A view of a young girl from behind swinging outside

National Disability Rights Organizations Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Rights of Youth With Disabilities in Key Education Case

WASHINGTON, DC – A coalition of national disability rights organizations is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the civil rights of students with disabilities in AJT v. Osseo Area Schools, a landmark case that could determine how disability discrimination claims are handled in schools. In an amicus brief filed this week, these organizations, including The Arc, argue that students with disabilities should not face a higher legal standard when seeking justice for discrimination in schools—one that does not exist in other settings covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504).

“This case is about whether students with disabilities should have to clear a higher legal hurdle to seek justice for discrimination in school, one that doesn’t exist in workplaces, housing, or other settings,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel at The Arc of the United States. “No child should have to fight an uphill battle just to hold their school accountable for discrimination. Schools must be held to the same standards as every other public entity, plain and simple.”

At the heart of the case is a legal standard applied in some courts that makes it much harder for students with disabilities to prove discrimination in school compared to other settings. Under this stricter rule, students must prove that their school acted with “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment,” a standard that does not apply in workplace, housing, or other discrimination claims under the ADA and Section 504.

Decades ago, the Eighth Circuit Court created this higher standard for students in school settings, and since then, several other courts have followed. As a result, countless students with disabilities have had their claims rejected simply because they couldn’t meet this excessive burden of proof. Disability rights advocates argue that this rule contradicts federal disability laws and makes it much harder for students to hold schools accountable when they face discrimination.

“It is imperative that we protect student civil rights under Section 504 and the ADA, for students who have suffered compensable harms from disability discrimination,” said Selene Almazan, Legal Director at the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA). “The legal rule whose demise is sought in this case—the bad-faith-or-gross-misjudgment standard—cannot be squared with the text or purposes of Section 504 and the ADA which undergird protections for millions of children with disabilities attending K-12 schools.”

Families already struggle to secure the support and services their children need to thrive—this additional legal barrier only makes it harder for them to fight back when their rights are violated.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 28, 2025.

Amici curiae include: Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Children’s Law Center, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Education Law Center, Learning Rights Law Center, Minnesota Disability Law Center, part of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, National Center for Youth Law, National Disability Rights Network, National Health Law Project, and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

###

About The Arc of the United States: The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who knew their disabled children deserved more, The Arc is now the largest grassroots organization for people with IDD with nearly 600 chapters in 48 states and Washington, DC. Together, we are promoting and protecting the rights of people with disabilities and supporting their inclusion throughout their lives—from education to employment to community living. There are approximately 7.4 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

A row of parked school buses

Parents & Students With Disabilities Can Continue Their Fight for Safe & Reliable Transportation

WASHINGTON, DC – For countless families in the District of Columbia, the daily trip to school is fraught with anxiety due to unsafe and unreliable transportation services for students with disabilities. Today, a federal judge signaled hope for change and cleared the way for parents and guardians of children with disabilities and The Arc of the United States (The Arc) to pursue their case against the District of Columbia (DC) for failing to provide them with safe, reliable, and effective transportation to school. According to the decision by Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District Court of DC, students with disabilities have the right under federal disability rights laws to seek “structural relief that serves all children with disabilities.” The decision affirms that there is a remedy when children with disabilities are denied equal access to education.

The complaint, filed in March 2024, alleges that DC’s Office of the State Superintendent for Education (OSSE) denies students equal access to their education in violation of federal and local disability and civil rights laws by failing to provide students with transportation to and from school. Unsafe or unreliable transportation often means missed school days, interrupted learning, and barriers to building essential relationships and skills. According to the complaint, buses routinely arrive very late to pick students up from their homes, or do not arrive at all; students are left stranded at school without guaranteed transportation back home; students spend excessive time on buses, and students do not get the accommodations they need to ride safely. The plaintiffs are represented by The Arc, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Children’s Law Center, and McDermott Will & Emery.

By allowing The Arc to proceed as a plaintiff on behalf of its members, the decision reinforces the important principle that advocacy groups can and should bring litigation to secure the rights of its members under the IDEA and ADA. The decision, relying in part on the Department of Justice’s Statement of Interest filed in this case, also rejects the notion that students with disabilities need to meet a heightened standard in order to bring education discrimination claims.

“The buses meant to help children with disabilities build their education and futures are instead perpetuating their exclusion. This is not just a matter of tardiness or inconvenience—it’s stealing children’s opportunities to learn, grow, and connect with their peers,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel for The Arc of the United States. “Fighting for this change is about ensuring that our school systems work for and include all students. Today’s ruling affirms the right of students with disabilities to access their education without barriers. While there is still work ahead, this is an important step forward for systemic change.”

“The decision today will allow parents to keep seeking changes to a transportation system that so far has failed to deliver,” said Kaitlin Banner, Deputy Legal Director for the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “Our clients are ready to press forward and ensure that they will not endure another school year without access to their education.”

