Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott

/in , , /by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Plaintiffs: The Arc Texas, Houston Justice, Houston Area Urban League, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Jeffrey Lamar Clemons

Defendant: Governor Gregory Abbott and various state officials

Counsel: The Arc, NAACP LDF, Reed Smith LLP

Overview: For the past 150 years, the State of Texas has had a long track record of excluding and discouraging Black and Latino residents of the State from exercising their fundamental right to vote. Voters with disabilities, including Black and Latino voters with disabilities, have also persistently experienced barriers in accessing their right to vote in Texas. The State’s policies of exclusion and restrictive voting laws have resulted in chronically low voter turnout. In passing S.B. 1, instead of making the election process safer or more secure, the law eliminates methods and opportunities of voting disproportionately used by Black and Latino voters, burdening or effectively disenfranchising these voters by raising the time, cost, and risk associated with exercising their constitutional right to vote. The law also erects barriers to voting that will disproportionately and unlawfully deny equal access to individuals with disabilities.

Case Documents

Second Amended Complaint

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on ADA and 504 Claims

Exhibits Supporting Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on ADA and 504 Claims

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Claims Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Claims under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act)

Press Releases

Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting Rights

Federal Court Strikes Down Texas’ Election Law Provisions Restricting Assistance for Limited English-Speaking and Disabled Voters

Fighting for an Inclusive Democracy

Texas Law Punishes Voters

Landmark Trial Challenging Regressive Voting Rights Provisions in Texas Senate Bill 1 Concludes

Federal Court Strikes Down Restrictive, Suppressive Texas Voting Measures in S.B. 1 That Limited Voting Assistance

Related Media

AP News: Texas flagged 27,000 mail ballots for rejection in primary

CNN: How new voting restrictions threaten ballot access for disabled voters

Courthouse News Service: Voters with disabilities face new barriers over Texas voting law

Democracy Docket: Texas Omnibus Voter Suppression Law S.B. 1 Will Be Put to the Test at Federal Trial

KAH Consulting Group: Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Rallies Against Texas Senate Bill 1 in San Antonio

KWTX: Texans with disabilities fear new restrictions on voting help could mean criminal charges at the polls

Law360 Pulse: Texas DA Ordered To Face Voter Discrimination Suits

Law360: How Lawyers Are Mobilizing To Protect The Vote

NewsOne: NAACP Legal Defense Fund Leads Challenge Against New Texas Voter Suppression Law

New York Times: New Voting Laws Add Difficulties for People With Disabilities

New York Times: ‘My Vote Was Rejected’: Trial Underway in Texas Over New Voting Law

Pew: Voters with Disabilities Face New Ballot Restrictions Ahead of Midterms

Politico: Why Election Laws in Georgia and Texas Remain a Threat

The Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott signs Texas voting bill into law, overcoming Democratic quorum breaks

The Texas Tribune: What’s at Stake in the Long-Awaited Trial Over Texas’s Sweeping 2021 Elections Law

USA Today: New election laws could create barriers for voters with disabilities

Vox: Democrats’ fears about restricting mail-in voting were confirmed in Texas

Texas Tribune: Judge strikes down strict voter assistance rules in Texas’ 2021 rewrite of election laws

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

/in , /by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: August 30, 2021

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The Fifth Circuit eliminated an entire class of damages that those who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination can obtain under the ADA and Section 504—remedies for their mental distress and emotional injury. Amici argue that without the availability of these damages, some individuals who have been denied a legal right in violation of federal law will have no remedy.

Excerpt: “Often, violations of the relevant statutes do not cost individuals with disabilities money, nor do they impose physical harm. Instead, they are humiliated, singled out, mocked, or made to go without regular access to the service to which they are entitled. Those are all serious harms that cannot be disregarded as mere annoyance or passing embarrassment that might not justify recovery. Such core harms to human dignity are the very injuries that the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI, Title IX, and the Affordable Care Act are meant to prohibit. Taking away an important remedy for these harms would rob our civil rights statutes of their force.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Related Media

Press Release: The Arc Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling Weakening Remedies Available to People with Disabilities Experiencing Discrimination

In re Britney Jean Spears

/in /by The Arc

State: California

Filed: July 12, 2021

Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Central District

Overview: This amicus brief provides guidance to the Court on the importance of ensuring that a conservatee can select her own lawyer, where, as here, she has expressed a desire and an ability to do so. The brief provides statutory and Constitutional support for this right. The brief further outlines the importance of ensuring access to information and tools relevant to the selection of counsel, and offering supported decision-making, if a conservatee wishes.

