This month, NCRCR spoke with Jenny Yang, Partner at Cohen Milstein and counsel for plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the largest civil rights class action lawsuit in U.S. history. Listen in as they discuss the potential impact of this much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling on gender and employment discrimination.
Listen to the full interview series here.
Sandra Park of the ACLU Women's Rights Project spoke with Tricia Perry about the Flores-Villar v. United States case regarding differences in the ability of men and women to confer U.S. citizenship on their children born abroad. Listen in as they discuss the potential impact of the case on gender and citizenship rights.
Listen to the full interview series here.
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights (NCRCR) has announced the winners of its 2010 Written Essay and Visual Image Contest. The contest entitled “What Does Equality Mean to You?” asked youth ages 14-18 across the United States to define equality from their unique perspectives by submitting either a written entry or a visual image such as a drawing, cartoon or photograph. Winners were selected by a panel of high-profile judges, including singer and songwriter Alicia Keys, comedian Margaret Cho, Congressman Keith Ellison (MN), Congressman Gregory Meeks (NY) and NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous.
Naomi Lattanzi, 16, of Los Altos, California won for her courageous personal essay entitled “Are You?” in which she discusses how she feels when a schoolmate asks whether she is a lesbian. As the nation continues to struggle with issues affecting the rights and everyday lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (“LGBTQQ”) communities such as marriage equality, bias attacks and bullying, Naomi’s answer seems fitting: “I don’t know, but you can’t take away what sense of self I have. As long as I have people who accept me you can’t make me feel inferior. You’ll eventually have to accept the truth: We are equals.”
18-year-old Misra Walker from the Bronx, New York is the winner in the visual image category. Misra’s powerful image of a Latino man standing in front of an American flag with his arms crossed over his chest and eyes downcast evokes the conflicting feelings of frustration and hope experienced by many immigrants across this country as they seek to realize the “American Dream.” This image seems particularly appropriate given the debates about immigration and citizenship happening across the country.
Finally, 18-year-old Abisola Barbara Williams from Brooklyn, New York was the first runner-up in the visual entry category. Abisola’s piece, a collage of three images featuring a young woman wearing a Muslim headscarf, another without head covering, and someone wearing a bracelet with the word “peace,” spoke to her sense of how the various aspects of race, gender and religion interact to form a complex pattern of discrimination that has resulted in her Muslim peers experiencing violence and harassment on the streets of New York. Again, this image addressed a timely and important topic given the recent rise in anti-Islamic sentiment across the country.
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights invited winners and finalists to New York City this week in order to recognize their leadership efforts. Naomi and Abisola participated in a training session on how to speak about civil rights issues and met with a variety of civil rights advocates.
Young people have always played an important role in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. Despite the accusations of laziness and indifference leveled at them, youth political involvement over the past few years has broken every stereotype about the apathy of young people in America. During the 2008 presidential campaign we saw first-hand that this ‘Millennial Generation’ is thinking about and playing an active role in civil rights, politics and social issues. Naomi, Misra and Abisola represent a new generation of leaders whose activism and innovation will continue to shape the landscape of civil rights and social justice in the 21st century.
A decision to slash funding for Medicaid has real and tangible effects on people’s lives, such as those of Lillie Brantley, Allie Jo Woodward and Gilda Garcia. Lillie Brantley is 84 years old and severely impaired by Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Allie Jo Woodward, 79 years old, has bipolar affective disorder, depression and a host of physical ailments including diabetes, glaucoma and hypertension. Gilda Garcia is 77 years old and has had unstable diabetes since 1995. Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia all receive services benefits from Medi-Cal Adult Day Health Care (ADHC), a community-based program for low-income seniors and younger adults with disabilities in the state of California. ADHC provides an organized day care program that includes therapeutic, social and skilled nursing health activities enabling participants to restore or maintain their capacity for self care. These crucial services, including daily professional nursing services to monitor their health; daily personal care services to assist with day-to-day living tasks; social services to improve their mental and emotional well-being; and physical and occupational therapy to increase their physical strength and functionality, have enabled Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia to live independently with the assistance of family members, who provide part-time care when not working. Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia cannot afford private care and their family members cannot afford to quit their jobs to provide full-time care (nor are they qualified to provide all of the care needed). As a result, cuts to the ADHC program will deprive these women (and many others) of the care and company they depend on, and most certainly place them at risk of hospitalization and/or institutionalization.
