|
Home » Legal » Current Legal Docket
Current Legal Docket - 2007 Protection of First Amendment ACLU v. Chicago Under a modified consent decree, we continue to monitor the City of Chicago's surveillance/investigation of persons and groups based upon their protected First Amendment activities. In March 2006, a federal district court judge allowed RBF to proceed with discovery on a petition to enforce the decree on behalf of our clients - the American Friends Service Committee - whom the police infiltrated in 2002 when the organization was planning peaceful demonstrations marking a meeting of the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue in Chicago. In 2006, a federal judge ordered the City to produce all documents related to this infiltration and investigation of the AFSC. Through discovery, we have received what remains of the Chicago Police Department's investigative file. In July 2007, the City submitted the five-year, independent audit required by the consent decree. The entire audit report filed with the Court consisted of four pages. In October 2007, however, the City – relying on the brief audit – moved to dissolve the consent decree. We have opposed this motion until the issue of AFSC's surveillance is resolved and we are allowed to do discovery on the nature of the independent audit in view of the paucity of the report. Reproductive Rights & Women's Rights Zbaraz v. Hartigan The Reproductive Rights Project for the RBF/ACLU of Illinois sought and won a permanent injunction (issued in early 1996) barring enforcement of Illinois’ 1995 Parental Notification of Abortion Act. The ACLU’s challenge was based, in part, on the plain fact that constitutionally adequate procedures for judicial by-pass do not exist in Illinois. Indeed, in 1996 the Illinois Supreme Court refused to issue rules governing the appellate process for this by-pass procedure. In September 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court suddenly issued rules it claimed met the constitutional standard for the judicial by-pass process. In early 2007, the Illinois Attorney General asked the federal court to lift the 1996 injunction based on the Supreme Court’s action – though the Attorney General acknowledged that the circuit courts were not prepared to implement the by-pass at that time. The court denied the Attorney General’s request, but preserved the right of the State of Illinois to raise the request anew when the courts were ready. In March 2007 the Attorney General again sought the dissolution of the injunction, based on a statement from the Illinois Supreme Court that the Court now was willing to “presume, and therefore assert” that the circuit courts were ready to implement the by-pass. We have filed a brief in response including information about the lack of readiness in a number of jurisdictions across Illinois. The Attorney General filed a response to our motion in June 2007, asking that the Court dissolve its injunction and only then permits plaintiffs to raise claims regarding the constitutional deficiency of the statute. We are awaiting the decision of the court. Morr-Fitz, Inc., et al., v. Blagojevich, et al. The RBF/ACLU of Illinois filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit, brought by three Illinois pharmacy corporations and two individual pharmacists, challenging an Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation administrative rule setting forth the circumstances in which pharmacies are obligated to dispense prescription contraceptives. The plaintiffs alleged that the rule violated various state and federal constitutional and statutory provisions, including the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that plaintiffs’ challenges to the Rule were not ripe for judicial review, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs argued in their brief to the state Supreme Court that the rule was facially invalid and should be struck down because it conflicted with rights protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. In January 2008, we filed an amicus brief urging the court to reject plaintiffs’ challenge to the rule. We argued that plaintiffs’ expansive reading of the Health Care Right of Conscience Act as providing absolute protection for the conscience objections of healthcare workers, despite the impact such refusals would have on women seeking to access constitutionally-protected healthcare, was incorrect and inappropriate. We are awaiting plaintiffs’ reply brief. National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft The Reproductive Rights Project for the RBF/ACLU of Illinois worked in collaboration with the National ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and the New York Civil Liberties Union to challenge a federal ban on abortion that contains no health exception for pregnant women. In January 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling in our favor. In May 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States, in companion cases to our challenge, upheld the federal law even without the health exemption for women. We are working with our clients to provide advice to physicians about how to provide health care services consistent with the Court’s ruling. Miller v. American Infertility Group of Illinois In February 2005, a Cook County