Robertson v. District of Columbia

/in , , , , /by The Arc

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 Explainer:

Robertson Explainer Blog Post

Case Documents:

Press Releases:

Related Media:

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

/in , , , /by The Arc

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 Responds to Bipartisan, Bicamercal Congressional Request for Information on Paid Leave Policies

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

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 Responds to HHS’ Proposed Rule on Head Start Program Performance Standards

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

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 Arc Responds to the Department of Labor’s Proposed Overtime Rule

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

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).

Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District

/in , , /by The Arc

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

Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District Amicus Brief

Ybarra v. Gittere et. al.

/in /by The Arc

Filed: August 29, 2023

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief in a death penalty case filed to prevent a man with an intellectual disability from facing execution.

Excerpt: “Relying on stereotypes or lay assumptions about what a person with ID “must” look like, or what people with ID “cannot” do, rather than applying clinical standards for assessment and diagnosis may result in an unreasonable (and invalid) interpretation of the diagnostic facts in an Atkins evaluation. See, e.g., Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 312-320 (2015) (finding an unreasonable interpretation of the facts where a state court abandoned clinical standards in determining that an individual was ineligible for an Atkins adjudication). In this context, a clinically invalid assessment risks execution of an individual with ID, a clear Constitutional violation.”

Case Documents

Ybarra v. Gittere et. al. Amicus Brief

The Arc’s Congressional Leave-Behind for the HCBS Relief Act

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

The Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Relief Act of 2023 was introduced in Congress by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) and Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI). The bill would provide two years of additional Medicaid funds to improve access to HCBS by increasing direct care worker pay and benefits; decrease the number of people on waiting lists for HCBS; and pay for assistive technologies, staffing, and other costs that facilitate community integration.

Griffith v. El Paso County Colorado

/in /by The Arc

Filed: August 25, 2023

Court: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief filed explaining that people with disabilities, including people who identify as having gender dysphoria, are not required to show that their exact disability is well-settled across the courts and are entitled to compensatory damages for emotional distress under Title II of the ADA.

Excerpt: “[T]he court erroneously posited that a defendant can be shielded from liability for damages for intentional discrimination based on a contention that one of the elements of the plaintiff’s claim—here, whether the Plaintiff was legally disabled—was unsettled. If permitted to stand, the district court’s analysis will allow entities free rein to discriminate unless and until all courts agree a condition is a covered disability. This will severely weaken enforcement of the ADA… In Cummings, the Supreme Court addressed the very limited question of whether emotional distress damages are available under Section 504 and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 (“Section 1557″)… The expansion of Cummings’ bar on emotional distress damages to Title II of the ADA would eliminate an essential remedy that Congress intended to make available to victims of disability discrimination when the ADA was enacted.”

Case Documents

Griffith v. El Paso County Colorado Amicus Brief

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

/in /by The Arc

Filed: August 9, 2023

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Overview: Amicus brief filed in case before the Supreme Court that will decide whether testers – disabled people who investigate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – have the ability to sue businesses for discrimination when their rights under that law are violated.

Excerpt: “Under the Reservation Rule, information about hotel accessibility features must be posted on hotel websites. 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1). Unfortunately, despite the 1990 enactment of the ADA and 2010 promulgation of the Reservation Rule, people with disabilities regularly encounter inaccurate or incomplete information, or no information at all, when they attempt to ascertain a hotel’s accessibility features online. The message these individuals receive during these encounters is that their patronage is less valuable and desirable than the patronage of nondisabled guests because the public accommodation did not consider disabled people among its potential customers…By making the apparently advantageous business decision to share information about its hotels with a much larger audience over the Internet, while simultaneously failing to provide the accessibility information that disabled members of that audience need in order to be treated equally…Acheson is discriminating against every disabled person who encounters that noncompliant online reservations service. Each of these individuals— interacting with this noncompliant reservations service — could suffer their own concrete and particularized injury: the dignitary harm of disregard and erasure that Title III was enacted to prevent.”

Case Documents

Disability Antidiscrimination Law Scholars Amicus Brief

Disability Rights Groups Amicus Brief

Press Release

Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court Case Emphasizes Importance of Testers to ADA Enforcement

Related Media

Disability Scoop: Disability Advocates Urge Supreme Court Not to Limit ADA Protections

USA Today: ‘Sleeping in my car.’ This Supreme Court Case Could Change How Disabled Americans Book Hotel Rooms

Slate: The Americans With Disabilities Act Is Under Threat at the Supreme Court