Excerpt: “Amici respectfully urge this Court to ensure that Ms. Spears is both legally authorized and practically able to select her own successor lawyer. Amici urge this Court to ensure that Ms. Spears is granted access to the information and tools necessary to select a lawyer, including confidential internet and telephone access. Amici urge this Court to offer to Ms. Spears the opportunity to use supported decision-making to select her lawyer.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Related Media

Press Release: The Arc and Coalition of Disability and Civil Rights Organizations Urge Court to Allow Britney Spears to Select Her Own Attorney in Conservatorship Case

Los Angeles Magazine: The ACLU Says Britney Spears Should Be Able to Pick Her Own Attorney

The New York Times: Britney Spears’s Case Calls Attention to Wider Questions on Guardianship

The Washington Post: What ‘Free Britney’ shares with ‘Justice for Jenny’

Independent: ACLU and disability groups file amicus brief in support of Britney Spears’ effort to end conservatorship

KQED: Britney Spears Offers Disturbing Testimony About Her Conservatorship

MSN: ACLU and disability groups file amicus brief in support of Britney Spears’ effort to end conservatorship

Salon: Britney Spears’ plight reveals the justice system’s bias against those who live with mental illness

Washington Lawyer: Reforming Conservatorship: A Battle Over Best Interests

Collaborate, Train, and Engage: Diverting People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

/in , , , , /by Pam Katz

Hosted by The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

While local providers across the country are increasing their awareness of people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) in their criminal justice systems, they may encounter challenges when seeking appropriate diversion programming for this population. This webinar will discuss best practices that localities can implement to improve cross-system collaboration, family engagement, identification, and accessibility of services that meet the needs of people with IDD. Speakers will also describe how consistent evaluation of diversion outcomes assists with sustaining successful efforts and the creation of action plans to address gaps. Participants will hear from an author and person diagnosed with autism about his experience with the criminal justice system and how diversion could have been beneficial in his case.

Speakers:

Leigh Ann Davis, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives, The Arc
Nick Dubin, Author/person with lived experience
Maria Fryer, Justice Systems and Mental Health Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice
Reginald “Reggie” Thomas, Criminal Justice & Disability Fellow, The Arc
Felicia Lopez Wright, Policy Analyst, Behavioral Health Division, the CSG Justice Center

Neli Latson Pardon

/in , , , /by Pam Katz

Overview: In 2010, Mr. Latson was an 18-year-old with autism and intellectual disability, waiting outside his neighborhood library in Stafford County, Virginia for it to open. Someone called the police reporting a “suspicious” Black male, possibly with a gun. Mr. Latson had committed no crime and was not armed. The resulting confrontation with a deputy resulted in injury to an officer when Mr. Latson understandably resisted being manhandled and physically restrained. This was the beginning of years of horrific abuse in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors refused to consider Mr. Latson’s disabilities, calling it a diagnosis of convenience and using “the R-word,” and rejected an offer of disability services as an alternative to incarceration. Instead, Mr. Latson was convicted, sentenced to ten years in prison, and punished with long periods of solitary confinement, Taser shocks, and the use of a full-body restraint chair for hours on end for behaviors related to his disabilities.

Virginia and national disability advocates, including The Arc urged then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to pardon Mr. Latson. In 2015, with bipartisan support from state legislators, Governor McAuliffe granted a conditional pardon. Although this released Mr. Latson from prison, it required him to live in a restrictive residential setting and remain subject to criminal justice system supervision for ten years. The terms of the 2015 conditional pardon meant Mr. Latson could be sent back to jail at any time, causing constant anxiety.

The Arc and other advocates continued to push for a full pardon which was finally granted by Governor Ralph Northam in 2021. The full pardon from Governor Northam recognizes Mr. Latson’s success since 2015 and relieves him from that ongoing threat. Mr. Latson now has the chance to live a satisfying and self-directed life in the community, free from burdensome, unfair restrictions and the constant threat of reincarceration, but unfortunately never free from the painful truth that Black people with disabilities live at a dangerous intersection of racial injustice and disability discrimination. Mr. Latson’s case galvanized disability rights activists, bringing national attention to overly aggressive and sometimes deadly policing, prosecution and sentencing practices and the horrifying mistreatment of people with disabilities in jails and prisons.

Case Documents

Pardon of Reginald Latson

Request for Complete Pardon and Other Relief for Reginald Latson

Press Releases

The Arc Calls on Governor McAuliffe to Grant Conditional Pardon for Neli Latson Immediately

The Arc Demands Full Pardon for Neli Latson, a Young Black Man With Autism, to Rectify Injustice

Coalition Demands Governor Northam Grant a Full Pardon of Neli Latson, a Young Black Man With Disabilities Subjected to a Decade of Injustice

Advocates Applaud Full Pardon of Neli Latson, a Young Black Man with Disabilities, After Decade of Injustice

Related Media

Washington Post: Stafford County woman confronts issues of race, autism after son’s arrest

Washington Post: Neli Latson is — finally — free. It only took 11 years, two governors and a national conversation about race and disability

The Hill: Amid Black Lives Matter protests, advocates seek pardon for autistic Black man convicted in 2010

Washington Post: Remember Neli Latson, the black teen with autism who seemed ‘suspicious’ sitting outside a library? Ten years after his arrest, he still isn’t fully free.