Despite the fact that programs like ADHC and other Medicaid services are notoriously underfunded, the California state legislature passed a law cutting ‘Medi-Cal’ payments (Medicaid reimbursements) to medical providers by ten percent in 2008. The state legislature voted for an additional five percent payment reduction in early 2009. In making these cuts the state failed to take into account the effect that they would have on the already scarce services to low-income people living in medically underserved areas and for people with disabilities. The state also disregarded federal law requiring them to consider, among other things, whether payment rates are consistent with the ability of health care providers to offer quality care and sufficient to recruit enough providers to ensure that care and services are available. As a result of these cuts, low-income enrollees across the state have suddenly found themselves unable to fill and pay for their prescriptions, and hospitals and other care facilities have been unable to provide adequate treatment to their Medicaid patients as required by law.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on a trio of lawsuits regarding California’s cuts. The three cases, known collectively as Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, California Pharmacists Assn, and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, were filed on behalf of Brantley, Woodward and Garcia (and others like them) and yet again raise the issue of access to the courts for individuals and groups to enforce laws meant to protect their rights. In all three ‘Maxwell-Jolly’ cases, the federal district and appeals courts ruled that, despite the budget climate, California could not cut Medicaid spending so drastically without taking into account federal requirements that the program ensure affordable, quality health care for low-income individuals and families, and for people with disabilities. At the Supreme Court level, the issue up for consideration is whether or not the federal Medicaid law meant to safeguard access to healthcare for those in need can take priority over the California state law cutting the Medicaid budget. The Court will also decide whether Brantley, Woodward, Garcia and others who are affected by the cuts have the right to go to court to enforce federal Medicaid rules. This case is yet another example of a court case involving below-the-radar-screen procedural issues that have real-life, serious and potentially life-threatening ramifications for thousands of people across the country. We can only hope that, when making its decision, the Court chooses to keep Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia in mind.
(Photo by LOLren.)
Muneer Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations spoke with Tricia Perry about the recent ballot initiative in Oklahama, where voters approved a measure prohibiting state courts from considering international and Islamic ("Sharia") law. Listen as they discuss the potential impact of the law and pending legal challenges.
Listen to the full interview series here.
Urbanite friends, imagine for a moment that you're passionate about fishing. Some of your happiest times have been spent out on the river with your best buddies, peacefully awaiting a tug on the line and the subsequent chase. Year after year, you've appreciated this ritual, grateful for the outdoors and its offerings. Your kids look forward to Saturday afternoons out on the dock with you, too. And then one day you find out that the state you live in has issued a permit to an energy company to dump millions of gallons of oil field wastewater into the river, your river. What would you do?
You could try petitioning your state or, if that failed, going to court and suing the state for issuing a permit that jeopardizes your right to a clean, unpolluted water source. In a move that will probably have significant implications for environmental and water law in Michigan and possibly other states, a group of anglers and other environmental groups brought just this kind of case. They challenged the state's decision to allow Merit Energy to use a pipeline to cut across state land in order to dump contaminated water into the previously uncontaminated Au Sable River. The anglers brought suit under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) of 1970 which authorizes “any person” to file suit “for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources...from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”
Citizens and environmental groups historically have brought cases under environmental laws like MEPA to challenge polluters as well as state agencies that allow contamination of our waterways. In this case, however, the state challenged the anglers' right to sue under MEPA based on several recent cases that called into question whether and under what conditions citizens can go to court and whether they can hold the state responsible for allowing the pollution under the law. Also at issue was the definition of waterfront property rights and whether the state was within its rights to allow Merit Energy access to the Au Sable watershed. The case raised a number of concerns as it made its way through the courts, particularly after a state court of appeals ruled that the anglers and environmental groups couldn't sue the state under MEPA.
On December 29, 2010, the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan issued a 4-3 ruling. The court ruled in favor of the anglers, arguing that, as the law suggests, “any person” in Michigan has the right to sue in order to protect public environmental assets. The majority opinion also held that Merit Energy's request to pollute the Au Sable was “manifestly unreasonable.”
As the new year begins, ideological shifts on the Michigan Supreme Court seem to indicate that a rollback of civil and environmental rights may be on the way. For now, though, it is heartening to see the courts upholding the law and allowing access to justice and the enforcement of our critical clean water laws. Let's hope this is a new norm.
(Photo by Todd Baker.)
By Paula Z. Segal
In the 2011 term, the Supreme Court will consider closing all federal courthouse doors to those harmed by climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions – especially emissions of carbon dioxide - are a danger to the environment because they lead to temperature changes in the atmosphere. Temperature changes in the atmosphere lead to warmer seas, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and eroding coastlines. Coal-burning power plants emit carbon dioxide in huge quantities.
Although it is the job of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate all emissions that threaten air quality, the EPA has not yet come up with regulations that actually require coal burning power plants to control how much greenhouse gas they release into the air.
Eight states, New York City and three land trusts sued the biggest coal companies in federal court in New York, asking the court to order the companies to limit how much carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere. The coal companies they sued contribute 10% of all carbon dioxide emissions worldwide from human activity.
Each plaintiff argues that it has already experienced harm from temperature changes in the atmosphere. For example, California has lost a large portion of its mountain snowpack, a crucial water source for 34 million people. If temperature changes in the atmosphere continue on their current trajectory unabated, the next 100 years will bring an increase in heat-wave related illness and death, increased smog and its accompanying respiratory problems, damage to coastal homes and infrastructure, salt water in fresh water supplies, and more extreme weather, which is likely to result in property damage and erosion of irreplaceable ecosystems. The first people to be affected by these “natural” disasters are the least well protected – the poor, elderly, the people who live in communities with aging infrastructure and who lack the resources to provide for themselves when that infrastructure fails.
California and its partners in the case won: A federal appeals court in New York was convinced that emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to global warming and are already having an impact on sea levels enough to be considered a public nuisance – that is, interfering with public health in violation of federal law. The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for an order limiting emissions.
But the coal companies were not pleased with the result and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears a small number of cases every year, but decided to take the case, called Connecticut v. AEP. (The Supreme Court doesn’t have to take every case that is appealed; it gets to pick and choose.) The fact that the Supreme Court decided to hear this case in 2011 is a signal that the court wants to weigh in on whether people, cities, states and other entities harmed by pollution have a right to be heard by courts in the future. The Supreme Court may agree with the appeals court that decided the case for the injured states, New York City and the land trusts. But it may also overturn that decision, potentially slamming the door in the faces of others harmed by pollution and climate change who hope to have their day in court when injured by a public nuisance.
Paula Z. Segal is a third year law student at City University of New York Law School at Queens College. She is the Events Editor of the New York City Law Review and an active member of the NYC National Lawyers Guild Street Law Team. In the Fall of 2010, she interned with the Environmental Justice Unit at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
(Photo by davipt.)
Last month, the Supreme Court decided it would hear another set of cases that deal with campaign spending and freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The two lawsuits, McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, concern a new Arizona law that provides public funding to candidates underfunded in local elections. According to the Brennan Center, which will be defending the law in the Supreme Court, the voters of Arizona passed the “clean elections” law in response to a series of corruption scandals that involved an elected official stuffing money into a gym bag. The Act established a voluntary public financing system for legislative and statewide executive political elections. John McComish, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC and others claim that their freedom of speech is violated by the section of the law that provides additional money to candidates facing high spending opposition. While a federal appeals court upheld the “clean elections” law in April, the Supreme Court elected in June to put enforcement of the law on hold pending further review.
Along the lines of the landmark ruling in Citizens United earlier this year, the arguments in these cases are highly polarized. Those who have sued to challenge the laws assert that donating money in support of a political candidate is a First Amendment right and that the government should not tamper with or otherwise invalidate the private will. At the other side of the spectrum, “Arizona lawmakers have argued there is a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.” And many people are worried more generally about the influence of money in elections and are concerned about corporate interests allowing some candidates to outspend their opposition.
As ever, stay tuned.
(Photo by Indiana Public Media.)
Tricia Perry of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights spoke with Suzette Malveaux of Catholic University of America about the AT&T Mobility v. Concepción case on class action arbitration in California. Listen in as they discuss the significant impact this ruling may have on our access to justice, civil rights and consumer protections.
As the Senate prepares to vote on the DREAM Act, there's rarely a day that those of us here at NCRCR don't find ourselves thinking about the intersections between race, class, nationality and legal status and how these issues are addressed in the courts. As such, the issues faced by undocumented students trying to get an education are of particular interest. Through no act of their own (and more often than not an act of economic desperation on the part of their parents), thousands of smart and talented young people graduate high school in the U.S. each year and, because of their immigration status, find themselves ineligible for the federal loans that “finance” the college educations of their documented peers. To make matters worse, several states have passed laws making these undocumented students ineligible for the “in-state” reduced tuition rate at public universities and colleges available to legal residents of the state. Because these undocumented students’ families usually do not have the means to throw down $20-40,000 per year on tuition, the students hit a dead-end, ostensibly ensuring their inability to enter an increasingly competitive job market in what is, in some cases, the only country they have ever known.
There are laws that make this situation questionable: Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution promises the equal protection of a state's laws to any person within that state’s jurisdiction and allows the courts to enforce the principle that “all men are created equal.” In support of this constitutional right, the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe that undocumented immigrants were entitled to a free and equal K-12 public education. This key ruling was based on the premise that everyone, regardless of immigration status, has the right to an education. With this decision states could no longer withhold a state-funded, public primary and secondary education to undocumented children. When it comes to college, however, no effort has been made to address this issue on a federal level, and the battle over access to an affordable college education for undocumented students is being fought in the courts. In a recent victory for these students, the California state Supreme Court ruled that undocumented students who attended at least three years of high school in California must be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities. This can amount to a difference of up to $12,000 per year, which certainly makes trying to get a college education less daunting. Nine other states have similar legislation, though lawsuits are pending in two states in order to challenge these laws -- but each ruling in favor of such laws adds legitimacy to the right of all young people in the U.S. to get a quality and affordable education.
If the DREAM Act passes, undocumented students will also have a pathway to pursue U.S. citizenship after graduating from college or a trade school. As ever, progress is gradual and the courts continue to play an important role in ensuring that progress is made.
(Photo by Gord McKenna.)
