吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal court ruled last week that the federal agencies responsible for parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C. violated federal disability law by systematically failing to meaningfully consider and accommodate people with disabilities. The class action lawsuit was brought by two D.C. residents with disabilities, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP. Plaintiffs challenged the federal government鈥檚 post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. The court鈥檚 decision granted plaintiffs鈥� motion for summary judgment on liability. 鈥淭his decision makes clear that failing to provide people with all types of disabilities the accommodations they need to comply with supervision is discrimination, plain and simple,鈥� said Allison Frankel, senior staff attorney at the ACLU鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淧eople with disabilities should have a fair chance to comply with the myriad supervision rules and remain in their communities, instead of being set up to fail from the start. We are celebrating this victory for our clients, and we are committed to continue fighting to ensure that people with disabilities on supervision across the country receive the accommodations they are legally entitled to.鈥� For D.C. residents, a criminal sentence can extend for years beyond their time behind bars through parole or supervised release, which requires people to comply with myriad and onerous conditions. Failing to follow conditions, like missing a single appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. In 2021 and 2022, 10 percent of all individuals under supervision in D.C. faced violation proceedings solely for technical violations of release conditions. Among people with disabilities, the percentage was nearly twice as high (18 percent). People with disabilities are over-represented among the supervision population and face heightened barriers to meeting supervision requirements. 鈥淒iscrimination against people with disabilities is incompatible with justice,鈥� said Laura Follansbee, staff attorney at the ACLU of D.C. 鈥淭his ruling is an important victory for equal access, and it affirms that people with disabilities must have a genuine opportunity to succeed on parole and supervised release in D.C.鈥� The ACLU has documented similar barriers that people with disabilities under supervision face across the country. In 2024, the organization released a report providing guidance for people with disabilities seeking accommodations, as well as tools for advocates working to challenge systemic barriers. 鈥淔or years, the government has failed to accommodate individuals with disabilities on parole and supervised release in D.C., as required by law,鈥� said Christine Smith, associate at Latham & Watkins, who argued the motion. 鈥淭his ruling is a significant step toward securing lasting institutional reform and ensuring that all people have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision.鈥� The decision is here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Memorandum-Opinion-Granting-Summary-Judgment-on-Liability

LUBBOCK, Texas 鈥� Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted an order implementing a settlement between the federal government, Texas, and four other states. The court order vacates provisions referencing the longstanding right to community integration for people with disabilities in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs. The federal government鈥檚 Section 504 regulations have included integration provisions since 1977. The court鈥檚 order in Texas v. Kennedy accepting the parties鈥� agreement breaks with decades of caselaw recognizing and upholding the right of people with disabilities to live, learn, and work in their communities. We strongly and unequivocally condemn the federal government's abandonment of its duty to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities. The court鈥檚 order does not impact other portions of the 2024 HHS Section 504 Rule or any other agency鈥檚 disability rights regulations. Nor does it change the statutory requirements in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Longstanding legal precedent across the country makes clear that federal law requires state and local governments to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate and prohibit the unnecessary institutionalization and segregation of people with disabilities. We will not go back. This statement was created by The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Justice in Aging, the National Health Law Program, and American Civil Liberties Union, with contributions by Alison Barkoff, Hirsh Health Law and Policy Associate Professor, George Washington University.

RICHMOND, Va. 鈥� The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed a lower court and ruled that a woman who is suing North Carolina prison officials for violating her rights under the Eighth Amendment and federal disability rights laws can bring her claims to trial. She is seeking damages for being shackled by prison officials shortly before, during, and after childbirth, and being denied her access to medication for opioid use disorder after giving birth. The woman, Tracey Edwards, was incarcerated in the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women (NCCIW). Prison officials abruptly cut off Ms. Edwards' medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) after she gave birth, causing an extremely painful, dangerous, and unnecessary withdrawal. They also kept Ms. Edwards shackled shortly before, and at times during and after giving birth 鈥� in direct violation of the prison system鈥檚 own policy 鈥� causing severe pain and interfering with Ms. Edwards鈥� ability to bond with her newborn child. Ms. Edwards brought claims for damages under the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and federal disability rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Her claims were thrown out by the district court, but today鈥檚 ruling from the Fourth Circuit reverses that decision and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings. 鈥淢ore than half a decade after Ms. Edwards faced horrific treatment behind bars, she鈥檚 still fighting for accountability for what happened to her. In the midst of a deadly overdose crisis, we need to use every tool at our disposal to save lives, including medication for opioid use disorder,鈥� said Joseph Longley, staff attorney with the ACLU Disability Rights Program. 鈥淚nstead of banning care, jails and prisons should be providing the basic health care that incarcerated people need to survive.鈥� In the opinion written by the three-judge panel, the court recognizes the 鈥済rowing recognition that substance use and [opioid use disorder] are disabilities.鈥� The judges also write that a reasonable jury could conclude that Ms. Edwards鈥� shackling during childbirth and the denial of MOUD was 鈥渇ar from constitutionally adequate treatment.鈥� 鈥淢s. Edwards should have never been shackled or denied MOUD. These actions not only had severe impacts on her health and well-being, but gravely violated her civil rights and the prison's own policies. We're grateful the court will allow Ms. Edwards to bring her case to trial,鈥� said Hassan Zavareei, managing partner at Tycko & Zavareei LLP. The court also writes that it is 鈥渃learly established鈥� that there is a 鈥渃onstitutional right to receive adequate medical care and to be free from officials鈥� deliberate indifference to their known medical needs.鈥� 鈥淭his is a refreshing win that furthers what we already know: denial of MOUD violates the law and courts are willing to demand accountability,鈥� said Amelia Caramadre, attorney at Kaplan & Grady. 鈥淧rison officials broke their own rules to shackle Ms. Edwards during labor and childbirth, then invoked their own rules to abruptly cut off her medication, throwing her into withdrawal and leaving her in pain she described as worse than the pain of giving birth,鈥� said Samuel Weiss, Executive Director of Rights Behind Bars. 鈥淲e should not tolerate this kind of treatment in our prisons any more than we would tolerate it anywhere else.鈥� Ms. Edwards was represented in the appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina, Rights Behind Bars, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Kaplan & Grady LLC.