PART I: Overview of the Organization and Activities of the Civil Rights Division

PART II: The Civil Rights Division at Thirty-five, A Retrospective

FOREWARD

INTRODUCTION

The Division enforces the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1970, 1975 and 1982; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act and additional civil rights provisions contained in other laws and regulations. These laws prohibit discrimination in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and conducted programs. In addition, the Division prosecutes actions under several criminal civil rights statutes which were designed to preserve personal liberties. The Division also enforces the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief for persons confined to public institutions where conditions exist that deprive residents of their constitutional rights.

The Division is responsible for coordinating the civil rights enforcement efforts of federal agencies whose programs are covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and assists federal agencies in identifying and removing discriminatory provisions in their policies and programs.

The Civil Rights Division does not have regional offices. All Division employees are stationed in Washington, D.C. Nearly all Division attorneys and, occasionally, some paralegal and clerical personnel are required to travel since litigation activities occur in all parts of the United States.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

The Division has nine program-related Sections, an Administrative Management Section, and an Office of Redress Administration. Six of the Sections have enforcement responsibilities over particular subject areas; one is responsible for the coordination of federal agencies' civil rights enforcement efforts; and another handles appellate matters and provides legal and legislative guidance. The Administrative Management Section supports the Division's work by providing services in the areas of personnel, budget, automated systems, procurement, mail and records management, and by preparing responses to requests for information under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts.

The following is a brief summary of each Section's responsibilities in enforcing the laws and regulations for which it is charged.

Appellate Section P.O. Box 66078 Washington, DC 20035-6078 (202) 514-2195 The Appellate Section has primary responsibility for handling civil rights cases in the courts of appeals and, in cooperation with the Solicitor General, in the Supreme Court. Most of the Section's appeals are from district court judgments in cases originally handled by trial sections within the Division. The appellate caseload is both affirmative and defensive. Thus, the Section handles all appeals from both favorable and adverse judgments in which the government participates.

A significant proportion of the Section's work involves participation as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in cases that have the potential for affecting Division enforcement responsibilities. In this capacity, the Appellate Section closely monitors federal court cases to which the United States is not a party. In many of these cases, especially those concerned with developing or problematic areas of civil rights law, the Section uses the federal government's authority to file an amicus curiae brief to register the government's position.

The Section also provides legal counsel to other components of the Department of Justice regarding civil rights law and appellate litigation. Finally, the Section serves as the principal legislative counsel for the Division, by formulating the Division's legislative proposals and by providing comments on the civil rights aspects of proposed legislation referred by Congress, departmental components, and other Executive Branch agencies and departments.

Recent examples of cases handled by the Appellate Section include:

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing United States v. State of Florida and De Grandy v. Johnson. A three-judge district court found that Florida's redistricting plan for the State Senate violated the rights of Hispanics and African-Americans under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but then adopted that very plan as the remedy for these violations. The United States argued that the district court abused its discretion in doing this without holding a hearing to determine whether a more complete remedy was possible.

These cases were argued together with Johnson v. De Grandy, in which the same three-judge court held that Florida's redistricting plan for its House of Representatives violated the rights of Hispanics under Section 2 by fragmenting Hispanic population concentrations in the Dade County area. The House appellants contended principally that the district court erred in finding a violation because the House plan gives Hispanics proportional representation in the Dade County area. The United States argued that the district court correctly found a Section 2 violation.

The Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, unanimously held that Wisconsin's criminal enhancement statute which provides for increased penalties if the defendant selected his victim on the basis of race, religion or other specified status, does not violate the First Amendment.

In United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia (VMI), the constitutionality of Virginia Military Institute's male-only admission policy was successfully challenged. The Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit's decision which held that Virginia could not justify, under a policy of educational diversity, offering the benefits of single-gender military education only to men. Remedial proceedings are currently pending in the district court.

The Section recently filed an opposition to The Citadel's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc in Faulkner & United States v. Jones, an action challenging the male-only admissions policy to the Citadel Corps of Cadets. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the issuance of preliminary injunction which required The Citadel to admit plaintiff Shannon Richey Faulkner to day classes pending a decision on the merits. Consistent with our position, the Fourth Circuit found that the irreparable harm to Faulkner from a delay in a Citadel education, outweighed any possible harm to The Citadel from the presence of one woman taking day classes at the school.

The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument in Knight and United States v. State of Alabama. The district court in this case found that the State of Alabama had not fully eliminated the vestiges of discrimination from its system of public higher education, and ordered the defendants to remedy those vestiges by improving the facilities and programs at the state's two historically black colleges, Alabama State University and Alabama A & M. The court also ordered defendants to take certain actions at historically white schools -- i.e., to increase the enrollment of black students at Auburn and the number of black faculty members and administrators at Auburn and the University of Alabama. Appeals from portions of the remedial plan were filed by the Knight plaintiffs, Alabama State, and Alabama A & M University. The Section argued that the order, if implemented properly, has the potential to eliminate the vestiges of past discrimination at Alabama State and Alabama A & M, and should be affirmed at this point with the understanding that it must prove to work in practice.

In The Associated Press & The Times Mirror Co. v. United States District Court, the press sought a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's ruling in the Rodney King prosecution, United States v. Koon. The district court had ruled that the press were not entitled to the detailed questionnaire responses of the prospective, anonymous jurors. The Ninth Circuit agreed with our argument, and affirmed the court's ruling allowing the court to maintain the confidentiality of prospective juror responses for the duration of the trial and until the district court may direct.

The Section filed in the Tenth Circuit an amicus brief in Womens Health Care Service v. Operation Rescue arguing that the preliminary injunction prohibiting abortion clinic blockades in that case should not be summarily vacated in spite of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bray v. Alexandria Womens Health Clinic. This case is still pending in the court of appeals.

Coordination and Review Section P.O. Box 66118 Washington, DC 20035-6118 (202) 308-2222 The Coordination and Review Section exercises both programmatic and non-litigation enforcement responsibilities. Under Executive Order 12250, the Section coordinates the enforcement by Federal agencies of various statutes that prohibit discrimination in programs that receive Federal financial assistance, and that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by the Federal Government.

The Section also coordinates the enforcement by Federal agencies of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination by state and local governments against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. The Section investigates complaints for which the Department of Justice is the designated agency for administrative enforcement.

Government-wide coordination of Federal civil rights enforcement activities. Approximately 27 Federal agencies administer programs of Federal financial assistance, which are subject to the following nondiscrimination statutes:

-title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, national origin);

-section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (disability);

-title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (sex in education programs);

-similarly worded provisions of program statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, and religion.

The Section reviews proposed regulations, policies, and procedures developed by Federal agencies to implement these civil rights requirements in order to assure consistent, effective, and efficient enforcement. The Section reviews plans submitted by these agencies describing their civil rights enforcement goals, activities, and past progress, and reviews workload and performance data on their enforcement activities. The Section also provides technical assistance and training to improve the enforcement programs of individual agencies.

ADA title II investigations and coordination: The Section investigates complaints of discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local governments in the following areas: law enforcement, public safety, and the administration of justice; commerce and industry, banking and finance, consumer protection, insurance and small business; and all other government functions not assigned to other Federal agencies (e.g., election boards, municipal stadiums, personnel offices).

The complaints within the Department of Justice's jurisdiction allege a wide variety of violations, including physical inaccessibility, discriminatory policies, employment discrimination, and failure to provide auxiliary aids such as sign language interpreters and written materials in alternate accessible formats.

Investigators and attorneys from the Section, using the administrative enforcement model employed by civil rights offices throughout the government, investigate each complaint and seek case resolutions through the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, if appropriate, in lieu of full field investigations. In other cases, formal findings of compliance or noncompliance are issued. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved where noncompliance is found, the Section refers the case to the Public Access Section for litigation. The Section also serves as the ADA title II complaint clearinghouse, referring complaints to the appropriate designated agencies and making determinations as to likely jurisdiction in cases involving multiple issues and agencies.

Criminal Section P.O. Box 66018 Washington, DC 20035-6018 (202) 514-3204

The Criminal Section is a trial section whose attorneys frequently prosecute cases of national significance involving the deprivation of personal liberties which either cannot be, or are not, sufficiently addressed by state or local authorities. These are invariably matters of intense public interest involving acts of racial violence, misconduct by local and federal law enforcement officials, or violations of the peonage and involuntary servitude statutes that protect migrant workers and others held in bondage.

The federal criminal civil rights statutes provide for prosecutions of conspiracies to interfere with federally protected rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, the use or threat of force to injure or intimidate someone in their enjoyment of specific rights (such as voting, employment, education, public facilities and accommodations) and criminal housing interference.

The Section receives eight to ten thousand criminal civil rights complaints annually in the form of citizen correspondence, phone calls, or personal visits to the Department of Justice, to the local U.S. Attorney's office or, most commonly, to the FBI. Complaints setting forth possible violations of the law for which the Department has jurisdiction are forwarded to the FBI for investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the FBI forwards a report to the responsible attorney within the Division as well as to the appropriate U.S. Attorney's office. A prosecutive determination is then made by Section attorneys based on the facts contained in the FBI report.

Of the approximate 3,000 - 3,500 investigations conducted each year, about 60 are authorized for grand jury presentation. About 60% of those presentations ultimately result in charges being filed. Because almost any matter which presents a violation of federal law is also a matter involving a local or state law violation, deference is given to local prosecutions unless federal interests are deemed to be unvindicated. But if the results of the state or local proceedings are insufficient, or in the absence of any such action, a federal prosecution can be brought.

Allegations of official misconduct constitute the majority of all complaints reviewed by the Section. The "officials" who have been defendants include state and local police officers, federal law enforcement officers, a prison superintendent and correctional officers, and a state judge. These officials have been charged with using their positions to deprive individuals of constitutional rights, such as the right to be free from unwarranted assaults, illegal arrests and searches; and the right to be free from deprivation of property without due process of law.

In California, two police officers were convicted and two others acquitted who, while serving with the Los Angeles Police Department, were involved in the beating of Rodney King. The incident was captured on video- tape in March, 1991 and aired around the world. The two-month federal trial followed the officers' earlier acquittals on state charges. Both of the convicted defendants received prison terms of 30 months. The team of federal prosecutors in this case included highly experienced litigators from both the Civil Rights Division as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, and exemplified the Attorney General's belief that civil rights enforcement is a Departmental priority and most effectively conducted by joint litigation teams.

In another case which received national attention, a Tennessee state judge was convicted of multiple counts of sexually assaulting women who were involved in domestic disputes pending in his court or who were courthouse employees. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

In Rochester, New York, a three-month trial resulted in the acquittal of five defendants, members or supervisors of a federally-funded Highway Interdiction Team who had been charged with conspiring to deprive arrested persons of their civil rights by engaging in a pattern of physical abuse, stealing arrestees' property, making false arrests, and embezzling federal funds. Two other defendants, including the former Chief of Police, had pled guilty prior to trial; the former Chief was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Federal officials have also been charged with official misconduct -- five U.S. Marshal employees in Oklahoma pled guilty to charges of assaulting handcuffed, unresisting federal inmates and of filing false reports to justify their use of force. A former U.S. Border Patrol agent, acquitted on state murder charges, was indicted on federal civil rights charges for several shootings, one of which resulted in the death of a Mexican national.

Incidents involving violent and intimidating acts of racial, ethnic and religious hatred are also a high priority for prosecution. Since 1989, over 240 defendants in more than half of the 50 states have been convicted on federal criminal civil rights charges for interfering with various federally protected rights (such as housing, employment, voting, and public services) of black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Jewish victims. In addition, many cases included charges of criminal conspiracy, particularly where the defendants were members of organized hate groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, The Order and various racist Skinhead gangs. Since 1989, virtually all defendants charged in these cases have been convicted.

Among those prosecuted were five defendants in Minnesota, mostly juveniles with Skinhead associations, who were convicted of or pled guilty to several crossburnings intended to interfere with the housing rights of a black family. The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned an earlier state conviction arising from this same incident when it held the local ordinance to be unconstitutional because it regulated speech. Two separate crossburnings at the homes of black families in one case and four guilty pleas in the other from residents of a town that had historically and blatantly discouraged black visitors. In Mississippi, three young men who confessed to burning down two churches with black congregations on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death were sentenced to three to four years in prison and ordered to pay $138,000 in restitution.

