The Arc submitted comments to a proposed rule by the FDA to ban electrical stimulation devices for aggressive or self-injurious behavior. These devices are used by only one institution in Massachusetts, and The Arc has been fighting for decades to protect its residents from this abuse.
The Arc expressed its support for several bills being reviewed by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health at a hearing on expanding access to Medicaid. The legislation reviewed included making Money Follows the Person permanent, portability of Medicaid benefits for dependents of military families, and modifications to the Medicaid buy-in program for older working adults.
The Long-Term Care Workforce Support Act would provide major investments and protections for workers across the long-term care settings. The Arc applauded Senator Casey (D-PA) for developing legislation to address this pressing issue.
Filed: April 3, 2024
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Overview: Amicus brief arguing that the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits cities from criminalizing conduct associated with being unhoused.
Excerpt: “People with disabilities face unique challenges and deep-rooted stigmas that increase their risk for homelessness. Less than 5% of housing in the United States is accessible for moderate mobility disabilities, and less than 1% is accessible for wheelchair use. Housing costs are prohibitive for many disabled people who rely on public assistance for basic costs of living—the average cost of a one-bedroom apartment in the United States exceeds the maximum monthly Supplemental Security Income a person can receive. Moreover, widespread housing discrimination on the basis of disability further compounds the risk of homelessness. The Ordinances’ impact on homeless people with disabilities highlights how grossly out of proportion the punishments they impose are to the severity of the offense. Simply put, criminalizing the involuntary conduct of being a homeless person without a place to sleep—in a city with no public shelters—is anathema to the decency standards of any civilized society.”
Case Documents:
Press Releases:
Related Media:
Filed: 2024
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiffs: Parents and guardians of students with disabilities in the District and The Arc
Counsel: The Arc, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Children’s Law Center, McDermott Will & Emery
Overview: Parents and guardians of children with disabilities living in D.C., along with The Arc of the United States, filed a class action lawsuit against D.C.’s Office of the State Superintendent for Education for failing to provide safe, reliable and effective transportation to and from schools for children with disabilities, thereby denying students equal access to their education and unnecessarily segregating them from their peers.
Case Documents:
Press Releases:
Related Media:
Filed: January 30, 2024
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Overview: Amicus brief arguing that it is not the role of courts to substitute their evaluation of drug safety and effectiveness in place of the FDA’s expert determinations.
Excerpt: “The Fifth Circuit’s substituting its evaluation of drug safety and effectiveness for FDA’s expert determinations affects far more than the modifications to the conditions of use for the single drug at issue here. Patients and their providers depend on FDA’s determinations about safety and effectiveness and expect drugs to be available according to the terms of the FDA approval, including supplemental approval. Providers rely on FDA’s expertise-based approval of drug uses in making treatment plans, and patients depend on being able to take the drugs as prescribed by their providers. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling broadly jeopardizes the reliability of FDA’s original approvals of drugs, and the agency’s approvals of modifications to the conditions of their use. It is effectively a roadmap for other litigants seeking to overturn drug approvals or conditions of use they disfavor—whether those changes expand (as was the case here) or restrict how the drug can be used. If approved drugs or modifications to conditions of use can be so readily enjoined despite FDA’s scientific assessments, the resulting uncertainty would jeopardize patient access to drugs, particularly in cases where FDA has expanded the approved uses of a drug to cover new diseases or conditions. It could also threaten patient safety, as FDA approves modifications to conditions of use where it determines they are needed to protect patients from risks of harm. Finally, the Fifth Circuit’s decision would impair the development of new treatments, as uncertainty disincentivizes pharmaceutical manufacturers, clinicians, and patients from undertaking time-and resource-intensive clinical trials to study new drugs and new indications for approved drugs.”
Case Documents:
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine Amicus Brief
Press Releases:
The Arc submitted comments to a request for information by a bipartisan Congressional group hoping to address paid leave. The Arc’s comments emphasized the importance of paid leave for individuals with disabilities and caregivers.
The Arc submitted a comment on the proposed rules to update the Head Start standards. The Arc’s comments focused on the issues of restraint and seclusion on young children.
The proposed rule would increase in the minimum salary threshold for white-collar overtime exemptions to an annual amount of $55,068. The Arc supports overtime for these workers but urged the Labor Department to work with its agency partners to ensure states increase the necessary funds to maintain access to Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS).
Filed: September 29, 2023
Court: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Overview: Amicus brief explaining that children with disabilities must have access to education in their neighborhood schools.
Excerpt: “The ruling below is flatly inconsistent with the IDEA and case law interpreting its least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate. Congress has made clear through IDEA (in all its iterations over the past five decades) that one of its overriding priorities was giving students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum and education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible. Congress enacted IDEA, an “ambitious piece of legislation,” in response to the serious problem that a “majority of handicapped children in the United States were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 397 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)… IDEA’s mandates are not empty aspirations: decades of scientifically based research demonstrates that children with disabilities achieve considerably more educational benefit from placement in general education classes with access to the general education curriculum through supplementary aids and services than from placement in special education classrooms or schools with limited access or no access to their age-appropriate non-disabled peers or general education curriculum.”
Case Documents
Will you pledge to vote this November?
