Posts

The Arc logo

What Do Moms Need?

/in , , , , /by The Arc

Last week, The Arc was excited to join nearly 50 national organizations that co-sponsored the #MomsDontNeed / #LasMamásNoNecesitan Tweet storm. On Twitter, we called attention to recent actions and policies that threaten mothers and families, and highlighted the kind of supports they and all people truly need to protect and advance their economic security, health, and more.

Moms with disabilities, and moms of children with disabilities, do so much. And across the nation, moms are working harder than ever. With Congress considering legislation to devastate our health care system, and with new reports of major cuts in the works to Medicaid, Social Security disability benefits, and other effective federal programs, so much is at stake – for moms, and for all of us. As The Arc celebrates Mother’s Day, here are three things that we know are vital to supporting mothers and their many contributions.

1. Access to Health Care and Long-Term Supports and Services. Health insurance under the Affordable Care Act can make all the difference in the world. Just listen to Lindsay, mother of toddler Calvin, if you’re not sure why. In addition, for many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Medicaid provides a range of essential medical and long-term supports and services that make community living a reality and for many, can be the difference between life and death. Unfortunately, the American Health Care Act (AHCA) – passed recently by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate – shows callous and dangerous disregard for the wellbeing of people with disabilities and their families. Among the bill’s many harmful provisions, the AHCA would decimate Medicaid, erase health insurance cost protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and cause people to lose essential health benefits under state waivers. The AHCA is one bill that #MomsDontNeed.

2. Economic Security. For most moms and families of children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, every penny counts. For example, raising a child with disabilities can be tremendously expensive due to major out of pocket medical and related costs, like adaptive equipment and therapies. For many families, earnings from work aren’t enough to maintain a basic standard of living and cover these often-extraordinary disability-related costs. It’s only possible because of income from Social Security’s disability programs, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Unfortunately, recent news reports suggest that President Trump’s 2018 budget will propose major cuts to Social Security disability benefits, as well as Medicaid and a host of other programs – totaling $800 billion in cuts. That’s another devastating idea that #MomsDontNeed.

3. Paid Family and Medical Leave. Moms with disabilities, and moms of children with disabilities, know better than most that time is a precious resource. At The Arc, we hear often from moms and dads struggling to get enough paid time off work: to be with a new baby in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; to care for a new baby with disabilities when they first come home; to take their son or daughter to medical appointments, therapies, and after school programs; to attend IEP meetings and other school appointments – and so much more. And while we all love Wonder Woman, let’s face it, moms get sick, too. Moms shouldn’t have to choose between a pay check and a child’s health, or a pay check and their own health. Not moms, not anyone. That’s why The Arc is joining the call for a robust federal paid family and medical leave program. We hope you’ll #JoinOurFight!

The Arc logo

The Arc Promotes Workforce Development for Egyptians With Disabilities Through U.S. Department of State Exchange Program

/in /by The Arc

[WASHINGTON, DC] The Arc will host Michael Mikhael, Executive Director and founding member at the Farah Foundation for Development in Alexandria, Egypt as a fellow in the U.S. Department of State’s Professional Fellows Program (PFP). This two-way exchange embraces the power of individual citizens to find creative solutions to challenges they face in both the United States and around the world. During the month-long fellowship program, mid-level foreign leaders and their U.S. counterparts build sustainable partnerships while enhancing their leadership and professional skills.

While in Washington, D.C., Michael will be exposed to innovative strategies of workforce development for people with disabilities. He will also have the opportunity to gain hands-on exposure to the different advocacy efforts that nonprofit organizations utilize in the struggle for disability rights. This parallels the PFP’s objective of broadening the professional expertise of individuals from around the world working to address common challenges, all while building enduring partnerships among American and foreign participants.

Michael comes to the U.S. with a strong background of supporting persons with disabilities. As early as 1993, he saw the need for economic empowerment programs that catered to individuals with disabilities while engaged in a church-led disability program, Faith and Light. Subsequently, in 2010, he established the Farah Foundation that has developed partnerships with the United Nations’ International Labor Organization (ILO) and the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) to implement a labor market access and entrepreneurship program for people with disabilities. The foundation also created a database where individuals may seek disability-friendly employment. Additionally, the agency developed an artisan-craft program through which women and people with disabilities are taught marketable craft skills. In addition to these workforce activities, the Farah Foundation supports an orphanage for children with disabilities in Alexandria, Egypt. Upon returning home, Michael believes this new knowledge will help his organization incorporate more sustainable, comprehensive programs for people with disabilities in Egypt.

