other things, the order:
1. Requires the government to employ a clear and convincing evidentiary standard in deciding when a minor should be stepped up to a more restrictive placement and gives minors the opportunity to immediately appeal their placement in a restrictive setting, with the assistance of counsel.
2. Extends the right to appeal the denial of a sponsorship application beyond just parents of a child in custody to their siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Moreover, the Court required the government to ensure written notice to denied sponsors to inform them of their right to appeal and be represented by counsel.
3. Requires broader access to counsel for detained children, including notice to counsel of placement in restrictive facilities, access to counsel to appeal step-up decisions and sponsor denials, and access to class members’ case files upon request.
The Court’s holding applied to three of the five claims in the Lucas R. lawsuit. Over the coming months NCYL will continue negotiating with the administration in an effort to come to agreement on the remaining two claims regarding (1) children who are administered psychotropic medications and (2) children with disabilities. If we are unable to reach agreement on these two additional claims, a trial will take place in November 2022.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports the successful results of the litigation they brought under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the City of Dallas with respect to its local law preventing religious organizations from providing food to homeless persons living outdoors. The ordinance placed burdensome and costly restrictions on food-sharing and severely limited volunteers’ ability to share food with the City’s homeless population, an integral part of their ministries. Big Heart Ministries Association Inc. v. City of Dallas
“Thanks to the Barbara McDowell Foundation we were able to protect the rights of individuals to share and receive food in accordance with their religious and moral convictions, setting forth a precedent that has helped prevent similar laws elsewhere,” said Maria Foscarinis, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Filed suit on behalf of migrant farmworkers not being paid properly by labor contractors who brought foreign workers to fill temporary agricultural jobs. The contractors did not properly report hours worked and required workers to pay the costs of their visas and transportation to the United States.
The case was resolved and has helped to deter other labor contractors from using similar practices. Gallegos Gallegos v. Becerra Enterprises
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Was supported by Foundation grants in two separate cases addressing both housing and discrimination. They report the following successful case results:
Suit in 2017 against the Alexander County Housing Authority for discrimination in assignment of public housing units based on race, where African Americans were placed in inferior units needing repair. Paul Lambert v. Alexander County Housing Authority
While settlement terms are not authorized to be disclosed publicly, the Shriver Center views the settlement to be strong and a positive outcome for their clients and provide a model for advocacy for similar cases across the country.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Suit challenging the enforcement of a local “chronic nuisance ordinance” aimed at predominantly African American neighborhoods, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and Illinois Civil Rights Act. Case is set for trial in July 2020.
The lawsuit claims that African Americans face eviction for conduct that does not result in the eviction of whites. Hope Fair Housing Center v. City of Peoria
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Through their grant brought litigation on behalf of persons who were jailed for being unable to pay misdemeanor tickets in violation of their constitutional rights not to be incarcerated because of non-criminal behavior—poverty. Suit was dismissed without prejudice, but settlement discussions resulted in the cessation of the practice. Gonzales et al. v. City of Austin
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
A society that ignores the rights of its least fortunate is not a just society so that litigation becomes often the only mechanism available to ensure that those rights are not trammeled upon.
Protecting the constitutional rights of nonprofit organizations serving homeless persons formed the basis of one grant.
Reports the successful results of the litigation they brought under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the City of Dallas with respect to its local law preventing religious organizations from providing food to homeless persons living outdoors. The ordinance placed burdensome and costly restrictions on food-sharing and severely limited volunteers’ ability to share food with the City’s homeless population, an integral part of their ministries. Big Heart Ministries Association Inc. v. City of Dallas
“Thanks to the Barbara McDowell Foundation we were able to protect the rights of individuals to share and receive food in accordance with their religious and moral convictions, setting forth a precedent that has helped prevent similar laws elsewhere,” said Maria Foscarinis, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
The failure to provide adequate subsidized housing for the poor and discrimination in obtaining that housing often necessitates litigation.
The following organizations received grants challenging housing inequality and inadequate living conditions.
Report the successful results of the class action housing suit they brought on behalf of more than four thousand tenants against a large landlord in Fresno, California, alleging deplorable housing conditions, including vermin infestation, mold, collapsed ceilings, lack of heat, and absence of sanitation.
