Roll of red, white, and blue "I voted" stickers on a white table

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

/in , /by The Arc

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.

Washington, DC – A federal court has struck down provisions of Texas’ election law, S.B. 1, that illegally restrict necessary assistance to limited English-speaking voters and voters with disabilities. Last week, Texas officials declined to appeal this ruling. This means that these provisions of S.B. 1 are now permanently enjoined and cannot be enforced.

The order from Judge Robert Pitman prohibits Texas from limiting voting assistance to only reading and marking the ballot and from requiring individuals assisting voters to sign an oath requiring them to confine their assistance to reading the ballot to the voter, directing the voter to read the ballot, marking the voter’s ballot, or directing the voter to mark the ballot. The court further ordered Texas to revise its training and instructional materials for state and county officials, and to distribute notice to all county elections departments clarifying the S.B. 1 provisions that they should not enforce. The provisions at issue directly violated a 2018 injunction holding that such limitations on assistance violated the Voting Rights Act.

In September 2021, The Arc, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Reed Smith filed a separate federal lawsuit on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League, Houston Justice, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, and The Arc of Texas challenging S.B. 1, which includes a series of suppressive voting-related provisions that will make it much harder for Texas residents to vote and disenfranchise some altogether — particularly Black and Latino voters and voters with disabilities. The lawsuit alleges that several provisions of S.B. 1, including the provision recently struck down, violate the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Among other violations, Plaintiffs claim that the law imposes barriers that discriminate against voters with disabilities and deny people with disabilities full and equal opportunities to participate in the state’s election process. This complaint remains pending before Judge Xavier Rodriguez.

“This is a significant victory for voters with disabilities in Texas,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director, Legal Advocacy and General Counsel for The Arc. “Texas voters with disabilities who need assistance to vote will now be able to receive that assistance without illegal restrictions placed on their fundamental right to access democracy. At the same time, many discriminatory aspects of S.B. 1 currently remain in place and we will continue fighting to ensure equal access to the polls for voters with disabilities.”

“Judge Pitman’s order is an important victory for people with disabilities in Texas,” said Georgina Yeomans, Assistant Counsel at LDF. “But there is still work to be done to completely eradicate the discriminatory effects of S.B. 1. That these provisions directly conflicted with a federal injunction at the time they were drafted and passed only highlights the Legislature’s disregard for the law when it enacted S.B. 1.”

“While this order is an important early victory in our challenge to S.B. 1, many egregious and anti-democratic restrictions still remain in violation of the law by intentionally targeting and burdening methods and means of voting used by voters of color, limited English-speaking voters, and those with disabilities,” said Reed Smith partner Ken Broughton, who will argue the plaintiffs’ case in a trial set for next summer. “As we’ve said before, a true democracy seeks to increase voter turnout, not inhibit it, and these restrictions remain fundamentally anti-voter.”

###

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. The Arc has 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 and without regard to diagnosis. 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.

The Arc logo

The Arc Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling Weakening Remedies Available to People With Disabilities Experiencing Discrimination

/in , /by The Arc

Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court held that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in lawsuits alleging violations of two federal civil rights statutes covering people with disabilities—Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This decision will harm people with disabilities who experience mental distress and emotional injury resulting from discrimination in all aspects of public life, including medical offices, schools, workplaces, state and local government programs, and other settings.

The plaintiff in this case, Jane Cummings, is deaf and legally blind. She sought physical therapy services from Premier Rehab Keller (PRK) and asked PRK to provide an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter at her therapy sessions. PRK refused and told Ms. Cummings that she could instead communicate with the therapist using written notes, lip reading, or gesturing. Ms. Cummings sued, alleging that PRK’s failure to provide an ASL interpreter constituted disability discrimination under Section 504 and the ACA and so she sought damages and other relief.

In partnership with other disability rights organizations, The Arc explained in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that without the availability of emotional distress damages, some individuals with disabilities who have been discriminated against on the basis of their disability in violation of federal law will have no relief. As the amicus brief stated: “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….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.” The amicus brief also explained that the standards for proving the level of emotional harm that justifies a damages award are already rigorous and courts carefully analyze awards for adherence to the law and evidence.

“This ruling deprives people with disabilities of justice. These civil rights statutes are intended to protect the rights of people with disabilities and other historically disenfranchised groups. In foreclosing relief for the emotional distress that may ensue from discrimination, this holding diminishes the dignity and respect that people with disabilities deserve and are entitled to as full members of our society. We are very disappointed in this ruling,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent that people who suffer discrimination often feel humiliation or embarrassment and that damages for emotional suffering have long been available as remedies in cases alleging discrimination:

It is difficult to square the Court’s holding with the basic purposes that antidiscrimination laws seek to serve. One such purpose…is to vindicate “human dignity and not mere economics.” But the Court’s decision today allows victims of discrimination to recover damages only if they can prove that they have suffered economic harm, even though the primary harm inflicted by discrimination is rarely economic. Indeed, victims of intentional discrimination may sometimes suffer profound emotional injury without any attendant pecuniary harms. The Court’s decision today will leave those victims with no remedy at all.