“The Professional Fellows Program (PFP) is an extraordinary opportunity, and The Arc is thrilled to participate. During Michael’s month-long fellowship, not only will he gain invaluable advocacy and technical skills he can use when he returns to the Farah Foundation, but The Arc will simultaneously also deepen its cultural competency knowledge and understanding. It’s a win for both of us,” commented Jonathan Lucus, Managing Director, The Arc@Work.

The Arc is one of hundreds of U.S. organizations chosen to host Professional Fellows participants from more than 40 countries and territories this spring. At the conclusion of the program, May 30-June 1, more than 270 fellows will gather in Washington, D.C., for the Professional Fellows Congress, a three-day concluding event aimed at preparing fellows to implement follow-on projects upon their return home.

Since 2010, more than 2,000 participants from more than 77 countries have taken part in the PFP in cities across the U.S., and approximately 1,000 American hosts have participated in reciprocal exchanges overseas.

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 over 650 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.

Follow @ProFellows on Twitter and join the conversation using #ProFellows.

For press inquiries please contact:

Kristen McKiernan, Senior Executive Officer, Communications (mckiernan@thearc.org)

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: eca-press@state.gov

The Arc logo

The Arc Responds to House Passage of American Health Care Act: “Shows Callous and Dangerous Disregard for the Wellbeing of People With Disabilities”

/in , , , , /by The Arc

Washington, DC – The Arc released the following statement following the House of Representatives passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), with the addition of amendments that take the bill from bad to worse for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their families:

“Members of the House of Representatives who supported the American Health Care Act voted against their constituents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We won’t soon forget those who so willingly ignored the pleas of their constituents who rely on the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid for comprehensive health care coverage and long term services and supports that enable them to live full lives in the community. We must call this what it is – an attack on the rights and lives of people with disabilities.

“The federal government will be walking away from a more than 50 year partnership with states when it comes to Medicaid. Deep cuts and radical restructuring will decimate the Medicaid program. With an over $800 billion cut to Medicaid, states will face difficult choices about what people to cut from the program or what services to roll back. Optional services like home and community based services are likely to be cut. Lives will be lost when people are unable to access the health care and community supports they need.

“The plan that passed the House today is insufficient to keep people with disabilities insured or to support anyone with complex medical needs. If signed into law as currently written, this bill will result in people with disabilities and their family members losing health coverage in the private insurance market and in Medicaid. Coverage also becomes unaffordable as people with pre-existing conditions lose protections against higher premiums. Those lucky enough to retain their coverage will find that some of the services they need – Essential Health Benefits – are no longer available. And Medicaid funded long term supports and services, which help people live independently and be included in their communities, will be even scarcer as waiting lists for services will grow all across the country. Some may end up living in nursing homes and institutions because community services are no longer available.

“The American Health Care Act shows callous and dangerous disregard for the wellbeing of people with disabilities and their families and erases decades of progress. Now we turn to the Senate, our last line of defense. We intend to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to oppose this harmful legislation. We continue to encourage disability advocates across the country to reach out to their Senators to voice their concern about this bill,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc.

This week, The Arc released another video illustrating how Congress’ proposed changes to the ACA and Medicaid would negatively impact Americans with disabilities and their families. The video features an interview with Toby, Lindsay, and Calvin from Fairfax, VA. Calvin has Bilateral Fronto-Parietal Polymicrogyria and Cerebral Palsy and relies on multiple insurance plans to cover his medical and therapeutic treatments.

This video is the second in a series of videos The Arc will be releasing in the coming weeks, sharing the personal stories of people with disabilities and their families, and the impact of the ACA and Medicaid on their lives. The first video featured nine people who rely on the ACA and/or Medicaid, and each one has a personal message for Members of Congress and the Trump Administration.