The parties are awaiting a final hearing on a settlement that has been preliminarily approved by the Court. Neng Vu, et al. v. JD Home Rentals
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports on the results of the class suit they filed on behalf of public housing residents contending that the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority systematically overcharged residents for their utilities. Settlement of the case included direct payments to tenants and led to similar cases in two other Virginia cities. Lewis et al v. Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority et al
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Filed a successful suit to stop rent increases at a housing project with 250 tenants in the Mississippi Delta. The case settled resulting in lower rents and better maintenance. Lowe v. South Delta Regional Housing Authority
“Having the Barbara McDowell Foundation’s assistance at the end of the case allowed us to effectively represent our clients in the litigation, resulting in a favorable resolution.” Martha Bergmark, President.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports the successful challenge of practices by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Rural Development Division which was collecting past due deficiencies from low and moderate-income homeowners in rural areas where there had been a prior foreclosure. These deficiencies were being collected from homeowners using wage garnishments and the seizure of tax refunds authorized under the Debt Improvement Collection Act.
Efforts related to the lawsuit resulted in Congressional pressure on the USDA. Under a new policy, the USDA stopped pursuing borrowers for unpaid loan balances after foreclosure if the borrowers were able to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the debt.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported on the successful results of a class action suit brought against a landlord’s attorney to prevent collection of back rent when the landlord had not complied with Philadelphia law requiring tenants to be provided with a Certificate of Rental Suitability when a lease was signed. Baker v. Ross
The case was successfully settled with payment of damages and the ending of the practice. Thereafter, the Board of Judges of the Philadelphia Municipal Court enacted rules to end this practice by all lawyers, not just the defendant lawyer in the settled case.
“Through the grant from the Barbara McDowell Foundation we confronted a system that long saw low-income people sued for money they did not owe resulting in a change not only for the class, but for all Philadelphia renters.” Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, Staff Attorney.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Was supported by Foundation grants in two separate cases addressing both housing and discrimination. They report the following successful case results:
Suit in 2017 against the Alexander County Housing Authority for discrimination in assignment of public housing units based on race, where African Americans were placed in inferior units needing repair. Paul Lambert v. Alexander County Housing Authority
While settlement terms are not authorized to be disclosed publicly, the Shriver Center views the settlement to be strong and a positive outcome for their clients and provide a model for advocacy for similar cases across the country.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Suit challenging the enforcement of a local “chronic nuisance ordinance” aimed at predominantly African American neighborhoods, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and Illinois Civil Rights Act. Case is set for trial in July 2020.
The lawsuit claims that African Americans face eviction for conduct that does not result in the eviction of whites. Hope Fair Housing Center v. City of Peoria
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
The poverty of Native Americans, exacerbated by the denial of public benefits and often obscured by their living on a reservation, can result in the denial of their basic constitutional rights such as voting, requiring litigation to end those injustices.
The following grantees were able to leverage Foundation grants to help alleviate injustices against Native Americans.
Reported that they successfully challenged North Dakota’s voter identification law which discriminated against Native Americans living on reservations who did not have a qualifying ID such as a driver’s license. Tribal IDs were not permissible if they did not have a permanent physical residential address. A post office box would not suffice.
An initial suit, Brakebill v. Jaeger, was overturned by the court of appeals. However, a subsequent suit making similar allegations on behalf of the members of the Spirit Lake and Standing Rock Sioux tribes living in North Dakota was successfully settled in February of 2020 after the District Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss. Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger
“The Barbara McDowell grant afforded us the opportunity to give a voice to some of the most vulnerable populations in the country, Native Americans, by assisting them in a political process to which they are absolutely entitled,” said Don Ragona, Director of Development.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Filed a successful suit resulting in systemic relief to improve the hearing process for 15,000 participants in the Navaho Nation’s Cash Assistance Program when their benefits were denied or terminated. Prior to the lawsuit no participant had ever received a formal hearing. Rose Charlie v. Navajo Nation Department of Self Reliance
“Grant funding from the Barbara McDowell Foundation allowed us to resolve critical issues impeding access to cash assistance to families living and working on the Navajo Nation,” said Sovereign Hager, Legal Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Confinement of prisoners in deplorable conditions, frequently without adequate medical care necessitates litigation to obtain relief.