The first prosecution brought under 18 U.S.C. 247 (religious interference), a statute that was enacted in 1988, resulted in life imprisonment for four defendants, members of a religious sect, who had murdered former church members, including a child, because they had left the sect. Two other defendants in this case remain fugitives.

A slavery case was brought recently in North Carolina against three operators of an alleged three-state ring of illegal migrant farm labor crews that recruited homeless people and temporary laborers with promises of high wages and free lodging. The operators then conspired to keep them from leaving by threatening them with violence unless they had paid off debts for food and housing. Two of the defendants, a mother and her son, have pled guilty.

Educational Opportunities Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, DC 20035-5958 (202) 514-4092

The Educational Opportunities Section enforces federal statutes which prohibit public school officials from engaging in discriminatory practices. The laws for which this Section has responsibility include Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. In addition, the Section may intervene in private suits which allege violations of education-related antidiscrimination statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Finally, the Section has responsibility for representing the Department of Education in certain types of suits filed against the Secretary of Education, as well as for filing suits on behalf of the Secretary when school districts and colleges fail to comply with Department of Education regulations.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education mandates that public school officials not assign students to schools and classes on a racial basis, or deny students equal educational opportunity on the basis of race or color. Subsequent federal legislation and court decisions mandate that school officials not discriminate against students on the basis of gender or language barriers. Thus, the Section's work covers a variety of legal issues involving both elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.

The Section continues to litigate a large number of cases in which it challenges practices of school districts which result in illegal student segregation. Such discriminatory practices usually involve decisions of school districts in reorganizing the structure of a district, new methods of assigning students to classes, constructing new schools, and modifying student attendance zones. Moreover, in recent years, an increased number of complaints have been received involving the failure of districts to provide minority students equal educational opportunity and the failure to address language barriers faced by students with limited English speaking skills. For example, in United States v. Darlington School District, an investigation revealed that the school district was continuing to assign students on a racial basis, engaging in discriminatory employment practices, and maintaining a school located in a black community as an inferior school. The government filed suit against the district. In addition to the violations raised by our complaint, the school district persuaded the district court that certain state officials were partly responsible for any existing constitutional violations and, therefore, the State should be joined as a party in the case.

In addition to its work involving elementary and secondary school districts, the Section enforces statutes which prohibit discrimination on account of race, sex, national origin, color, and religion with respect to public institutions of higher education. Recently, the Section has litigated two cases involving the desegregation of state systems of higher education. In Knight and the United States v. State of Alabama, a six-month trial was conducted involving the issue of whether the State has eliminated all vestiges of its former racially dual system of higher education with respect to student admissions, funding, school facilities, and student services. The trial involved more than 150 witnesses, including 20 experts in various fields, and thousands of pages of exhibits. The district court ruled in favor of the government and private plaintiffs. A similar case was prosecuted against the States of Mississippi and Louisiana.

Additionally, the Section filed suit pursuant to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act challenging the male-only admissions policy of a Virginia public college as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case presented very challenging litigation; among the defendants' defense team were two former U.S. Attorneys General. The government prevailed in this case at the liability stage, and a second trial involving an appropriate remedial plan was necessary. A similar case was initiated in March 1993 involving an institution in South Carolina. Finally, the Section was recently asked to defend the constitutionality of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, when a group of men at a university alleged that their constitutional rights were violated when the school terminated the intercollegiate sport in which they participated.

It is important to point out that most of the cases handled by the Section involving discrimination by public universities go to the Supreme Court on petitions for certiorari.

Employment Litigation Section P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 (202) 514-3831

The Employment Litigation Section enforces against state and local government employers the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and other federal laws prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on grounds of race, sex, religion, and national origin. Since July 1991, the Section has also been responsible for enforcing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, prohibiting discrimination in employment because of disability against state and local government employers.

The Section initiates litigation in two ways. Under the statutes it enforces, the Attorney General has authority to bring suit where there is reason to believe that a "pattern or practice" of discrimination exists. Generally, these are factually and legally complex cases which seek to alter an employment practice that has the purpose or effect of denying employment or promotional opportunities to a class of individuals. For example, under this authority the Section has initiated litigation challenging: the residency requirements of 35 suburban communities that had the purpose or effect of excluding minorities who lived in nearby cities, the hiring and/or testing practices of state and local police and fire departments as being discriminatory against minorities and females and the hiring and assignment practices of state penal institutions that discriminated against female applicants for correction officer positions. Under its pattern or practice authority, the Section obtains relief in the form of offers of employment and back pay for individuals who have been the victims of the unlawful employment practices.

The Section's second enforcement mechanism is the filing of suits based upon individual charges of discrimination referred to it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). These charges have been filed with the EEOC by individuals who believe that they were unlawfully denied an employment opportunity or otherwise discriminated against by a state or local government employer. If, after investigation, the EEOC determines that the charge has merit and efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, the EEOC may vote to refer the matter to this Department. The Department of Justice then has authority to determine whether or not to initiate litigation. These suits, while small in scope when compared to pattern or practice suits, are cases which might not be pursued without the Section's participation. A number of suits initiated under this authority have involved allegations of sexual harassment, unlawful discharge and religious discrimination. These suits also provide new attorneys with the opportunity to handle their own investigations and litigation early in their legal careers with the Division.

The Section also represents the Departments of Labor and Transportation and other federal agencies when they are sued for alleged overzealous enforcement of federal laws which prohibit discrimination by government contractors or recipients of federal financial assistance or the implementation of preferential contracting or affirmative action programs by federal agencies. In addition, the Section has authority to prosecute enforcement actions upon referral by the Department of Labor of complaints arising under Executive Order 11246 and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination in employment by federal contractors.

Attorneys assigned to the Employment Litigation Section will concern themselves with all aspects of complex litigation, including investigation of complaints of employment discrimination, recommendations for litigation, discovery, settlement negotiations, trial of complaints that have not been voluntarily resolved and enforcement of judgments. Frequently, the Section's litigation raises issues of constitutional law and may involve the testimony of expert witnesses, such as industrial psychologists, exercise physiologists, economists and statisticians. The litigation handled by the Section is national in scope, and attorneys can expect to travel extensively.