The Arc logo

New Series Starts Off by Getting Disability Wrong

/in /by The Arc

Over the years, we’ve seen flawed, misleading reporting on Social Security’s disability programs from National Public Radio, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times. Unfortunately, with the recent launch of a new, widely-criticized series, “Disabled America,” The Washington Post has joined the ranks of news media leaving the public with false impressions about Social Security disability benefits — and even, getting the facts plain wrong.

The Post’s new series will focus on how disability “…is shaping the culture, economy and politics…” of rural communities. The first article featured Desmond Spencer of Beaverton, Alabama as he made the difficult decision to call the Social Security Administration to ask about applying for disability benefits. The article relates that Mr. Spencer acquired painful, ongoing injuries during many years working as a roofer, welder, ranch hand, and garbage collector – including falling off a roof and being unable to get treatment due to his lack of health insurance. Readers do not learn whether Mr. Spencer ever applies for benefits, and do not know if he will qualify.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) summed up the first article’s many flaws:

“…the article cherry-picks one of the counties with the highest rates of disability benefit receipt, to create a dystopian portrait where Social Security disability benefits represent out-of-control government spending riddled with rampant abuse.

Reality looks quite a bit different.”

After digging in, CAP researchers revealed that the Post’s numbers are “flat-out wrong,” including its assertion that up to one-third of working-age adults in many rural counties receive disability benefits. CAP explained in detail the errors in the Post’s analysis and why that conclusion simply cannot be substantiated. The Post issued a correction – and CAP and others quickly pointed out ongoing major problems with the Post’s data, even after the correction.

Thirty-one national disability organizations subsequently called on the Post to correct and clarify the skewed and misleading numbers that remain in the article. Numerous groups have called out a host of additional problems with the story and data. And the Huffington Post and Des Moines Gazette have reported on the article’s flaws.

With the President’s budget director signaling that cuts to Social Security disability benefits may be under consideration, it’s vital that reporters get the facts right. Here’s a round-up of analyses and responses.

The Arc logo

The Arc Video Offers Disability and Family Perspective on Looming Healthcare Reforms

/in /by The Arc

Washington, DC – Today, The Arc is releasing another video illustrating how Congress’ proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid would negatively impact Americans with disabilities and their families. The video features an interview with Toby, Lindsay, and Calvin from Fairfax, VA. Calvin has Bilateral Fronto-Parietal Polymicrogyria and Cerebral Palsy and relies on multiple insurance plans to cover his medical and therapeutic treatments.

This family’s story is shared by thousands of families across the country who are imploring Congress to keep the ACA and leave Medicaid untouched to allow their loved ones to continue to receive the supports they need to live full and independent lives. Here are some of the key ways in which the passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) will impact Toby, Lindsay and Calvin, and others in the intellectual and developmental disability community:

  • Proposes a more than $800 billion cut to Medicaid over the next decade, the program which provides funding for essential services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to live independent and healthy lives;
  • Allows for insurance companies to discriminate against people with disabilities by using pre-existing conditions as a pretext for higher and often unaffordable health care premiums;
  • Places more pressure on states to support an already under-funded program, which will result in smaller budgets, less coverage and fewer services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

“The Arc opposes the AHCA and the proposed changes to the bill, as both will have widespread and terrible consequences for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families. Congress needs to realize that a vote for the proposed health care reform is a vote against the health and wellbeing of their constituents, which include people with disabilities,” said Marty Ford, Senior Executive Officer, The Arc.

This video is the second in a series of videos The Arc will be releasing in the coming weeks, sharing the personal stories of people with disabilities and their families, and the impact of the ACA and Medicaid on their lives. The first video featured nine people who rely on the ACA and/or Medicaid, and each one has a personal message for Members of Congress and the Trump Administration.

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 over 650 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.

The Arc logo

RE: Clemency for Ledell Lee

/in , , , , /by The Arc

Dear Governor Hutchinson:

I write on behalf of The Arc of the United States (The Arc) to urge you to commute the death sentence of Ledell Lee pending a full clinical evaluation to determine whether Mr. Lee has an intellectual disability (ID). The Arc is a national non-profit organization which, for over 65 years, has sought to promote and protect the civil and human rights of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities through the work of its national office and over 650 state and local chapters throughout the country. Through its National Center on Criminal Justice and Disability®, The Arc seeks justice for those with ID who find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system, often without necessary accommodations or understanding of their disability.

