吃瓜大本营

NEW YORK 鈥� Disability rights organizations today filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to reverse a lower court decision to dismiss a case brought by a blind woman who was excluded from jury service because of her disability. The case involves a blind woman, Emeline Lakrout, who sued the New York State Unified Court System after she was excluded from jury service because the court denied her accommodations for her disability. Her claims were dismissed by a federal district court, and Ms. Lakrout has filed an appeal in the Second Circuit to vindicate her rights. 鈥淭he importance of jury service as a fundamental civic duty cannot be understated. When disabled people are excluded from this core form of civic participation, it undermines the fairness of the judicial system and denies individuals with disabilities representation in the process,鈥� said Malhar Shah, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Disability Rights Program. 鈥淭his is about more than one juror 鈥� New York courts have repeatedly failed to remove systemic barriers that prevent disabled people from serving on juries. Accessibility isn鈥檛 optional, and we hope the Second Circuit states that clearly.鈥� The amicus brief argues that excluding Ms. Lakrout from jury service violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 鈥淏lind prospective jurors face pervasive institutional barriers to jury service that are not the result of discriminatory individual decisions but are instead the result of the widespread failures of courts to take the required affirmative steps to include and accommodate disabled court users, including identifying and providing the auxiliary aids and services that a person may need. Enforcement of Section 504 and the ADA is thus critical to the ability of blind people to exercise their fundamental duties of citizenship, including jury service,鈥� the brief reads. 鈥淚t is frankly unacceptable that New York courts are excluding people with disabilities from jury service, calling into question whether our judicial system serves all New Yorkers equally,鈥� said Beth Haroules, director of disability justice litigation at the NYCLU. 鈥淣o one should be turned away from a fundamental civic duty simply because they have a disability. Our laws require accommodations to dismantle systemic barriers for people with disabilities, and the Second Circuit must uphold this basic right.鈥� Systemic barriers continue to cause widespread exclusion of blind and otherwise disabled jurors, and affirmative steps need to be taken to include jurors with disabilities, according to the brief. This includes securing auxiliary aids and services like screen readers and assistive listening devices used to provide effective communication, developing accommodation policies, and training staff to implement accommodations. Excluding jurors with disabilities, the brief argues, undermines the fairness, representativeness, and legitimacy of the judicial system. The brief in Lakrout v. New York Unified Court System was submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Disability Rights New York, and the National Disability Rights Network. The brief is available here: /cases/lakrout-v-new-york-state-unified-court-system?document=Amicus-Brief

Syringe Service Programs provide access to crucial health services to people with substance use disorders. The ACLU is fighting against bans that limit these lifesaving programs.

