吃瓜大本营

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鈥攍and 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 (鈥淰A鈥�) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans鈥� 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鈥� Judicial Review Act (鈥淰JRA鈥�)鈥� a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA鈥檚 individualized benefits determinations鈥攂ars federal district courts from hearing the veterans鈥� 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.

New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.

WASHINGTON 鈥� 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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. 鈥淎bsent an injunction,鈥� the court鈥檚 decision reads, 鈥渢he Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government鈥檚 supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.鈥� 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 鈥� a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk 鈥� 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 鈥渁bsent 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.鈥� 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. 鈥淭he undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,鈥� said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. 鈥淭his decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.鈥� 鈥淭he Court鈥檚 opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's 鈥榙o-nothing鈥� policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,鈥� said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淭his 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.鈥� 鈥淲e are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients鈥� disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,鈥� said Zo茅 Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. 鈥淲e will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.鈥� 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