The Hill: Criminal injustice towards autistic individuals and the regrettable necessity of labeling autism a disability

Dallas Morning News: The U.S. justice system has an autism problem

Washington Post: In Va. assault case, anxious parents recognize ‘dark side of autism’

The Hill: Racial justice, disability rights, neurodiversity and cross-movement solidarity

OZY: Are Police Finally Learning to Deal With Autism? 

The Hill: Law enforcement’s efforts at greater autism awareness

Washington Post: Ruth Marcus: In Virginia, a cruel and unusual punishment for autism

Washington Post: A Black disabled teen went unheard in prison. People are now listening.

Examining How Crisis Standards of Care May Lead to Intersectional Medical Discrimination Against COVID-19 Patients

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

Black, Indigenous and People of Color, disabled people, higher weight people and older adults have historically experienced and continue to experience discrimination by medical professionals. In health care settings, members of these communities face pervasive negative biases and inaccurate assumptions about their value, quality of life, capacity to communicate and make decisions, and likelihood of survival.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, these biases can have serious and even deadly consequences. Such biases may be exacerbated when hospitals are faced with scarce resources and must make decisions about which critically ill patients should receive treatment. The “crisis standards of care” which are used by many states and hospitals to make these decisions, have too often reflected these biases. It is crucial that these standards be tailored to avoid unlawful discrimination.

This guide provides: (1) an explanation of what crisis standards of care are and how they may perpetuate discrimination; (2) the principles that should apply to crisis standards of care to prevent discrimination; (3) the civil rights laws that apply to the use of crisis standards of care; and (4) recommended strategies to ensure the non-discriminatory application of crisis standard of care guidelines.

Pooled Trusts Operated by Chapters of The Arc

/in , , , /by Pam Katz

Many chapters nationwide offer pooled special needs trusts to help people with disabilities pay for the things they want and need in their life while protecting their public benefits.

Pooled special needs trusts are run by non-profit organizations, like chapters of The Arc. Individual accounts are established for each beneficiary, but the accounts are pooled together for investment purposes. Beneficiaries or a designated representative make requests to use the trust money. The pooled trust manager will decide whether to approve the request. The pooled trust manager is responsible for complying with federal and state laws regarding special needs trusts.

Pooled trusts are often more affordable than individual special needs trusts and offer consistency for the beneficiary.

This database can help you find a chapter of The Arc near you that runs a pooled trust.

Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp

/in , , /by Pam Katz

State: Georgia

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Plaintiffs: Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc., Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Women Watch Afrika, Latino Community Fund Georgia, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, The Arc Georgia, Georgia Advocacy Office, and Georgia ADAPT.

Defendants: Governor Brian Kemp and other state and local election officials

Counsel: Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Wilmer Hale, Davis Wright Tremaine, The Arc of the United States

Overview: After Georgia voters turned out in record numbers for the 2020 presidential election and U.S. Senate elections in early 2021, state legislators passed a sweeping – and unconstitutional – voting law that threatened to massively disenfranchise voters, particularly voters of color and voters with disabilities. This lawsuit challenges multiple provisions of the law, also known as SB 202, including the following items.

  • A ban on “line warming,” where volunteers provide water and snacks to people waiting in long lines to vote, a common occurrence at precincts with a large population of voters of color.
  • A severe restriction on the use of mobile voting units, which have been used to address a shortage of accessible and secure polling locations that previously resulted in long lines of voters at existing and traditional polling locations.
  • Additional and onerous identification requirements for requesting and casting an absentee ballot.
  • A compressed period for requesting absentee ballots.
  • Restrictions on the use of secure ballot drop boxes.
  • Disqualification of provisional ballots cast in a voter’s county of residence but outside the voter’s precinct before 5 p.m. Previously, votes for all the races to which the person was eligible to vote on that precinct’s provisional ballot were counted.
  • A drastic reduction of early voting in runoff elections.

Voters with disabilities have received scant attention in Georgia’s battles over voting rights but have borne the brunt of historical and continuing discrimination and neglect in all spheres of public life. Rather than celebrating the strong turnout in the 2020 general election and runoffs, S.B. 202 doubles down on making voting even more inaccessible for the disability community.

The law was debated and passed by both houses of the Georgia Legislature and signed by Governor Brian Kemp, all in under seven hours. The legislation was passed despite state officials praising the recent elections for their integrity, safety, and security. The lawsuit describes how the law violates voter protections under the 14th and 15th Amendments as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The plaintiffs represented in the case include organizations whose get-out-the-vote activities will be negatively impacted by SB 202 and people most directly affected, such as Black voters, new citizens, religious communities, and people with limited English proficiency.