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section P.O. Box 65998 Washington, DC 20035-5998 (202) 514-4713

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section has principal responsibility for enforcing the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap and familial status. The Act has been held to apply not only to actions by direct providers of housing but also to actions by such entitities as municipalities, banks, and insurance companies whose discriminatory practices have otherwise made housing unavailable to members of the classes accorded protection. Accordingly, the Section's enforcement activities have reached a broad array of discriminatory practices.

The Section is responsible for bringing cases on behalf of individuals who have filed discrimination complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and where HUD has determined that reasonable cause exists to believe that discrimination has occurred. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief as well as monetary damages for victims of discrimination. The Section is also responsible for seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions when HUD authorizes such actions during the course of their investigations.

The Section also implements a pro-active enforcement program pursuant to authority to challenge patterns or practices of unlawful discrimination. Recently, the Section initiated a nationwide program of random testing of housing developments, seeking evidence of discriminatory practices -- practices which, without the evidence provided by such testing, are often difficult to prove because of the often sophisticated nature of housing discrimination. In the program, pairs of black and white persons, trained by Section personnel, pose as prospective tenants and are sent to apartments to ask about available units. In the first pattern or practice case brought using the evidence developed, the Section obtained a consent decree against housing providers in suburban Detroit which required the defendants to pay a $125,000 civil penalty to the United States Treasury and to make $225,000 available to victims of discrimination.

In other recent pattern or practice actions, the Section filed suit against one of the largest lenders in the Atlanta area, following up a major initiative to identify racially discriminatory practices in the mortgage lending industry. The Section was able to resolve the case with the entry of a consent order which required the lender to provide $1 million to 48 black individuals whose home mortgage loan applications were rejected between January 1988 and May 1992 and to undertake an affirmative program to revise its lending practices.

In suits alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status, the Section has filed numerous actions on behalf of individuals who have been unable to obtain housing because of the presence of children in the family who were under 18 years of age. In one such case arising in New Mexico, the Section obtained a ruling which ordered the payment of $142,000 in compensatory damages and civil penalties. The Section has also actively pursued litigation on behalf of individuals with disabilities, including litigation seeking to secure the right of such individuals to live in group homes in good neighborhoods despite restrictive zoning or neighborhood covenants which, if enforced, would have prevented the operation of such homes.

In addition to its enforcement responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act, the Section enforces the Equal Credit Opportunity Act which prohibits discrimination in credit transactions and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodations, such as hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment.

Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Section has filed suits against banks, finance companies, and vacation resort areas. Under Title II, the Section last year filed suit alleging that Denny's Inc., a major nationwide restaurant chain, had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against black customers. At the same time, the Section filed a consent decree resolving the dispute by requiring the chain to cease all alleged discriminatory practices, to implement a testing program to monitor compliance, to undertake an educational program of its employees, and to advertise in an affirmative manner.

Public Access Section P.O. Box 66738 Washington, DC 20035-6738 (202) 307-2227

The Public Access Section litigates cases under titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation, including all hotels, restaurants, retail stores, theaters, health care facilities, convention centers, parks, and places of recreation (title III), and in all activities of state and local governments (title II). The ADA also establishes architectural accessibility requirements for new construction and alterations of commercial facilities, which generally include all nonresidential buildings and facilities.

The Section's responsibilities under the ADA include:

Litigation under title III of the Act and litigation on referral from other Federal agencies under title II;

Investigation and resolution of alleged violations under title III;

Certification of state and local building codes for equivalency with the requirements of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design; and

Dissemination of technical assistance information, coordination of the technical assistance activities of other Federal agencies with enforcement responsibilities under the ADA, and monitoring of technical assistance grants.

The Public Access Section has pursued an energetic program of enforcement and technical assistance activity under the ADA. It has initiated its first lawsuits and resolved scores of complaints involving the private sector under title III. The resolution of these complaints has resulted in the removal of physical barriers, the provision of auxiliary aids, and the elimination of discriminatory policies in a wide variety of settings, including hotels, restaurants, retail stores, private schools, health clubs, and banks.

The Section recently filed lawsuits against two dentists who refused to treat individuals who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). It also intervened and obtained a summary judgment order upholding the constitutionality of title III in an ongoing lawsuit involving the application of the ADA's barrier removal and auxiliary aids requirements to a restaurant. In its first ADA consent decree, the Section resolved a complaint filed against a chain of department stores whose check- writing policies had made it more difficult for individual's without driver's licenses, such as blind persons, to pay by check. Under the decree, the chain will now accept state ID cards as identification and will make payments to the four individual complainants. The Section has also obtained significant, formal out-of-court agreements resolving several complaints, including one involving a major luxury hotel that has made a major commitment to remove physical barriers in its lobby, ballroom, and guest rooms and to provide accessibility features for people with vision and hearing impairments.

The Section follows an aggressive policy of amicus participation. It has argued in support of an individual with learning disabilities who sought accommodations for taking a state bar examination, challenged overly broad questions relating to the psychological history of candidates for medical licensing, contended that there is a private right of action for damages in actions against state and local governments, including damages for emotional distress, and supported an individual with Tourette Syndrome seeking readmission to graduate school.

The Section also engages in a wide range of technical assistance activities designed to raise public awareness of the ADA, including the issuance of updates to the Division's ADA Technical Assistance Manuals, the operation of an ADA telephone information line, mass-mailings to entities covered by the ADA, and the maintenance of an electronic bulletin board allowing direct access to ADA materials by personal computer users. In addition, the Section administers a technical assistance grant program that has awarded over $6.6 million in funds to support projects that will inform the private sector, state and local governments, and individuals with disabilities about their rights and responsibilities under the ADA.

The Section is providing technical assistance to state and local governments that wish to obtain certification that their building codes meet the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. It is also working with the private organizations responsible for model building codes to help ensure that their standards will meet the Federal accessibility requirements.

Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 (202) 514-6255

The Special Litigation Section is responsible for protecting the constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons confined in certain institutions owned or operated by state or local governments. These institutions include facilities for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, nursing homes, prisons, jails and juvenile detention halls. The Section derives its authority from, and acts pursuant to, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), enacted in 1980.

