Court Preliminarily Approves Landmark Settlement That Improves Special Education Services in New Jersey State Prisons
The case, Adam X. et al. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections and Department of Education et al., was filed in January 2017 and offers a national example for special education services in prison.
NEWARK – The New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) will drastically improve the provision of special education services for people in its prisons, according to a settlement preliminarily approved by the federal District Court for the District of New Jersey last month. The class action settlement resolves claims brought by three students who alleged they were denied special education in prison by the NJDOC and New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ACLU of New Jersey and The Arc of New Jersey joined the case as organizational plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU of New Jersey Foundation, Disability Rights Advocates, and Proskauer Rose LLP. Read the .
“After years of negotiations, special education services will now be meaningfully accessible to people in New Jersey prisons,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. “The changes achieved by this settlement drastically improve special education services for students in prison and put in place a comprehensive plan for monitoring the provision of those services for years to come.”
The settlement agreement comes more than four years after the plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in January 2017. The agreement will overhaul special education services in New Jersey state prisons by mandating the implementation of newly created policies across the NJDOC and providing comprehensive monitoring by the NJDOE. The NJDOC is adopting new policies () that are designed to, among other things:
- Identify students who are eligible for special education;
- Develop and implement Individualized Education Plans and Section 504 Plans according to the individual needs of each student;
- Provide individualized transition services to eligible students;
- Provide at least four hours of instruction per day in a regular classroom setting, except in limited circumstances;
- Limit the use of “cell study” to certain limited circumstances and provide the opportunity for in-person instruction even in those circumstances;
- Prohibit the use of worksheets as the primary method of educational instruction.
- Require the use of appropriately certified teachers and evidence-based instructional methods;
- Develop and implement behavioral assessments and plans and conduct “manifestation determinations” for disciplinary incidents that occur during the day and result in a disciplinary charge (to determine whether those incidents were a manifestation of the student’s disability);
- Take specific steps to ensure conditions of education for students in close custody units reflect classrooms in the general population; and
- Provide interpretation and translation services to students with disabilities who are not fluent in English.
The agreement also sets out a five-year term during which the NJDOE, with support from a Court-appointed External Monitor, Dr. Susan Roberts, will undertake robust monitoring of the NJDOC’s provision of special education and related services.. During this term, the NJDOE and the External Monitor will conduct site visits, observe classes, interview NJDOC staff and students, and review records. The NJDOE will prepare Corrective Action Plans outlining remedial measures for the NJDOC to undertake and will then verify their implementation. The External Monitor will also produce periodic Monitoring Reports in which she will assess the NJDOC and NJDOE’s substantial compliance with the settlement terms.
“The settlement agreement will improve the lives of many people with disabilities held in New Jersey state prisons,” said Rebecca Rodgers, Managing Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates. “We are hopeful that the changes agreed to will serve as a model for other institutions across the country.”
The settlement agreement achieves comprehensive relief and establishes a compensatory education program whereby class members can submit claims for services they were denied between January 11, 2015, and October 31, 2020, and may be awarded services or funds to be used for educational, vocational, or reentry purposes. New Jersey has the worst racial disparities in incarceration rates in the country; educational deprivations in state prisons have a disproportionate impact on people of color.
“We represent an incredibly vulnerable but too often ignored population: young people with disabilities being housed in adult prisons,” said Bill Silverman, pro bono partner at Proskauer Rose LLP. “As a result of this important and impactful case, we are pleased that NJDOC and NJDOE will take the necessary steps to provide appropriate special education and related services to class members. We will continue to partner with the ACLU of New Jersey and Disability Rights’ Advocates on this matter as well as other matters to help ensure equal access to justice.”
As part of the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, the Court also certified the class. The class includes people who were incarcerated in NJDOC custody any time on or after January 11, 2015, and were or should have been identified as being entitled to special education services. It also includes anyone who entered custody under age 18 and without a high school diploma during those years. It is estimated that the agreement impacts over 400 class members. For more information, read the .
As part of the notice plan approved by the Court, class members are being contacted with information about the settlement agreement. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has scheduled a Fairness Hearing on January 26, 2022. More information about the case, including information on submitting objections, inquiries, and compensatory education forms, is available on the and websites.
In May 2017, the Court appointed Dr. Joseph Gagnon to review and evaluate the NJDOC’s provision of special education—and the NJDOE’s oversight thereof. Dr. Gagnon spent nearly 95 hours on-site at New Jersey state prisons, interviewed over 60 incarcerated students, observed instruction provided to students with disabilities, met with teaching staff, and reviewed approximately 20,000 pages of documents. He then submitted a report and recommendations in 2018. More than three years of settlement negotiations followed, resulting in the agreement described above.
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.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON — American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy’s questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: “The American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. “To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. “Maya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.” -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.