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. The Arc has 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 and without regard to diagnosis.

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 photo of a woman wearing a beige cardigan over a blue shirt and a necklace.

A Review of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Disability and Civil Rights Record

/in /by The Arc

On February 25, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court to fill the upcoming vacancy due to the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. This is the first-ever nomination of a Black woman to the Supreme Court as well as the first-ever former public defender. Judge Jackson currently sits as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and has previously served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, a public defender, a Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Jackson has received Columbia Law School’s Empowering Women of Color Constance Baker Motley Award. Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee begins on March 21.

Each nomination to the Supreme Court is incredibly significant. The Arc reviews the record of Supreme Court nominees to determine whether prospective members of the Court demonstrate a strong commitment to advancing disability civil rights and ensuring equal application of the law. The purpose of The Arc’s review is to educate the public about a given nominee’s record in order to contribute to greater understanding of the nominee with regards to the issues of greatest relevance to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and their families and supporters.

Judge Jackson has authored nearly 600 opinions since being appointed a judge in 2011. Here, we highlight some areas of her jurisprudence particularly relevant to people with disabilities.

EDUCATION

The Arc’s position statement on Education states: “All children with IDD must receive a free appropriate public education that includes fair evaluation, ambitious goals, challenging objectives, the right to progress, individualized supports and services, high quality instruction, and access to the general education curriculum in age-appropriate inclusive settings.”

In her opinions related to the education of students with disabilities, Judge Jackson has generally demonstrated an appreciation for the obligations of school districts to provide the supports students with disabilities—including those with the most significant disabilities—need to thrive. For example, Judge Jackson has held that public schools must ensure a private placement for a student with a disability can “adequately address” the student’s needs and provide the level of supports required for the student to receive a free appropriate public education (required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) before making the placement.1 Judge Jackson has also rejected a school district’s argument that serving a student with intellectual disability and significant disability-related behaviors was “impossible” or that the student’s behavior excused the district from placing him in a program that could meet his needs and held that the school district violated the IDEA by failing to provide plaintiff an education following his expulsion.2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The Arc’s position statement on Criminal Justice states: “People with IDD have the right to justice and fair treatment in all areas of the criminal justice system, and must be afforded the supports and accommodations required to make justice and fair treatment a reality.”

Judge Jackson has generally shown a respect for the dignity of incarcerated people and upheld their rights to receive accommodations and fair treatment while entangled in the criminal justice system. For example, Judge Jackson has held that a jail violated the rights of a deaf inmate under federal disability rights laws when jail officials did nothing to assess the inmate’s need for reasonable modifications despite their knowledge of his disability and failed to provide him with a sign language interpreter, forcing him to communicate only through lip reading and written notes and sending him to solitary confinement.3 In her opinion, Judge Jackson wrote that although “[i]ncarceration inherently involves the relinquishment of many privileges,” incarcerated people retain important rights, “including protections against disability discrimination.”

Judge Jackson has granted a number of compassionate releases during the pandemic, including of prisoners with mental and physical disabilities.4 Judge Jackson has spoken out about the need for a robust public defense system in order to “protect the rights of the accused.”5 Judge Jackson has also expressed concern about the ability of people facing the death penalty to receive adequate opportunity to assert their innocence if new evidence emerges post-conviction.6 Such post-conviction evidence can also be critical in cases involving the death penalty and intellectual disability. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disability as cruel and unusual punishment and has mandated that states cannot ignore clinical science or impose procedures that create an “unacceptable level of risk” that people with intellectual disability will be executed.7 But proving that an individual has intellectual disability in the death penalty context involves a fact-intensive, comprehensive review of records since childhood as well as expert testimony and all too many individuals who likely have intellectual disability are initially represented by counsel unfamiliar with this area of law and are precluded from presenting relevant evidence to the court later on in the process because of procedural hurdles, resulting in miscarriages of justice for these defendants.

Prior to becoming a judge, Judge Jackson represented criminal defendants with mental health disabilities, including those with co-occurring intellectual or developmental disabilities and, thus, has a keen awareness of the barriers such individuals can face in accessing justice.8

EMPLOYMENT

The Arc’s position statement on Employment states: “People with IDD can be employed in the community alongside people without disabilities and earn competitive wages. They should be supported to make informed choices about their work and careers and have the resources to seek, obtain, and be successful in community employment.”