“I’m excited that the case is moving forward,” shared plaintiff Ms. Joann McCray and mother to 12-year-old boy who has faced ongoing bus transportation issues. “I hope that this can be the beginning of some real systemic change for my son and others.”

“With Judge Friedman’s reasoned decision, it is full speed ahead to obtain the District’s documents and testimony in advance of trial,” said Eugene Goldman, Senior Counsel at McDermott Will & Emery.

Click Here To Read the Opinion

###

About The Arc of the United States
The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About Children’s Law Center
Children’s Law Center believes every child should grow up with a strong foundation of family, health and education and live in a world free from poverty, trauma, racism and other forms of oppression. Our more than 100 staff – together with DC children and families, community partners and pro bono attorneys – use the law to solve children’s urgent problems today and improve the systems that will affect their lives tomorrow. Since our founding in 1996, we have reached more than 50,000 children and families directly and multiplied our impact by advocating for city-wide solutions that benefit hundreds of thousands more. For more information, please visit www.childrenslawcenter.org.

About the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit www.washlaw.org.

About McDermott Will & Emery
McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. Our team works seamlessly across practices and industries to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success. More than 1,400 lawyers strong, we bring our personal passion and legal prowess to bear in every matter for our clients and the people they serve. For more information, please visit www.mwe.com.

A picture of a fence against a green background

The Arc Joins Other Stakeholders to Call on Biden to Commute Federal Death Sentences

The Arc of the United States joined hundreds of stakeholders from across the political and faith spectrums to call on President Biden to commute federal death sentences before he leaves office. Several men on death row have intellectual disabilities, despite U.S. Supreme Court rulings that prohibit their execution.

Below is our full letter that was sent to President Biden on December 2, 2024.


Dear President Biden,

The Arc of the United States, founded in 1950, is the largest organization of and for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the country. Together with nearly 600 statewide and local chapters, The Arc promotes and protects the human and civil rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes.

President Biden, we address you with urgency regarding the decision you must make about exercising your power to review the records of and grant sentence commutation to any individual on federal death row who has demonstrated a diagnosis of intellectual disability. Based on what we know about the federal death penalty as it affects people with intellectual disability, we urge you to show mercy and, consistent with the platform on which you ran for President, act to spare the lives of those with intellectual disability currently on federal death row.

The Arc has long advocated for capital defendants with intellectual disability. We were encouraged when the Supreme Court, in Atkins v. Virginia, recognized their vulnerability to wrongful conviction and excessive punishment and held that the Constitution prohibits executing people with intellectual disability. We were optimistic when, in subsequent decisions like Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas, the Court rejected reliance on arbitrary IQ cutoffs and stereotypes for diagnosis and when it held that determinations of intellectual disability must be made in accordance with the best medical science and well-established clinical standards.

However, we have seen first-hand that these safeguards often fail. In both state and federal courts, people with intellectual disability are repeatedly tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and – tragically – executed, notwithstanding the constitutional bar. In 2020 and 2021, The Arc was dismayed to see the federal government execute Corey Johnson and Alfred Bourgeois, who had both been diagnosed with intellectual disability by highly regarded experts in the field; men whose disabilities were entirely overlooked or inadequately investigated by their trial counsel.

These men’s deaths – these executions by our federal government – were breaches of constitutional safeguards. And unless you act, President Biden, we are poised to see deaths like these again, because similar problems exist on federal death row today.

For example, Chadrick Fulks, who is currently on federal death row, has structural brain damage stemming from prenatal alcohol exposure and has suffered from significant cognitive and adaptive deficits since birth. At the time his initial § 2255 motion was filed, six mental health experts had concluded that Mr. Fulks had significant impairments, but that his IQ was just above the then-imposed cutoff score for a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability to be made under the diagnostic standards in place at that time. As a result of advancements in the fields of IQ testing and intellectual disability, diagnostic standards have since rejected hard IQ-score cutoffs in the diagnosis of intellectual disability. Additionally, current diagnostic standards now require that these scores be corrected for the inflation that occurs as IQ tests age. Under these current standards, Mr. Fulks’s IQ score falls squarely within the range for intellectual disability, he meets all other criteria for the diagnosis, and multiple experts have diagnosed him as a person with intellectual disability. However, because the courts have refused to hear Mr. Fulks’s intellectual disability claim on procedural grounds, he will be eligible for execution should executions resume even though he is a person with intellectual disability and his execution should be prohibited under Atkins.

Several other men currently under federal death sentence have been diagnosed with intellectual disability by developmental disability experts. Others have amassed strong evidence of cognitive deficits that point to such a diagnosis, but the posture of their case precludes review of their claim. Although the Supreme Court has rejected scientifically unreliable diagnostic standards, federal prosecutors nevertheless stand by findings that were based on such methods, as in the example above, and consistently oppose any court review on procedural grounds or rely on those same antiquated standards to rebut the claim. Even when judges would like to grant relief, or just a hearing, they find that their hands are tied and they cannot provide the relief the constitution requires.
At this time, then, there are men on federal death row with well-established diagnoses of intellectual disability and others with strong but unreviewed claims of intellectual disability. You would not subject any of these men to execution, but they will die if you do not act. It happened when Corey Johnson and Alfred Bourgeois were executed. Morally, ethically, and legally, we believe this calls for the mercy that is your executive prerogative.

