Skip to main content

Appellate Section - Institutionalized Persons

Briefs and Opinions

  • Riddick v. Barber (4th Cir.) - Amicus
    • The district court erred in requiring Riddick to expressly identify professional standards that govern restraints and seclusion in a civil-commitment context
    • A Youngberg claim challenging prolonged use of restraints and seclusion should not be automatically dismissed based on the issuance of an exemption to state rules restricting such practices
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 12/04/23
  • Griffith v. El Paso County (10th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Intermediate scrutiny applies to the jail’s policies because they differentiate based on sex
    • Compensatory damages claims under Title II and Section 504 are not limited to violations of “settled law”
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 08/28/23
  • Braggs v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The PLRA did not require plaintiffs to re-prove a current and ongoing constitutional violation at the remedial phase before the district court could enter a permanent injunction to remedy the constitutional violations it previously had found
    • The district court correctly imposed a systemwide remedy to protect the plaintiff class from the systemwide violations it had found
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 12/19/22
  • United States v. Hinds County (5th Cir.) – Appellee/Cross-Appellant
    • The district court properly found current and ongoing constitutional violations that necessitate the continuation of tailored prospective relief
    • The district court properly exercised its discretion in appointing a receiver to operate RDC as sanction for contempt of court orders designed to resolve unconstitutional conditions of confinement
    • The district court properly exercised its discretion in crafting a receivership that is tailored in scope and duration to curing unconstitutional conditions of confinement at RDC
    • This court should not stay the new injunction or receiver orders
    • This court should remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to grant the United States’ Rule 60(a) motion
    • This court should remand the case to allow the district court to rule on the Rule 60(b) motion due to a changed circumstance
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Appellee 08/23/23
    Court of Appeals Order 12/28/22
    Reply in Support of Rule 12.1 Notice of Indicative Ruling 12/27/22
    Reply in Support of Rule 12.1 Notice of Indicative Ruling 12/21/22
    Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal 12/19/22
  • Holt v. Payne (8th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court committed clear error in holding that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show the sincerity of their religious beliefs
    • The district court’s substantial-burden analysis did not focus on the specific forms of religious exercise that plaintiffs actually seek to pursue
    • The district court improperly applied the least-restrictive-means test
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 85 F.4th 873 11/02/23
    Brief as Amicus 07/18/22
  • Karsjens v. Harpstead (8th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court did not tailor its analysis to the civil commitment context or meaningfully consider the totality of plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 74 F.4th 561 07/13/23
    Brief as Amicus 07/01/22
  • Burrell v. Staff (3d Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court erred in holding that civil contemnors’ ability to obtain release from detention by paying a sum of money doomed their forced labor claim
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision (corrected), reported at 60 F.4th 25 2/08/23
    Brief as Amicus 01/13/22
  • United States v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) – Appellee
    • This court lacks jurisdiction over 21 of the 25 appealed orders either because the appeal does not satisfy Section 1292(a)(1) or because the appeal is also moot
    • The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the challenged orders to enforce the consent decree
    • Mandamus relief is not appropriate
     