Circuit Court Judge ruled that a fertilized egg never implanted in a woman’s uterus is a “human being” for purposes of the Illinois Wrongful Death Act. In reaching this ruling the judge relied in part on definitions of “conception” and “fertilization” containing the Illinois Abortion Law, portions that have been enjoined a series of cases in which the RBF/ACLU represented plaintiffs. The judge failed to take these lawsuits and resulting injunctions into account in reaching his conclusion that the RBF/ACLU of Illinois filed an amicus brief in the state court of appeals challenging the ruling of a district court. We are awaiting oral argument in the case. Cummins v. The State of Illinois The RBF/ACLU represents a group of thirty (30) physicians as amicus curiae in a case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging a previous State of Illinois policy excluding coverage of contraceptives as part of the State’s insurance plan. The federal district court, in a ruling counter to findings in many other courts and the EEOC, found ruled that contraceptive coverage could be lawfully excluded from the state insurance plan. Our brief on behalf of the physicians’ group sets forth the importance of contraception as an essential component of women’s health care and as critical to the ability of women to play an equal role in professional, academic and social aspects of society. The case remains pending. Post 9/11 Civil Liberties Issues Akif Rahman v. Chertoff The RBF/ACLU of Illinois, along with ACLU affiliates in Massachusetts, Michigan and Washington State, represents nine individuals - all United States citizens - who have been the victims of repeated stops, harassment and undue detentions upon re-entering the country. These plaintiffs have faced frightening situations - having guns drawn on them, being hand-cuffed for long periods of time, and being separated from family members traveling with them. The action seeks to compel the government to fix the terrorist screening system that causes this to happen to our clients. In July 2007, a U.S. District Court Judge certified the plaintiffs’ classes – a class of all U.S. citizens detained on re-entry because of the government’s actions, and another class representing their families who are affected by these policies. The government has appealed the class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. At the same time, the parties are engaged in an extended discovery dispute regarding the U.S. government’s assertion of a “state secrets” privilege and a law enforcement privilege as grounds to withhold information about whether the named plaintiffs are on any government watch list and the nature of the government’s border screening practices and policies. On the law enforcement privilege, a Magistrate Judge ruled largely in favor of the RBF/ACLU clients. On the state secrets question, the matter is fully briefed and awaiting a decision by the Magistrate Judge. Terkel v. AT&T The RBF/ACLU of Illinois represents author Studs Terkel and other prominent Illinois citizens in challenging telephone giant AT&T in sharing customers' telephone records with the government without lawful authorization. In 2006, our case – along with similar lawsuits against telecomm companies filed in courts across the nation – was consolidated as multi-jurisdictional litigation and transferred to the federal district court in San Francisco. The ACLU of Illinois, along with lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was appointed co-lead coordinating counsel for more than forty cases including our own. A significant obstacle in these cases is the assertion by the government to invoke a “state secrets” privilege, claiming that the matter cannot advance for fear of making confidential information public. The trial court judge ruled in an EFF case that the privilege provided no barrier to discovery regarding claims of the telecommunications companies’ involvement in eavesdropping, because President George W. Bush acknowledges such spying. This decision was appealed and argued before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2007. We recently have focused our efforts on lobbying Congress not to pass proposed legislation that would immunize the telecommunications companies from these lawsuits. ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security et al. The ACLU of Illinois and three other organizations (the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Midwest Immigrant and Human Rights Center, and the Muslim Civil Rights Center) jointly filed suit requesting enforcement of a federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with two immigration bureaus of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). We sought information regarding post-9/11 enforcement of immigration laws in Illinois, particularly regarding the “Special Registration” program (under which thousands of immigrants registered with the government, and many were detained or deported) and a provision of the Patriot Act allowing the Attorney General to unilaterally detain immigrants as suspected terrorists. The suit has been settled, the government having provided information regarding the Special Registration program, as well as a representation that it has not used the Patriot Act as a basis for the unilateral detention