The Arc has deep sympathy for the family and friends of the victims in this case, and we support appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. However, Mr. Lee’s history is replete with evidence indicating a potential ID diagnosis, which would bring him under the protection of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), and the more recent decision in Moore v. Texas, No. 15–797, slip op. (U.S. Mar. 28, 2017).

In its 2002 Atkins decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the special risk of wrongful execution faced by persons with ID (formerly termed “mental retardation”) and banned the execution of persons with ID as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, noting that individuals with ID “do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct” and that “[n]o legitimate penological purpose is served by executing a person with intellectual disability…to impose the harshest of punishments on an intellectually disabled person violates his or her inherent dignity as a human being.” In its 2014 Hall decision, the U.S. Supreme Court further clarified its decision that people with ID not be executed in violation of the Constitution, requiring that adaptive behavior evidence, beyond IQ test scores alone, be taken into account when determining whether an individual has ID. The more recent Moore case further confirms adaptive behavior criteria as necessary in determining whether someone meets diagnostic criteria for ID, and that such criteria must comport with modern clinical and scientific understanding of ID.

The evidence presented by the neuropsychological expert in this case, Dr. Dale Watson, supports the conclusion that if Mr. Lee undergoes a full evaluation, he will likely meet the three prongs of an ID diagnosis: (1) significantly impaired intellectual functioning; (2) adaptive behavior deficits in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills; and (3) origination of the disability before the age of 18. In order to complete his analysis, Mr. Lee’s adaptive deficits and history during the developmental period (before age 18) need to be fully assessed. Individuals with ID—like everyone else—differ substantially from one another. For each person with ID there will be things he or she cannot do but also many things he or she can do. Because the mixture of skill strengths and skill deficits varies widely among persons with ID, there is no clinically accepted list of common, ordinary strengths or abilities that would preclude a diagnosis of ID. Thus, the focus in assessing an individual’s adaptive behavior must be on deficits. As recently confirmed in Moore, adaptive strengths are irrelevant to this analysis and IQ alone cannot paint a full picture of whether a person has an ID. Thus, we urge that Mr. Lee receive a full evaluation for ID to determine whether he may be eligible for the Atkins constitutional protection from the death penalty.

Given the high likelihood of ID in this case, it is troubling that the lawyers who represented Mr. Lee throughout his trial failed to properly investigate evidence of Mr. Lee’s potential ID. As a result, no evidence of Mr. Lee’s potential disability was presented to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. If a full evaluation confirms Mr. Lee’s suspected diagnosis of ID, then Mr. Lee’s death sentence violates current prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Atkins, Hall, and Moore.

The Arc does not seek to eliminate punishment of Mr. Lee or others with disabilities, but rather, to ensure that justice is served and the rights of all parties are protected. The Arc is committed to seeking lawful outcomes for people with ID and will continue working to ensure that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this issue are abided by in jurisdictions across the country. I humbly ask that you consider commutation to address the possibility of an unconstitutional miscarriage of justice in the case of Ledell Lee.

Most respectfully,

Peter V. Berns
Chief Executive Officer
The Arc of the United States

The Arc logo

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

/in /by The Arc

By: Shira Wakschlag, Director of Legal Advocacy & Associate General Counsel; Ariel Simms, Criminal Justice Attorney Fellow

In decisively rejecting these “Briseno factors,” the Court embraces the standards-based approach in determining intellectual disability for which The Arc has long advocated. When it comes to matters of life and death, there is simply no room for courts to ground their determinations of intellectual disability in outmoded and baseless stereotypes.

On Tuesday, in the third decision in favor of people with disabilities in the Supreme Court this term, the Court issued a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the death penalty case Moore v. Texas. The opinion rejects Texas’ use of stereotypical and outdated factors—rather than well-established clinical standards—to determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases on the grounds that they “create an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” This is a major victory in protecting the rights of individuals with intellectual disability in the criminal justice system and in fulfilling the promise of two Supreme Court cases setting the standard that execution of people with intellectual disability is unconstitutional (Hall v. Florida (2014) and Atkins v. Virginia (2002)).