Section attorneys investigate the conditions of confinement at facilities covered by CRIPA where information indicates that the people confined are being deprived of their constitutional or federal statutory rights. In general, the investigations focus on the adequacy of medical care, the personal safety of the residents or inmates, sanitation, and the adequacy of fire protection equipment at the facility. In institutions where the mentally ill or developmentally disabled are confined, investigations also examine the availability and adequacy of treatment and training programs as well as the adequacy of daily care provided to the residents there. In prisons and jails, the investigations evaluate, among other things, the extent of inmate-on-inmate violence, inmate classification procedures and the effects of overcrowding.

Under CRIPA, the Section must first notify appropriate state or local officials that it intends to investigate a facility within their jurisdiction. The investigation itself involves tours of the institution with consultants whose expertise covers the areas where deficiencies are believed to exist, review of records, interviews with staff and other people with knowledge about the conditions at the institution, and review of the relevant practices and procedures at the facility.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Section, through the Assistant Attorney General, notifies the appropriate state or local officials of its findings. If the investigation uncovers systemic deficiencies that deprive persons confined there of their constitutional rights, the officials are informed of the nature of the problems and the minimum measures necessary to remedy them. If the state or local officials do not agree to correct the deficiencies after negotiation with Section attorneys, CRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to file suit.

In addition to its activities under CRIPA, the Section has partial responsibility for enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating against the physically handicapped or developmentally disabled. Section 504 also protects the handicapped from discrimination in their access to health and social services, education and employment as well as their physical access to the buildings where such services, education and employment are located.

The Section also has enforcement responsibilities with respect to federal laws prohibiting discrimination in public facilities on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin and requiring a free and appropriate public school education for physically handicapped and developmentally disabled children. Finally, the Section is called upon to evaluate and comment upon proposed legislation and Presidential Directives that involve the mentally ill, physically handicapped and developmentally disabled.

The Section won a resounding victory in the first fully litigated CRIPA case when a Tennessee federal court found massive violations of the constitutional rights of developmentally disabled residents of a large residential facility. In addition, the Section was responsible for a highly visible investigation of numerous jails throughout Mississippi where suicides had occurred. Investigatory and enforcement activities involve all types of institutions and have ranged geographically from the Virgin Islands to Maine, from Washington State to Puerto Rico to the Territory of Guam.

Voting Section P.O. Box 66128 Washington, DC 20035-6128 (202) 307-3143

The Voting Section is responsible for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and other statutory provisions designed to safeguard the right to vote of racial and language minorities, disabled and illiterate persons, overseas citizens, persons who change their residence shortly before a Presidential election, and persons 18 to 20 years of age.

To carry out its mission, the Section brings lawsuits against states, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions to remedy denials and abridgements of the right to vote; defends lawsuits that the Voting Rights Act authorizes to be brought against the Attorney General; reviews changes in voting laws and procedures administratively under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and monitors election day activities through the assignment of federal observers under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act that apply to nine states in their entirety (primarily in the South and Southwest) and one or more counties in seven other states. By the operation of Section 5, any change with respect to voting that a specially covered jurisdiction--or any political subunit within it--makes is legally unenforceable unless and until the jurisdiction obtains from the federal court in the District of Columbia or from the Attorney General a determination that the change is not discriminatory on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable. The Voting Section is responsible for reviewing voting changes submitted to the Attorney General (15,000 to 24,000 changes each year) and for defending Section 5 litigation in court.

In assuring that redistricting plans adopted following the 1990 decennial census do not abridge the right to vote of racial or language minorities, the Attorney General has interposed Section 5 objections under the Voting Rights Act to statewide redistricting plans from 12 different states, as well as to more than 130 county and other local redistrictings.

Other recent objections interposed under Section 5 are directed at the use of potentially discriminatory electoral procedures such as at-large elections, majority vote requirements, numbered posts or staggered terms, annexations that dilute minority voting strength, discriminatory special election procedures, New York City's Chinese language election procedures, delay in the implementation of a new electoral system favorable to minorities, a reduction in the number of justices of the peace and constables serving in a county or in the size of a parish's governing body, the creation of an elected school board with a discriminatory electoral system, the election of four of a city council's five members from one multi-member district, unreasonable requirements for persons who would serve as school board members, the creation of a water district with an appointed board of directors to replace a similar district with an elected board, the relocation of a polling place, and the delay in a state's implementation of a mail-in voter registration system.

Lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge voting practices that have a discriminatory result, particularly electoral systems that dilute minorities' opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, are a major focus of the Section's litigation program. Most recently, for example, a suit was filed against Tallapoosa County, Alabama which refused to redistrict, although its five county commissioner districts are malapportioned; none of the districts has a black voting age majority, although blacks constitute almost a quarter of the county's population.

The Section continues to prosecute its lawsuit against the City of Memphis, Tennessee, and its school board. That suit contends that the method of electing the city's governing body and school board dilutes the voting strength of black citizens in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The Section obtained a preliminary injunction in 1991 in which the court enjoined the use of runoff elections for at-large offices. Thereafter, a black candidate who received a plurality of the votes in the election was elected mayor.

Another priority of the Voting Section is to ensure that the full force of the Voting Rights Act is brought to bear against states and localities where judicial election systems undermine minority citizens' opportunity to elect judges of their choice. In major decisions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, objections were interposed by the Attorney General to attempts by Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas to create additional judgeships that would be chosen in at-large elections that dilute minority voting strength. The Section has become engaged in litigation to end discrimination in the election of judges at the state and local levels in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In the Georgia case, the State of Georgia and private parties entered into an agreement in 1992 intended to resolve the litigation; the terms of the proposed settlement were precleared under Section 5 in 1993. In 1992 and 1993, the claims in the Louisiana lawsuit were resolved, with the result that so far 21 black lawyers have been elected to judgeships in newly created election districts in that state. Adverse rulings in Alabama and Texas (in cases in which we have participated as amicus) are on appeal.

Enforcement of the minority language requirements of the Voting Rights Act (extended and expanded by Congress in 1992) is also a Section priority. The Section has been successful in lawsuits filed under Section 2 and under the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act to remedy the failure of state and local officials in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah to disseminate effectively in the Navajo and Pueblo Indian languages election information, including adequate oral translations of the ballot for Indian voters who need it on election day, and to remedy other election practices that deny Indian citizens an opportunity to participate in electoral activities on an equal basis with other citizens. In 1993 the Section reopened its lawsuit against Sandoval County, New Mexico, and has brought suit against Cibola and Socorro Counties, New Mexico, to remedy their inadequate minority language compliance. Information provided by federal observers who monitored elections under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act provided much of the foundation for the Sandoval and Cibola County suits, and continuing observer coverage in these states enables the Section to monitor compliance programs provided in consent decrees. In March 1993 the Section successfully sued Dade County, Florida, for distributing a voter information pamphlet in English but not Spanish regarding a special election for its county commission (the county's first election under a new single-member district electoral system resulting from private litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act). Also in March, the City of Los Angeles, California, assigned bilingual poll workers to assist minority language voters at the polls for its April 20 election after the Section persuaded city officials that the city must provide minority language assistance for voters.

In 1992, a suit was filed against the North Carolina Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others alleging that these organizations and individuals intimidated voters in connection with the November 1990 election in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Voting Rights Act. The defendants had sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97% of whom were black persons, falsely informing them about voter eligibility and combining this information with a warning concerning criminal penalties for voter fraud. The lawsuit was resolved by a consent decree which, among other things, enjoined the defendants from intimidation of voters, as well as engaging in any ballot security program "directed at qualified voters in which the racial minority status of some or all of the voters is one of the factors in the decision to target those voters." The consent agreement remains in effect until 1996 and the defendants are obliged to obtain court approval before implementing any further ballot security programs.

Following the November 2, 1993 election, the Voting Section initiated investigations of activities allegedly designed to intimidate minority voters in Philadelphia and New York City. In Philadelphia, prior to election day, campaign workers for a candidate in a special election and others, walked door-to-door in Hispanic neighborhoods to convince or coerce voters to cast absentee ballots, allegedly misleading the voters about the documents they were signing, or steering or intimidating the voters into voting for the Democratic candidate (voters indicated they were misled about the state's absentee voting laws and told they could vote at home, as a "new way of voting"). In New York City, signs in English and Spanish were posted on lamp posts, at subway entrances, on phone booths and other locations in areas of Hispanic population in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx, misinforming voters regarding the role of federal officials in the election. The signs incorrectly stated that federal authorities, including immigration officials, would be at the polls, and threatened illegal voters with prosecution, severance of benefits and deportation.

Administrative Management Section P.O. Box 65310 Washington, DC 20035-5310 (202) 514-4224

In support of the enforcement responsibilities of the Division, the Administrative Management Section provides a diverse array of management and technical services. These services include, but are not limited to, personnel administration, budget formulation and execution, facility services, mail and file operations, and automated systems.

Significant among the improvements directed at enhancing the productivity and effectiveness of the Division was the implementation of a Division-wide integrated office automation system. This computer-based system, referred to as AMICUS, provides Division employees with the primary office tools essential for day-to-day litigation and support activities: word processing, automated legal research and communications. Desktop access to legal data bases and the capability to transfer word processing documents between work stations has significantly increased the quality and efficiency of the work of the Division. Recently, the Geographic Information System (GIS) was designed and installed in the Voting Section. The GIS is an innovative state-of-the-art system that integrates mapping and analytical capabilities, incorporating data from the Census Bureau's TIGER System, 1980 and 1990 census data, and data sent by 16 states covered by the Voting Rights Act.

The Administrative Management Section also contains the Freedom of Information/Privacy Act (FOI/PA) Branch. The Branch's principal function is to ensure that the Division complies with all aspects of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts which may require, for example, the periodic publication of various notices within the Federal Register under both statutes. The Branch provides procedural guidance to citizens and legal counsel to other sections of the Civil Rights Division regarding FOI/PA requests and coordinates and represents the Division's interests in FOI/PA litigation and in the administrative appeals of request denials.

Office of Redress Administration P.O. Box 66260 Washington, DC 20035-6260 (202) 219-6900

The Office of Redress Administration was established in September, 1988, to discharge the responsibilities assigned to the Attorney General under Section 105 of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Among other things, this Act provides for redress to American citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry who were forcibly evacuated, relocated, and interned by the United States Government during World War II. Approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans suffered this denial of civil liberties, of whom an estimated 75,000 were surviving when the law was enacted and are eligible for restitution. ORA's responsibilities include the identification and location of these eligible individuals and authorization of payment to them. The Act provides for redress payments of $20,000 to each eligible individual. To date, in excess of 79,000 payments have been made.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION AT THIRTY-FIVE A RETROSPECTIVE by Miriam R. Eisenstein Attorney, Appellate Section

Dramatic Years: 1957-1968

1957-1964

In 1954, the Supreme Court held that racial segregation of public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The country began a transition. There was resistance to racial equality, not just in education but in every area of American life. And black citizens could not make the political process work for them because in many states, they were disenfranchised.

On September 9, 1957, the President signed the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. This Civil Rights Act, which created the Civil Rights Commission, authorized the Attorney General to initiate suits to vindicate minority voting rights. Section 111 of that Act provided that there "shall be in the Department of Justice one additional Assistant Attorney General," appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. On December 9, 1957, by order of Attorney General William P. Rogers, the Civil Rights Division was created. It included a nucleus of attorneys who had been in the Criminal Division, enforcing Reconstruction Era civil rights criminal statutes, and a hardy crew of additional recruits.

The pioneers of the Division brought suits against voting registrars over the south, eventually suing the State of Mississippi and the State of Louisiana to obtain relief for black potential voters, from the discriminatory administration of literacy and "interpretation" tests. In addition, they continued to prosecute under the statutes prohibiting deprivations of federal rights by state or local officials and conspiracies to deny federally protected rights. Though limited in what they could do, they also represented the government's interest in the courts' enforcement of school desegregation orders.

Meanwhile, the 1960's brought the lunch-counter sit-ins, the freedom rides to desegregate bus terminals, and the great March on Washington led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, in August 1963, demanding that the Congress pass an omnibus bill guaranteeing equal rights in public accommodations, public facilities, federally assisted programs, and employment. In June 1964, after a protracted filibuster, the bill finally passed.