We know that the men on federal death row caused terrible, irreparable harm. The Arc has deep sympathy for the victims of these crimes and for their families and friends. The Arc supports, without reservation, the appropriate prosecution and punishment of all responsible parties. The Arc does not seek to eliminate punishment of people with disabilities but, rather, to ensure that justice is served and the rights of all are protected, so that any punishment is consistent with the constitutional restrictions of the Eighth Amendment.

Because of our work and expertise in this area, we are aware that a person’s disability is sometimes not discovered until a later stage of their case, and that it can be misunderstood or overlooked by the judges and juries who are making decisions about their lives – and sometimes even by their own lawyers. We are concerned that this creates a great risk that a capital defendant will not have their ID properly identified and acknowledged in time for the courts to intervene.

We write to express our concern with this risk, as well as our hope that whatever actions you choose to take regarding the federal death row are done with respect for the spirit of the Atkins decision.

President Biden, you can ensure that those with intellectual disability are removed from the risk of wrongful execution. This would be a significant step toward addressing the systemic flaws that have allowed the execution of people with intellectual disability, contrary to the Constitution and federal law. It would be a proud legacy for you and for the American people.
We are grateful for your consideration and for your service as our President.

Respectfully,

Katy Neas
Chief Executive Officer
The Arc of the United States

The Arc logo

Ensuring People With Disabilities Have Opportunities for Meaningful Relief Under Disability Civil Rights Laws

This fall, The Arc of the United States and other disability rights organizations filed an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit called Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District. The case is about what kind of damages Plaintiffs can receive when they file lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Here’s what you need to know about this case and how we’re working to ensure people with disabilities continue to have multiple avenues for relief under federal disability rights laws.

Background on the Case

When you file a lawsuit under the ADA, two types of remedies are available:

  1. Injunctive relief stops future violations of the ADA. For example, a court may order a defendant to change its policies around reasonable accommodations so that it will not deny accommodations to disabled people in the future.
  2. Money damages pay plaintiffs for the past harm of discrimination. Damages may be measured in many different ways, including lost work hours, lost opportunity to participate in a service, or emotional distress.

In 2017, two blind students and two organizational plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), alleging that LACCD failed to reasonably accommodate the blind students’ disabilities by refusing to provide educational materials in an accessible format. The Plaintiffs won at trial and were awarded $50,000 in damages. LACCD appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2021, which overturned the district court’s judgment and sent the case back to the district court for a new trial.

At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury again found that LACCD had intentionally violated the ADA in fourteen ways. The jury awarded $242,500 in damages to the Plaintiffs, replacing the prior jury award. However, the district court reduced the financial compensation to a paltry $1,650. Its reasoning was that following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a case called Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, emotional distress damages are unavailable under the ADA. The district court also entered a narrow permanent injunction against LACCD that only addressed certain violations of the ADA, such as inaccessible library materials and an inaccessible website. The injunction did not address many of the fourteen violations that the jury had found. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit again, arguing that the district court had improperly reduced the damages and had ignored the jury’s findings in issuing a narrow injunction.

Why We Filed an Amicus Brief

In November 2024, The Arc and its partners filed an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiffs in Payan. The amicus brief makes these arguments:

  • The district court’s injunction failed to remedy all fourteen violations of the ADA found by the jury. It ignored violations around inaccessible course materials, ineffective accommodations policies, and lack of training for LACCD disability personnel.
  • The district court should not have relied on Cummings in reducing the Plaintiffs’ financial compensation. Cummings is not about the ADA and only concerns remedies available under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Cummings should not be extended to cover the remedies available under the ADA.
  • Even if Cummings does apply, it does not reach the damages at issue in this case. The jury awarded the Plaintiffs damages for lost educational opportunity, not emotional distress. Damages for lost educational opportunity are still available post-Cummings, and the district court was wrong to reduce the damages award here.

Why This Case Matters for People With Disabilities

Disability rights statutes like the ADA are meant to root out discrimination in all areas of society, including employment, government services, and private businesses. Courts must issue broad injunctive and monetary relief when a jury has found proven violations of the ADA. This serves to deter future violations of the ADA, and also puts other potential defendants on notice that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated.

The Arc’s Position

The Arc participated in this amicus brief because we believe that people with disabilities should have the same human rights as all people and are entitled to the same benefits and legal protection of their civil rights. In our position statement on Human and Civil Rights, we share that people with disabilities:

…are entitled to exercise their rights and to have their human rights and civil rights respected. When their rights are violated, people with [disabilities] are entitled to protection, rights restoration, and compensation for losses.  All people with [disabilities] have the right to accommodations, assistance, and supports they need to exercise and ensure their human and civil rights. Local, state, federal, and international governments must strongly enforce all human and civil rights.