In Atkins, the Court held that executing defendants with intellectual disability violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequently, in Hall, 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. While the Court’s prohibition of the execution of defendants with intellectual disability could not be clearer, some states continue to define intellectual disability in a manner that significantly deviates from clinical standards, resulting in a miscarriage of justice for many defendants.

In this case, Bobby Moore, was convicted of killing a store clerk at the age of 20 in a botched robbery along with two accomplices. He was sentenced to death and challenged that sentence on the grounds of intellectual disability. In 2014, a state habeas court ruled that Moore did meet the criteria for intellectual disability and recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) reduce Moore’s sentence to life in prison or grant him a new trial on the intellectual disability claim. On appeal, however, the CCA ruled that Moore did not meet the criteria for intellectual disability, finding that the lower court had failed to apply the seven-factor test laid out in an earlier Texas opinion, Ex Parte Briseno. The “Briseno factors” rely on stereotypes—rather than clinical definitions—through “the consensus of Texas citizens” in defining intellectual disability and are partly based on the character of Lennie in John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. Using these factors, the CCA found that, among other things, Moore’s ability to live on the streets, mow lawns, and play pool for money precluded a finding of intellectual disability and disregarded several IQ tests Moore had taken with scores in the intellectual disability range.

Decisively rejecting this ruling and referring to the Briseno factors as “wholly nonclinical” and an “invention of the CCA untied to any acknowledged source,” the Supreme Court held unanimously that such factors are impermissible to use in defining intellectual disability in death penalty cases. The Court noted that the Briseno factors were an “outlier” and that Texas did not employ this unscientific approach in determining intellectual disability in any legal issues other than the death penalty: “Texas cannot satisfactorily explain why it applies current medical standards for diagnosing intellectual disability in other contexts, yet clings to superseded standards when an individual’s life is at stake.”

Even Justices who disagreed with other aspects of the ruling (Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas) agreed that the Briseno factors “are an unacceptable method of enforcing the guarantee of Atkins.” They disagreed that the CCA had erred in its determination of Moore’s intellectual functioning. The dissent criticized the majority opinion for its reliance on clinical standards as opposed to legal interpretation and precedent, noting: “clinicians, not judges, should determine clinical standards; and judges, not clinicians, should determine the content of the Eighth Amendment. Today’s opinion confuses those roles.”

With the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, The Arc filed an amicus brief in August 2016 in support of Moore and The Arc’s attorneys attended oral arguments at the Court in November 2016. The brief, cited in the Court’s opinion, argued that the state of Texas had distorted the clinical definition of intellectual disability by devising a formula of exclusionary factors that rested heavily on stereotypes and the mistaken notion that an ability to do things like engage in relationships, work, and live in the community precluded a finding of intellectual disability based on simultaneous limitations or challenges. Specifically, the brief noted that the “basic framework of the clinical definition is the constitutionally required standard for determining whether a defendant has intellectual disability.” Jim Ellis, a Distinguished Professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law who represented The Arc in this case said: “The Arc of the United States and its state chapters have played a vital role in protecting the rights of people with intellectual disability” in death penalty cases.

In decisively rejecting these “Briseno factors,” the Court embraces the standards-based approach in determining intellectual disability for which The Arc has long advocated. When it comes to matters of life and death, there is simply no room for courts to ground their determinations of intellectual disability in outmoded and baseless stereotypes.

The Arc has deep sympathy for the family and friends of the victim in this case, and we support appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. The Arc does not seek to eliminate punishment of Mr. Moore or others with disabilities, but rather, to ensure that justice is served and the rights of all parties are protected. The Arc is committed to seeking lawful outcomes for people with intellectual disability and will continue working to ensure that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this issue are abided by in jurisdictions across the country.

The Arc logo

The Arc Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Special Education Case: “The IDEA Demands More”

/in , /by The Arc

By: Shira Wakschlag, Director of Legal Advocacy & Associate General Counsel

On Wednesday, in the second major win for students with disabilities and their families before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, the Court issued a unanimous decision in the special education case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court clarified the test for determining whether school districts have met their obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities, definitively rejecting the incredibly low standard utilized by the Tenth Circuit in this case. Specifically, the Court held that:

To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances…After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement…A substantive standard not focused on student progress would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagnation that prompted Congress to act.