1964

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the government could bring suits to end discrimination in public facilities such as parks and prisons, public accommodations such as restaurants, movie theaters, and hotels, and the employment by the larger private employers in industry and commerce. In addition, the Act permitted the government, for the first time, to take the initiative in suing, or intervening in suits, to desegregate public schools. Title VI of the Act also prohibited discrimination by the expanding number of programs and activities that received federal financial assistance. The role of principal enforcer of these rights was assigned to the Civil Rights Division. 1965-1966

The Division went into high gear. Thousands of public facilities and accommodations were desegregated, usually by consent but, when necessary, by litigation. In the summer of 1964 and the winter of 1965, the Division was also called upon to prosecute perpetrators of violence arising from the now-famous Mississippi Summer. The murders of three civil rights workers that summer, and the murders that took place before and after the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, created high profile criminal cases. Title VII, prohibiting discrimination in employment, became effective in the summer of 1965, and the first government suits were filed. Voting registration drives and the pressure of voting rights cases intensified. No sooner did the courts enjoin one discriminatory practice, than the states or the registrars would devise another way to thwart registration by black citizens. Under pressure from the public demonstrations, and with the evidence of the Division's frustrations well documented in cases, Congress and the President became persuaded that new voting legislation was necessary.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has had an incalculable impact on the political landscape. It suspended the use of "tests and devices" upon certification by the Attorney General, and authorized federal examiners to conduct voter registration and federal observers to monitor polling places. Certain jurisdictions are required, by Section 5 of the Act, to "preclear" any changes they make in election laws or procedures before those changes may go into effect. To "preclear" a change, the submitting jurisdiction must show that the change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. In 1966, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this far-reaching legislation.

1967-1968

In 1967, the Division finally succeeded in winning the conviction of seven of the men accused of participating in the civil rights murders of 1964. When those men were sentenced, the press, the general public, and Congress all suddenly became keenly aware of how limited were the federal penalties available in cases such as this. At the same time, Congress was holding hearings in preparation for proposing and passing a major new civil rights act that would ban discrimination in private housing.

In 1968, Congress passed the last of the big civil rights acts of the decade. That legislation contained the Fair Housing Act that prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and advertisement of almost all privately-owned and all public housing. Like the Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965, it empowered the Attorney General to initiate suits where he believed there to be a "pattern and practice" of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion.

Also in the 1968 Act, Congress expanded the list of activities protected by criminal civil rights prohibitions. In addition, it made more severe the penalties that could be prescribed in cases of interference with these protected activities, particularly where violence resulted in bodily injury or death. Finally, the 1968 Act contained a declaration of the rights of Native Americans living on reservations.

The same year, the Supreme Court held that "freedom of choice" school desegregation plans, when they resulted in little actual change, fell below constitutional requirements. Thus, plaintiffs, including the government, readied themselves to file hundreds of "Green" motions (named after the Supreme Court case) to require school districts to institute more effective plans.

Every one of these developments in 1964-1968 added work to the Civil Rights Division's agenda, requiring that staff be added to cope with it. By the end of the "Dramatic Years," the Division had grown to 103 attorneys and 113 support staff.

The Expansion Years: 1969-1980

In the fall of 1969, the Division was reorganized into sections according to function instead of by region. These sections included the Criminal, Education, Housing, Employment, Public Accommodations and Voting Sections, and a catch-all office for Title VI, legislation, and special appeals. Within the first few years of the 1970's, moreover, several new sections were formed.

First, at the urging of the Civil Rights Commission, the Title VI Section was created to expand the Division's role in coordinating policies and practices of other agencies with respect to federally-assisted programs. Attorneys were recruited from within the Division to write regulations, help agencies draft guidelines, and litigate cases that had been referred by the agencies.

Around the same time, a judge in Alabama ordered the United States to participate in the suit challenging the constitutionality of conditions in the state's mental health system. Although racial discrimination was not an issue in the case, the Division assumed this responsibility. Soon, there was an office of "Institutions and Facilities." This office, later to become a section, took over some of what had been the 11 public facilities responsibility under the 1964 Act, and combined it with cases involving nonracial, constitutional issues.

An office was carved out to look into the rights of Native Americans pursuant to the new "Indian Bill of Rights" in the l968 Act. A task force was appointed to look into issues affecting Hispanic Americans. In 1974, the Appellate Section was created by expanding what had been the Office of Special Appeals. Finally, a task force was created to examine the entire United States Code for potential sex discrimination and for language that was unnecessarily gender-specific.

Several landmark decisions and legislative developments, occurring between 1969 and 1977, had a profound impact on the work of the Division, then and for many years to come.

- In 1969, the Supreme Court held that apportionment plans were subject to the Voting Rights Act, and, in 1973, made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibited certain apportionments that diluted the impact of minority voting power. These decisions set the stage for over two decades of litigation over at-large representation and the configuration of single-member districts. In 1975, the Voting Rights Act was expanded to cover discrimination on the basis of language groups.

- The Supreme Court held in 1971 that employment qualifications and tests that were not clearly job-related and disproportionately disqualified minority applicants could not be used. The next year, Congress added public employment to the coverage of Title VII's nondiscrimination provisions, and assigned the public sector litigation exclusively to the Division. This set the stage for over two decades of Division litigation over the validity of employment tests, especially for police and fire departments around the country.

- In 1971, the Supreme Court held that school districts that had been de jure segregated in the past had the burden of proving that any remaining racial separation or imbalance was not a vestige of the previous system. As a result, many school districts remained under decree and in litigation for the next two decades as the Division and private plaintiffs tried to rid them of all remaining vestiges of the dual system. In addition, the Division helped to establish the precedents that northern school districts could be proved to have had "dual systems" at some time in the past. This placed on those systems the same burden: to undo whatever separation and inequality that could be traced to the dual system.

- In 1972-1973, Congress expanded the ban on discrimination in federally-assisted activities to include discrimination based on sex (in educational activities only) and disability. Congress also enacted several General and Special Revenue Sharing statutes which contained their own nondiscrimination provisions similar to Title VI. These added new coordination and litigation responsibilities to the Division, particularly the Title VI Section (called "Federal Programs"), which created several new positions for a cadre of nonlawyer professionals to take over most of the interagency coordination tasks.