The following cases have been funded through grants that address the rights of prisoners.
2021 Update
In the ACLU’s decades-long effort to protect the rights of inmates in Los Angeles County, dozens of leaders and staff from the LA County Jail system and Sheriff’s department were ultimately found guilty of various civil rights abuses in a court of law, as well as by the Department of Justice.
More importantly, by 2014, the ACLU had reached a landmark consent decree in a case supported by the Barbara McDowell Foundation, under which the LASD had to adopt a detailed plan to reform its use of force policies and practices in Men’s Central Jail, Twin Towers Correctional Facility and the Inmate Reception Center. LASD’s implementation of the plan is subject to monitoring by a panel of court appointed experts and federal court enforcement. In 2015 a federal court granted final approval to the settlement.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
The case challenges Kentucky’s arbitrary process for voting rights restoration for felons. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight former felons. Kentucky is one of three states that deny the right to vote to all former felons until they petition for rights restoration.
On April 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the earlier judgment dismissing the case (Harbin v. Bevin) as moot. The plaintiffs (Fair Elections Center and their partners) still believe this decision is incorrect, so they appealed to the United States. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 4, 2021. The appeal asks the Court to find that the case is not moot and that the District Court erred by deciding the merits of the case while dismissing the case as moot. Fair Elections Center and their partners expect to receive a decision from the appellate court once the issue has been fully briefed by both parties.
2022 Update
In October 2021, Fair Elections Center won reversal of the district court's ruling dismissing our federal lawsuit as moot. The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was unanimous 3-0. The case was remanded to district court and has been pending for the better part of a year on the cross-motions for summary judgment that were fully briefed as of December 5, 2019. The district court must now rule on the merits, and we anticipate a decision soon.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reported the positive results of their Foundation funded case partnering with other Florida-based justice advocacy organizations in helping inmates with severe and persistent psychiatric disabilities get the treatment they need. The negotiated deal that was the result of a multiyear investigation into several deaths, including suicides, within Florida prisons.
Under the terms of the settlement the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) will have to provide individually tailored treatments to mentally ill inmates and enact policies that increase the amount of time these inmates spend outside of their cells in therapeutic activities. In addition, the FDC agreed to provide more training to its medical providers and security staff working with mentally ill patients.
“We are honored and fortunate to have received critical support from the Foundation. On behalf of our organization and the many thousands of people who have benefitted from the work made possible by your support, we thank you for the strategic investments you have made in high impact advocacy across the country,” Christopher M. Jones, Executive Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Sued the Virginia Department of Corrections on behalf of women detained in the Fluvanna Correctional Center for poor medical care. The case settled in 2015 but litigation continues over implementation of the settlement. Scott et al v. Clarke et al
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
Plaintiffs are men who have been civilly committed for inpatient treatment for an alcohol or substance use disorder under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123, Section 35 (“Section 35”). Although they have not been convicted or even charged with any crime, they are incarcerated in one of two separate correctional facilities: (1) the Massachusetts Alcohol and Treatment Center or MASAC operated by the Department of Correction, and (2) the Stony Brook Stabilization Center operated by the Sheriff of Hampden County. Every year, Massachusetts incarcerates about 2,000 men under Section 35 either at MASAC or the Hampden County facility.
The legal claims are:
(1) Incarcerating civilly committed men but not women constitutes gender discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act. Under Section 35, men who need inpatient treatment for alcohol or substance use disorders go to prison, while women receive treatment community facilities.
(2) Civil commitment to a correctional institution for treatment of a medical condition constitutes unlawful disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Article 114 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. By subjecting men to stigma and punishment instead of treatment, Section 35 perpetuates unwarranted negative stereotypes, and reinforces the perception that they are second-class citizens unworthy of bona-fide treatment.
