A.R. v. Dudek

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Florida

Filed: 2017

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Overview: The brief challenged the policies of the state of Florida that resulted in unnecessary separation of children with disabilities from their families and unnecessary institutionalization in nursing facilities. The brief emphasized the importance of class action litigation to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live and receive services in community settings, consistent with the ADA’s integration mandate and explained the importance of community living for people with disabilities and the importance of children growing up in their family home.

Excerpt: “Class actions are uniquely appropriate for litigating Olmstead cases because…they focus on systemic practices and policies that violate the ADA’s integration mandate. By their nature, Olmstead cases challenge policies or practices that unduly rely on institutions and other segregated settings for the delivery of services, denying people with disabilities the opportunity to live, work, or be educated in a community-based setting.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: A.R. v. Dudek

Eleventh Circuit Opinion:

Ball v. Kasich

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Ohio

Filed: 2017

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Overview: The brief supported plaintiffs in Ohio seeking appropriate services in the most integrated setting in the community challenging the state’s practice of providing immediate placement in institutions for those seeking state-funded services, but taking 13 years or more to provide community-based services. The brief argued for certification of the class and outlined research demonstrating that states have successfully shifted from institutional placements to person-centered, community-based services even for those with the most significant disabilities and complex medical needs.

Excerpt: “Similar to other states that have successfully shifted their funding scheme to favor community-based options rather than institutional placements, the changes sought to Ohio’s system for the provision of community-based services and supports to individuals with IDD are both readily achievable and critically important. Such structural and systemic changes, however, simply cannot be achieved through individual lawsuits. As Plaintiffs note, Ohio’s institutional footprint is one of the largest in the United States. In 2013, more than 22,000 Ohioans with immediate needs were on waiting lists for community-based services at the time, with a median wait time of over 13 years. These numbers are unacceptably high and reflect a systemic problem that cannot adequately be addressed through individual litigation. Systemic relief is needed to ensure that proposed class members have sufficient access to a process that will allow informed choices…and lead to integrated, community-based residential, employment, and other services for those seeking such options. Without a class, such relief will not be achievable.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

S.D. Ohio Opinion

Related Media

Disability Rights Ohio Press Release: “The Arc of Ohio, The Arc of the United States and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Support Community Integration Class Action Suit”

A.R. v. Secretary

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Florida

Filed: October 25, 2017

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Overview: The brief argued that, in a case challenging the state of Florida’s practice of unnecessarily serving hundreds of children with disabilities and complex medical needs in institutional settings, the U.S. Attorney General has standing to sue under Title II of the ADA. The brief noted that all branches of government have recognized since the ADA’s enactment that the Attorney General has authority to bring an enforcement action and this authority has been used to achieve important victories for people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “For decades, courts have recognized the Attorney General’s authority to enforce Title II of the ADA…In light of the text and purpose of the ADA, the longstanding DOJ regulations establishing the enforcement procedures for Title II, and the unanimity of all other cases decided to the contrary, the District Court’s decision was clearly erroneous. If permitted to stand, this decision will undermine the significant role the Attorney General has traditionally played in the enforcement of the ADA. The enforcement authority of the Attorney General significantly benefits individuals with disabilities, both because of the broad standing the Attorney General has to pursue systemic relief and because of the financial barriers to private litigation. The District Court’s decision would impede the progress the country has made toward the goal of “assur[ing] equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for individuals with disabilities…”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: A.R. v. Secretary

Decision

 

People v. McCollum

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: New York

Filed: December 20, 2018

Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York

Overview: The brief supported Darius McCollum, an adult with autism charged with unauthorized driving of city trains and buses. In an unprecedented decision, the lower court found that, based on his autism diagnosis, Darius met the criteria for a “dangerous mental disorder” and committed him to a psychiatric institution for the most violent offenders despite him never having committed a violent crime. The brief argued that this placement is wholly inappropriate for someone like Darius, who could thrive in the community with appropriate supports and services.

Excerpt: “The principle of community integration…enshrined in the Americans with Disabilities Act…requires public entities to avoid needless institutionalization of individuals with disabilities who can be served in community settings. Decades of research and experience compel the conclusion that community-based services deliver better outcomes for individuals who do not require institutionalization, and better serve the purpose of [state law] to balance individual rights and public safety.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: People v. McCollum

Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections

/in , , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Missouri

Filed: 2018

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Overview: The brief supported a class of Missouri prisoners seeking life-saving medical treatment while in prison and alleging that the state’s Department of Corrections refused to treat thousands of inmates with Hepatitis C in defiance of medical standards and in violation of the ADA. The brief argued for the importance of class action lawsuits as a tool for civil rights enforcement.

Excerpt: “An unlawful policy or practice will always cause differing degrees of actual injury to individual class members, depending on their vulnerabilities, and some may be lucky enough to escape harm altogether. One foster child will be placed in a family rife with abuse and another with loving foster parents; one person will have disabilities that necessitate 24-hour support while another is able to live independently; one immigrant in detention will suffer lasting health consequences without regular medication and monitoring while her cellmate will stay healthy. If such variations were sufficient to defeat class certification, system-wide relief from illegal policies and practices would almost always be out of reach, and shifting populations in the custody of the government would have lost a vital tool for vindicating their rights.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections

Eighth Circuit Opinion

Moore v. Texas

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: 2016/2017

Court: United States Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Overview: The brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 argued that Texas distorted the clinical definition of intellectual disability by devising a formula of exclusionary factors that rests heavily on stereotypes. This approach is wholly inconsistent with accepted scientific standards and leads to inaccurate and unreliable results. The brief argues that the deliberate decision to reject clinical standards in the adjudication of death penalty cases is inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent in Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida and incompatible with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In 2017, the Court held that Texas’ use of stereotypical and outdated factors—rather than well-established clinical standards—to determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases was unconstitutional, since they “create an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” The case was then remanded to the Texas Court of Criminal (TCCA) appeals to redo its disability determination consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Arc filed another brief in support of Mr. Moore before the TCCA. In 2018, the TCCA again found that Mr. Moore did not have intellectual disability and should be executed. A strong dissent from Judge Elsa Alcala cited The Arc’s amicus brief and noted that the majority opinion was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Mr. Moore again petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review.

