The Windy City Times reports that Lazaro v. Orr has been dismissed. The ACLU Illinois and Lambda Legal, filed a motion to dismiss the twin cases that had they filed in 2012 (Lambda Legal's Darby v. Orr and ACLU's Lazaro v. Orr, respectively), which, on behalf of 25 same sex couples, challenged the then existing state marriage-discrimination laws. All parties agreed that passage of the Illinois marriage equality act made the suit moot.  Ed Yohnka, ACLU of Illinois' Director of Communications and Public Policy clarified the distinction between Lazaro vs. Orr and other cases filed against unequal treatment of same sex partners:

"The relief that we were seeking was in the marriage bill that was signed by the governor last month," said Ed Yohnka, dir. of Communications and Public Policy at ACLU Illinois. "But the way it was dismissed still left open the possibility of refilling should we ever need to."

Read the rest.

WBEZ investigative series on Illinois children in-need, reports that the Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Mental Health has dramatically reduced the number of Individual Care Grants (ICG) given to families with mentally ill children. The grants were established to support families whose children need mental health care, helping to keep families together and averting mental health crises for their children. WBEZ found 11 ICG grants issued in 2013, down from 124 in 2006. WBEZ reports:

Ben Wolf, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the state might actually be breaking the law.  He oversees a 1980’s state consent decree that deemed ICG was an entitlement. That means, no matter what the budget is, the government is legally obligated to give grants to anyone who qualifies. “If the level of appropriation is affecting the final judgment about who is eligible and who is not, then that in my view would be a violation of the law, and of our consent judgment,” he said.

Read more and listen to the segment.

The Washington Post reports U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, citing the “almost Orwellian technology” used by the NSA, ruled that the government had failed to justify its case for the “indiscriminate” collection and retention of personal information. The ruling addressed government collection of metadata on American's phone calls. This metadata includes the time and length of calls, as well as the numbers dialed. The Judge called the government programs a violation of privacy granted under the Fourth Amendment and granted an injunction against further NSA collection but he simultaneously stayed his order to allow for a government appeal.  Seeking comments from a number of legal authorities, the Post reported reaction from the ACLU, “which has also sued the government over the program’s constitutionality:”

“It will be very difficult for the administration to argue that the NSA’s call-tracking program should continue when a federal judge has found it to be unconstitutional,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has also sued the government over the program’s constitutionality.

Read the whole article.