President Biden: Stop Funding the Policing of Our Students
Over 150,000 Black and Brown children, disproportionately children with disabilities, are handcuffed, restrained, referred to law enforcement, and arrested in schools across the nation . Placing police in our schools perpetuates a chilling pattern of racial and disability discrimination that endangers and traumatizes our children and funnels them into the school to prison pipeline. School policing is a threat to our students’ civil rights and to their right to learn in safe and supportive school environments. This is why we’re calling on President Biden to stop policing our students by ending federal funding of police in schools.
Today, we sent a letter to President Biden with more than 150 organizations and individuals — including the Dignity in Schools Campaign, National Urban League, UnidosUS, YWCA USA, and the National Disability Rights Network, among others — calling on Biden to issue an executive order eliminating federal funding of police in schools and to work with Congress toward this goal. There are currently 14 million students in schools with police and no nurses, social workers, or psychologists. Instead of pouring money into law enforcement, President Biden must redirect the additional designated for community policing — which often goes into placing police in schools — and invest it in our communities. This money should be spent on community-led and community-centered safety strategies and getting more counselors and other supportive school staff, not cops, into our schools.
School districts across the country receive federal funding from the Department of Justice to hire police for their schools. Police in schools do what they are trained to do — detain, handcuff, and arrest — and students of color and students with disabilities are often the ones who pay the price.
In Osceola County, Florida, a school police officer Taylor Bracey, a 16-year-old Black girl, to the concrete ground as she was walking down the school hallway. She was knocked unconscious and experienced a concussion, and now has memory loss and other traumas.
In , a 7-year-old Latino boy with autism had an outburst during class at his elementary school. What was the school police officer’s response? He handcuffed the crying child, put him into a patrol vehicle, and drove him to emergency detention at a behavioral hospital.
Sadly, these are not isolated incidents. Students of color and students with disabilities are up to three times more likely to be referred to police and arrested in schools across the nation. And if historical trends in the data hold true, law enforcement in schools will continue to disproportionately target students of color, students with disabilities, and students of color with disabilities.
In response, we’ve seen communities across the country pushing their schools to divest funding from police and reinvest those funds in student mental health care and other supportive services. Several school boards and cities across the country have already decided that police no longer belong in their schools. For example, a large district in eliminated its school police department following strong community-led advocacy, and committed to a community-driven process to develop an alternative safety plan that would include funds for mental health professionals and other staff to support all students of color. In , smaller districts redirected its school police funding to hire more counselors, social workers, and other direct student supports. However, far too many other localities continue to use police in schools, despite the demands of students, parents, and community members.
President Biden has an important part to play to stop the policing of our students. Federal funding plays a key role. It is a core reason so many Black and Brown communities have police regularly stationed in their schools. The DOJ’s COPS Office awarded to 160 school districts and municipalities for school police in 2020 alone. While municipal governments and state legislatures have a role in keeping our students safe from police violence and trauma, President Biden should lead from Washington, D.C.
This is a unique opportunity for President Biden to uphold his administration’s promise to advance racial equity, redress harm to children with disabilities, and set a strong example for our nation’s schools. The time to invest in policing has passed. It is now time to invest in our students.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint