Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco

/in , /by Pam Katz

Filed: April 29, 2022

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief explaining that failure to comply with the ADA’s accessibility standards for new construction of public areas frustrates the goals and objectives of the ADA and discriminates against people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “It is essential to keep in mind that the ADA was enacted, and the requirements for new construction and alterations adopted, over 30 years ago. The City is presumed to have had notice of its obligations throughout this time. Yet rather than recognize that the City remains out of compliance with its new construction and alteration mandates, the district court’s order relieves the City of liability based on vague, uncertain, and unenforceable plans, “goals,” “continuing progress towards program access,” and “additional improvements . . . scheduled to be completed shortly,” Uncertain plans, vague goals, and unenforceable promises of future work are of no value to people with disabilities who must struggle daily with inaccessible facilities and programs. If such a low standard of accessibility is required, public entities will have no incentive to comply with ADAAG at the time they undertake the new construction or alterations of facilities. The more stringent accessibility requirements of section 35.151 will be gutted. A public entity will only have to articulate a “plan” towards future compliance to successfully evade legal challenge. Such a delay in access and integration cannot stand. It is not what Congress intended.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District

/in , , /by Pam Katz

Filed: March 3, 2022

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: The District Court denied D.R., a student with a disability, a more inclusive placement because he failed to demonstrate “appropriate educational benefit” from inclusion in general education. The amicus brief argues that, by placing the onus on students to prove that they can benefit from general education, the District Court would overturn fifty years of Congressional and judicial consensus that students with disabilities should be educated in inclusive settings “whenever possible.”

Excerpt: “The IDEA’s language, legislative history, and judicial interpretation speak with one voice: ‘To the maximum extent appropriate,’ students with disabilities must be educated ‘with children who are not disabled.’ This robust presumption of inclusion is reflected in the IDEA’s procedural requirements, which require Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to account affirmatively for ‘the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class.’ The IDEA codified an emerging consensus from landmark special education cases that schools must educate students with disabilities in integrated settings wherever possible. Congress later amended the IDEA to further strengthen the LRE requirement in light of new education research, describing it as ‘a presumption that children with disabilities are to be educated in regular classes.’…The presumption of inclusion is so robust that it may even justify placement in general education in the rare case where the more restrictive setting may be educationally superior.”

Case Documents

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District Amicus Brief

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District Opinion

In re Britney Jean Spears

/in /by The Arc

State: California

Filed: July 12, 2021

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

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

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

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Related Media

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

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

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

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

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

KQED: Britney Spears Offers Disturbing Testimony About Her Conservatorship

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

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

Washington Lawyer: Reforming Conservatorship: A Battle Over Best Interests

Student A. v. SFUSD

/in , /by Pam Katz

State: California

Filed: November 9, 2020

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief explaining why exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required in systemic special education class action.

Excerpt: “Neither party disputed that SFUSD special education students lag far behind their non-disabled peers in educational achievement and graduation rates. Studies confirm that with effective and timely intervention, these students can be highly successful. But individual families cannot secure corrective measures on their own, especially for students without access to legal representation. And Plaintiffs are unlikely to successfully exhaust so as to file another systemic action because SFUSD can moot out any individual administrative appeal.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Public Charge Amicus Briefs

/in , , , , , , , , /by Pam Katz

States: California, Washington, New York, Illinois

Filed: 2019

Courts: Northern District of California, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Washington, Northern District of Illinois

Overview: A coalition of national disability advocacy groups filed four amicus briefs in support of litigation to stop the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing its new “public charge” rule. Twenty-one states–led by California, Washington, and New York–as well as Cook County, Illinois, have filed cases against the Trump Administration to block the new rule. The advocacy groups – representing tens of thousands of people with disabilities and their families across the country – claim that the new public charge rule will prevent people with disabilities from entering this country or becoming legal residents in violation of federal disability law.

Case Documents

Briefs:
California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (District Court)
New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (District Court) 
Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (District Court)
Cook County, Illinois v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (District Court)
California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ninth Circuit)
New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Second Circuit)
Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ninth Circuit)
Cook County, Illinois v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Seventh Circuit)

Decisions:

California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Cook County, IL v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Related Media

Press Release: The Arc Applauds Federal Injunctions Against Public Charge Rule

Press Release: Disability Advocacy Groups File Amicus Brief Opposing the Administration’s Public Charge Rule as Illegal Disability Discrimination

Press Release: Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Public Charge Rule: Implementation Will Have Chilling Impact on People with Disabilities

The Hill: Disability rights groups join challenge to ‘public charge’ rule

M.W. v. Army

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

State: California

Filed: 2018

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Overview: The brief supported children with diabetes and the American Diabetes Association arguing that the U.S. Army’s childcare program discriminates against children who need insulin treatment for diabetes, thereby effectively excluding children with diabetes from its childcare programs. The brief also argued for a broad view of organizational standing as essential to disability civil rights cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Excerpt: “Congress has enacted broad statutes to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. This statutory scheme relies heavily on rigorous private enforcement, and both the Supreme Court and this Court have emphasized that district courts must, consistent with Article III, take a broad view of standing in civil rights cases. The district court failed to properly apply this teaching, and its order should be reversed.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: M.W. v. Army

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

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

State: California

Filed: 2015

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that a woman with mental illness who was shot five times by police at her group home while experiencing a mental health crisis could sue the city of San Francisco under Title II of the ADA for failure to provide her with reasonable accommodations in the process of arresting her.

Excerpt: “It is critical to the lives of persons with many types of disabilities that police departments adopt and implement policies and practices that take disability into account during police interactions. Approximately half of all fatal police interactions involve persons with psychiatric disabilities…Title II of the ADA requires nondiscrimination and reasonable modifications (also known as reasonable accommodations) in policing activities, including in the type of detention at the heart of this case. In the context of a person with a known psychiatric disability, who is in crisis and subject to involuntary mental health treatment, the ADA requires that police employ widely accepted policing practices that use containment, coordination, communication, and time to seek safe resolutions.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion