Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Discriminatory Post-Conviction Supervision System in Washington, D.C.
Complaint alleges federal agencies administering parole and supervised release system in D.C. break disability law
WASHINGTON — Today, two Washington, D.C. residents with disabilities filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the two federal agencies that administer parole and supervised release in D.C. for systematically failing to provide accommodations to people with disabilities on supervision, as required by federal law. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an injunction to correct these discriminatory practices.
For D.C. residents, a criminal sentence can extend for years beyond their time behind bars through parole or supervised release, which require people to comply with myriad and onerous conditions. Failing to follow any condition, like missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. In 2021 and 2022, of all individuals on supervision in D.C. faced violation proceedings solely for technical violations of release conditions. Among people with disabilities, the percentage was nearly twice as high (18 percent).
People with disabilities are among the supervision population and face heightened barriers to meeting supervision requirements. Barriers include difficulties physically moving throughout the city to attend required meetings, understanding supervision conditions, keeping track of shifting requirements, and attending mandated appointments while experiencing serious health issues. Although people with disabilities seek to comply with their conditions, they regularly need reasonable accommodations to comply and to avoid re-incarceration. Accommodations are straightforward, such as explaining supervision conditions in plain language, providing appointment reminders and transportation assistance, and flexibly scheduling meetings based on people’s individual needs. The federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires government agencies to affirmatively provide such accommodations so that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision.
The lawsuit alleges that the federal agencies responsible for the supervision system in D.C., the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, “systematically fail to assess people’s accommodation needs and to provide reasonable accommodations. The result is discrimination on the basis of disability at each stage of supervision”— when the agencies enforce blanket conditions, when they revoke supervision for technical violations, and when they release people to the very same conditions that are nearly impossible to follow without reasonable accommodations.
For example, plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure who has been on parole for 18 years — was incarcerated for missing supervision appointments on dates when he received medical treatment at a hospital for his heart condition. He was then released on the same supervision conditions he had struggled to meet due to his disability, without any accommodations. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, a middle-aged man on lifetime parole who lives with chronic pain and mobility limitations stemming from third-degree burns, as well as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, is currently serving a 12-month prison sentence for a technical violation related to his disabilities. While incarcerated, Mr. Davis missed a necessary surgery for his burns.
“I have been hospitalized four times since October of 2023 because of my congestive heart failure. This disability makes it difficult to walk. …I use a walker whenever I leave the house… Because it is difficult for me to walk and get around the city, I have a hard time keeping up with these frequent supervision appointments. … Nobody […] has ever asked me if my disabilities would make it hard to follow supervision rules…[or] if I need reasonable accommodations, or supports, in order to follow my supervision requirements. … Simple adjustments to my conditions would make it possible for me to comply, as I would like to do, without hurting my health,” said plaintiff W. Mathis in a declaration filed in court.
“After being released from incarceration, people with disabilities in D.C. are expected to navigate complex rules for years or even a lifetime to maintain their freedom. Yet the federal agencies administering supervision in Washington, D.C. have no system whatsoever to assess whether people need accommodations to comply with these requirements, or to provide those accommodations. This sets people with disabilities up for failure by requiring them to navigate a maze of supervision conditions that, due to their disabilities, they lack an equal opportunity to meet,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project.
“Public Defender Service clients with disabilities are routinely harmed, including with devastating terms of incarceration, for violating supervision conditions that are not possible for them to meet without reasonable accommodations,” said Hanna Perry, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit, which is not seeking monetary damages, asks the court to prohibit the defendants' ongoing unlawful discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to affirm that such discrimination violates the Rehabilitation Act. The case seeks important and federally mandated reforms, including the implementation of a system that proactively assesses the necessary reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities under supervision. The goal is to ensure that these individuals receive appropriate accommodations, giving them an equal opportunity to complete supervision and remain in their community.
The complaint in today’s case, Mathis v. United States Parole Commission, may be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint
Related Documents
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Mathis v. United States Parole Commission
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Mathis v. United States Parole Commission
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
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.