of immigrants. Khorammi v. Rolince et al. Farid Khorrami, a lawful U.S. immigrant, filed suit seeking damages against FBI agents for months of unjustified detention and abusive physical treatment immediately following the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Khorrami was taken into custody and had his immigration status revoked when the FBI erroneously believed that he might have some connection to the events of 9/11. Khorrami also had his pilot training certificate revoked and ultimately suffered a heart attack as a result of the wrongful detention. The government filed a motion to dismiss. In June 2007, a U.S. District Court Judge dismissing some portions of the complaint, but denying the government’s motion to dismiss the Fifth Amendment due process claim. The government appealed the decision to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed and we are awaiting oral argument. FOIA Requests to the FBI In 2004, the ACLU of Illinois in conjunction with ACLU’s National Office and ten other affiliate offices filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking files on a number of Chicago-area organizations and individuals involved in activism on the state and local level. The purpose of the filings was to ascertain whether the federal government is engaging in unwarranted surveillance of community and advisory organizations. In 2005, the FBI and Department of Justice indicated that they were keeping investigative files on one organization and one individual in the group that was part of our filing. The government indicated, however, that they were withholding the information because its dissemination “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” We have appealed that decision and are contemplating further action. Children’s Rights B.H. v. McEwen Lawyers for the RBF/ACLU of Illinois continue to monitor our Consent Decree designed to improve care and services for children in the custody of the Illinois Department of Children and Family services (DCFS) on behalf of all the state's foster children. Much of our present work in this lengthy litigation focuses on putting programs in place to insure quality educational and mental health services for our clients. Jimmy Doe v. Cook County We are actively monitoring and enforcing a federal court settlement in this class action lawsuit, which requires the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center to provide safe and clean living conditions for the children in their care. The original settlement, reached in 2002, is designed to bring one of the nation’s largest juvenile detention facilities up to constitutional standards. In the years since the original settlement was reach, our own experts and independent monitors reported regularly that substandard conditions – including horrific incidents of violence by staff against children – continued to persist. In May 2007, we filed a motion asking the district court judge to appoint a Receiver to assure compliance with the court’s previous orders. The parties agreed to a supplemental order creating the Office of the Transitional Administrator and the court appointed Earl Dunlap as Transitional Administrator (TA) to bring the facility into compliance with the 2002 agreement. Mr. Dunlap, who assisted in improving conditions at a juvenile detention center in Washington, DC, was given the necessary authority to accomplish his task. One of Mr. Dunlap’s first actions was to hire Brenda Welch, who has served as the Court’s Compliance Administrator, as his deputy. Mr. Dunlap has moved to improve some basic conditions at the facility, as well as to eliminate some employees at the JTDC who did little work, but owed their employment to political clout. Racial Justice Davis, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al. The RBF/ACLU of Illinois filed suit against the City of Chicago and three Chicago Police Officers challenging a practice resulting in the unnecessary and unwarranted stop, search and detention of three young men in Chicago. We represent Shani Davis, an Olympic Gold Medal winner, in this case. The case settled on the basis of a change in the Police Department’s General Order which required that police state in writing the ground on which they stop and search any person and that supervisors must review these justifications. Mr. Davis received damages of $10,000. Scott v. Bevard The RBF/ACLU of Illinois is challenging the racial profiling and intrusive search inflicted on three African-American high school students by two Illinois state police troopers. The case has been settled. Establishment of Religion Sherman v. Township High School District 214 We are amici in a case filed by the Sherman family of Buffalo Grove, against their local public high school and the Illinois Superintendent of Education, challenging a recently-approved Illinois state statute mandating a moment of silence as “an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day” before each school day begins. The Illinois legislature, in adopting the provision, compared the public school “moment of silence” to legislative prayer, indicating a legislative intent that the new law to promote public school prayer. The district court judge issued a preliminary injunction in the case, barring Buffalo Grove High School from implementing