Judge Jackson has generally demonstrated an appreciation for plaintiffs’ allegations in employment discrimination actions and has held that federal disability rights laws require employers to engage in a meaningful, interactive process with employees with disabilities to ensure the employees have the reasonable accommodations they need to perform their jobs.9 For example, Judge Jackson has held that employers must consider job reassignments for qualified employees with disabilities as reasonable accommodations where other accommodations have proved ineffective. Judge Jackson has also repeatedly emphasized the importance of allowing discovery to proceed to ensure that plaintiffs challenging workplace discrimination have a fair opportunity to present their case.10 Judge Jackson has also demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that pro se plaintiffs—plaintiffs who represent themselves—are able to meaningfully assert their rights in court, ensuring access to justice for those without legal representation who may have misunderstood legal processes and procedures, including for disability-related reasons, among others.11

At times, Judge Jackson has imposed a relatively high bar for proving employment discrimination and has, at times, read procedural requirements in restrictive ways that limit the avenues for relief for employees alleging discrimination.12

CIVIL RIGHTS

The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights states: “The human and civil rights of all people with IDD must be honored, protected, communicated, enforced and thus be central to all advocacy on their behalf.”

Judge Jackson has generally demonstrated an understanding of the robust protections provided by federal and disability civil rights laws. For example, in a case alleging that Uber discriminated against wheelchair users, Judge Jackson held that people with disabilities do not need to engage in the “futile gesture” of making themselves subject to Uber’s discriminatory policies in order to have standing to sue the company.13 This principle also applies in other contexts under federal disability rights laws and allows, for example, people with IDD who are at serious risk of institutionalization to challenge government policies that deny them community-based services and supports even if they have not yet been institutionalized. Judge Jackson also held that Uber is a public transportation company—not a technology company—and is subject to liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, ensuring that the rights of people with disabilities are protected in a rapidly changing transportation industry.

Judge Jackson has also participated in a decision upholding President Biden’s eviction moratorium designed to keep renters in their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating a concern for the rights of the most vulnerable residents, which includes renters with disabilities who face a disproportionately severe risk of experiencing homelessness and complications from COVID-19.14

With over a decade on the federal bench, Judge Jackson has extensive relevant experience to serve as a Supreme Court justice. In her nearly 600 opinions on a wide variety of topics, Judge Jackson has demonstrated an understanding and appreciation of the robust protections provided by federal disability and civil rights laws. In disability and other civil rights cases, Judge Jackson has shown a willingness to hear claims from injured plaintiffs, a commitment to avoiding imposing unfair burdens on plaintiffs, and has acknowledged the hardships that drove plaintiffs to seek relief. Her unique background as a public defender prior to becoming a judge and her overall judicial record indicates that she is committed to a generally robust interpretation of disability and civil rights laws, fundamental fairness for all, and ensuring that plaintiffs receive their day in court. Judge Jackson’s historic nomination is important to The Arc as we are committed to access, equity, and inclusion in all we do, and our diverse and growing disability rights movement expects the institutions that uphold our democracy to reflect the full diversity of our country.

The Arc is grateful for a number of groups for publishing their research regarding Judge Jackson’s disability and civil rights record which this statement draws from. For a more thorough review of Judge Jackson’s record on a variety of topics, please see reports from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, NAACP LDF, and the Alliance for Justice.

 

1 W.S. v. District of Columbia, 502 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D.D.C. 2020).

2 Schiff v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 18-cv-1382 (KBJ), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189606 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2019).

3 Pierce v. District of Columbia, 128 F. Supp. 3d 250 (D.D.C. 2015)

4 See, e.g., United States v. Greene, No. 71-CR-1913 (KBJ), 516 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2021); United States v. Dunlap, No. 17-CR-207 (KBJ), 485 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.D.C. 2020); United States v. Johnson, No. 15-CR-125 (KBJ), 464 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2020).

5 Ketanji Brown Jackson, “Responses to Questions for the Record from Senator Ben Sasse to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,” Senate Judiciary Committee (2022) at 465 (of PDF), available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jackson%20SJQ%20Attachments%20Final.pdf.

6 Ketanji Brown Jackson, “Supreme Court as Gatekeeper: Screening Petitions for ‘Original’ Writs of Habeas Corpus in the Wake of the A.E.D.P.A.” (November 2001), available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jackson%20SJQ%20Attachments%20Final.pdf (pp 1474-85).

7 See, e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), and Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017).

8 See, e.g., United States v. Kosh, 184 Fed. Appx. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2006); United States v. Lowe, 186 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

9 See, e.g., Von Drasek v. Burwell, 121 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D.D.C. 2015); Mitchell v. Pompeo, No. 1:15-cv-1849 (KBJ), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54797 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2019).