Significantly, this is the first time the Court has articulated a specific standard of review for educational benefit required for schools to meet their FAPE obligations under the IDEA. In 1982, the Court held in Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley that the IDEA establishes a substantive right to FAPE for children with disabilities but declined to establish a specific standard for determining when children with disabilities are receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy the IDEA. Lower courts have thus interpreted this substantive right in a variety of ways, some applying an incredibly low standard of review as the Tenth Circuit did in this case, while others have established a higher bar and called for a “meaningful benefit” standard.

Here, Drew, a child with autism, was removed from public school in fourth grade by his parents when his behavior began deteriorating and he ceased making academic progress. His IEP repeated the same basic goals from year to year, indicating a lack of progress toward the IEP goals. His parents believed a dramatic change to the IEP was necessary, but the school district continued to present the same IEP without any meaningful changes. Accordingly, Drew’s parents put him in a private school that specialized in educating students with autism and developed a behavioral intervention plan as well as more meaningful and robust academic goals. As a result, Drew began making dramatic progress. Drew’s parents then met again with the school district who presented them with a new IEP that did not incorporate any goals or approaches that would match the level of services he was receiving at the private school.

His parents filed a complaint with the Colorado Department of Education seeking tuition reimbursement for Drew’s private school due to the school district’s failure to provide him with a FAPE since his final IEP was not “reasonably calculated to enable him to receive educational benefits.” The Administrative Law Judge disagreed and the district court and Tenth Circuit affirmed. Citing Rowley and prior Tenth Circuit precedent, the panel noted that it had long interpreted Rowley’s “some educational benefit” requirement to mean that an IEP was adequate as long as it was calculated to confer an educational benefit that is “merely more than de minimis.” “De minimis” is a Latin phrase meaning “so minor as to merit disregard.”

As noted above, the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected this bare bones approach to evaluating educational benefit and articulated a new, higher standard. The Court explained that when a child with a disability is integrated into the regular classroom, the IDEA typically requires providing a level of instruction that is reasonably calculated to permit advancement through the general curriculum. Where that is not a reasonable expectation, this does not mean that the IEP should be stripped of substantive and meaningful standards. Rather, the IEP:

must be appropriately ambitious in light of [the student’s] circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives. (Emphasis added.)

It is important to note that this decision overturns a standard utilized by Judge Neil Gorsuch who just completed his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee following his nomination to the Supreme Court. Last week, The Arc published a review of Judge Gorsuch’s record on disability rights and highlighted his decision in Thompson R2-JSchool District v. Luke P. in which he employed the merely more than de minimis standard that was later used by the Tenth Circuit in the present case. Dr. Jeffrey Perkins, Luke’s father, testified before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, noting that Judge Gorsuch’s articulated standard for an educational benefit that is “just above meaningless” was “devastating” to the family and “threatened” Luke’s “access to an appropriate education and thus to a meaningful and dignified life.” As Dr. Perkins explained:

Luke will always need support in a world that still seems perplexing and threatening to him. But his quality of life after 13 years of appropriate education is vastly better than it would have been otherwise. He cooks and does household chores. He is able to shop, work, eat and play in the community…His present life would not have been achievable without an appropriate education.

In his 10th Circuit ruling, Judge Gorsuch eviscerated the educational standard guaranteed by the IDEA…Legal philosophy and case law aside, such an interpretation clearly fails the common sense test. Why would Congress pass a law with such a trivial intent?

The Arc, as part of a large coalition of disability advocacy groups, participated in an amicus brief in support of Drew in November and attended oral arguments before the Court in January. While the standard articulated by the Court is not a detailed formula that specifically defines what appropriate progress will look like from case to case, it is unquestionably more demanding than the standard laid out by Judge Gorsuch and various other circuit court judges. In a time when the ability of people with disabilities to live in the community is under threat, the Court’s unequivocal statement that the “IDEA demands more” is a major victory for students with disabilities and their families that should be celebrated.