(3) Civil commitment to a prison violates the substantive due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Articles 1, 10, and 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ incarceration violates the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to above, and a permanent injunction prohibiting civil commitments under Section 35 to a correctional facility. The Complaint names as Defendants the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, the Sheriff of Hampden County, the Commissioner of Public Health, the Department of Public Health, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, and the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
Since we filed the suit, the Defendants have implemented numerous changes at both MASAC and Hampden County, including removing all sentenced prisoners from the facility, turning all day-to-day operation over to the clinical provider, and expanding treatment. We have filed two amended complaints describing these changes, and the court has certified the case as a class action.
2022 Update
In March of 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings seeking a ruling that Section 35 is not unlawful on its face because a correctional facility, such as MASAC, could at least theoretically be operated as a treatment facility. Plaintiffs opposed this motion on grounds that confinement in a correctional facility for treatment of a disease is inherently stigmatizing and discriminatory. On December 29, 2021, the court issued a rather odd decision holding that Section 35 is not facially unconstitutional, but only because it could be implemented without sending anyone to a correctional facility if DPH created enough treatment beds in the community. Since our position is that only the portion of the statute that allows for incarceration is unconstitutional, we agree with that reasoning. Defendants, however, asked the Court to report the case to the Supreme Judicial Court, but that motion was denied. We are now proceeding with discovery and expect a trial in 2023.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Through their grant brought litigation on behalf of persons who were jailed for being unable to pay misdemeanor tickets in violation of their constitutional rights not to be incarcerated because of non-criminal behavior—poverty. Suit was dismissed without prejudice, but settlement discussions resulted in the cessation of the practice. Gonzales et al. v. City of Austin
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Utilized grant funds to successfully litigate three cases in California where municipalities suspended driver’s licenses of persons not having the funds to pay traffic fines. Rubicon Programs v. Solano County Superior Court, Alvarado v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, and Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles
“Funds from the Barbara McDowell Foundation allowed us to litigate on behalf of thousands of Californians who had their driver’s licenses suspended because they were unable to pay fines related to minor traffic tickets,” Cori Racela, Deputy Director.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Litigation becomes often the only available remedy for those whose constitutional rights are violated when seeking to enter the United States.
Several grantees achieved noteworthy results in cases supporting the rights of refugees and immigrants.
Reported on the results of their three grant-funded cases.
Challenged the federal government’s failure to provide thousands of immigrant children nationwide with counsel when trying to deport them in immigration court. F.L.B. v. Barr
While the case was ultimately dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the fight to ensure that children are not forced into immigration court without the assistance of counsel continues. Supported with the information obtained in F.L.B. about the government’s treatment of unrepresented children in immigration court, the litigation partners continue to raise the issue in individual children’s cases.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Discussing settlement after a nationwide class was certified and summary judgment was granted to resolve a claim that the Department of Homeland Security failed to give asylum seekers notice of the one-year statute of limitations to file an asylum claim. Mendez-Rojas v. Johnson
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
In another grant funded case, decision is pending on motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction in a case challenging a Homeland Security policy that blocks otherwise eligible noncitizens holding temporary protected status from becoming lawful permanent citizens (green card) through sponsorship by a United States citizen family member. Moreno v. Nielsen
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Received grant funding for a series of cases on behalf of domestic violence survivors from Central American countries seeking asylum in the United States. The results of those cases are below.
Moved the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reconsider its denial of asylum in the case of an indigenous woman who fled Guatemala after suffering severe domestic violence at the hands of her father, as well as her common law husband. Matter of R-P-
They prevailed in the case when, in another asylum case, Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA definitively recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum for the first time.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
In their second grant-funded case, they litigated on behalf of a young Guatemalan domestic violence survivor who sought protection before the Immigration Court in Arizona. That case, Matter of S-O-, was litigated as a part of a broader strategy, to transform the culture of immigration courts in jurisdictions particularly hostile to asylum seekers. The immigration judges in Arizona were denying asylum in a staggering 94.9 percent of cases, far out of sync with the national average.
In February 2017, the individual was granted asylum, was reunited with her son, and is beginning her new life in the United States.