10 See, e.g., Tyson v. Brennan, 306 F. Supp. 3d 365 (D.D.C. 2017); Ross v. United States Capitol Police, 6 195 F. Supp. 3d 180 (D.D.C. 2016).

11 See, e.g., Horsey v. United States Dep’t of State, 170 F. Supp. 3d 256 (D.D.C. 2016).

12 See, e.g., Alford v. Providence Hosp., 60 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D.D.C. 2014); Crawford v. Johnson, 166 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016).

13 Equal Rights Ctr. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 525 F. Supp. 3d 62 (D.D.C. 2021).

14 Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:20-CV-03377- DLF, 2021 WL 3721431 at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 20, 2021).

 

The backs of two young children with backpacks on. Their heads are out of the frame, and they are standing facing stairs.

Federal Appeals Court Decision Ensures Iowa Schools Can Require Masking to Protect Students with Disabilities

/in , , /by The Arc

DES MOINES, Iowa — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act require schools to impose universal masking rules where necessary to ensure students with disabilities have access to public school education. 

The decision comes in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, The Arc of the United States, Arnold & Porter, and Duff Law Firm, P.L.C. on behalf of The Arc of Iowa and 11 parents of children with disabilities. The Eighth Circuit held that the clients are entitled to a preliminary injunction to ensure that the defendant school districts in Iowa are providing for universal masking as a reasonable accommodation so that students with disabilities can go to school safely.

“The Eighth Circuit affirmed what we’ve known to be true from the start: School mask mandate bans are discriminatory and illegal,” said Susan Mizner, Director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program. “To be able to attend schools safely, many students with disabilities need their schools to require masks. At a time when COVID-19 is ravaging our communities once again, this decision ensures that schools can continue to take basic public health precautions like requiring universal masking to protect their students.”

A federal district court in September enjoined the state from barring mask mandates, recognizing that “forcing children to bear the brunt of societal discord is ‘illogical and unjust.’” The state then appealed that decision, resulting in today’s ruling.

“Today’s decision is an important victory for the civil rights of children with disabilities in Iowa, who have a right to go to school with their peers,” said Rita Bettis Austen, Legal Director of the ACLU of Iowa. “No parent should have to choose between their child’s health and safety and their education, but that is the terrible position that the state put our clients in. It’s important to note that the court’s reasoning also means that even schools that are not named in the lawsuit should be requiring masks when needed to accommodate students with disabilities so they can go to school with their peers. This decision is a huge relief to families across our state.”

The groups are arguing in the lawsuit that federal civil rights laws require schools to be able to require universal masking to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from their public education.

The following are additional comments from:

Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director, Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the United States:

“In the midst of yet another COVID-19 surge, the court is making it clear that students with disabilities have the right to go to school safely during this pandemic. The Arc will continue fighting to ensure that students with disabilities in Iowa and nationwide are able to attend their neighborhood schools alongside their peers without putting their health and their lives at risk.”

Catherine E. Johnson, Executive Director of Disability Rights Iowa: 

“I welcome today’s ruling that universal masking as an accommodation is both reasonable and necessary for students with disabilities to attend school in-person safely during the ongoing pandemic. This ruling comes during a time when Iowa is experiencing a surge of COVID-19 cases throughout the state. We are hopeful this opinion provides relief, confidence and clarity for parents, students, and schools to work collaboratively to restore our students’ long established civil rights under federal law and safely return our students with disabilities to their schools.”

The Arc logo

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

/in , /by The Arc

WASHINGTON, DC —Today, a federal court denied the three motions to dismiss litigation filed by The Arc and others challenging Georgia’s anti-voter law S.B. 202, allowing the case, Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, et al. v. Kemp, et al. to proceed.

The Arc is counsel and a plaintiff in the litigation along with plaintiffs the Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Women Watch Afrika, Latino Community Fund Georgia, and co-counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Georgia, and law firms Davis, Wright, Tremaine and WilmerHale.

“We are pleased that the Court has denied the motions to dismiss, allowing this case to move forward. Voter suppression is a disability rights issue. People with disabilities have the fundamental right to vote and participate in our democracy, but this right has too often been denied. S.B. 202 disenfranchises voters with disabilities and denies them equal access to voting in violation of federal disability rights laws,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director, Legal Advocacy & General Counsel at The Arc.

The Arc advocates for and serves people wit­­h intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy and other diagnoses. The Arc has a network of 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with I/DD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes and without regard to diagnosis.

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.

Close up of the U.S. Supreme Court, focused on the pillars, and doorway.