The Arc has been involved with the fight to pass, implement, and defend the ADA since the law’s inception in 1990. We have filed numerous amicus briefs and rely on the ADA in our own litigation efforts every day. We will not rest until every person with intellectual and developmental disabilities can protect their rights to the fullest extent of the law.

What’s Next

The Arc will continue to watch this case as it is argued before the Ninth Circuit. We will continue to fight for an expansive view of the ADA and its protections in courts across the country.

Red, white, and blue stickers that say "I Voted."

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

Editor’s Note: You can find the latest news on this lawsuit in this case page. If you need assistance to vote, visit www.fvap.gov.

The Arc of the United States, along with The Arc of Texas, The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, the Houston Area Urban League, and ArentFox Schiff, today applauded a decision delivered late Friday, Oct. 11, that struck down certain provisions of S.B. 1, an egregious Texas law that sharply limits voting access.

In the decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the judge ruled that several provisions of S.B. 1 that restrict and criminalize voting assistance violate the Voting Rights Act and therefore cannot be enforced.

“This ruling marks a historic victory for voters with disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the United States. “The court’s decision demonstrates a deep understanding of S.B. 1’s harmful impact, forcing Texans with disabilities to choose between inadequate voting options or forfeiting their right to vote entirely. The judge’s ruling, influenced by powerful testimony from The Arc’s members, recognizes how S.B. 1 has erected barriers at every stage of the voting process for people with disabilities. Critically, the court understood the far-reaching consequences of S.B. 1, which not only puts care attendants at risk of prosecution but threatens the ability of voters with disabilities to live in the community. The Arc celebrates this landmark decision and remains committed to defending the voting rights of people with disabilities in Texas and nationwide.”

“This victory for voters with disabilities affirms, yet again, what a difference self-advocacy can make,” said Jennifer Martinez, Chief Executive Officer of The Arc of Texas. “I want to thank our members and allies who provided testimony. Without it, the outcome could have been very different, but your willingness to speak up about the unfair barriers you face changed history today.”

“This is a major victory for Texas voters, especially voters with disabilities, voters with low literacy, and voters with limited English proficiency,” said Jennifer A. Holmes, Deputy Director of Litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. “Many of these voters are in Black and Latino communities and face a myriad of obstacles to voting. We are thrilled the court affirmed their right to unfettered assistance to make casting a ballot possible without fear of prosecution of those who assist them.”

“Judge Xavier Rodriguez’s decision in our challenge to Texas Senate Bill 1 is a pivotal victory for democracy and voters who rely on assistance,” said Elsie Cooke-Holmes, National President of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. “While we celebrate this important win, our work is far from over. We urgently need federal legislation, like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, which enshrines the comprehensive voting rights reforms our democracy desperately needs following the evisceration of those protections in the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder.”

“The burdens imposed by this law on marginalized communities – specifically voters who could have trouble reading or completing their ballots without assistance – are real and stark,” said J. Michael Showalter, partner at ArentFox Schiff. “The Court heard voluminous testimony as to how the state’s failures to think about how S.B. 1 would work in practice precluded Texans committed to exercise their fundamental right to vote from doing so. We are proud that the Court stepped in and made clear that no one should be criminally prosecuted for providing assistance to voters to allow them to cast their ballots.”

The provisions the Court struck down in Friday’s decision include burdensome disclosure requirements on anyone assisting voters and a ban on compensation for individuals who provide voting assistance. The Court also struck certain language from an oath that Texas law requires assistors to swear under penalty of perjury before they can help voters, a requirement that puts these assistors at risk of criminal prosecution and chills the ability of voters to receive the assistance they need to vote.

The Court ruled that because it is too close to the election to change forms and ballot envelopes, voting assistance disclosures in those materials can still be enforced during the election, but individuals cannot be investigated, prosecuted, or assessed civil penalties related to these requirements. The ruling requires the Secretary of State to stop using the forms after the 2024 election.

Shortly after Texas lawmakers passed S.B. 1 in 2021, the Legal Defense Fund, The Arc of the United States, Reed Smith, and, later, ArentFox Schiff, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., the Houston Area Urban League, The Arc of Texas, and an individual election judge, challenging multiple provisions of the suppressive law. In addition to the provisions restricting voter assistance, the lawsuit also challenged provisions that limited early voting hours, banned 24-hour voting, eliminated drive-thru voting centers, limited multiple drop-off locations for mail ballots, limited the distribution of mail-in ballot applications, imposed burdensome identification requirements on voting by mail, and expanded the authority of partisan poll watchers. Other disability rights and civil rights organizations also challenged the law in companion lawsuits.

Although the Court has yet to rule on all the challenged provisions, it issued prior orders striking down S.B.1’s identification requirements for voting by mail and restrictions on door-to-door canvassing. These rulings have been appealed.

###

Founded in 1940, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) is the nation’s first civil rights law organization. LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the Legal Defense Fund or LDF. Please note that LDF has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957—although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights.