The Arc logo

What’s at Stake at the Supreme Court for People With Disabilities? The Arc Reviews Judge Gorsuch’s Record on Disability Rights

/in /by The Arc

By: Shira Wakschlag, Director of Legal Advocacy & Associate General Counsel

On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set for March 20. A close review of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions pertaining to people with disabilities reveals a jurist with an exceptionally narrow view of the protections offered by federal disability rights laws—an approach that has led to deeply troubling results for members of The Arc in the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction. While Judge Gorsuch is a staunch proponent of the inherent dignity of all human beings, including those with disabilities, during his tenure on the Tenth Circuit he has not been a champion for robust enforcement of disability rights laws that are so crucial to enabling individuals with disabilities to lead dignified lives in the community, free from discrimination.

In cases involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act in which Judge Gorsuch authored the majority or concurring opinion, he almost always ruled against the plaintiff with a disability. Perhaps the most common thread uniting these opinions is Judge Gorsuch’s strictly textualist approach to interpreting laws. This approach leads him to frequently disregard legislative history and Congressional intent in favor of deciphering the “objective” meaning of the law’s text in a vacuum, ultimately resulting in very narrow interpretations of the protections guaranteed by federal disability rights laws.

For example, in Hwang v. Kansas State University (2014), the plaintiff, a professor who had been employed by the university for 15 years, requested to extend her 6-month medical leave for a finite period. Due to a cancer diagnosis and weakened immune system, she sought to avoid a flu epidemic that arose on campus. When her employer refused to make an exception to its 6-month leave policy, the plaintiff sued, alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. Judge Gorsuch found for the defendant employer on the grounds that, as a matter of law, a leave of more than 6 months was not a reasonable accommodation. In this opinion, Judge Gorsuch demonstrated a troubling view of disability accommodations in the workplace, implying that the plaintiff employee was seeking not to work and should therefore be funneled into the public benefits system rather than the workplace:

Ms. Hwang’s is a…problem other forms of social security aim to address. The Rehabilitation Act seeks to prevent employers from callously denying reasonable accommodations that permit otherwise qualified disabled persons to work—not to turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work.

Remarkably, Judge Gorsuch affirmed dismissal of the case prior to fact discovery, thereby precluding the plaintiff from the ability to present evidence. He also failed to engage in the individualized inquiry required in such cases, in conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and four other circuit courts (in addition to a prior conflicting decision within the Tenth Circuit). An amicus brief on behalf of several disability rights advocacy groups requesting a rehearing referred to the decision as “unprecedented.”

Another standout case is Thompson R2-JSchool District v. Luke P. (2008), in which Judge Gorsuch articulated an extraordinarily low standard for educational benefit that is now under review before the U.S. Supreme Court in another case arising from the Tenth Circuit, Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. Re-1. In Luke P., the hearing officer, administrative law judge, and the district court found for the student, noting that the district had failed to provide a free appropriate public education as demonstrated by the student’s inability to generalize the skills he learned at school to settings outside of school. These decisions were based on the notion that this level of minimal progress towards IEP goals was not enough to constitute a meaningful educational benefit under the IDEA. Judge Gorsuch disagreed:

[A] school district is not required to provide every service that would benefit a student if it has found a formula that can reasonably be expected to generate some progress on that student’s IEP goals…Rather, [the IDEA] much more modestly calls for the creation of individualized programs reasonably calculated to enable the student to make some progress towards the goals within that program.

In finding for the school district, Judge Gorsuch rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the purpose of the IDEA, as stated clearly by Congress, was to help students with disabilities achieve more meaningful progress that led to a greater possibility of independent living. Despite legislative history to the contrary, Judge Gorsuch noted that independence was not an outcome-oriented guarantee of the law. In November, along with a large coalition of disability advocates, The Arc submitted an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging this same low standard employed by the Tenth Circuit in the Endrew F. case. In another IDEA case, A.F. v. Espanola Public Schools (2015), where Judge Gorsuch found for the school district, the dissenting judge noted that the outcome “was clearly not the intent of Congress and…harms the interest of the children that IDEA was intended to protect.”