Disability Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Protections Against Disability Discrimination

/in , /by Pam Katz

Disability rights organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs today urging the Supreme Court to uphold disability rights by rejecting CVS’s attempt to dismantle non-discrimination protections under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The case, CVS v. Doe, involves a CVS-managed prescription drug plan that requires people who need “specialty medications” to receive them by mail, instead of at their local pharmacy. Five individuals living with HIV sued over the requirement, arguing that it effectively prevents them from receiving adequate care for their condition and represents discrimination based on their disability.

CVS is arguing in the case that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not protect against claims of “disparate impact,” or when neutral policies or practices have disproportionate impacts on a protected class, in this case people with disabilities.

In one of the amicus briefs filed today by 17 disability and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of People with Disabilities, The Arc of the United States, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Public Justice, and the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, the groups argue that long-standing Supreme Court precedent makes clear that most discrimination against people with disabilities comes from “benign neglect” or thoughtlessness — and that removing the ability to get relief from such discrimination would undermine the entire purpose and history of Section 504. The court explained in Alexander v. Choate that congressional intent would be decimated if Section 504 were interpreted to require intent to discriminate.

In the other amicus brief, filed by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, National Disability Rights Network, and eight other disability rights organizations, the brief argues that the Supreme Court should not decide the issue of whether disparate impact claims are permitted under Section 504 in this case because the claims brought are, at their core, claims concerning differential treatment and failure to make reasonable accommodations rather than disparate impact claims.

“People with disabilities continue to experience widespread discrimination in all areas of life. Congress passed federal disability rights laws to ensure people with disabilities have comprehensive protections to be included in society and have meaningful access to public life. The disability community has fought hard for these rights over the course of decades and we will continue fighting to ensure the broad protections intended by Congress are not undermined,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the U.S.

“CVS’s position is not just wrong on the law, it’s dangerous. Disparate impact claims are the backbone of disability rights litigation. If the Supreme Court agrees with CVS, disability rights could be set back decades,” said Susan Mizner, director of the ACLU Disability Rights Program. “CVS cannot in good faith say it supports people with disabilities while simultaneously urging the Supreme Court to gut disability rights. The company should withdraw this case from the Supreme Court docket.”

“The Section 504 regulations were finalized in 1977 after years of serious negotiation between the disability community and government and business representatives,” said DREDF board member Judith Heumann, a leader of the disability rights movement who is featured in the 2020 documentary Crip Camp. “We knew that we had to cover neutral policies — we are so often excluded that way. So that’s what we did. It was foundational.” Heumann was a key witness during the hearings leading up to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and testified about her many experiences with discrimination based on paternalism, restrictive criteria, and stereotypes that were couched in neutral terms.

“The protections of the Rehabilitation Act have existed for almost 50 years. Disabled people rely on the protections within the Rehabilitation Act and section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to assert our right to demand accountability and recourse when we experience discrimination,” said Maria Town, President and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities. “Despite the progress spurred by both disability community advocacy and the presence of these civil rights laws, discrimination is still a daily occurrence for most disabled people. If the Supreme Court sides with CVS, people with disabilities will lose one of the primary avenues we have to defend our rights and seek justice.”

The Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1973, and alongside the Americans with Disabilities Act, established safeguards against disability discrimination. As a result of these laws, society has become increasingly accessible for people with disabilities. Before the Rehabilitation Act, people with disabilities had no resource to challenge discriminatory practices. A decision in favor of CVS would eviscerate the ability to challenge policies and practices that have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities.

Photo of desks in a classroom with dim, moody lighting

Federal Court Blocks Iowa’s Law Banning Masking Requirements in Schools

/in , /by The Arc

DES MOINES, Iowa — A federal district court today blocked Iowa’s law prohibiting schools from requiring masks. The court ruled that the law violates the civil rights of children with disabilities, including children with underlying conditions, who are more vulnerable to severe illness or death as a result of COVID-19.

The decision makes clear that children have a right under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to equal access to their educations, which for some children with underlying conditions and disabilities, requires that schools implement universal masking requirements.

The district court recognized that “forcing children to bear the brunt of societal discord is ‘illogical and unjust’” and cited data showing that “the current level of the delta variant in Iowa has increased the infection rate and severity of infection. Some public schools in Iowa are experiencing COVID-19 infection rates at upwards of 60 percent that of last year’s total for the entire school year.” The court also cited data showing that the number of children hospitalized due to COVID-19 is also on the rise.

The decision comes in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, The Arc of the United States, and law firms Arnold & Porter and Duff Law Firm, P.L.C. on behalf of The Arc of Iowa and 11 parents of children with disabilities.