Excerpt: “There is a wide gap between the clinical definition, on the one hand, and on the other, expectations that many laypeople have about what intellectual disability…means…Distorting the definition with invented exclusionary factors is fundamentally inconsistent with the clinical understanding of intellectual disability, and has no support in the scientific and clinical literature in the field…Texas’ invention and adoption of a list of unscientific criteria for adaptive functioning has the effect (and, apparently, the purpose) of limiting the protection of Atkins to a sub-set of those defendants who satisfy the clinical definition of intellectual disability. This is incompatible with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishments. Amici believe that the basic framework of the clinical definition is the constitutionally required standard for determining whether a defendant has intellectual disability.”

Case Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Brief

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Brief

2017 U.S. Supreme Court Decision

2018 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Decision

2019 U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Press Releases

Related Media

Ortiz v. United States

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Missouri

Filed: 2010

Court: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Overview: The briefs before the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that the Courts must consider the consensus of the scientific community that only Mr. Ortiz’s adaptive deficits and not his adaptive strengths are relevant to an intellectual disability determination. The Arc also submitted a clemency letter to President Barack Obama requesting the commutation of Mr. Ortiz’s sentence.

Excerpt: “Like everyone else, individuals with intellectual disability differ substantially from one another. For each person with intellectual disability there will be things he or she cannot do but also many things he or she can do. Because the mixture of skill strengths and skill deficits varies widely among persons with intellectual disability, there is no clinically accepted list of common, ordinary strengths or abilities that preclude a diagnosis of intellectual disability. Thus, in assessing an individual’s adaptive behavior—the aspect of intellectual disability at issue in this case—the focus must be on deficits. Adaptive strengths are irrelevant to this analysis…Broad acceptance of the district court’s mistaken reasoning would deprive individuals with intellectual disability of the protections and supports to which they are entitled under state and federal law and the U.S. Constitution.”

Case Documents

Eighth Circuit Brief

U.S. Supreme Court Brief

Clemency Letter

Related Media

Press Release: “Justice For Abelardo Arboleda Ortiz In the Final Days of a Presidency”

Press Release: “The Arc on Commutation for Death Row Inmate Abelardo Arboleda Ortiz In the Final Days of Obama’s Presidency”

Lizcano v. Texas

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: 2015

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that Texas’ use of the Briseno factors to determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases was unconstitutional because they are based on stereotypes rather than well-established clinical standards.

Excerpt: “In implementing this Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, Texas has essentially replaced the clinical definition’s carefully crafted requirements with a formula of its own devising, one that rests heavily on stereotypes about people with intellectual disability. This approach is inconsistent with accepted clinical standards.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Lizcano v. Texas

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: California

Filed: 2015

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that a woman with mental illness who was shot five times by police at her group home while experiencing a mental health crisis could sue the city of San Francisco under Title II of the ADA for failure to provide her with reasonable accommodations in the process of arresting her.

Excerpt: “It is critical to the lives of persons with many types of disabilities that police departments adopt and implement policies and practices that take disability into account during police interactions. Approximately half of all fatal police interactions involve persons with psychiatric disabilities…Title II of the ADA requires nondiscrimination and reasonable modifications (also known as reasonable accommodations) in policing activities, including in the type of detention at the heart of this case. In the context of a person with a known psychiatric disability, who is in crisis and subject to involuntary mental health treatment, the ADA requires that police employ widely accepted policing practices that use containment, coordination, communication, and time to seek safe resolutions.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Connecticut

Filed: 2017

Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Overview: The brief argued that the requirement that the state adopt standards that focus its special education efforts on students “who can profit from some form of elementary and secondary education,” rather than “spend fruitlessly on some at the expense of others,” violates the IDEA, which mandates that all students with disabilities be provided a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The brief focused on research demonstrating that even students with the most severe disabilities can learn and often exceed expectations, the legislative history of the IDEA making clear that all students with disabilities are guaranteed the right to an education, and the fact that failure to educate these students violates the ADA’s integration mandate which has been vital in ensuring that people with disabilities have access to opportunities that allow them to live in the community, learn in general education settings, obtain post-secondary education, and work in integrated jobs at competitive wages.

Excerpt: “The IDEA’s mandate that schools must educate all students with disabilities extends to children with an array of cognitive, physical, sensory, health, and alertness disabilities – those known as having a ‘profound’ disability because they have variable patterns of reflexive movements, minimal or inconsistent responses to stimuli, small response repertories, few voluntary behaviors, and/or variability in alertness and orienting. The obligation extends to these students because they are able to benefit from education, including education in the general curriculum; they are able to master functional and academic skills; they are able to learn and make progress in academic, functional, and developmental domains; and they are able to do so when educated with children without disabilities. Indeed, the science of educability does not justify educators, or any other persons, in assuming that a student’s current cognitive or communicative skills are fixed or absolute and thus represent the highest level of the student’s capacity.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell

CT Supreme Court Opinion

Related Media

Press Release: “The Arc Responds to Connecticut Court Ruling on Education and Access for Children with Disabilities”

The Arc Blog: “Good Outcome in Connecticut School Funding Case”

Hartford Courant: “Parents Of Special Needs Children Join Appeal Of Education Funding Decision”