    Document Date 
    Redacted Brief as Appellee 03/16/21
  • Smith v. Dozier (11th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court properly applied Holt v. Hobbs in concluding that Georgia’s inmate grooming policy is not the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling state interest
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 13 F.4th 1319 09/22/21
    Brief as Amicus 03/16/20
  • Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution (6th Cir.) – Amicus
    • Denying an inmate with a disability meaningful access to prison visitation because of his disability violates Title II and Section 504, absent applicable defenses
    • Visitation is a service, program, or activity of GCI
    • Plaintiff does not need to allege a complete exclusion from a public entity’s service, program, or activity to state a cognizable Title II or Section 504 claim
    • The district court misapplied Babcock in dismissing plaintiff’s claims
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order, available at 2019 WL 3857021 04/18/19
    Brief as Amicus 12/12/18
  • Furgess v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (3d Cir.) – Amicus
    • A State prison’s provision of showers to inmates incarcerated in its facilities is a service, program, or activity of the prison covered by Title II and Section 504
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, 933 F.3d 285 08/08/19
    Brief as Amicus 08/27/18
  • Watkins v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The State failed to demonstrate that denying plaintiff kosher meals furthers a compelling governmental interest
    • The State did not show that denying plaintiff kosher meals was the least restrictive means of conserving its resources
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision , available at 669 F. App'x 982 10/28/16
    Brief as Amicus 04/22/16
  • Ali v. Quarterman (5th Cir.) – Amicus
    • Particularly after the intervening decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), the district court was not obligated to defer to prison officials' arguments that it found to be exaggerated or not credible
    • The court properly considered the less restrictive rules that Texas applies in its women's prisons and the less restrictive rules that most other state and federal prisons apply
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 822 F.3d 776 05/02/16
    Brief as Amicus 07/17/15
  • Ball v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The court erred in analyzing whether plaintiffs are qualified individuals with a disability under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
    • The district court properly held that life-threatening heat conditions on Angola's death row violate plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 792 F.3d 584 07/08/15
    Brief as Amicus 09/30/14
  • Holt v. Hobbs (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The lower courts improperly applied the burden of proof in deference to prison officials
    • The record does not support the prison's assertions that Holt's half-inch beard would create an insurmountable administrative burden, problems with identification should he escape, and a place to hide contraband
    • The prison was required, under their burden of proof, to show unique circumstances that would prevent them from accommodating a half-inch beard where most other state prisons and all federal prisons would do so
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 853 01/20/15
    Brief as Amicus 05/29/14
  • United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the United States on its claims that defendants’ blanket denial of kosher meals and the RDP’s zero-tolerance and ten-percent rules violated RLUIPA
    • The district court acted within its discretion in permanently enjoining defendants from denying kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and from enforcing the zero-tolerance and ten-percent rules
    • The preliminary injunction the district court issued in its December 6 Order automatically expired by statute 90 days thereafter, or on March 6, 2014
    • The injunction's expiration precludes this Court from granting specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character
    • The Court should deny appellants' motion for partial stay of the district court's order, requesting the Court delay the July 1, 2014, deadline the district court set for implementing the RDP statewide and allow a quarterly phase-in of the RDP
    • The district court's order granting the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction should be affirmed
    • The United States had moved for a preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring the appellants to provide kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and enjoining the implementation of certain aspects of the new religious diet program that the United States asserted violated RLUIPA
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 828 F.3d 1341 07/14/16
    Brief as Appellee 02/24/16
    Court of Appeals Order, reported at 778 F.3d 1223 02/27/15
    Supplemental Letter Brief 10/01/14
    Court of Appeals Order 06/20/14
    Response in Opposition to a Motion for Partial Stay 06/17/14
    Brief as Appellee 05/21/14
  • Sciarrillo v. Christie (3d Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' Title II and Section 504 claims because the plaintiffs do not have a right to contest transfer and the closure of the two state institutions under Title II, Section 504, or Olmstead
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 11/19/14
    Brief as Amicus 05/12/14
  • United States v. Erie County v. New York Civil Liberties Union (2d Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
    • The district court erred in equating the semiannual compliance reports to settlement negotiation documents
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 763 F.3d 235 08/18/14
    Brief as Plaintiff-Appellee 02/03/14
  • United States v. City of New Orleans (5th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The decree is valid, and that there are no changed circumstances which could justify granting the City's motion to vacate the decree
    • The City knew about the issues it now raises, including the cost of an unrelated settlement to remedy prison conditions and alleged wrongdoing by Sal Perricone, a former Assistant United States Attorney involved in negotiating the police department decree, well before the decree was entered
    • The decree does not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the involvement of Perricone, who resigned before the decree was finalized, did not affect the negotiation of the decree
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 731 F.3d 434 09/27/13
    Brief as Appellee 07/11/13
  • Native American Council of Tribes, et al. v. Weber, et al. (8th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Prison officials improperly relied on their own interpretation of plaintiffs' religious tenets in banning tobacco and that the district court appropriately called on them to show they considered less restrictive alternatives before they imposed the tobacco ban
    • The district court correctly relied on other prisons' policies permitting ritual tobacco when it concluded that a total tobacco ban was not the least restrictive means available for controlling contraband and ensuring prison security
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 750 F.3d 742 04/25/14
    Brief as Amicus 06/26/13
  • United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands (3d Cir.) - Appellee
    • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to intervene on timeliness grounds and because the United States adequately represented the inmates' interests
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 748 F.3d 514 04/11/14
    Brief as Appellee 05/28/13
  • Knight v. Thompson (11th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Holt's application of RLUIPA in similar circumstances shows Alabama failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that its challenged practice is the least restrictive means of meeting its compelling interests
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 796 F.3d 1289 08/05/15
    Brief as Amicus 04/20/15
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 723 F.3d 1275 (Vacated, reported at 135 S. Ct. 1173 (S. Ct. Jan. 26, 2015), in light of Holt v. Hobbs, reported at 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015)) 07/26/13
    Brief as Amicus 08/27/12
  • United States v. California (9th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
    • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for intervention on timeliness grounds
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, availabble at 538 F. App'x 759 08/16/13
    Brief as Appellee 06/22/12
  • Benjamin v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (3d Cir.) – Amicus
    • Properly understood, Olmstead establishes community placement as the default for people for whom community placement is appropriate but who cannot express a preference either for or against community placement
    • The class certified in this case meets the requirements of Rule 23
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 701 F.3d 938 12/12/12
    Brief as Amicus 04/05/12
  • Garner v. Kennedy (5th Cir.) - Amicus
    • TDCJ's ban on beards violates Section 3 of RLUIPA because it is not the least restrictive means of advancing the TDCJ's compelling interests in effective and economical prison security
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 713 F.3d 237 04/12/13
    Brief as Amicus 12/27/11
  • United States v. McCoy and McQueen (6th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The district court correctly rejected defendants' request for joint representation due to conflicts of interest
    • The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 480 F. App'x 366 05/08/12
    Brief as Appellee 03/17/11
  • Thunderhorse v. Pierce (S. Ct.) – Amicus
    • The Fifth Circuit erred by failing to require that TDCJ explain why the less restrictive practices advocated by Thunderhorse were not feasible, or why the TDCJ’s inconsistent application of the grooming policy did not indicate that less restrictive means were possible
    • Because the courts of appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, have generally correctly applied RLUIPA’s standards, this case does not warrant plenary review, and the Court should therefore either deny the petition or, in the alternative, grant the petition and summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 896 01/10/11
    Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation 12/01/10
  • Simmons v. Galvin (S. Ct.) – Amicus
    • Given the circumstances of incarceration, Section 2 of the VRA cannot be read to apply to claims brought by currently incarcerated felons
    • A different analysis applies to claims brought by persons who have been released from incarceration, and that Section 2 may apply to such claims
    • The Massachusetts statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 412 10/18/10
    Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation 09/15/10
  • U.S. v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) -- Appellant
    • The court clearly erred in finding the Commonwealth’s efforts reasonably diligent; abused its discretion in failing to consider Puerto Rico’s degree compliance and ability to comply; and erred as a matter of law in concluding that reasonable diligence alone could excuse substantial noncompliance with the stipulated order
    • The automatic stay provision of the PLRA and defendants’ motion to modify the stipulated order did not moot the appeal or render it unripe, and that defendants failed to prove their alleged inability to comply with the court’s order
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 642 F.3d 103 05/26/11
    Reply Brief 12/16/10
    Brief as Appellant 08/23/10
  • Oster v. Wagner (9th Cir.) –Amicus
    • Institutionalization is not a prerequisite for asserting an integration claim
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order, available at 504 F. App'x 555 01/07/13
    Brief as Amicus 03/02/10
  • United States v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
    • This court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal
    • The district court had authority to delay the automatic stay by 60 days
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 05/29/07
    Brief as Appellee 04/16/07
  • United States v. Tennessee (6th Cir.) -- Appellant
    • Disregarding rulings that testimony taken solely as a proffer will be subject to cross-examination and rebuttal if later admitted to the record is clear and unequivocal legal error
    • While summary denial of cross-examination is prejudicial per se, prejudice is further demonstrated because the proffered testimony was central to the denial and could have been countered by cross-examination and rebuttal
    • District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s motion because there has not been a change in the governing law sufficient to warrant early termination of the remedial orders in this case
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 615 F.3d 646 08/04/10
    Brief as Appellee 08/03/09
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 143 F. App'x 656 06/23/05
    Reply Brief 09/10/04
    Brief as Appellant 06/14/04
  • Johnson & United States v. Regier (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Prevailing defendants in CRIPA actions can be awarded fees only when the United States' case is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation
    • The district court acted well within its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the State
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 348 F.3d 1334 10/29/03
    Brief as Appellee 12/10/02
  • People First v. Tennessee (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • District court did not err in denying motion of trade group for private contract providers of community services to intervene because it had no cognizable interest in the litigation
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 260 F.3d 587 08/08/01
    Brief as Appellee 04/18/01
  • People First v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • District court did not err in denying motion of trade group for private contract providers of community services to intervene because it had no cognizable interest in the litigation
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 260 F.3d 587 08/08/01
    Brief as Appellee 06/30/00
  • Battle v. Fields (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Prisoner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is moot when prisoner was permitted to participate in suit without paying fees
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 221 F.3d 1353 07/28/00
    Brief as Appellee 02/28/00
  • Evans v. Williams (D.C. Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Distinction between civil and criminal comtempt
    • District court did not abuse discretion in imposing civil contempt sanctions on District of Columbia when it failed to comply with remedial orders requiring timely payment of vendors responsible for providing day-to-day care and services to persons no longer served in institutions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 206 F.3d 1292 03/31/00
    Brief as Appellee, available at 1999 WL 35638532 11/12/99

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other

Updated January 26, 2024