PORTLAND, Ore. 鈥� People with disabilities and disability rights advocates have filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Portland, Multnomah County, and their top elected officials, alleging that the jurisdictions' emergency management systems fail to protect people with disabilities before, during, and after disasters 鈥� in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Oregon law. 鈥淔ive years ago, as temperatures soared above 115 degrees, far too many disabled Portland residents could not reach cooling centers or even access usable emergency information. As a result, people with disabilities were overrepresented among those who died,鈥� said Malhar Shah, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Disability Rights Program. 鈥淲ith the threat of extreme weather and disasters like wildfires only accelerating, Portland and Multnomah County have a legal duty to make their emergency system accessible to people with disabilities and give them the equal opportunity to survive.鈥� The complaint seeks to avoid a repetition of the city of Portland and Multnomah County's response to the June 2021 extreme heat wave, when temperatures reached an all-time high of 116 degrees and 69 people died of heat-related causes in Multnomah County 鈥� with people with disabilities overrepresented among the dead. Many victims lived on upper floors of multi-family housing, in trailers and RVs, or were unhoused. Survivors with disabilities reported being unable to reach cooling centers, obtain accessible transportation, or access timely, usable emergency information. That risk is not abstract. A local wildfire expert who studied the 2025 Eaton Fire in Los Angeles 鈥� which killed at least 17 people and destroyed 9,000 structures 鈥� found that Portland is less prepared and has fewer resources than Los Angeles did before that disaster. Forest Park has only two wildfire-detection cameras, and Southeast Portland's Oaks Bottom area, where three fires have already ignited this year, has none at all. 鈥淲e鈥檙e in a wildfire emergency right now statewide and people with disabilities cannot be an afterthought,鈥� said Jake Cornett, executive director at Disability Rights Oregon. 鈥淲e often hear about victims with disabilities in the aftermath of disasters 鈥� and that鈥檚 not good enough. We need the city and county to have an inclusive plan to evacuate and shelter people with disabilities long before a wildfire, flood, earthquake, or some other disaster strikes.鈥� The lawsuit was filed by Disability Rights Oregon, Disability Law United, the American Civil Liberties Union, and law firm Cambreleng & Marton, and names the City of Portland, Multnomah County, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, and Multnomah County Board Chair Jessica Vega Pederson as defendants. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Disability Rights Oregon, Oregon鈥檚 federally designated protection and advocacy organization, and Bridges Oregon, a nonprofit that serves Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing, and Late-Deafened Oregonians. Three individuals also join the case: Audra Pearson, a Portland resident with cerebral palsy who relies on a powered wheelchair, paratransit, and round-the-clock caregiver support: 鈥淚 can't just grab a bag and walk out the door during an emergency 鈥� I need an accessible vehicle, a shelter that fits my wheelchair, and staff who know how to help me. Nobody has ever asked what I'd need to survive a disaster, even though it's obvious I'd need help. That has to change before it costs someone their life." Jonathan Simeone, a Portland homeowner who is blind: 鈥淟earning about the emergency system created and maintained by Portland and Multnomah County, I realized they do not include those of us with disabilities in their emergency planning and that their violations of our civil rights have resulted in those of us with disabilities being more likely to suffer injury or death during an emergency simply because we are disabled and Portland and Multnomah County have not considered the rights of disabled people with the care they have considered the rights of nondisabled people." Philip Wolfe, a Deaf Portland resident: "I have the same right to survive a disaster as anyone else, but every time there鈥檚 a wildfire, heat wave, or other dangerous emergency, I worry whether I'll get the information I need in time.鈥� The lawsuit alleges that Portland and Multnomah County's emergency system denies people with disabilities meaningful access at every phase of disaster response: Alerts and warnings are shared in inaccessible formats, including maps without descriptive text and social media videos without captions or ASL interpretation. Evacuation assistance is unreliable: the city and county have no adequate way to identify residents who need help, lack accessible vehicles and trained drivers, and exclude entire categories of residents with disabilities 鈥� including people in high-rises, psychiatric facilities, and group homes 鈥� from evacuation plans altogether. Shelters and recovery centers are riddled with known accessibility barriers, and there is no concrete plan to fix them or to ensure access to medication and equipment after a disaster. Planning, training, and outreach continue to exclude the disability community, despite years of advocacy and documented requests to be included. 鈥淭his isn't a case of a government caught off guard,鈥� said Ayelet Weiss at Disability Law United. 鈥淭he City's own auditor and community members have urged the Defendants to include individuals with disabilities in a comprehensive planning process for years. That hasn't happened, and the needs of the disabled go unaddressed. As the City Auditor put it, 鈥楾his lack of preparation puts the lives of people with disabilities at risk.鈥欌�� The lawsuit asks the court to declare that Portland and Multnomah County's emergency planning, preparedness, response, and recovery programs violate the ADA, Section 504, and Oregon law; order the city and county to design, implement, and maintain an emergency management system 鈥� covering alerts, evacuation, shelter, and planning 鈥� that is fully accessible to people with disabilities; and award damages to individual plaintiffs and reasonable attorneys鈥� fees and costs to organizational plaintiffs. 鈥淲hen the law is ignored for years, litigation is the necessary next step to ensure equal protection for all Oregonians,鈥� said Rebecca Cambreleng, partner at Cambreleng & Marton and co-counsel on the case. 鈥淲e intend to see this through until the city and county meet their legal obligations to everyone with disabilities.鈥� Plaintiffs tried to resolve these issues without litigation by notifying the city and county of their findings in February 2025 and meeting with counsel in March 2026. After those efforts failed to produce meaningful commitments, plaintiffs notified defendants of intent to sue in June 2026. The complaint is available here: /cases/simeone-v-multnomah-county?document=Complaint