The following statements are from:

Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel, The Arc of the United States:

“The court is making it clear that students with disabilities have the right to go to school safely during this pandemic. The Arc will continue fighting to ensure that students with disabilities are able to attend their neighborhood schools alongside their peers without disabilities without putting their health and their lives at risk.”

Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa:

“We are grateful to the district court for blocking this dangerous law, which put vulnerable kids in harm’s way and violated their civil rights in education. We are relieved that schools across the state will now be able to protect those kids as required by federal law. No parent should be asked to choose between the safety and health of their child and their child’s ability to go to school, but that’s exactly the position that this law put parents across Iowa in.”

Susan Mizner, director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program:

“This is a huge victory for our plaintiffs and all parents of children with disabilities who have been forced to choose between protecting the health of their children and ensuring they receive an education alongside their peers. This decision opens the door for schools across Iowa to take basic public health measures to protect their students. It also should send a message to other states that they cannot put politics above the rights and safety of students with disabilities. Disability rights laws were passed precisely for this situation – in which children with disabilities health and education would be sacrificed for the convenience of the majority. Banning the possibility that schools may require masks — in the middle of a pandemic — discriminates against school children with disabilities. All students with disabilities should be able to attend school safely, as federal disability rights laws guarantee.”

Catherine E. Johnson, executive director, Disability Rights Iowa:

“The order entered today restores our students’ with disabilities long-held civil rights of equal access to their education and full inclusion with their general education peers in the school curriculum and all other activities and programs offered by their school. Today is a monumental day for all plaintiffs, as well as all Iowans forced to choose between sacrificing their child’s health or education opportunities. Effective today, parents no longer have to make this impossible choice, their children are entitled to both.”

Photos and videos of some clients, attorneys, and organizational logos available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-XIhBS5ZyNVRRh9lENyhqMbJi5PLqqky

More details about this case are here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-iowa-law-banning-schools-requiring-masks

The decision is here: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/arc-iowa-v-reynolds-order-granting-temporary-restraining-order

This statement is here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-iowas-law-banning-masking-requirements-schools

 

A person standing at a voting booth. Next to them is any empty voting station.

Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting Rights

/in , /by Pam Katz

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.

Today, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (LDF), Reed Smith LLP, and The Arc filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League, Houston Justice, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, and The Arc of Texas challenging S.B. 1, a new Texas law targeting voting rights. S.B. 1 includes a series of suppressive voting-related provisions that will make it much harder for Texas residents to vote and disenfranchise some altogether, particularly Black and Latino voters and voters with disabilities.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, argues that S.B. 1 violates the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by intentionally targeting and burdening methods and means of voting used by voters of color.

The Plaintiffs also claim that the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by imposing voting barriers that will discriminate against voters with disabilities and deny people with disabilities full and equal opportunities to participate in the state’s voting programs.

The lawsuit challenges multiple provisions in SB 1, including:

  • Limitations on early voting hours and a ban on 24-hour voting.
  • The elimination of drive-thru voting centers.
  • The prohibition of mail-in ballot drop-boxes.
  • Limitations on the distribution of mail-in ballot applications.
  • Limitations and possible penalties for voter assistants, including criminal felonies.

Read the lawsuit challenging S.B. 1.

“Despite Texas legislators’ repeated and disingenuous attempts to cite ‘voter fraud’ as their reasoning for implementing S.B. 1, it is clear as day that this law was created to suppress votes,” said LDF Assistant Counsel Georgina Yeomans. “Rather than expand voting access, elected officials are making it harder for Texans to vote – especially voters of color, who will be disproportionately burdened. S.B. 1 was intentionally designed to have that effect.”

“Democracy should make it easier for eligible voters to vote, not harder,” said Ken Broughton, managing partner of Reed Smith’s Houston office. “Democracy should also increase voter turnout, not inhibit it. This legislation will prevent many qualified voters from voting because these laws are anti-voter.”

“Voter suppression is a disability rights issue. People with disabilities have the fundamental right to vote and participate in our democracy, but this right has too often been denied. S.B. 1 disenfranchises voters with disabilities and denies them equal access to voting in violation of federal disability rights laws,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director, Legal Advocacy & General Counsel at The Arc.

“The Houston Area Urban League has a long history of supporting the disenfranchised. Any law that makes it harder for them to have their voices heard under the cloak of rampant voter fraud is disingenuous and contrary to our democracy,” said Houston Area Urban League President and CEO Judson Robinson III.

“The law at its core is anti-democratic and clearly designed to suppress the vote,” said Tina Kingshill, Coordinating Director of Houston Justice. “It will further hinder voting rights of low-income, pre-trial defendants of color unable to post bail who comprise over 70% of local and county jail populations. By prohibiting the expenditure of public funds to facilitate third-party distribution of applications to vote by mail, the law burdens non-profit voter outreach organizations with funding the printing costs of the applications. Many organizations will not have the funds for printing, so essentially the right to request and cast a ballot while incarcerated is taken away.”

“Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated has been fighting for the rights of all U.S. citizens to vote for 108 years. It is our honor and responsibility to continue the fight against oppressive voting laws started by our Founders,” said Delta Sigma Theta President and CEO Beverly E. Smith. “S.B. 1 directly threatens the right to vote of over 20,000 members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority and their family and friends in Texas, and we are committed to fight against S.B. 1 on their behalf.”

“Texas voters with disabilities are proud to participate in the democratic process and deserve equitable access to the polls, not more barriers,” said The Arc of Texas CEO Jennifer Martinez. “Unfortunately, these same Texans are accustomed to fighting for their civil rights and must continue to do so against the latest voter-suppression measures passed by the Texas Legislature.”

Texas is among more than 40 other states that have enacted legislative efforts to substantially restrict voting access. LDF and The Arc are also involved in litigation challenging Georgia’s restrictive voting law that also discriminates against voters of color and voters with disabilities. Read more here.

Woman on escalator wearing a face mask; she's holding a cell phone in one hand and her suitcase handle in the other

Lawsuit Challenges Iowa Law Banning Schools From Requiring Masks

/in , /by Pam Katz

Eleven parents of children with disabilities and Iowa disability rights groups have filed a federal lawsuit today challenging an Iowa law that bans school districts from imposing mask mandates in schools. 

The parents and disability rights advocates are taking the action to protect children who are too young to be vaccinated whose disabilities, including underlying health conditions, make them particularly susceptible to severe illness, long haul COVID symptoms, or even death from COVID-19. They argue that the ban on mask mandates discriminates against these students in education, effectively excluding them from public schools and denying them equal access to education. That is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Earlier this year, the Iowa Legislature passed House File 847. It prevents local school districts from requiring anyone to wear a face mask and was signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds.

The lawsuit filed today is asking the district court to block the provision of the law prohibiting mask requirements at school as a violation of federal law (ADA and the Rehabilitation Act) and to order the state to allow school districts to adopt mask mandates for their students and staff. 

The clients in the case are The Arc of Iowa and 11 parents of minor children across the state with disabilities whose health could be at risk due to the enforcement of this provision. 

They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, The Arc of the United States, the Arnold & Porter law firm, and the Duff Law Firm, P.L.C. 

 

Charmain Alexander of Urbandale is one of the clients in the lawsuit. Her son, Corban, has asthma. “I am doing this to help create a safe environment not only for my own child but for all children, including those with disabilities and other conditions. You would think that schools would make the safety of their students their top priority, but unfortunately, that is not happening because of this law. 

“It’s important that children have the opportunity to learn in person. I think most parents have seen that over the last year. But what are you supposed to do when you’re in my position and are afraid that if you send your child to school so that they can keep up with their education, you’re afraid that the worst might happen?”

Another client, Heather Preston of Des Moines has two school-age children. One has a rare organ disorder, which her doctor has advised her puts him at risk for serious illness if he contracts COVID. 

“I know that a parent can’t protect their child from all things, but they have a responsibility to protect them from serious safety threats. And for my son, going to a school where not everyone is wearing masks puts him at huge risk. Meanwhile, because of his needs, he needs to be learning in person.

  “It’s terrifying for a parent to have to worry every day about the physical safety of their child, and to have to choose between their child keeping up with their education and their child becoming seriously ill, or perhaps even dying. That’s a choice no parent should have to make. I want my children to come home safe from school.” 

ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said, “HF 847 is a civil rights violation that puts vulnerable kids in a dangerous situation. We all should be able to agree that it’s not fair to force kids out of school because they have health conditions and disabilities that put them at a higher risk of serious complications from COVID. It’s also not fair to require parents to expose their children to these risks just so they can go to school. We are asking the court to block HF 847 so that our schools will be able to require masks when necessary to ensure an equal education for all kids.

Susan Mizner, director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program, said, “Prohibiting schools from taking reasonable steps to protect the health of their students forces parents to make an impossible choice: their child’s education or their child’s health. Students with health conditions or disabilities that make them vulnerable to COVID have a right to attend school without endangering their health or safety. Schools who have children with these conditions have legal obligations under federal disability rights laws.”

“Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, public schools cannot exclude students with disabilities nor deny them equal access to their education or segregate them unnecessarily. Schools are obligated to provide reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from their public education,” Mizner said. 

“The COVID-19 pandemic has not absolved Iowa schools from these requirements, and Iowa officials cannot waive these obligations for them,” Mizner said. 