“The grant from the Barbara McDowell Foundation was critical to our ability to win protection for our client,” said Blaine Bookey, Legal Director. Media coverage included stories in the Washington Post and on National Public Radio.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Litigated to reverse former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ June 2018 ruling in the case Matter of A-B-, vacating the previously controlling BIA precedent ruling Matter of A-R-C-G-, which had affirmed the right of domestic violence survivors to seek asylum. The case is still in litigation.
“The Barbara McDowell Foundation’s generous support enabled CGRS to pursue all possible avenues to justice for Ms. A.B. and for the thousands of asylum-seeking women, children, and families impacted by the ruling in her case. Our team remains committed to winning a reversal of Matter of A-B- and restoring asylum protections for domestic violence survivors who turn to the United States for safe haven.” - Blaine Bookey, Legal Director and Counsel for Ms. A.B.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Had many successes from their grant funded cases, including the following positive results:
Preserved protections for individuals seeking asylum involving gender-or gang-based claims contrary to ICE’s narrow reading of the category, “Particular Social Group,” in the immigration statute.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Overturned the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) practice of using directives to local law enforcement to detain alleged noncitizens for pickup by ICE based solely on vague database information without more to support a probable cause determination. Moreno v. Napolitano
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Challenged successfully the constitutionality of ICE’s requests to issue arrest requests based on error-ridden data base used in the Central District of California and entered by ICE’s Pacific Enforcement Response Center. Gonzalez v. ICE
A similar successful result was achieved in interpreting similar statutory language related to a protected group. Gonzalez-Ruano v. Barr
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
In a landmark ruling in the Lucas R. lawsuit in March 2022, a federal judge held that unaccompanied children in federal immigration custody are entitled to greater constitutional protections than they are currently afforded.
Among other things, the order:
1. Requires the government to employ a clear and convincing evidentiary standard in deciding when a minor should be stepped up to a more restrictive placement and gives minors the opportunity to immediately appeal their placement in a restrictive setting, with the assistance of counsel.
2. Extends the right to appeal the denial of a sponsorship application beyond just parents of a child in custody to their siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Moreover, the Court required the government to ensure written notice to denied sponsors to inform them of their right to appeal and be represented by counsel.
3. Requires broader access to counsel for detained children, including notice to counsel of placement in restrictive facilities, access to counsel to appeal step-up decisions and sponsor denials, and access to class members’ case files upon request.
The Court’s holding applied to three of the five claims in the Lucas R. lawsuit. Over the coming months NCYL will continue negotiating with the administration in an effort to come to agreement on the remaining two claims regarding (1) children who are administered psychotropic medications and (2) children with disabilities. If we are unable to reach agreement on these two additional claims, a trial will take place in November 2022.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Reports the successful results in a case brought in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at the Berks County Detention Center. The suit claimed that detained immigrant children suffered serious deprivations related to health services, mental health care, and language access, as well as traumatic night-checks that repeatedly interrupt children’s sleep.
Families detained at the facility will now be able to file a petition to intervene in the state licensing dispute brought against the detention center and have their voice heard for the first time. Doe v. Mici
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Filed suit on behalf of migrant farmworkers not being paid properly by labor contractors who brought foreign workers to fill temporary agricultural jobs. The contractors did not properly report hours worked and required workers to pay the costs of their visas and transportation to the United States.
The case was resolved and has helped to deter other labor contractors from using similar practices. Gallegos Gallegos v. Becerra Enterprises
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
The result of their grant funding was in successfully pursuing the case of Maria (a pseudonym), an immigrant woman and survivor of severe domestic violence. Matter of MA
The fact pattern in Maria’s case lent itself to a decisive victory. With the support of the Foundation, Tahirih invested significant resources in preparing and supporting Maria’s case which set legal precedent applicable nation-wide concerning survivors of domestic violence seeking asylum.
“…the Foundation’s generosity was vital in enabling Tahirih to serve vulnerable immigrant women and girls fleeing violence,” Archi Pyati, Chief of Policy and Communications.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Those who served their country honorably should not be denied their statutory rights for any unlawful reason so that litigation is often their only recourse.
The following grantees made significant progress in protecting and securing the rights of veterans. Scroll down to read more about each grantee and the case for which they received funding.
