ACLU Challenges Unlawful Banning Of Tenants' Families And Invited Guests From Public Housing
Group Launches "Families Untied" Video With Plaintiffs From Lawsuit
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (410) 889-8555; media@aclu-md.org
(212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
ANNAPOLIS, MD – Protecting the rights of families to make decisions about their own homes, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maryland filed a lawsuit today challenging a policy that unlawfully bans certain individuals from being on or near public housing in Annapolis, Maryland, even when they are invited guests of tenants. Under the policy, Annapolis public housing residents who allow banned friends and family members into their homes are subject to eviction. The lawsuit was filed against the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis (HACA) and the Annapolis Police Department on behalf of residents of Annapolis public housing as well as family and friends of those residents who have been prevented from visiting and participating in raising and caring for their children, parents, grandchildren and other relatives.
The ACLU asserts that many of the over 500 people on HACA's banned list do not pose any danger to the community. In fact, many individuals were banned from HACA public housing based on incidents for which they were never convicted or even charged with a crime. HACA has also refused to remove individuals from the list even when the individuals can show they were innocent or vindicated in court.
"What could be more cruel or wrongheaded than baselessly prohibiting a three-year-old boy from visiting with his father in his own home – even when his dad was never prosecuted or convicted of any crime?" said Deborah A. Jeon, the Legal Director of the ACLU of Maryland. "HACA's policy deprives tenants of their fundamental rights to control their own homes, and punishes the people on the banned list just for trying to be involved in the lives of their families and friends. The agency would do much better to implement programs that would help reinforce family stability, but instead, HACA has chosen an irrational policy that tears families apart."
The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, charges that the banning policy violates the rights of public housing residents and their families and friends to free association, privacy and quiet enjoyment in their own homes.
Under the policy, anyone HACA unilaterally designates as "detrimental to the overall quality of life for public housing residents" can be banned from HACA property for three years to life. HACA does not clearly define the criteria for getting on or off the banned list. HACA has charged residents visited by people on the banned list with lease violations and, in some cases, entered into eviction proceedings.
One of the residents the ACLU is representing, Esther Sharps, is a 71-year-old grandmother who has been isolated from her family because eight of her 12 grandsons and three of her sons have been on the banned list. Sharps has been warned that if those sons or grandsons visit her she will be charged with a lease violation that would put her in danger of eviction. On Mother's Day, Sharps and her family had to gather at a relative's house, because so many members of her family could not come to her home because of the banning policy. Sharps is in poor health and depends on one grandson to take her to the doctor, the grocery store and on other necessary errands, but he is on the banned list, and she has to make her way off HACA property to meet him.
Two young parents in the suit have been prevented from sharing parenting responsibilities – a problem faced by many of the affected families who live in HACA properties.
Delray Fowlkes used to see his three-year-old son every day, but now he is unable to visit him and his mother where they live in HACA public housing. Fowlkes would like to fully share in his son's care, but he cannot because he was placed on the HACA banned list because of an arrest five years ago – an arrest for which charges were ultimately dropped. The only other arrests Fowlkes has had are for trespassing on HACA property. HACA pays the Annapolis Police Department tens of thousands of dollars every year to enforce the policy by arresting people on the banned list for trespassing, and if a banned person comes onto or "near" HACA property, that person is arrested. Despite numerous appeals to HACA, Fowlkes has not been able to get removed from the banned list.
"All I want is to be a part of my son's life," said Fowlkes. "I've done everything I can think of to get off the banned list with no success. I really hope this lawsuit will help me and other parents in the same situation to be with our families."
Dalanda Moses, an 18-year-old mother, was forced to move from HACA public housing so that her boyfriend could participate in caring for their baby. From the very beginning, her boyfriend wanted to be involved with his child's life and would pick Moses up from school to take her to doctors' appointments. However, after a single juvenile arrest, he could not come to Moses' home because he was placed on the banned list. After their daughter was born, Moses would take her to the home of her boyfriend's grandmother so that they could co-parent. The burden of this constant journey became too great, and Moses had to move in order for her boyfriend to help her parent, though she would have preferred to remain in HACA housing with her mother.
"HACA's banning policy doesn't promote public safety, it prevents parents from raising their children," said Ariela Migdal, a staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Separating people from their families doesn't make public housing safer, it just aggravates social problems."
The attorneys on the case, Sharps v. Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, are Jeon of the ACLU of Maryland, Migdal, Lenora Lapidus and Emily Martin from the ACLU Women's Rights Project, and Sten Jensen, Meredith Moss, Lauren Maggio and Richard Rinkema from the Washington, DC office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, a law firm engaged in representing the plaintiffs pro bono.
