吃瓜大本营

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

This case challenges the government鈥檚 authority to incarcerate individuals accused of probation violations for months or years without meaningfully assessing their risk to the community.

This federal class-action lawsuit alleges that the federal government鈥檚 post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C., violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by systematically failing to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities on supervision.

WASHINGTON 鈥� 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, 10 percent 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 over-represented 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鈥檚 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, 鈥渟ystematically fail to assess people鈥檚 accommodation needs and to provide reasonable accommodations. The result is discrimination on the basis of disability at each stage of supervision鈥濃�� 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 鈥� a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure who has been on parole for 18 years 鈥� 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. 鈥淚 have been hospitalized four times since October of 2023 because of my congestive heart failure. This disability makes it difficult to walk. 鈥�I use a walker whenever I leave the house鈥� 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. 鈥� Nobody [鈥�] has ever asked me if my disabilities would make it hard to follow supervision rules鈥�[or] if I need reasonable accommodations, or supports, in order to follow my supervision requirements. 鈥� Simple adjustments to my conditions would make it possible for me to comply, as I would like to do, without hurting my health,鈥� said plaintiff W. Mathis in a declaration filed in court. 鈥淎fter 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,鈥� said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淧ublic 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,鈥� 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鈥檚 case, Mathis v. United States Parole Commission, may be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint

NEW YORK 鈥� Probation and parole are promoted as alternatives to incarceration that help people get back on their feet, but instead feed bloated jail and prison populations in the United States, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a joint report released today. The 225-page report, 鈥淩evoked: How Probation and Parole Feed Mass Incarceration in the United States,鈥� finds that supervision 鈥� probation and parole 鈥� drives high numbers of people, disproportionately those who are Black and Brown, right back to jail or prison, while in large part failing to help them get needed services and resources. In states examined in the report, people are often incarcerated for violating the rules of their supervision or for low-level crimes, and receive disproportionate punishment following proceedings that fail to adequately protect their fair trial rights. 鈥淧robation and parole are seen as acts of leniency, but in the states we examined, they often lead to incarceration just for using drugs, failing to report a new address, or public order offenses like disorderly conduct,鈥� said Allison Frankel, Aryeh Neier fellow at Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, and the report鈥檚 author. 鈥淚ncarcerating people for failing to meet the overly burdensome requirements of supervision upends peoples鈥� lives without meaningfully addressing their underlying needs.鈥� Human Rights Watch and the ACLU interviewed 164 people, including 47 who had been incarcerated for probation or parole violations in three states where this problem is particularly acute: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Researchers also interviewed family members of those incarcerated, government officials, lawyers, advocates, and experts, and analyzed data provided by or obtained from these states and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Researchers spoke with Willie White, a Black Georgia resident, who 鈥� after waiting for six months in jail to contest charges of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute 鈥� pleaded guilty to get home to his children and was sentenced to 10 years on probation. Instead, he soon wound up back in jail, once for failure to pay and another time for using and possessing drugs. 鈥淸Probation] took all my money, kept me incarcerated for simple little mistakes. It鈥檚 really been a lot of pain,鈥� he said. Researchers also spoke with a Black Pennsylvania woman who cycled through probation and jail, mostly for shoplifting and drug offenses, which she says stemmed from a substance use disorder. 鈥淚 asked for programs,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ut [probation] didn鈥檛 want to hear that I need help; they just gave me time.鈥� Over the last 50 years, the use of probation and parole in the U.S. has skyrocketed, alongside jail and prison populations. As of 2016, 4.5 million people, or 1 in every 55, were under supervision, often for years. They are required to follow numerous wide-ranging, vague, and oppressive conditions, like paying fines and fees many cannot afford; attending frequent meetings, often far away and during work hours; reporting every address change, even when they lack housing stability; and staying away from 鈥渄isreputable鈥� people. Structural racism means that Black and Brown people are less likely to have the resources necessary to navigate supervision conditions, and more likely to be arrested and found to be in violation of their supervision terms. The report鈥檚 findings include: Rather than diverting people from incarceration, probation and parole are feeding jail and prison populations. Council of State Governments data shows that, in 2017, 45 percent of all state prison admissions resulted from probation or parole violations. Human Rights Watch and ACLU analysis in the states studied show that the numbers were similarly high. Nearly half of all prison admissions in Pennsylvania include parole violations; over the last two decades, Wisconsin prisons have admitted about twice as many people for supervision violations as for regular criminal convictions; and during a five-month period in 2019, between 23 and 43 percent of all jail bookings in nine Georgia counties involved probation or parole violations. In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, the supervision rule violations that lead to incarceration often involve using drugs, failing to report address changes, and breaking rules of supervision-mandated programs. When new offenses rather than rule violations lead to incarceration, it is often for public order offenses, like disorderly conduct, misdemeanor assaults, drug possession, and shoplifting. There are stark racial disparities in supervision and its enforcement. Nationwide in 2016, Pew Charitable Trusts reported that 1 in every 81 white people was under supervision, compared with 1 in every 23 Black people. In Wisconsin, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU found that the proportion of Black people sanctioned for supervision violations is four times as high as their proportion of the state population; for Native Americans, it is seven times their proportion of the population. Multiple studies show that Black people throughout the US are significantly more likely to have their supervision revoked than similarly situated white people. In many jurisdictions examined in the report, people accused of violating their supervision are regularly detained for months just waiting for a hearing to contest the charges 鈥� even for rule violations, and absent any evidence that they are likely to flee the jurisdiction. Many are confined in overcrowded, unsanitary jails that lack adequate mental health services or drug treatment, and where people are at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19. When found to have violated their supervision, people in the states examined are often subjected to disproportionate punishments, including additional jail or prison time, through a process that does not protect fair trial rights. At root, supervision violations often stem from poverty; a failure by authorities to support people in addressing underlying challenges, such as substance use disorder, housing insecurity, or mental health conditions; and racially biased policing and enforcement. 鈥淧robation and parole operate under a separate legal system 鈥� one where basic rights, like the presumption of innocence, speedy detention hearings, and burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, go out the window,鈥� Frankel said. 鈥淭his places immense pressure on people to admit to the allegations just to get out of jail.鈥� Many aspects of these supervision systems violate U.S. and international human rights law, including prohibitions on disproportionate punishment, racial discrimination, and arbitrary detention. Aspects of revocation systems also raise serious fair trial concerns or are inconsistent with the rights under international law to an adequate standard of living, housing, food, health, and other basic needs. In recent years, many states have enacted reforms to reduce the burdens of supervision, limit incarceration for violations, and invest in community-based resources for jobs, employment, education, and health care. But many of these changes still leave in place oppressive supervision systems that do not demonstrably improve public safety or facilitate rehabilitation. Human Rights Watch and the ACLU recommend that federal, state, and local governments divest from supervision and incarceration and invest in jobs, housing, and voluntary treatment for substance use disorder and mental health care. 鈥淏y investing in communities over supervision and confinement, governments can work to break the supervision-to-incarceration pipeline, and help people get the resources they need,鈥� Frankel said. The report is available here: /report/aclu-and-hrw-report-revoked-how-probation-an...