The Arc of the United States advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. was founded on January 13, 1913, by 22 collegiate women at Howard University to promote academic excellence; to provide scholarships; to provide support to the underserved; educate and stimulate participation in the establishment of positive public policy; and to highlight issues and provide solutions for problems in their communities. Since its founding, more than 350,000 women have joined the organization, making it one of the largest predominately Black women’s organizations in the country. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated has more than 1,050 chapters located throughout the United States and globally. The major programs of the Sorority are based upon its Five-Point Programmatic Thrust, which focuses on Economic Development, Educational Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health, and Political Awareness and Involvement. To learn more about Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, visit www.deltasigmatheta.org.

As a champion for underserved and marginalized communities, the Houston Area Urban League has a proud history of delivering impactful, lasting benefits to individuals across Greater Houston, regardless of age, gender, race, ability, or background. Our mission is to empower Black people and other marginalized groups to achieve economic self-reliance, equality, influence, and civil rights. We envision a community where these groups experience true equality in opportunities, justice, and prosperity. HAUL operates seven core programs focused on Education and Youth Development, Workforce and Economic Development, Workforce Training, Housing, Social Justice, Health and Wellness, and Entrepreneurship.

A person wearing an orange jumpsuit behind handcuffed from behind.

Understanding the Fight to Protect People With Intellectual Disability From Execution

The Arc of the United States, along with our partners, recently filed an amicus brief in a critical case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Ex Parte Blaine Milam. This case highlights an ongoing issue in our criminal justice system: the unconstitutional execution of people with intellectual disability (ID).

Here’s what you need to know about this important fight for justice.

The Background

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with ID violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Arc played a crucial role in this landmark decision, with our amicus brief cited by the Justices in support of their ruling. In Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts using clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas (2017 and 2019), the Court strengthened this precedent by emphasizing the need to rely on well-established scientific standards in making ID determinations in death penalty cases. The Arc filed amicus briefs in Atkins, Hall, and Moore to educate the Court on the clinical diagnosis of ID and ensure that people with ID are protected from the death penalty.

Despite these decisions, courts around the country too often continue to rely on stereotypes rather than scientific standards when determining ID in death penalty cases. This results in wrongful death sentences and executions. At the same time, people with ID are overrepresented at all stages of the criminal justice system, including being arrested, charged with a crime, and serving longer prison sentences once convicted than people without disabilities.

The Current Case

The case in Texas involves Blaine Milam, a death row inmate with intellectual disability. Mr. Milam was only 20 years old when he received his sentence and was scheduled to be executed in early 2019.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended his execution to determine if he met the definition of ID. The state’s initial expert concluded that Mr. Milam met the standard for an ID diagnosis, but the state later retained a new expert who disagreed. Despite Mr. Milam’s lawyers presenting reports from four medical experts on clinical errors in the evaluation done by the state’s new expert, that opinion was adopted, and the trial court decided to move forward with Mr. Milam’s execution. He is currently on death row.

Our amicus brief urges the court to rely on well-established clinical standards and Supreme Court precedent when determining ID, rather than outdated stereotypes.

Why This Matters

  1. Fair Treatment: People with ID are at a higher risk of wrongful convictions and death sentences. They may be more likely to falsely confess to a crime, struggle to understand their rights, and have difficulty working with their lawyers to prepare their own defense.
  2. Life or Death Stakes: In capital cases, an accurate determination of ID can literally mean life or death.
  3. Use of Clinical Standards: Under Atkins, states are constitutionally required to ensure that people with ID are not sentenced to death nor executed. Despite Supreme Court precedent, some states continue to rely on unscientific standards for determining and defining intellectual disability, leading to wrongful executions. While this case pertains to the death penalty, it’s critical that court decisions that impact the lives of people with disabilities are properly informed and considered and not relying on stereotypes and misinformation.

The Arc has deep sympathy for the family and friends of victims in this case and supports appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. However, it is critical that courts utilize clinical standards and abide by the Constitution. In Mr. Milam’s case, the State’s latter expert did not rely on clinical standards for diagnosing ID.

The Arc’s Position

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) must receive justice in our criminal justice system. We advocate so that:

  • All criminal justice personnel are knowledgeable and trained about IDD.
  • People with IDD have access to necessary supports, accommodations, treatment, and education throughout legal proceedings.
  • People with ID continue to be exempt from the death penalty.
  • States use accurate, scientific procedures to determine ID in capital cases.

Learn more in The Arc’s position statement on criminal justice.

Our Impact

The Arc has been at the forefront of this fight for decades. Since the Atkins decision in 2002, we’ve been actively involved in fighting for the rights of death row inmates with intellectual disability in federal and state courts across the country. We’ve filed numerous amicus briefs, appealed to lawmakers with clemency petitions, and continue to advocate more broadly for the rights of people with IDD in the criminal justice system.

The bottom line is that people’s lives will continue to be on the line if well-established clinical standards are not widely used to diagnose intellectual disability in our criminal justice system. We will continue our advocacy for justice for all people with IDD.