the statute and barring the State Superintendent from compelling any school district in the state to implement the mandatory moment of silence. This preliminary injunction does not affect approximately 1,000 other public school districts in Illinois, some of which are continuing to implement the law. In January 2007, we filed a memorandum with the court supporting the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a defendant class. Once this issue is resolved, we intend to submit a brief to the court arguing that the “moment of silence” statute violates the Establishment Clause. Eugene Winkler, et. al. v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, et al. We challenged the use of taxpayer money to fund the Boy Scouts National Jamboree as establishment of religion. In 2005, a federal district court ruled that the Pentagon’s spending on the Boy Scout Jamboree violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In 2007, a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that our plaintiffs lacked standing as taxpayers to bring the challenge. Gay & Lesbian / Family Rights G.M. v. S.P. We represent a woman who served as the primary parental caretaker for six years of a now seven-year-old boy’s life. The woman was being denied all custody or visitation with the child by her former partner, the biological mother of the child. We advanced common law, statutory and constitutional claims in support of our client’s right to custody and visitation. An agreement affording visitation rights to our client was reached and approved by the court. Helgeland v. Department of Employee Trust Funds (WISCONSIN) We are working with the ACLU of Wisconsin and the National ACLU LGBT Rights Project on behalf of six lesbian couples denied health insurance and family leave domestic partner benefits by the State of Wisconsin. Currently, motions to intervene by the Wisconsin state legislature and several local municipalities are pending before Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court has heard arguments and we are awaiting a decision. Fields v. Raemisch (formerly Sundstrom v. Frank) We are working with the ACLU of Wisconsin, the National LGBT Rights Project and Lambda Legal on behalf of two transgender prisoners in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections who are barred by statute from access to hormonal therapy treatment or sex reassignment surgery. A federal court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, and ordered the DOC to restore our plaintiffs’ access to hormonal therapy. On three occasions since the original filing, we have been compelled to add new plaintiffs who were threatened with having their treatment cut off absent court intervention. A trial in this case was conducted in October 2007. We are awaiting the court’s decision. Vulnerable Populations Ligas, et.al., v. Maram, et.al. The RBF/ACLU of Illinois is collaborating with other advocacy organizations in this class action lawsuit on behalf of the thousands of individuals who are needlessly institutionalized in large ICF-DDs (Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled) when they could be better served in smaller, community based settings. The federal courts rejected efforts by several parties to intervene in the case, in which discovery is now on-going. Williams, et.al., v. Blagojevich, et. al. The RBF/ACLU of Illinois and other advocacy organizations are representing individuals in large nursing homes for the mentally ill in this groundbreaking litigation. Our complaint alleges that the State's decision to warehouse our clients needlessly in a large institution violates the Americans with Disabilities Act's mandate that state-funded services be provided in the most integrated appropriate setting. In late 2006, a federal court certified our clients as representative of a class for purposes of the litigation. Since mid-2007, we have engaged in substantial discovery, reviewing thousands of pages of documents, taken the deposition of key state officials and retained experts in mental health services in order to prepare for trial. Several of the large institutions where our clients reside attempted to quash subpoenas we served to review records, asserting that the process is burdensome. In January 2008, the district court judge denied those motions and ruled that our experts have a right to interview residents and review records without interference. The experts are scheduled to visit the facilities in the first quarter of 2008. Colbert, et.al., v. Blagojevich, et. al. The RBF/ACLU of Illinois and other advocacy organizations filed a third lawsuit against the State of Illinois for violation of the Americans with Disability Act, the Rehabilitation Act and Medicaid for unnecessary institution of persons with physical disabilities. The case, for which we are seeking class certification, alleges that Illinois unnecessarily and illegally confines those with physical disabilities to nursing homes as a prerequisite to receiving necessary services. Like the other two cases, Williams and Ligas, the lawsuit seeks to compel the state to change its historic bias toward treatment in institutions and its failure to develop or allow sufficient treatment options in community settings. We are currently briefing issues of class certification. |
|