Doug Cunningham, Executive Director of The Arc of Iowa, an advocacy organization for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said, “This should not be a political issue. It’s an issue that affects the health and wellbeing of the children with disabilities in our state, and I would like to think that all political groups embrace that basic principle.” 

“This law is making it impossible for many students to go to school. I see first-hand how families have to make an awful choice—the health or safety of their child or their education. Being safe at school is a right. Getting an education is a right. I’m hopeful this lawsuit will correct this terrible situation that our state government is creating for nearly any family in the state who has a school-aged child with a condition threatened by COVID,” Cunningham said. 

Catherine (pronounced kath-REEN) E. Johnson, Executive Director of Disability Rights Iowa, said, “Excluding students with disabilities from public education was routine practice prior to Congress enacting federal protections. For more than 40 years, students with disabilities have been protected from discrimination based on disability by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These federal laws guarantee students with disabilities the right to equal access to a public education alongside their general education peers. HF 847 effectively excludes students with disabilities from public education and denies them equal access, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We request the court block HF 847 so that public schools can comply with their obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and restore our students with disabilities civil rights to equal access to education.”

Other clients have also provided statements:

Erin Vercande of Decorah has a child who has cerebral palsy as well as epilepsy and has strokes. 

“COVID has hit the community of disabled children and their families especially hard. My son loves school. He loves his classmates, teachers, associates, and therapists. He loves and needs the stimulation from the other children at school and all the fun things he gets to participate in. But he’s at risk of serious illness if he gets COVID,” Vercande said. 

“With the mask mandate ban this year and other factors within our school district, my son is currently unable to attend school. The mask mandate ban is in direct violation of precautions recommended by his doctors for him to be able to attend school safely. My son has a legal right to go to school. Our state is denying him, and others like him, that right. My son doesn’t have a voice to fight for his rights. But I do. And I will fight for him and all the other children like him that are being denied that right.” 

Jonathan Craig, a Waterloo father of four children impacted by the ban, said, “Every child deserves an education in a safe environment. As the father of four children, two of whom are immunocompromised and have chronic illnesses, I’ve seen first-hand the devastating effects of what happens when children are not afforded their right to a safe and equitable public education,” Craig said. 

“Because masks aren’t allowed to be required in public schools in Iowa this year, our pediatrician recommended that all four of our children, who are too young to be vaccinated, stay home and learn through virtual learning, as contracting COVID-19 would be life-threatening to our family,” Craig said. 

“Because of my daughter’s physical and developmental disabilities, she isn’t able to engage with virtual learning and we’re heartbroken to watch her fall through the cracks. We’ve seen our son (who has worked incredibly hard to overcome his own learning difficulties) flourish during his years of in-person schooling but he has fallen behind academically and socially since learning behind a screen for eight hours a day,” he said. 

“If school districts could mandate masks the way they were able to last year, it would give kids like mine the chance to have an equitable educational opportunity and we could make the best decisions for our family’s health,” Craig said. 

The complaint can be found here.

The Arc logo

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

/in , /by The Arc

Washington, D.C. – The Arc, with a coalition of 25 civil and disability rights organizations, joined an amicus brief filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California in support of Britney Spears’ right to select her own attorney for her conservatorship proceedings. The brief also urges the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to ensure Ms. Spears has access to assistance and tools to select her attorney, including Supported Decision-Making.

Ms. Spears is currently under a probate conservatorship and has been represented by a court-appointed attorney for most or all of the 13-year duration of her conservatorship. On June 23, Ms. Spears told the court that she wishes to choose her own attorney. On July 6, Ms. Spears’ court-appointed attorney asked to resign from her conservatorship case.

Often in conservatorships, judges appoint a lawyer to represent a conservatee without allowing the person under conservatorship any say in this decision. The amicus brief argues that the right to choose one’s own attorney is a core element of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and people under a conservatorship should be able to retain this right. The brief also provides background to the court on how Supported Decision-Making could be an effective tool for Ms. Spears to use in choosing her own representation.

Supported decision-making allows a person to retain their legal rights while getting support with decision-making from those they choose and trust. Supported Decision-Making does not require court involvement and can be combined with other legal tools, such as powers of attorney and advance health care directives, that promote self-determination and autonomy.

“For many years, The Arc has advocated for the rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to participate to the maximum extent possible in making and executing decisions about themselves and to ensure their civil and human rights are retained and enforced, regardless of conservatorship or guardianship status,” said Peter Berns, CEO of The Arc. “Ms. Spears has the right to self-determination in selecting her own attorney and The Arc will continue to advocate to ensure such rights—for Ms. Spears and the disability community more broadly—are protected in the courts.”