California Systemic Prison Cases
The California prison system—the largest state system—incarcerates over 160,000 people on any given day. It is subject to a large number of system-wide cases in which courts have found serious constitutional violations or violations of prior settlement agreements. The most costly of these cases, Plata, concerns medical care, which has at this point been turned over to a court-appointed receiver. It has become apparent that solving the constitutional problems will cost billions of dollars.
In three of the cases—Plata, Coleman (mental health care), and Armstrong (disability discrimination)—the plaintiffs asked for imposition of a population cap on the California system, as a constitutionally necessary remedy. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, such a cap may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. Judge Wilken stayed consideration of the motion in Armstrong, but such a panel was convened to decide the issue in Plata and Coleman. On February 9, 2009, it announced its "tentative ruling" that California must reduce overcrowding from 190% of its prisons' design capacity to something between 120% and 145%, over the next two or three years. If the state did not build any more prisons, this would mean a population reduction of about 50,000 prisoners.
While the population cap issue was under consideration, the cases also proceeded individually. Most recently, the receiver in Plata has requested the state release $250 million for initial medical care improvements (out of an approximately $8 billion dollars likely to be needed for new medical care facilities), but the state refused to meet the deadline of November 5, 2008. Judge Henderson's hearing on contempt sanctions for the refusal was scheduled for November 11, 2008, but was stayed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on the issue in January.
On August 4, 2009, the three-judge district court (Judges Reinhardt, Karlton, and Henderson), following two years of proceedings including fourteen days of trial, issued an opinion that imposes a population cap on California's prisons. The court found that the cap is necessary to cure the constitutional violations that have long existed with respect to the provision of medical and mental health care. Considering the strict requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act for entry of a population cap, the court found (as required by the statute as a prerequisite to such an order) that overcrowding is the primary cause of these violations. It approved a population limit of 137.5% of design capacity, and it ordered the state to submit a plan as to how best it can reduce the current prison population from its present level of more than 190% of design capacity. No immediate release of prisoners was ordered. Rather, the reduction in prison population of over 40,000 may be accomplished by the state over a two-year period, through a combination of various measures previously recommended by numerous state commissions and committees, including through the early release of some non-dangerous prisoners or the diversion to other forms of custody or supervision of other individuals, such as technical parole violators who are currently returned to prison for short periods.
The statute also requires courts considering population caps to assess the impact on public safety. The court found that the overcrowding in the prisons led to "criminogenic" conditions, which resulted in more crimes being committed by former prisoners and an increase in the recidivism rate. It also determined that, with adequate safeguards and improved rehabilitation and re-entry programs, the state could ensure that the order would result in an increase in public safety.
See the individual case pages for details.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
ACORN v. Edgar
In this lawsuit in 1995-1996, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and several other plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the League of Women Voters brought suit against the State of Illinois, which was refusing to implement the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1973gg, et seq., usually known as the Motor Voter law. The State argued that the Constitution did not authorize Congress to force state governments to administer federal programs, here a program for facilitating the registration of voters in federal elections. Both the district court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Act against this challenge, and Illinois proceeded to implement the statute.
This case has been the subject of a great deal of recent interest--including a large number of requests that it be featured in the Clearinghouse--because ACORN and several other plaintiffs were represented by Barack Obama. As a service to anyone interested, we've posted a great many documents and opinions in the case.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank
Many hundreds of people have come to this site in the past several weeks looking for this case, in which Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. Here's a summary. For more information on the case, click on its name, below. We've just (on 10/25) succeeded at getting public versions of most of the most important documents .
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
The case was certified as a class action in 1995, and settled three years later. The settlement is posted.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Even though this is the most famous civil rights case ever, the relevant litigation documents are not easy to come by. The Supreme Court decisions, in 1954 (announcing the rule that "separate is inherently unequal") and 1955 (announcing that remediation of Jim Crow school segregation could proceed "with all deliberate speed"), were obviously extraordinarily important, and are easily available. But the litigation in Topeka lasted from the filing of the first complaint in 1951 until final dismissal of the case in 1999. The Clearinghouse has copies of many of the crucial documents in the case.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
|
completed
in process
570