Texas Archives - The Arc

Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott

September 8, 2021/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals Texas Civil rights Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: 2021

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

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

Defendant: Governor Gregory Abbott and various state officials

Counsel: The Arc, NAACP LDF, Reed Smith LLP

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

Case Documents

Second Amended Complaint

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

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

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

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

Press Releases

Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting Rights

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

Fighting for an Inclusive Democracy

Texas Law Punishes Voters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law360 Pulse: Texas DA Ordered To Face Voter Discrimination Suits

Law360: How Lawyers Are Mobilizing To Protect The Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

September 7, 2021/in Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals Texas Civil rights Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: August 30, 2021

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

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

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

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

HHS-OCR Complaints Re COVID-19 Medical Discrimination

March 23, 2020/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Distric of Columbia, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington Civil rights, Health Care Litigation/by Pam Katz

States: Washington, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Oklahoma, Connecticut, North Carolina, Oregon, Nebraska, Arizona, DC, Texas

Date Filed: 2020

Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights

Overview: These complaints concern illegal disability discrimination in medical care that is putting the lives of people with disabilities at imminent risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaints challenge discriminatory crisis standard of care plans, no-visitor policies, and inaccessible testing that violate federal disability rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Community for Permanent Supported Housing et al. v. Housing Authority of the City of Dallas

October 10, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals Texas Civil rights, Housing Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: October 9, 2019

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Overview: The Arc filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s dismissal on ripeness grounds. The case, filed in federal district court in the Northern District of Texas in 2018, challenges the Housing Authority of the City of Dallas’s (DHA) refusal to use the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Project-Based Voucher (PBV) rent subsidy program to provide otherwise scarce affordable, independent housing opportunities for people with IDD in the community. DHA was poised to offer such PBVs—each of which would permit a single-family house to be rented at subsidized rates to several people with IDD who can live independently with appropriate supports—but then canceled its offering and has refused to offer any substitute, without any good reason. The lawsuit alleges that DHA’s actions violate the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and state law. The district court dismissed the case in April 2019 and Plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The amicus brief supports Plaintiffs’ request to reverse the district court’s dismissal order and let the case move forward and explains that DHA’s ongoing failure to provide access to its program (including through reasonable accommodations where necessary) deprives adults with IDD of a critical opportunity to live in the most integrated setting appropriate in the community and creates an acute risk of homelessness and institutionalization.

Excerpt: “Title II of the ADA requires public entities to administer programs in the ‘most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities,’ and Olmstead is noteworthy for its broad recognition of the rights of people with disabilities to live and receive needed services and supports in the community—as opposed to institutional settings—which has become known as the ‘integration mandate’ of the ADA. But this mandate—which also protects those who are “at risk” of institutionalization—cannot be fully realized without affordable housing opportunities in the community that are accessible to people with IDD and enable them to live outside their family homes. For many adults with IDD currently living in their family homes, opportunities that allow them to live in the community separate from their families are often preferable because these opportunities provide greater independence and autonomy. Additionally, living in the community separate from their families can be critical for adults with IDD to avoid homelessness or institutionalization when a supporting family member inevitably ages and reaches a point where she or he can no longer provide shelter or support.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Community for Permanent Supported Housing et al. v. Housing Authority of the City of Dallas

Moore v. Texas

July 24, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Family member, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Person with a disability, Service provider / DSP Texas Criminal justice Litigation/by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: 2016/2017

Court: United States Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Overview: The brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 argued that Texas distorted the clinical definition of intellectual disability by devising a formula of exclusionary factors that rests heavily on stereotypes. This approach is wholly inconsistent with accepted scientific standards and leads to inaccurate and unreliable results. The brief argues that the deliberate decision to reject clinical standards in the adjudication of death penalty cases is inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent in Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida and incompatible with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In 2017, the Court held that Texas’ use of stereotypical and outdated factors—rather than well-established clinical standards—to determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases was unconstitutional, since they “create an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” The case was then remanded to the Texas Court of Criminal (TCCA) appeals to redo its disability determination consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Arc filed another brief in support of Mr. Moore before the TCCA. In 2018, the TCCA again found that Mr. Moore did not have intellectual disability and should be executed. A strong dissent from Judge Elsa Alcala cited The Arc’s amicus brief and noted that the majority opinion was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Mr. Moore again petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review.

Excerpt: “There is a wide gap between the clinical definition, on the one hand, and on the other, expectations that many laypeople have about what intellectual disability…means…Distorting the definition with invented exclusionary factors is fundamentally inconsistent with the clinical understanding of intellectual disability, and has no support in the scientific and clinical literature in the field…Texas’ invention and adoption of a list of unscientific criteria for adaptive functioning has the effect (and, apparently, the purpose) of limiting the protection of Atkins to a sub-set of those defendants who satisfy the clinical definition of intellectual disability. This is incompatible with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishments. Amici believe that the basic framework of the clinical definition is the constitutionally required standard for determining whether a defendant has intellectual disability.”

