Appellate Cases

(S. Ct.) - Respondent

• Virginia’s program violated the Quiet Period Provision
• Applicants’ arguments based on the General Removal Provision lack merit

Supreme Court Order, available at 2024 WL 4608863

(8th Cir.) - Amicus

• The denial of a reasonable accommodation that implicates terms, conditions, or privileges of employment is actionable under Title I of the ADA
• The standard set forth in Burlington Northern governs ADA retaliation claims in the employment context
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow requires a remand of Abdi’s Title VII race discrimination claim

Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 4615831

(4th Cir.) - Appellee

• Virginia violated the NVRA’s quiet period provision
• The United States and eligible citizen voters will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is stayed
• The balance of equities and the public interest support denying the stay

Court of Appeals Order

(S. Ct.) - Amicus

• Laws prohibiting sleeping on public property violate the Eighth Amendment if they are applied in a manner that prevents an individual without available shelter from residing in the jurisdiction
• Robinson requires a particularized inquiry into the circumstances of the individuals to whom the City’s ordinances are applied

Supreme Court Decision, available at 2024 WL 3208072

(11th Cir.) - Amicus

• An employer-sponsored health insurance plan violates Title VII if it excludes coverage for medical treatments only when they are needed to provide gender-affirming care
• A governmental entity acts as a public employer’s “agent” under Title VII where the entity provides and administers health insurance benefits to the employer’s employees

En Banc Brief as Amicus

(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

Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 4633491

(en banc) (5th Cir.) – Amicus

• To remedy a hybrid Fourteenth Amendment violation arising from the automatic imposition of secured money bail, courts must consider and determine that alternative means are inadequate to meet the State’s interests

Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 22 F.4th 522

(5th Cir.) – Appellant

• Appellees conflate the question of whose conduct may comprise a pattern or practice under 34 U.S.C. 12601 with who may be sued for that pattern or practice
• The judges are being sued in their official capacities as the officials responsible for administering the Lauderdale county youth court, not in their adjudicative roles
• Applying Title VII’s co-employment doctrine in Section 12601 litigation could result in unnecessary complexity and nationwide inconsistency
• Section 12601 of Title 34 applies to state-court judges responsible for the administration of juvenile justice
• The youth court judges are not absolutely immune from this action
• This court should reinstate the claims against Lauderdale County

Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 914 F.3d 960

(11th Cir.) – Amicus

• A bail practice violates the Fourteenth Amendment if, without consideration of ability to pay and alternative methods of assuring appearance at trial, it results in the pretrial detention of indigent defendant

Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 901 F.3d 1245

Court of Appeals Decision, available at 682 F. App'x 721

(Idaho) – Amicus

• Indigent criminal defendants may bring civil, pre-conviction claims for prospective, injunctive relief based on constructive denial of counsel, and that such claims provide an important tool for remedying systemic Gideon violations

 State Court Decision, reported at 394 P.3d 54

(Pa.) – Amicus

• A civil claim for constructive denial of counsel under the Sixth Amendment is cognizable

State Court Decision, reported at 146 A.3d 715