The Arc logo

Advocates Fight to Protect Texas Man With Intellectual Disability from Execution

In a new amicus brief, The Arc, Disability Rights Texas, and AAIDD urge Texas court to follow science, not stereotypes

WASHINGTON, DC – In a critical death penalty case, The Arc of the United States, The Arc of Texas, Disability Rights Texas, and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), along with law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, have filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief urging the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to protect people with intellectual disability from unconstitutional executions.

The group is taking a stand in support of accurate identification of intellectual disability in the case of Blaine Milam, an inmate now on death row. Their message to the court is clear: when it comes to determining who has intellectual disability, courts must refer to clinical standards—not stereotypes.

Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel with The Arc of the United States: “The Arc’s advocacy led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling more than 20 years ago that bars the execution of defendants with intellectual disability. Yet too often, outdated stereotypes and misconceptions lead to unjust outcomes, particularly in capital cases. We’re fighting to ensure that courts rely on clinical standards to ensure people with intellectual disability are properly identified and protected from execution. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Jason Kanterman, an attorney from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP representing The Arc in this matter, commends The Arc and its team for their efforts in this case: “The Arc, Disability Rights Texas, and AAIDD play a pivotal role in protecting the rights and interests of individuals with intellectual disability and Fried Frank is proud to support these organizations in those efforts.”

The amicus brief comes at a critical time. Despite a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning the execution of people with intellectual disability, the practice continues. In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the special risk of wrongful execution faced by people with intellectual disability and banned their execution as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. In Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts consulting clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas (2017 and 2019), the Court strengthened this precedent by emphasizing the need to rely on well-established clinical standards—rather than stereotypes—in making intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases. The Arc and AAIDD filed amicus briefs in Atkins, Hall, and Moore to educate the Court on the clinical diagnosis of intellectual disability and ensure that the important precedent set in Atkins continues to be strengthened and upheld in jurisdictions around the country.

Maggie Nygren, EdD, Executive Director & CEO of AAIDD: “Twenty-two years post Atkins, people with intellectual disability, particularly people of color, are still vulnerable to wrongful convictions and death sentences. That’s because some states continue to rely on stereotypes rather than clinical standards for determining and defining intellectual disability.”

The amici have deep sympathy for the family and friends of victims in this case and support appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. However, it is critical that courts utilize clinical standards and abide by the Constitution. In Mr. Milam’s case, the State’s expert did not rely on clinical standards for diagnosing intellectual disability. This was after the State’s previous expert used the proper standards, concluding that Mr. Milam is a person with intellectual disability and should not be put to death.

This case in Texas could have far-reaching implications by undermining vital U.S. Supreme Court precedent on cruel and unusual punishment for people with intellectual disability. Executions have become less common as society’s perspectives on the death penalty have shifted. A growing number of states have been responding to these rising concerns by banning or putting a hold on executions. The pressure is mounting on other states to ensure their practices are constitutional.

The Arc and its partners will continue their fight to protect the rights of people with intellectual disability in the criminal justice system, ensuring that the Constitution’s protections extend to all.

 

###

About The Arc of the United States: The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC, and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About The Arc of Texas: The Arc of Texas promotes, protects, and advocates for the human rights and self-determination of Texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Follow The Arc of Texas on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and learn more at thearcoftexas.org.

About Disability Rights Texas: Disability Rights Texas is the federally designated legal protection and advocacy agency (P&A) for people with disabilities in Texas established in 1977. Its mission is to help people with disabilities understand and exercise their rights under the law, ensuring their full and equal participation in society. To learn more, visit our website: www.drtx.org.

About the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD): Established in 1876, AAIDD is the oldest and largest professional society in the U.S. concerned with intellectual and developmental disabilities. AAIDD promotes progressive policies, sound research, effective practices, and universal human rights for people with IDD. AAIDD engages its members and the general public through its three highly regarded professional journals, catalog of well-respected books and assessment tools, quality educational programming, and partnerships with other leaders within the disability community to address issues that are important to people with disabilities and their families.  Learn more at www.aaidd.org.

About Fried Frank: Fried Frank’s more than 750 lawyers are located in the key financial and government centers of New York, Washington, DC, London, Frankfurt and Brussels. The firm provides highly commercial guidance on sophisticated transactions, advises some of the largest private equity and asset management firms in the world, and develops effective litigation strategies to address its clients’ most critical challenges. More information can be found at www.friedfrank.com.

The Arc logo

25 Patient and Provider Groups Applaud Supreme Court Ruling, but Express Concern About Other Plaintiffs Keeping FDA Authority Challenge Alive

Washington, DC – Our 25 organizations, representing patients with serious health conditions and disabilities and their providers, applaud the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling reversing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v FDA et al, on the grounds that the plaintiffs don’t have standing in their challenge concerning the use and availability of Mifepristone, a drug prescribed for the treatment of a variety of life-threatening conditions, including cancer. We remain concerned that different plaintiffs will continue to pursue dangerous and unfounded arguments that undermine the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decisions about drug safety. Today’s ruling allows the possibility that others will continue pursuing the challenge to the FDA’s decisions regarding Mifepristone and that future litigants will seek to block or limit access to other FDA-approved drugs and treatments for reasons unrelated to safety and efficacy, as warned in our amicus brief.