Case Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Brief

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Brief

2017 U.S. Supreme Court Decision

2018 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Decision

2019 U.S. Supreme Court Decision

The Texas Tribune: “Bobby Moore’s death sentence is changed to life in prison after lengthy court fights over intellectual disability”

The Arc Blog: “The Arc Applauds Supreme Court’s Decisive Rejection of Texas’ “Wholly Nonclinical,” “Outlier” Standards in Determining Intellectual Disability”

Press Release: “The Arc Responds to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Ruling in Bobby Moore Case”

Press Release: “Supreme Court Reaffirms Commitment to Clinical Standards, Not Stereotypes, In Determining Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases”

Pacific Standard: “SCOTUS Just Made It Harder To Execute Intellectually Disabled Prisoners”:

Austin American Statesman: “Why Bobby Moore Should Not Be on Texas’ Death Row”

Lizcano v. Texas

State: Texas

Filed: 2015

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that Texas’ use of the Briseno factors to determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases was unconstitutional because they are based on stereotypes rather than well-established clinical standards.

Excerpt: “In implementing this Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, Texas has essentially replaced the clinical definition’s carefully crafted requirements with a formula of its own devising, one that rests heavily on stereotypes about people with intellectual disability. This approach is inconsistent with accepted clinical standards.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Lizcano v. Texas

Ivy v. Morath

July 24, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Family member, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Person with a disability, Service provider / DSP Texas Civil rights Litigation/by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: 2016

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that Title II of the ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination in public “services, programs, or activities” and state and local governments may not evade Title II obligations by enlisting private entities to perform them. States and other public entities routinely rely on private entities to provide services, programs, or activities, such as operating schools, providing employment training, providing community and long-term housing and care services to people with disabilities, operating prisons, providing transportation, and more. Many of the areas in which states involve private entities to provide public services, programs, and activities are critical to ensuring that people with disabilities are able to live independently within the community, receive educational and employment opportunities, and not be denied access to basic government services and benefits.

Excerpt: “When the state administers a program of issuing an important public benefit – here, a driver’s license – by conditioning that benefit on participation in a service or program operated by a private entity, it has a Title II obligation to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the program and thus the benefit…[S]tates have experimented with a variety of arrangements to deliver public services and carry out public programs and activities through private entities. When the states’ administration, policies, directives, or actions lead to or allow disability-based discrimination in those public services, programs, and activities, the plain text of the statute holds the ‘public entity’ responsible. And the regulations…make clear that a public entity’s obligations extend not just to those services and benefits it provides ‘directly,’ nor even just to programs, services, or activities operated by private entities ‘through contractual . . . arrangements’ with the state, but also to state programs, services, and activities that enlist private entities through ‘licensing, or other arrangements.’

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Ivy v. Morath

Affordable Care Act Amicus Briefs

July 24, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Family member, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Person with a disability, Service provider / DSP Texas Civil rights, Health, Health Care Litigation/by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: April 1, 2019; May 13, 2020

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The briefs support the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and outline how the ACA has been essential to overcoming the disproportionate impact that America’s health care crisis has had on people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “…declaring the ACA unconstitutional in its entirety will uniquely and extensively harm [the disability] community…Congress could not have intended to inflict such harm upon people with disabilities when it removed the financial penalty associated with the ACA’s individual mandate but left the provisions above intact. And it is even more unlikely that it intended to do so without otherwise protecting disabled people who would shoulder much of the burden of invalidating the entire ACA. This Court should not ascribe such an intent to Congress and should reverse the district court’s decision which strips away the significant gains that people with disabilities have made since the ACA’s passage.”

Case Documents

Fifth Circuit Amicus Brief

Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Press Release: “The Arc Deeply Troubled by Affordable Care Act Ruling”

Press Release: “The Arc Joins Supreme Court Amicus Brief Urging Court to Uphold Affordable Care Act, Congressional Protections for People with Disabilities”

Press Release: “The Arc’s Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in California v. Texas“

Policy & Advocacy

Our Initiatives

Get Involved

Get Resources

About Us

Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott

Case Documents

Press Releases

Related Media

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

Case Documents

Related Media

HHS-OCR Complaints Re COVID-19 Medical Discrimination

Crisis Standard of Care Complaints

No-Visitor Complaints

Other Complaints

HHS-OCR Documents

Additional Resources

Press Releases

Related Media

Community for Permanent Supported Housing et al. v. Housing Authority of the City of Dallas

Case Documents

Related Media

Moore v. Texas

Case Documents

Related Media

Lizcano v. Texas

Case Documents

Ivy v. Morath

Case Documents

Affordable Care Act Amicus Briefs

Case Documents

Related Media

About Us

Policy & Advocacy

Our Initiatives

Sign Up for Email Updates