Case Documents

First Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs Opposition to State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Motion for Preliminary Injunction on ADA Claims

Declarations in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction on ADA Claims

Expert Report of Dr. Lisa A. Schur

Plaintiffs Reply Brief on Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on ADA Claims

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Additional Provisions

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Absentee Ballot Claims

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Drop Box Provisions

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Changes in Timing

Statement of Interest of the United States

Case Resources

Southern Poverty Law Center Case Page

Southern Poverty Law Center: Nonprofit that helps people with disabilities cast ballots joins SPLC suit against voter suppression law

Webinar: “Battle for Representation: A Fight to Protect and Expand Access to the Ballot” | Webinar Transcript 

Press Releases

Georgia-based Disability Rights Groups Join Fight Against Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law S.B. 202

Federal Court Allows Lawsuit Challenging Georgia’s Voter Suppression Law to Proceed

Voting and Civil Rights Groups Challenge Inequity in Access to Voting Under Georgia Law

Related Media

Huffington Post: Disability Rights Groups Join Lawsuit Over Georgia Voter Suppression Law

Blackstar News: Disability Rights Groups Join Fight Against Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law S.B. 202

New York Times: G.O.P. Bills Rattle Disabled Voters: ‘We Don’t Have a Voice Anymore’

2021 Talks: Disability advocates fight Georgia’s new voting law

Newsweek: Trump-Appointed Judge Says 8 Lawsuits Challenging Georgia’s New Election Law Can Proceed

The Hill: Judge clears way for legal challenge to Georgia’s restrictive voting law 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Judge denies attempts to dismiss lawsuits over Georgia voting law

Pew: Voters with Disabilities Face New Ballot Restrictions Ahead of Midterms

The Arc Georgia’s Grassroots Connectors (Video)

USA Today: New election laws could create barriers for voters with disabilities

CNN: How new voting restrictions threaten ballot access for disabled voters

Southern Poverty Law Center: Voting Rights Organizations Move to Block Provisions in Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law in 2022 Election Cycle 

Time: Millions of Georgians Have Voted. It Hasn’t Been Easy for Everyone

ACLU: Here’s How Georgia’s New Voting Law Harms Voters With Disabilities

Talk About Sexual Violence Phase 3 Introduction

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

Now in its third year, the Talk About Sexual Violence project will build on its success by not only preparing health care professionals to have much-needed conversations about sexual violence with people with IDD, but to know how to use a supported decision-making lens that supports victim-centered approaches. This flyer gives an overview of the Phase 3 project focus and related information.

The Arc Maryland v. Baltimore City et al

/in , , , , /by Pam Katz

State: Maryland

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Plaintiff: The Arc Maryland

Defendants: Baltimore City, Queen Anne’s County, Carroll County, Garrett County, Somerset County, Talbot County

Counsel: The Arc, Disability Rights Maryland, Brown & Barron LLC

Overview: The Arc Maryland filed a federal lawsuit alleging that six jurisdictions in Maryland, including Baltimore City, discriminate against people with IDD by denying them opportunities to access COVID-19 vaccinations inconsistent with the State’s Executive order and Vaccination Plan. This discrimination puts lives at stake and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

While vaccination sites must offer vaccines to the public in accordance with Maryland’s state vaccination plan, the five counties and Baltimore City exclude individuals with IDD in their list of who is eligible, preventing those with IDD from accessing vaccinations.

It is well established that COVID-19-related fatality rates among people with IDD who test positive for COVID-19 are nearly three times greater than the mortality rates among the general population who are positive for the virus. People with IDD also face heightened risk because many rely on caregivers or direct support professionals who provide assistance with activities of daily living, for which social distancing is often not possible. Frequently, such caregivers serve multiple people raising risks of transmission. Despite advocacy from The Arc Maryland, people with IDD are not getting equal access to vaccines, compelling the need for the lawsuit.

Case Documents

Complaint

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

Related Media

Press Release: Vaccine Discrimination: Disability Advocacy Groups File Federal Lawsuit Alleging 6 Maryland Jurisdictions Discriminate in Vaccine Process

Baltimore Sun: Maryland organization that supports people with disabilities sues five counties and Baltimore City, alleging vaccine discrimination

The Maryland Daily Record: 6 Md. jurisdictions sued over vaccine eligibility for people with disabilities

The Garrett County Republican: Garrett County sued over vaccine info for people with disabilities

The Cumberland Times-News: Organization alleges vaccine discrimination

National Journal: Disability communities face barriers to COVID-19 vaccines

Baltimore Sun: Maryland disability rights group dismisses lawsuit against Baltimore City and three of five counties for alleged vaccine discrimination