Generations of Americans have trusted the FDA’s expertise, which, over time, has yielded rigorous, science- and evidence-based approval of tens of thousands of lifesaving and life-changing medications and devices for people with serious health conditions. FDA experts are best equipped to determine the safety and efficacy of medications and their conditions of use, and it is dangerous to eviscerate or dilute their authority.

We unequivocally support the FDA’s role in safeguarding patients and urge the Department of Justice to continue rigorously defending that authority.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
The ALS Association
American Cancer Society
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society of Hematology
The Arc
Arthritis Foundation
Association for Clinical Oncology
CancerCare
Council of Medical Specialty Societies
Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Epilepsy Foundation
Friends of Cancer Research
HealthyWomen
Hemophilia Federation of America
Lupus Foundation of America
Muscular Dystrophy Association
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Organization for Rare Disorders
National Patient Advocate Foundation
RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association

The Arc logo

The Arc Fights for the Rights of Homeless People With Disabilities in Landmark Supreme Court Case

The Arc Joins Law Enforcement Associations, Faith-Based Organizations, Medical Professionals, Legal Experts, Academic Leaders, Advocates, and Members of Congress in an Amicus Brief Urging an End to the Criminalization of Homelessness

Washington, DC — In a historic move to protect the rights of people with disabilities experiencing homelessness, The Arc of the United States has joined a powerful coalition of advocates in submitting an amicus brief for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. Grants Pass. This case could end the cruel and unconstitutional criminalization of homelessness nationwide, a crisis that disproportionately impacts the disability community.

Johnson v. Grants Pass is the most important case regarding homelessness in the past 40 years. It will address the critical issue of whether laws punishing homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors with basic protections such as a pillow or blanket, when no safe and accessible shelter options are available, are violations of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

As noted in the amicus brief, the members of Grants Pass’ homeless community do not choose to be homeless. Instead, in a city with no public shelters, they have no alternative but to sleep in parks or on the street. The Ordinances do not deter disabled homeless people from sleeping in public places because they have no alternative. They do not rehabilitate homeless people from their involuntary conduct but make it even less likely that they will be able to obtain adequate housing.

People with disabilities face daunting barriers to accessible, affordable housing. Less than 5% of housing is accessible for moderate mobility needs, and under 1% is accessible for wheelchair users. Widespread discrimination compounds the problem. Housing costs are also 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 U.S. exceeds the maximum monthly Supplemental Security Income a person can receive. With limited income and a lack of affordable options, people with disabilities are at heightened risk of homelessness and institutionalization.

“Criminalizing homelessness exacerbates the systemic injustices impacting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag, The Arc’s Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel. “People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face a serious lack of safe, affordable, accessible, and integrated housing and experience significant housing-related discrimination. People with IDD are also among the nation’s poorest citizens due to inadequate benefits and services, putting many at risk of unnecessary institutionalization or homelessness. Punishing them for having no choice but to sleep outdoors is a moral failing that perpetuates discrimination, poverty, and segregation. It also does nothing to provide the supports and services homeless people with disabilities need to end the cycle of poverty.”

The Arc joins over 20 disability rights organizations and scholars in an amicus brief that demands justice for the rights of homeless individuals across the U.S. They are joined by the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) and a broad array of hundreds of organizations and public leaders who have submitted a total of 39 amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs.

“This case challenges us to face the reality that using things like jails and fines do nothing to solve homelessness and actually make homelessness worse,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director for NHLC. “Punishing our neighbors who have no choice but to sleep outside pushes them further into poverty and makes it harder to secure work and housing. The overwhelming support from a diverse array of organizations that we see in these amicus briefs underscores the need for our elected officials at every level of government to solve homelessness with housing and support, not make homelessness worse by using jail cells and bulldozers.”

Currently, more than 600,000 people in the U.S. experience homelessness on any given night, with nearly half—250,000—sleeping outside. Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows a rise in homelessness for both sheltered and unsheltered individuals in nearly every state. The primary cause of the record levels of homelessness we see today is the unaffordable housing market, according to research from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.

###

About The Arc of the United States: The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About the National Homelessness Law Center: The National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) is at the forefront of the fight against homelessness in America. Our mission is to fearlessly advance federal, state, and local policies to prevent and end homelessness while fiercely defending the rights of all unhoused persons. We work to shape and advance policies at the federal, state, and local levels aimed at preventing and ultimately ending homelessness. By fostering partnerships, influencing policy, and mobilizing communities, the NHLC is dedicated to transforming how society addresses homelessness, striving for a future where everyone has a place to call home. Learn more at homelesslaw.org.