A copy of the complaint as well as a video with ACLU clients in the case can be found online at: www.aclu.org/housingban
Smart Justice
Women's Rights
Sharps v. Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis
Smart Justice
Women's Rights
Sharps v. Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Smart Justice
ACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their CommunitiesACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their Communities
WASHINGTON – President Biden heeded the calls of advocates and families today by granting commutations to close to 1,500 people who were released to home confinement at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act and pardons to 39 additional people, including many veterans and women. The CARES Act, passed in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed certain groups of people to serve part of their sentences at home to mitigate the dangers of COVID-19 in federal prisons. Since then, thousands of people have been allowed to serve part of their sentences at home, securing jobs, reconnecting with loved ones, and reintegrating into their communities. The American Civil Liberties Union advocated for the CARES Act and has been urging President Biden to provide clemency to CARES Act release recipients since 2021, launching a six-figure ad buy, engaging grassroots supporters, filing FOIA litigation, and more. “We are thrilled that President Biden has allowed people to remain with their families and communities, where they belong, said Cynthia W. Roseberry, director of policy and government affairs at the ACLU’s Justice Division. “The CARES Act was an unprecedented experiment in decarceration, and the data tells us it was incredibly successful. Of the over 13,000 people released, more than 99 percent have safely and successfully reintegrated into their communities. We urge Congress to build on the remarkable success of the CARES Act and pass other decarceration policies that prioritize compassion, redemption, and public safety.” “President Biden’s actions today also remind us of the incredible and unique power of executive clemency,” Roseberry continued. “The ACLU has long advocated for the categorical use of clemency to address unjust outcomes of the criminal legal system. While today’s announcement is wonderful, there is more to do in the final weeks before President Biden leaves office. We strongly urge President Biden to use his power to address this country's failed death penalty by commuting death row sentences.” According to data the ACLU obtained this year through FOIA litigation, the vast majority (71.8 percent) of those on home confinement had less than one year remaining in their sentence. Almost a quarter (23.5 percent) of CARES Act clemency recipients are older than 61 and over half (59.4 percent) are people of color. “Biden's announcement today means I can finally breathe a sigh of relief after 3.5 years of living with the fear of being sent back to prison for no reason,” said Won Lee, released on CARES Act home confinement in May 2021. “The second chance I got through the CARES Act allowed me to take care of my aging parents, restart my career, pursue a graduate degree, and receive treatment for the cancer I was diagnosed with shortly after returning home. Today's decision means I will no longer have to live with the uncertainty and fear that I will be unjustly uprooted from my life and family, who now depend on me. I am incredibly grateful and thrilled to sleep soundly tonight knowing I'll remain at home.” Learn more about the ACLU’s campaign to commute death row here: /campaigns-initiatives/president-biden-commute-the-row -
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 -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Smart Justice
Just City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail LawJust City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail Law
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Criminal Law Reform Project, ACLU of Tennessee, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of Just City Memphis to challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee’s unprecedented new bail law, arguing that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment by mandating unfair bail hearing procedures and discriminatory wealth-based detention. The law makes Tennessee the only state in the country to prohibit judges from considering whether people appearing before them will be able to pay for release. The new law, which went into effect on May 1, targeted successful bail reforms that Shelby County implemented following an agreement with the ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, Just City, and other local advocates. The agreement required the examination of a person’s financial circumstances prior to any bail decision; individualized bail hearings with counsel no later than three days after a person’s arrest; and imposition of secured money bail only as a last resort. As a result, more people returned home to their communities while at the same time lowering the number of people rearrested for new crimes. By rolling back these reforms, the Tennessee legislature has created a two-tiered system of justice, leaving those who cannot afford to pay detained indefinitely, even if they are not a flight or safety risk. Meanwhile, those who face the same charges but can afford to pay money bail are freed until trial. “Bail reform works, and it was working in Shelby County. More Tennesseans were returning home to live peacefully in their communities,” said Trisha Trigilio, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “This shameful legislation targets low-income and marginalized Tennesseans for pointless jail time. We will not allow Tennessee lawmakers to end successful bail reform for political gain.” "Our Constitution demands that judges make individualized determinations about pretrial release," said Josh Spickler, executive director at Just City. "This law prevents judges from doing that crucial work and results in the unnecessary detention of people who pose no risk to public safety because they can't afford to pay an arbitrary bail amount. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work." “We don't have to choose between safety and justice; we can have both if we maintain a bail system that is evidence-based, fair, and constitutional.” said Stella Yarbrough, legal director at the ACLU of Tennessee. “Everyone has a basic right to freedom, and this new law contradicts decades of constitutional precedent. Freedom for the wealthy and punishment for poor people of all races violates the Constitution and disproportionately impacts Black people and people with disabilities, while doing nothing to address the systemic causes of crime—like poverty and lack of opportunity.” Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Litigation Partner Craig Waldman added, “Tennessee’s law banning judges from considering an individual’s ability to pay bail is unfair and unconstitutional. The right to due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment is a bedrock of our justice system.” Just City is an organization dedicated to fighting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and income in Shelby County criminal proceedings, and has long advocated for pretrial practices that prioritize fair and sensible release decisions over a person’s ability to pay. Their lawsuit asks the court to declare that this new bail law violates the Fourteenth Amendment and requests a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the Shelby County Sheriff from enforcing this law. -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Reproductive Freedom
+2 Issues
Court Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of AbortionCourt Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of Abortion
McALLEN, Texas – A federal judge ruled today that a lawsuit seeking accountability for the unlawful investigation and prosecution of Lizelle Gonzalez can proceed, rejecting attempts by Starr County officials to have the case dismissed. Gonzalez, represented by Garza Martinez, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas was unlawfully arrested, jailed, and charged with murder after a medication abortion she had in 2022. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancy. “When I first heard Lizelle’s story, I was outraged at the behavior of our elected officials,” said Cecilia Garza, attorney at Garza Martinez. “The court’s decision today to allow this case to proceed gives me hope that courts will not allow these types of egregious acts to continue. Law enforcement need to be held accountable to the laws that they took an oath to uphold.” In the motions to dismiss, the prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez’s constitutional rights. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez’s case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. “Immunity doctrine creates a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people’s rights, knowing they will face few – if any – consequences,” said Lauren Johnson, director of the ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. “While immunity often obstructs victims of misconduct from attaining accountability, the court’s decision today to allow the case to proceed will give Lizelle a chance to pursue the justice she deserves for being unlawfully targeted and prosecuted.” “Texas is one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to abortion health care, but even in Texas, the laws are uniform and clear that pregnant women cannot be criminally liable for having an abortion,” said David Donatti, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “We expect and demand that our elected officials follow the rule of law, and that is especially true for officials elected to enforce the laws with so much power over our daily lives and personal decisions.”