2021 Update
The suit alleges that the Navy failed to provide ratings for Category II disability conditions resulting in the improper denial of medical retirement to thousands of Navy and Marine Corps service-members. The government filed an answer on February 9, 2021, in which they conceded that they did not rate Category II conditions. At that time, the name of the case changed to Springs v. Harker, to reflect a new Acting Secretary of the Navy. The government filed the amended administrative record on May 27, 2021. On June 15, 2021, NVLSP and co-counsel filed a motion for class certification. NVLSP expects a full briefing on the motion for class certification in the coming months. Following a decision on that motion, they anticipate cross motions for summary judgment.
2022 Update
On March 11, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Briefing on cross motions for summary judgment is currently underway.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Without equal voting rights, citizens in a free country cannot seek redress of their grievances often necessitating litigation as the only means to establish that right.
The following grantee was able to make significant progress in securing voting rights for prisoners.
The case was dismissed without prejudice following executive actions taken by the Biden administration. In light of litigation in this case and those brought by other organizations, President Biden issued an Executive Order rescinding both Executive Order 13880 of July 11, 2019 (Collecting Information About Citizenship Status in Connection with the Decennial Census) and the Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2020 (Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census). The Census Bureau then terminated producing a Post-2020 Census Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) Special Tabulation. Public representations and assurances were made that appropriate measures would be adopted by the Census Bureau during post data collection processing to ensure data quality of the census count. The Census Bureau has since released redistricting data on August 12, 2021, in “legacy” format and on September 16, 2021, in a more user-friendly format. These data are now being used in redistricting by states. Our case had a very positive outcome. We thank the Barbara McDowell Foundation for its generous support.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports
As a result of their Foundation grant funding, Brennan Center aided in the defense of a New York State law that was held to be constitutional that had ended the practice of “prison-based gerrymandering”. The law changed the way the State allocated people in terms of their voting for redistricting purposes by counting those in prison in their home communities rather than previously where they were incarcerated. The prior practice distorted demographics to diminish the voting strength of poor and minority communities by counting the votes of prisoners based upon their place of incarceration. Little v. LATFOR
Myrna Perez, Director of Voting Rights and Election Programs said, “The Barbara McDowell Foundation’s support was critical in ensuring that we had the resources needed to put forward the strongest arguments in defense of the law ending prison-based gerrymandering in New York State.”
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
Plaintiffs and Defendants resolved the lawsuit on April 5, 2022, after negotiating terms for a year and a half. The New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE) agreed to implement a state-wide uniform Remote Accessible Vote by Mail (RAVBM) absentee ballot system that allows voters with print disabilities the ability to request, receive, and mark an absentee ballot in an accessible way. NYS BOE will implement an RAVBM system that is HTML-based and managed by a third-party vendor. The system will meet all accessibility standards required under the settlement agreement. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs of $400,000. DRNY received $161,474.52 of the award.
DRNY and co-counsel issued a press release of the settlement agreement: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qnqjob6n6l9f2iw/2022.04.05%20Hernandez%20v.%20NYSBOE%20Settlement%20Press%20Release-joint-final%20%28002%29.pdf?dl=0
The press release contains links to the settlement agreement and the approved court order.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.
2021 Update
The case challenges Kentucky’s arbitrary process for voting rights restoration for felons. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight former felons. Kentucky is one of three states that deny the right to vote to all former felons until they petition for rights restoration.
On April 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the earlier judgment dismissing the case (Harbin v. Bevin) as moot. The plaintiffs (Fair Elections Center and their partners) still believe this decision is incorrect, so they appealed to the United States. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 4, 2021. The appeal asks the Court to find that the case is not moot and that the District Court erred by deciding the merits of the case while dismissing the case as moot. Fair Elections Center and their partners expect to receive a decision from the appellate court once the issue has been fully briefed by both parties.
2022 Update
In October 2021, Fair Elections Center won reversal of the district court's ruling dismissing our federal lawsuit as moot. The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was unanimous 3-0. The case was remanded to district court and has been pending for the better part of a year on the cross-motions for summary judgment that were fully briefed as of December 5, 2019. The district court must now rule on the merits, and we anticipate a decision soon.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.