- The "Institutions and Facilities" Section (now called "Special Litigation") had long been frustrated by having to litigate most of its cases as amicus curia, and at the sufferance of the various district courts. In 1980, Congress passed the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), giving the Attorney General the authority to bring suits on behalf of the government to vindicate the rights of involuntarily confined persons.

During the last administration in the decade, the leadership of the Division undertook an experiment that involved combining the Housing and Education Section (called "General Litigation") and attempting to develop cases that combined housing segregation issues, especially public housing segregation, with school desegregation issues. The most notable result of this undertaking was a mammoth case against the City of Yonkers which took several months to try, but which resulted in a victory for the government that held up after many and varied appeals.

Also in the last years of the decade, a new issue took center stage. The Division was responsible for drafting the government's briefs as amicus curia in several major cases involving the validity of race-conscious remedies employed by states, Congress, and private employers.

Defining New Horizons: 1980-1992

In the 1980's, the Division confronted the issue of race-conscious remedies and tried to suggest some new answers. The government took the position in a series of cases that only the specific, identified victims of past discrimination by the particular entity (employer, college, etc.) were entitled to receive individual benefits from a decree or from a voluntary affirmative action plan. By mid-decade, however, it became clear that the Supreme Court was prepared to countenance according special treatment to minorities and women in limited, remedial circumstances even if the beneficiaries had not personally been victims.

Another new and difficult issue facing the Division was the question of ending school desegregation decrees, many of which had been in existence for as much as 25 years. School districts were beginning to ask courts to end court jurisdiction over their schools, saying that all constitutional requirements had been met, even if single-race schools remained or could be expected to recur. Both the trial and appellate sections were called upon to help courts develop criteria for determining that school districts were now "unitary."

Although increased attention was given to certain constitutional limits in employment, the work of the Division continued to develop and expand. The Criminal Section flourished in the "New Horizons" years, bringing more and a wider range of prosecutions than ever before, including significant prosecutions of members of hate groups such as the Skinheads and Aryan Nation. In addition, that section brought several cases alleging that defendants had engaged in holding individuals in involuntary servitude, thus testing out a variety of theories as to the way the servitude statutes could be applied. The other sections similarly continued to pursue their enforcement responsibilities vigorously, making much progress in a number of litigative and legislative areas.

- Three major cases involving public higher education systems, those in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, were litigated in these years, with varying success, but culminating in a Supreme Court victory in the Mississippi case in 1992.

- Congress passed an amended Fair Housing Act in 1988, expanding the Division's power to sue on behalf of aggrieved individuals who had complained to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and whose complaints were found to have merit. The amendments also prohibited, for the first time, housing discrimination based upon disability, and discrimination against families with children. The new provisions generated an expanded workload for the Housing Section and new issues for the Appellate Section in many cases of first impression. Among the most difficult cases were those involving group homes for people with mental or emotional problems, excluded by zoning ordinances or by a town's interpretation of its land-use regulations.

- In 1982, Congress extended and amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this time making it clear that plaintiffs could prevail if they could show that voting systems and apportionments "resulted in" a denial of equal access to the political process. The new "results test" litigation became the most vital in the Division's agenda during the 1980's. Among the landmarks were the case challenging the districts for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and suits challenging the at-large election of state judges. Each of these cases involved extensive and successful appeals.

- Also in the 1980's, a separate unit was created in the Voting Section to address the overwhelming work of preclearing submissions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As in the case of "coordination and review," we developed a new group of highly skilled nonlawyer professionals who could screen the submissions, dispose of the more routine ones, and assist attorneys to process the more complex ones.

- Capping the achievements of these years, the Division participated in the drafting, interpreting, and implementing of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 which prohibits discrimination based on disability in all of the institutions, facilities, public accommodations, and employers reached by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, virtually all private retail stores are required by the Act to be accessible, giving rise to a host of technical and architectural problems for which the Division must be prepared to give advice. The Coordination and Review Section (renamed from Federal Programs) had taken on these responsibilities as a direct outgrowth of their work under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, prohibiting discrimination in federally-assisted activities on the basis of handicap. With passage of the ADA, that Section had to be greatly enlarged and divided into two sections to deal with ADA implementation.

- Finally, the last decade saw the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to give partial reparations to those Americans of Japanese origin who had been evacuated, relocated, and interned by the United States government during World War II for no reason other than their race/national origin. The Office of Redress Administration was assigned to this Division which took the responsibility to locate survivors and distribute the funds.

Where We Are Today

Now the Civil Rights Division is 35 years old. We are about four times bigger than when we started out, and we are utilizing infinitely more efficient machinery. We have come a long way from the days of typing pleadings on a manual typewriter, but the challenges remain. We have made substantial progress in some areas. We scarcely have had to bring a case against a restaurant or hotel in the last 20 years. The "public accommodations" cases we will bring today will be about handicap access, not race. Our voting cases are most often about issues such as apportionment, methods of election, and provisions designed to protect the rights of language minorities, as are the Section 5 submissions, the original right-to-vote issues having essentially disappeared. And, the vast majority of our employment cases have to do with tests and qualifications. Only in a minority of instances have we continued to encounter intentional discrimination.

On the other hand, while the challenges posed by discrimination have changed, they remain substantial. For example, hate crime has not abated, and it has addressed new targets, including people not yet protected under the civil rights acts. Cases of police violence still erupt regularly. Racial discrimination in housing has proved to be very widespread, and we have just begun to find the perpetrators of discrimination in mortgage lending. Similarly, we have far to go before employment decisions are made solely on the basis of merit. We are still relying on a variety of affirmative action decrees to keep states and municipalities hiring and promoting minorities and women while the search for valid, nondiscriminatory procedures continues.

In the field of desegregation, while we have won a higher education case in the Supreme Court, we have not yet resolved the question of the future of traditionally black colleges and universities in the overall scheme of desegregated education. Finally, with the whole country facing economic problems, it has been increasingly difficult to compel expenditures by states and municipalities to assure constitutional conditions in prisons, jails, and public institutions for mentally and developmentally disabled people.

Much remains to be done.