Judge Gorsuch has also demonstrated a narrow view of class actions, a crucial tool for individuals with disabilities to enforce their rights in court. For example, in Shook v. Board of County Commissioners of County of El Paso (2008), Judge Gorsuch affirmed the denial of class certification to a group of plaintiffs alleging that jail conditions for prisoners with psychiatric disabilities violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual treatment. In so finding, Judge Gorsuch reasoned that it would be too difficult to craft appropriate systemic relief for the class as a whole given the variety of psychiatric disabilities represented in the class.

These decisions are more than just abstract discussions of legal theories – they have real-life consequences for The Arc’s constituents. In particular, Judge Gorsuch’s effectively pro-school district stance has been devastating for students with disabilities and special education advocates in the Tenth Circuit. Advocates from AdvocacyDenver (a chapter of The Arc), noted that the Luke P. decision was “seismic” for students with disabilities in Colorado, leading school districts to believe that they had a champion in the Tenth Circuit. This dramatically changed their approach to IEP disputes and empowered them to act to the detriment of students with disabilities under the belief that they would almost always prevail in court. Overall, advocates from the chapter noted that the Tenth Circuit offers some of the weakest protections for students with disabilities and their families in the country and that Judge Gorsuch’s decisions on the IDEA have had deeply problematic results for special education advocates and students with disabilities in Colorado.

On the other hand, Judge Gorsuch, like The Arc, is a staunch opponent of physician-assisted suicide. While he has not yet addressed this issue in court, Judge Gorsuch authored a 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, in which he notes that: “[a]ll human beings are intrinsically valuable…any line we might draw between human beings for purposes of determining who must live and who may die ultimately seems to devolve into an arbitrary exercise of picking out which particular instrumental capacities one especially likes.” Among other reasons for his opposition, Judge Gorsuch links the practice to the history of societal devaluation of people with disabilities embodied by the eugenics movement, flagging the inherent risk for abuse the system poses for people with disabilities.

Judge Gorsuch’s views on this subject and his recognition of the inherent dignity of people with disabilities reflect an important area of common ground. The question is whether his jurisprudence will ever link this belief in inherent dignity with a robust protection of rights that is so crucial to the ability of people with disabilities to learn, work, and lead dignified lives in the community among their peers. During his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, the answer to this question has largely been no.

More information about Judge Gorsuch’s majority and concurring opinions relating to disability rights can be found here.

The Arc logo

The Arc on CBO Score of American Health Care Act

/in /by The Arc

Washington, DC – The Arc released the following statement in response to the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the American Health Care Act, the plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act:

“The numbers are in, and they are devastating for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) score of the American Health Care Act confirms what we already knew – this bill is dangerous and the price we will pay is the health of millions of Americans including those with disabilities. We were promised a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, yet the plan laid out by this bill is insufficient to keep people with disabilities insured or support anyone with complex medical needs. The numbers underscore how dire the situation is, estimating that by next year 14 million more Americans would be uninsured and by 2026, 24 million will be without insurance.

“This bill is paid for by permanently altering the federal/state partnership of Medicaid, the primary health insurance program for people with disabilities. Thanks to the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, millions of people, including people with disabilities, their family members, and their support professionals, have gained access to health coverage. Medicaid also is the single largest source of funding for the long term supports and services people with disabilities depend on to live and work in the community, and to avoid even more costly institutional care.

“The American Health Care Act will undo all of that by cutting $880 billion from Medicaid in the next decade, leading to 14 million fewer individuals being covered by Medicaid by 2026. Lives have been saved because people have had access to affordable, comprehensive health coverage, including long term supports and services. It isn’t hard to imagine what the outcome

will be as this program is cut and restructured. CBO anticipated that, in response to changes made by the bill, states could ‘cut payments to health care providers and health plans, eliminate optional services, restrict eligibility for enrollment, or (to the extent feasible) change the way services are delivered to save costs.’ Supporters of this bill are putting the health, wellbeing, and freedom of their constituents with disabilities at risk.

“This bill shows complete disregard for the health of people with disabilities. Claims that this bill makes health insurance more affordable are simply untrue. Look at the numbers, they show the reality of what this legislation will do,” said Peter Berns, CEO of 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 over 650 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.