A school bus stopped with a diverse group of children, including children with IDD, waiting to get on and off the bus.

DC’s OSSE Sued for Failure to Provide Safe and Reliable School Transportation, Denying Disabled Students Access to Education

Class Action Seeks to Remedy Systemic Failure and Violations of Federal and State Law

March 7, 2024 – Parents and guardians of children with disabilities living in the District of Columbia (DC), along with The Arc of the United States, filed a class action lawsuit today against DC’s Office of the State Superintendent for Education (OSSE) 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.

“The buses meant to help children with disabilities build their education and futures are instead perpetuating their exclusion. This is not just a matter of tardiness or inconvenience. It’s stealing children’s opportunities to learn, grow, and connect with their peers,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel of The Arc of the United States, a non-profit that works to promote and protect the civil and human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. “This systemic failure segregates students with disabilities from their peers and deprives them of equal access to education in violation of the law. When school buses become barriers themselves, we need to fight to ensure that no child is left stranded.”

According to the complaint, the OSSE Division of Transportation (OSSE DOT) has continually failed to provide consistent, safe and properly equipped transportation:

  • Buses routinely arrive very late to pick students up from their homes, or do not arrive at all, causing kids to miss an exorbitant number of school days. One 14-year-old student was late to school 90 times in the 2022 – 2023 school year.
  • Students are picked up early from school and miss critical instructional time or are left stranded at school without guaranteed transportation back home. “Because [my child] consistently arrived home late, he would miss critical therapies that were ordered by his doctor,” said Veronica Guerrero, plaintiff and mother of a 14-year-old student.
  • Students are forced to spend excessive time on the bus, causing physical and mental harm when they are unable to access food, medication, or toilets. As a result, one 13-year-old student with a rare chromosomal disorder has arrived home on multiple occasions with a soiled diaper.
  • Buses do not provide appropriate accommodations (including properly trained medical personnel) and equipment that children with disabilities need to ride the bus safely. One eight-year-old student’s medical conditions require that she ride the bus with a nurse present. On multiple occasions, and without notice to the family, the bus arrives without a nurse onboard to properly care for her.
  • Buses cannot be reliably tracked, and families have no way to find out where their children are located while riding a bus. One 11-year-old student was missing for four hours before school staff located him.

“DC was under court supervision after a lawsuit for the exact same problem until 2012. Although the District had shown they were moving in the right direction then, now we are moving back to where we once were despite years of parents and community leaders working together to attempt change through local advocacy efforts,” said Kathy Zeisel, Director of Special Legal Projects of the Children’s Law Center and counsel for the plaintiffs. “We can no longer plead and hope for change. We’re taking action to ensure DC children receive the education they deserve.”

“The District’s failure to provide safe, reliable, and appropriate transportation to students with disabilities is part of a trend where the District does not live up to its obligations to children and families,” said Kaitlin Banner, Deputy Legal Director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and plaintiff counsel. “We hope this lawsuit creates the systemic changes we need for students to get to school safely and on time so they can learn.”

The plaintiffs include parents and guardians of children with a range of disabilities who require transportation accommodations and support to access their education. Together they seek to remedy this systemic failure, which violates federal and state law, including the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA).

Under the IDEA, DC students with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), which must include services and accommodations set forth in students’ individualized education plans (IEPs), including transportation. The ADA, Section 504, and the DCHRA require that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to access their education and prohibit unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities.

“Children with disabilities are missing critical education and related services, all of which are necessary for them to receive a free appropriate public education guaranteed under the IDEA,” said Margaret Warner, a Partner at international law firm McDermott Will & Emery and counsel for the plaintiffs. “OSSE’s transportation system that provides these services continually fails to reasonably support DC students’ special education, as mandated by their IEPs.”

The case is Robertson v. District of Columbia and has been filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shira Wakschlag and Evan Monod of The Arc of the United States; Kathy Zeisel of DC’s Children’s Law Center; Kaitlin R. Banner, Margaret F. Hart, and Chelsea Sullivan of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; and Margaret H. Warner, Eugene I. Goldman, Theodore E. Alexander and Christopher M. Shoemaker of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

###

About The Arc of the United States
The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC, and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About Children’s Law Center
Children’s Law Center believes every child should grow up with a strong foundation of family, health, and education and live in a world free from poverty, trauma, racism and other forms of oppression. Our more than 100 staff—together with DC children and families, community partners, and pro bono attorneys—use the law to solve children’s urgent problems today and improve the systems that will affect their lives tomorrow. Since our founding in 1996, we have reached more than 50,000 children and families directly and multiplied our impact by advocating for city-wide solutions that benefit hundreds of thousands more. For more information, please visit www.childrenslawcenter.org.

About the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit www.washlaw.org.

About McDermott Will & Emery
McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. Our team works seamlessly across practices and industries to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success. More than 1,400 lawyers strong, we bring our personal passion and legal prowess to bear in every matter for our clients and the people they serve. For more information, please visit www.mwe.com.