吃瓜大本营

A Guide to Federal Circuit Authority on Permissible Government Actions to Promote Racial and Gender Equality

In support of our ongoing efforts to expand opportunity in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The Opportunity Agenda have published a report entitled, 鈥淧romoting Opportunity and Equality in America: A Guide to Federal Circuit Authority on Permissible Government Actions to Promote Racial and Gender Equality.鈥�

The goals of this report are twofold: (1) it discusses the law within each judicial circuit of the U.S. for governmental entities who are attempting to remedy discrimination by using racial or gender classifications in the allocation of government contracts; and (2) it is a user-friendly tool that will allow state and local policymakers to assess how they may properly allocate economic recovery funds, specifically, in a way that ensures that the distribution is equitable.

Distributing economic recovery funds in an equitable manner is particularly important given statements issued by both the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the Attorney General, which explicitly state that all nondiscrimination laws apply to programs receiving funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

We hope this legal resource will be useful to you, your organization, and the policymakers with whom you work.

The Internet has become a deeply ingrained in the lives of most Americans. It looms so large, in fact, it is easy to imagine that it is immune to change 鈥� that it will always remain the free and open medium that it is now. But there are no such guarantees. The Internet is a human institution, operated by real individuals and companies, and like most human institutions it is not static and unchanging. In fact, the history of the Internet as a mass public communications medium has been marked by two stages 鈥� and ongoing changes to the underlying architecture of the Internet, combined with a recent landmark court decision, may now be bringing us into a third stage.

This ACLU report presents the results of a yearlong investigation into modern-day "debtors' prisons," and shows that poor defendants are being jailed at increasingly alarming rates for failing to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford. The report details how across the country, in the face of mounting budget deficits, states are more aggressively going after poor people who have already served their criminal sentences. These modern-day debtors' prisons impose devastating human costs, waste taxpayer money and resources, undermine our criminal justice system, are racially skewed, and create a two-tiered system of justice.

Incarcerating people simply because they cannot afford to pay their legal debts not only is unconstitutional but it has a devastating impact upon men and women, whose only crime is that they are poor. The sad truth is that debtors' prisons are flourishing today, more than two decades after the Supreme Court prohibited imprisoning those who are too poor to pay their legal debts. This report seeks to document the realities of today's debtors' prisons and to provide state and local governments and courts with a more sensible path 鈥� one where they no longer will be compelled to fund their criminal justice systems on the backs of the poor, and one where the promise of equal protection under the law for the poor and affluent alike will finally be realized.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...5

Key Findings...5

Recommendations...11

METHODOLOGY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...13

LOUISIANA...17

I. LFOs in New Orleans...17

II. Special Focus: New Orleans' Broken Funding Scheme for Its Criminal Justice System...25

III. Recommendations...28

MICHIGAN...29

I. LFOs in Michigan...29

II. Special Focus: Michigan's Recent Shift Toward Aggressive Collections...38

III. Recommendations...41

OHIO...43

I. LFOs in Ohio...43

II. Special Focus: Ohio's Municipal & Mayor's Courts and "Pay-to-Stay" Programs...52

III. Recommendations...54

GEORGIA...55

I. LFOs in Georgia...55

II. Special Focus: Georgia's For-Profit Probation Companies...59

III. Recommendations...64

WASHINGTON...65

I. LFOs in Washington State...65

II. Special Focus: Four Case Studies of Men and Women and Their Lifetime Struggle to Manage Their Legal Debts...69

III. Recommendations...79

CONCLUSION...81

This is the second edition of our pamphlet which attempts to answer some of the questions most frequently asked about redistricting. The law in the voting area is always evolving and different courts often interpret the same laws differently. If you have a specific question about redistricting or a problem not adequately covered in this pamphlet, you should seek legal advice.

Redistricting is not something best left to the politicians and the experts. Every voter has a vital stake in redistricting because it determines the composition of districts that elect public officials at every level of government. Given the advances in modern map drawing technology, it is now possible for everyone to participate directly in the redistricting process. But to be an effective player, you need to know the rules of the game which are discussed in this pamphlet.

For more information or assistance in redistricting, contact the ACLU鈥檚 Voting Rights Project or the other organizations listed in the appendix at the end of this pamphlet.

This report was researched and written by Sarah Mehta, Aryeh Neier fellow at Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union.

From the report summary:

The US immigration court system is complicated and adversarial at the best of times. But it may be particularly confusing for people with mental disabilities, who may find it hard to follow proceedings, or provide credible evidence to lawyers and judges, especially without legal representation and adequate support.

This report 鈥� based on 104 interviews with non-citizens with mental disabilities, their family members, social workers, psychiatrists, immigration attorneys, judges and rights advocates 鈥� documents the lack of meaningful safeguards for people with mental disabilities facing possible deportation from the United States. Deficiencies exist throughout the arrest, detention, removal, and deportation process, violating the human rights of affected individuals and offending both American and international standards of justice. The shortcomings include no right to appointed counsel; inflexible detention policies; lack of substantive or operative guidance for attorneys and judges as to how courts should achieve fair hearings for people with mental disabilities; and inadequately coordinated care and social services to aid detainees while in custody and upon release.

This report also explores the implications of these failures. As immigration attorney Megan Bremer has noted, due process violations severely compromise the integrity of the US immigration justice system and undermine the ability of immigration courts to ensure accurate and just results:

Due process is part of judicial integrity. It's a basic principle that this country has decided to prioritize. It's one of our greatest exports 鈥� we send people all over the world to talk about rule of law and how to reform judicial systems but we're not doing it here in our fastest growing judicial system [the immigration courts].

Not every non-citizen with a mental disability is entitled to remain in the United States; but everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and a chance to defend his or her rights. If the US government is going to detain and deport individuals with mental disabilities, it must do so in a way that respects their human rights, honors US human rights commitments, and ensures fair and accurate court decisions.

To download a podcast on this issue, including an interview with a former detainee, please visit:

To download a broadcast quality audio feature, please visit:

Author: ()

Press Coverage: