Skip to main content

Briefs and Opinions

Appellate Section - Constitutionality of Federal Statutes

Briefs and Opinions

  • King v. Marion County Circuit Court (S. Ct., 7th Cir.) – Intervenor and Amicus
    • Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar King’s Title II claim because Congress abrogated sovereign immunity
    • The district court correctly concluded that Marion Circuit Court violated Title II
    • Marion Circuit Court is subject to compensatory damages for intentional discrimination
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 138 S. Ct. 1582 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) 04/16/18
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 868 F.3d 589 08/18/17
    Brief as Intervenor and Amicus 02/17/17
  • Ruby J. v. Jefferson County Board of Education (N.D. Ala.) – Intervenor
    • The Eleventh Amendment is not a bar to the plaintiffs' IDEA claims because the county board of education is not an arm of the State, and Alabama waived its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds
    • Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity in Section 1403 of the IDEA as part of its enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision, reported at 122 F.Supp.3d 1288 08/17/15
    Brief as Intervenor 02/25/15
  • Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The court erred in its analysis when it concluded that strict scrutiny does not apply to the redistricting plans because the court failed to scrutinize each challenged district to determine whether race predominated over traditional districting principles
    • The court further erred in concluding that, even assuming strict scrutiny applied, the legislature's consideration of race was justified by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because the court misconstrued Section 5 as barring any districting change that reduces the percentage of minorities in a majority-minority district
    • If the district court on remand concludes that strict scrutiny should apply to a particular district, the court must determine whether the legislature's consideration of race in such district was narrowly tailored to achieve compliance with Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as properly interpreted
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 1257 03/25/15
    Brief as Amicus 08/20/14
  • United States v. Miller, et al. (6th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The Court should grant en banc review because the panel's interpretation and application of Section 249(a)(2) are incorrect and exceptionally important
    • Section 249(a)(2) is constitutional on its face and as applied under Congress's Commerce Clause power
    • Defendants' arguments lack merit
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 11/20/14
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10/10/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 767 F.3d 585 08/27/14
    Brief as Appellee 02/28/14
  • Hatch v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
    • The court of appeals correctly rejected Hatch's arguments
    • There is no basis for the Court to review well-settled law that the Jones analysis applies in the Thirteenth Amendment context
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 1538 03/24/14
    Opposition to Certiorari 02/07/14
  • Texas v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Appellee
    • The Court should hold the case pending a decision in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (S. Ct.)
    • If the Court upholds Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA, it should summarily affirm the district court's decision because the court properly applied Section 5 and correctly concluded that S.B. 14 would have a retrogressive effect
     
    Document Date 
    Granted, Vacated, and Remanded for Further Consideration in Light of Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (reported at 133 S. Ct. 2612 (June 25, 2013)), reported at 133 S. Ct. 2886 06/27/13
    Motion to Affirm 05/09/13
  • House v. United States (S. Ct.) – Respondent
    • The Eleventh Circuit's application of the harmless error standard in this context does not conflict with Supreme Court precedent or other circuit authority, and that its conclusion that the error was harmless as to the four Section 242 counts that were upheld was correct
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 1633 03/25/13
    Brief in Opposition 02/22/13
  • United States v. New Orleans (5th Cir.) - Plaintiff/Appellee
    • The City has not shown it is likely to prevail on appeal or that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, and that the interests of the United States and the public interest will be harmed if implementation of the consent decree is delayed
    • The would-be intervenors have not met the criteria for intervention as of right
    • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions for permissive intervention
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 06/05/13
    Opposition to Motion for Stay 06/03/13
    Brief as Appellee 02/19/13
  • United States v. Cannon, et al. (5th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The court of appeals' decision was correct and does not conflict with other courts of appeals' decisions
    • The Supreme Court's decisions in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (addressing Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment), and Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (addressing Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment), do not affect Congress's power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment
    • The decision in Shelby County has no bearing on Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment; the decision did not address or disturb the Supreme Court's longstanding line of cases addressing Congress's power under Section 2 to address and proscribe badges and incidents of slavery
    • The rationale of Shelby County is inapplicable to the far more limited, and very different, legislation enforcing the Thirteenth Amendment, and that neither the "equal sovereignty" concerns, nor broader federalism concerns, expressed in Shelby County have relevance to legislation enforcing the Thirteenth Amendment that proscribes private, race-based violent conduct
    • Given the scope of Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Section 249's legislative history, Congress had ample authority to enact Section 249(a)(1) and prohibit racially-motivated violent conduct as a badge or incident of slavery
    • The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 135 S. Ct. 709 12/01/14
    Brief in Opposition to Certiorari 10/29/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 750 F.3d 492 04/24/14
    Supplemental Brief 08/26/13
    Brief as Appellee 02/15/13
  • Glenn v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Respondent
    • The Sixth Circuit's decision, holding that the plaintiffs had not alleged an intent to violate the Act, nor presented any evidence that they would be prosecuted or suffer other adverse enforcement action under the Act, was correct
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 1581 03/18/13
    Brief in Opposition 02/04/13
  • Gilmore v. Mississippi Coast Coliseum Commission (S.D. Miss.) – Intervenor
    • Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a Section 504 claim
    • The court does not need to decide the Title II constitutional question now; in any event, Title II validly abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity in this context
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Order, available at 2013 WL 1194706 03/22/13
    Brief as Intervenor 02/01/13
  • Gaylor v. Georgia Department of Natural Resources (N.D. Ga.) – Intervenor/Amicus
    • Title II properly abrogates state sovereign immunity where it ensures accessible public facilities
    • The requirements of Title II and Section 504 are enforceable in a suit for injunctive relief pursuant to the Ex Parte Young doctrine
    • Regulations authoritatively construing Title II and Section 504 are enforceable under those statutes' private rights of action
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Order, available at 2013 WL 4790158 09/06/13
    Brief as Intervenor and Amicus 11/13/12
  • Nix v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Respondent
    • This case is moot
    • Any further merits review is not warranted
    • This case is a poor vehicle for resolving the constitutional claim
    • The district court's merits judgment is correct
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 610 11/13/12
    Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari 09/24/12
  • United States v. Hatch (10th Cir.) – Appellee
    • Given the scope of the Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Section 249's legislative history, Congress had ample authority to enact Section 249(a)(1) and prohibit racially-motivated violent conduct as a badge or incident of slavery
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 722 F.3d 1193 07/03/13
    Brief as Appellee 07/25/12
  • Johnson v. Neiman (8th Cir.) – Intervenor
    • The appellate court should consider whether Johnson's Title II claim fails for the same evidentiary reasons as his Eighth Amendment claim, in which case the court need not reach the constitutional question
    • Title II validly abrogates sovereign immunity in the prison context
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 504 F. App'x 543 05/06/13
    Brief as Intervenor 07/23/12
  • State of Florida v. United States (D.D.C.) – Defendant
    • Shelby County upheld the 2006 Reauthorization of Sections 4(B) and 5 as a valid exercise of Congress's enforcement authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
    • The protection of language minorities under Section 5 was a valid exercise of Congress's Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority and remains so today
    • Requiring preclearance as to each of Section 5's protected groups is a congruent and proportional response to the harm targeted in covered jurisdictions
    • The 2006 amendments to Section 5 are constitutional
    • Requiring covered jurisdictions in non-covered states to obtain preclearance for statewide voting changes does not exceed Congress's enforcement authority
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Order 10/16/12
    District Court Decision 08/16/12
    Reply Brief 07/20/12
    Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 06/25/12
    Motion for Summary Judgment 06/25/12
  • Paulone v. City of Frederick (D. Md.) – Intervenor
    • In the context of policing, pretrial detention, and parole supervision, Title II is valid legislation pursuant to Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment and so can abrogate sovereign immunity
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Order 06/04/12
    Reply Brief 05/25/12
    Brief as Intervenor 04/23/12
  • McBay v. City of Decatur (N.D. Ala.) – Intervenor/Amicus
    • Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
    • Title II is valid Section 5 legislation to the extent that it ensures accessible public facilities
    • Title II is valid Commerce Clause legislation
    • Justice Department regulations are enforceable under Title II's authoritatively construing Title II private right of action
    • Title II regulates only current economic activity and that National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), therefore has no application here
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision 04/11/14
    Response to Supplemental Authority 09/27/12
    Brief as Intervenor and Amicus 01/27/12
  • Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement System (2d Cir.) – Amicus/Intervenor
    • Title II's abrogation of sovereign immunity is valid as applied to the class of cases involving the receipt of public benefits
    • A state law that precludes a public entity from making a reasonable accommodation is preempted
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 707 F.3d 144 01/30/13
    Supplemental Brief as Intervenor 01/11/12
    Brief as Amicus and Intervenor 08/29/11
  • Mason, et al. v. City of Huntsville (N.D. Ala.) – Intervenor/Amicus
    • Title II is constitutional legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause
    • Regulations implementing Title II are enforceable in a private suit
    • Provision of sidewalks and streets is a "service"
    • Plaintiffs did not fail to state a Section 504 claim
    • Title II regulates only current economic activity and that National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), therefore has no application here
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision, available at 2012 WL 4815518 10/10/12
    Response to Supplemental Authority 09/27/12
    Brief as Intervenor and Amicus 06/10/11
  • Natarelli v. VESID (2d Cir.) – Intervenor
    • The district court failed to apply the procedure set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), for addressing Eleventh Amendment questions relating to Title II of the ADA and accordingly, did not conduct the proper analysis with respect to this issue
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 420 F. App'x 53 04/20/11
    Brief as Intervenor 03/16/11
  • LaRoque v. Holder (D.C. Cir.) – Appellee
    • Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Section 5(c)
    • The district court correctly upheld the constitutionality of the Amendments and of the 2006 Reauthorization
    • Lack of jurisdiction
    • Plaintiffs lacked standing and that they failed to state a viable cause of action
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 679 F.3d 905 05/18/12
    Brief as Appellee 02/13/12
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 650 F.3d 777 07/08/11
    Brief as Appellee 03/07/11
  • Zied-Campbell v. Richman (3d Cir.) – Intervenor
    • The district court erred in reaching the Eleventh Amendment issue, and its ruling on that issue therefore should be vacated
    • In the alternative, if the court of appeals reaches the merits of the Eleventh Amendment issue, it should reverse the ruling of the district court and hold that the abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity is valid in the context of social services
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 428 F. App'x 224 05/24/11
    Brief as Intervenor 02/10/11
  • Glenn v. Holder (6th Cir.) – Appellee
    • Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Section 249(a)(2) of the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act
    • The district court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because their claims of injury are entirely speculative
    • The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that plaintiffs lack standing because they did not allege that they intend to engage in any conduct that might violate the statute or subject them to prosecution
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 690 F.3d 417 08/02/12
    Brief as Appellee 01/21/11
  • Kilroy v. Maine (1st Cir.) – Intervenor
    • The court of appeals certified to the Attorney General that the case involved a constitutional challenge to a federal statute, and the Division therefore intervened to address the Eleventh Amendment issue on appeal
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished 03/08/11
    Brief as Intervenor 10/13/10
  • McCollum v. Owensboro Community and Technical College (W.D. Ky.) – Intervenor
    • The ADA’s retaliation ban helps to enforce Title II, which itself is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation that abrogates sovereign immunity
    • The retaliation ban also enforces the First Amendment rights of public employees, and so is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation regardless of the validity of the underlying ADA rights
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision, available at 2010 WL 5393852 12/22/10
    Reply Brief as Intervenor 09/14/10
    Brief as Intervenor 08/17/10
  • Goodman v. Donald (S.D. Ga.) – Intervenor
    • The ADA’s bar on retaliation validly abrogates the State’s sovereign immunity
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 07/27/10
  • Miller v. Donald (S.D. Ga.) – Intervenor
    • The ADA’s bar on retaliation validly abrogates the State’s sovereign immunity
    • The Division also filed as an amicus curiae arguing that the Title II right of action extends to challenges based on the implementing regulations
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 07/21/10
  • Hale v. King (5th Cir. and S.D. Miss.) – Intervenor
    • The Division intervened in this appeal to defend the constitutionality of the ADA provision abrogating states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought pursuant to Title II
    • The court of appeals held that Title II does not validly abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in the context of prison educational and work programs because it is not a congruent and proportional response to the harm the statute remedies. The Division argued that it was improper to decide the constitutional question first and asked the Fifth Circuit to rehear that decision to rule on the constitutional question first
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Order 01/15/13
    Brief as Intervenor 08/13/12
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 642 F.3d 492 05/26/11
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc 12/01/10
    Petition for Panel Rehearing 12/01/10
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 624 F.3d 178 10/14/10
    Brief as Intervenor 04/09/10
  • Brockman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al. (5th Cir.) – Intervenor
    • The Division intervened in this appeal to defend the constitutionality of the ADA provision abrogating states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought pursuant to Title II
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 397 F. App'x 18 09/30/10
    Brief as Intervenor (note: brief was submitted to the court, but utlimately not filed by the court) 03/29/10
  • New Jersey Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Velez (D.N.J.) – Intervenor
    • Sovereign immunity is not a bar in this case
     
    Document Date 
    Memorandum and Order 07/23/09
    Brief as Intervenor 06/29/09
  • Zibbell v. Granholm (6th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • The Division intervened in this appeal to defend the constitutionality of the ADA provision abrogating states' Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought pursuant to Title II
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 313 F. App'x 843 02/23/09
    Brief as Intervenor 09/03/08
  • Day v. Minnesota (8th Cir/S. Ct.) -- Intervenor
    • The Division intervened in this appeal in order to defend the constitutionality of the ADA provision abrogating states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought pursuant to Title II
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 818 12/13/10
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 354 F. App’x 272 11/05/09
    Brief as Intervenor 08/28/08
  • Chase v. Baskerville (4th Cir) -- Appellee
    • Congress acted appropriately when it enacted Title II and its abrogation provision (as applied in the prison context), as well as Section 504 and the statutory provisions that condition the receipt of federal funds on a State’s waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity
    • The court should not reach the question of Title II’s constitutionality because Section 504 provides an essentially identical remedy to the plaintiff, and the Fourth Circuit has already held that state agencies have no immunity to Section 504 claims
    • The State waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 claims when it accepted federal financial assistance
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 305 F. App'x 135 12/31/08
    Informal Brief as Appellee 08/11/08
  • McIntosh v. Partridge (5th Cir) -- Intervenor
    • Congress did not grant federal courts jurisdiction to hear private USERRA claims against state employers
    • Congress has the authority pursuant to its war powers to subject state employers to private USERRA claims
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 540 F.3d 315 08/08/08
    Brief as Intervenor 11/16/07
  • Goodman v. Donald (S.D. Ga.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should avoid deciding the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA
    • Congress validly abrogated States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Title II of the ADA
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 11/09/07
  • Miller v. Johnson (E.D. Va.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly abrogated States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Title II of the ADA
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 10/25/07
  • United States & Spencer v. Earley (4th Cir) -- Intervenor-Appellant
    • The district court erred in reaching the question of Title II’s constitutionality
    • The district court erred in dismissing Spencer’s claims on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity
    • This court should avoid deciding a new constitutional question
    • Should this court reach the question, it should hold that Congress validly abrogated States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Title II of the ADA, as applied in the prison context
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 278 F. App'x 254 05/16/08
    Reply Brief 12/14/07
    Brief as Appellant 11/02/07
  • Haas v. Quest Recovery Services (6th Cir) -- Intervenor
    • In light of this Court’s holding that plaintiffs have not stated valid Title II claims against the State, this Court’s subsequent conclusion that the State is immune to plaintiffs’ Title II claims is in contravention of the Supreme Court’s instructions in Georgia and should not be reinstated
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 247 F. App'x 670 08/24/07
    Letter Brief as Intervenor 04/18/07
  • Large v. Fremont County (D. Wy.) -- Intervenor
    • The Supreme Court has previously rejected a similar constitutional challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
    • Congress has broad powers to enact prophylactic and remedial legislation prohibiting some constitutional conduct when the legislation is congruent and proportional to the constitutional injury to be prevented or remedied
    • Section 2 is a valid exercise of Congress’s constitutional authority to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
    • Courts of appeals have rejected similar constitutional challenges to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 01/16/07
  • Welch v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (W.D. Va.) -- Intervenor
    • The Fourth Circuit has already held that Title II validly abrogates States' immunity to claims under Title II of the ADA in the context of public higher education
    • The Fourth Circuit has also held that a state agency validly waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Section 504 when it accepts federal financial assistance
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 01/19/07
  • Chase v. Baskerville (E.D. Va.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should not reach the validity of Title II's abrogation
    • Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is valid Section 5 legislation as applied to prison administration
    • As the Fourth Circuit has held, state agencies validly waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Section 504 when they accept federal financial assistance
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision, unpublished 08/02/07
    Brief as Intervenor 01/19/07
  • Buchanan v. Maine (1st Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should not reach the constitutionality of Title II unless necessary
    • Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied in the context of the provision of mental health services
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 469 F.3d 158 11/16/06
    Brief as Amicus 08/30/06
  • Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (2d Cir.) -- Intervenor & Amicus
    • The district court correctly upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA
    • The district court properly concluded that defendants substantially burdened plaintiff’s religious exercise, and failed to demonstrate that the substantial burden was imposed to further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor and Amicus 08/11/06
  • Guru Nanak Sikh Society v. County of Sutter (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor/Amicus
    • The district court correctly found that the county's denial of Guru Nanak's application for a use permit constituted a substantial burden in violation of Section 2 (a)(1) of RLUIPA
    • RLUIPA Section 2(a)(1), as made applicable by Section 2(a)(2)(c), is a valid exercise of Congress's Section 5 powers because it codifies established constitutional principles
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 456 F.3d 978 08/01/06
    Brief as Intervenor and Amicus 05/19/04
  • Disability Rights Council v. WMATA (D.D.C.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should not reach this issue
    • Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied to the context of public transportation
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision, reported at 239 F.R.D. 9 12/09/06
    Brief as Intervenor 07/17/06
  • Prye v. Blunt (W.D. Mo.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should not reach the constitutionality of Title II unless necessary
    • Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is valid Section 5 legislation as applied to voting
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 06/15/06
  • Jones v. Gale (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
    • This court has held that private plaintiffs may enforce the requirements of Title II of the ADA through Ex Parte Young suits
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 470 F.3d 1261 12/13/06
    Brief as Amicus 05/25/06
  • Spencer v. Earley (E.D. Va.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is valid Section 5 legislation as applied to prison administration
    • As the Fourth Circuit has held, state agencies validly waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Section 504 when they accept federal financial assistance
     
    Document Date 
    District Court Decision 01/30/07
    Brief as Intervenor 04/14/06
  • Randolph v. Texas Rehabilitation Commission (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • This en banc court has held that a state agency waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when it accepts federal financial assistance
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 214 F. App'x 424 01/18/07
    Brief as Intervenor 10/11/05
  • Toledo v. Sanchez-Rivera (1st Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Under the analysis of Tennessee v. Lane, Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied in the context of public education
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 454 F.3d 24 07/06/06
    Brief as Intervenor 08/25/05
  • Roe v. Johnson (2d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • This Court should not rule on the constitutionality of Title II without first considering alternative grounds for affirming or reversing
    • Under the analysis of Tennessee v. Lane, Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied in the context of public licensing programs
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 03/14/05
  • Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason University ( 4th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should decide first whether plaintiff stated a claim prior to entertaining the university's constitutional challenges
    • Congress validly conditioned federal funding on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    • Under the analysis of Tennessee v. Lane, Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied in the context of public education
    • The ADA retaliation provision is also valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation
    • The Eleventh Amendment is no bar to private suits against state officials in their official capacities to enjoin future violations of Title II and Section 504
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 411 F.3d 474 06/13/05
    Brief as Intervenor 12/08/04
  • Bill M. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • The district court properly declined to rule on the State's Eleventh Amendment challenge at this stage in the proceedings
    • Congress validly abrogated the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Title II of the ADA in the institutionalization context
    • The panel incorrectly concluded that this court's 1999 holding in Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle controls the outcome of this case
     
    Document Date 
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc as Intervenor 07/08/05
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 408 F.3d 1096 05/27/05
    Brief as Intervenor 11/26/04
  • Crowley v. TEA (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • This court should delay consideration of this case pending this court's en banc decision in Pace v. Bogalusa
    • A State that voluntarily seeks entry of a consent decree in federal court waives its immunity from actions to enforce that decree the TEA waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under the IDEA by accepting IDEA funding
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 07/12/05
    Brief as Intervenor 11/12/04
  • Guttman v. Khalsa (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Under the analysis of Tennessee v. Lane, Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied in the context of public licensing programs
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 446 F.3d 1027 04/19/06
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 401 F.3d 1170 03/17/05
    Brief as Intervenor 09/10/04
  • Muhammed v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (6th Cir.) -- Intervenor-Appellee
    • Title VII's prohibition of religious discrimination, including its accommodation requirement, is valid Section 5 legislation
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 01/06/05
    Brief as Intervenor-Appellee 03/08/04
  • Miller v. King (11th Cir. and S.D. Ga.) -- Intervenor
    • This panel should delay consideration of the State's Eleventh Amendment challenge to Title II pending resolution of the same challenge by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane and by other panels of this Court already considering the same issue
    • The Eleventh Amendment is no bar to private suits against state officials in their official capacities to enjoin future violations of Title II of the Disabilities Act
    • Title II of the ADA is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied to the class of cases implicating prisoners' rights
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor 05/28/08
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 449 F.3d 1149 05/17/06
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc as Intervenor 10/28/04
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 384 F.3d 1248 09/14/04
    Supplemental Brief as Intervenor 06/25/04
    Brief as Intervenor 02/10/04
  • Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • The RLUIPA sections at issue are a valid exercise of Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Commerce Clause
    • RLUIPA Sections 2(b)(1), 2(b)(3)(B), and 2(a)(1) as made applicable by Section 2(a)(2)(c) are within Congress's Section 5 powers because they codify established constitutional principles
    • Section 2(a)(1), as applied through Section 2(a)(2)(b), is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause authority
    • The RLUIPA provisions at issue are consistent with the Establishment Clause
    • RLUIPA does not violate the Tenth Amendment
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 366 F.3d 1214 04/21/04
    Brief as Intervenor 01/05/04
  • Barbour v. WMATA (D.C. Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 374 F.3d 1161 07/09/04
    Brief as Intervenor 10/26/03
  • McCarthy v. Hale (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Suits under Title II may be brought against state officials in their official capacities for prospective relief
    • The constitutionality of Title II and Section 504 affects the merits of plaintiffs' claims, not the Court's jurisdiction under Ex Parte Young to adjudicate the claims
    • Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation
    • Title II is valid Commerce Clause legislation
    • Title II does not violate the Tenth Amendment
    • Section 504 is valid Spending Clause legislation
     
    Document Date 
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied, reported at 391 F.3d 676 11/19/04
    Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc 09/30/04
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 381 F.3d 407 08/11/04
    Supplemental Brief as Intervenor 06/15/04
    Brief as Intervenor 10/24/03
  • S.C. v. Deptford Board of Education (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned IDEA funds on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under the IDEA
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 10/20/04
    Brief as Intervenor 08/28/03
  • Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Plaintiffs' claims under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 353 F.3d 108 12/24/03
    Brief as Intervenor 08/26/03
  • Espinoza v. Texas Department of Public Safety (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress clearly conditioned receipt of federal financial assistance on a state agency's knowing and voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity to private actions under Section 504
    • Section 504 is valid Spending Clause legislation
    • The Department's waiver of sovereign immunity was effective
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 148 F. App'x 224 08/25/05
    Supplemental Letter Brief as Intervenor 04/12/05
    Brief as Intervenor 04/22/03
  • Meyers v. Texas (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Suits under Title II may be brought against state officials in their official capacities for prospective relief
    • This Court need not, and should not, consider the State's challenges to the validity of the surcharge regulation in this appeal
    • The surcharge regulation does not exceed the scope of the Attorney General's delegated regulatory authority
    • Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation
    • Title II is valid Commerce Clause legislation as applied to this case
    • Title II does not violate the Tenth Amendment
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 410 F.3d 236 05/19/05
    Brief as Intervenor 03/20/03
  • Lieberman v. Delaware (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned a State's receipt of federal funding on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under Section 504
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 70 F. App'x 630 07/14/03
    Brief as Intervenor 02/27/03
  • Pugliese v. Dillenberg (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned the receipt of federal financial assistance on the waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to private claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    • The State was not unconstitutionally coerced into waiving its sovereign immunity to Section 504 claims
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 346 F.3d 937 10/07/03
    Reply Brief as Intervenor 05/16/03
    Brief as Intervenor 02/03/03
  • Thomas v. University of Houston (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress clearly conditioned receipt of federal funds on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    • Section 504 is valid Spending Clause legislation
    • The University's waiver of sovereign immunity was effective
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 155 F. App'x 115 11/04/05
    Supplemental Letter Brief 04/22/05
    Brief as Intervenor 01/29/03
  • Gross Seed Co. v. Nebraska Dep't of Roads & United States (8th Cir.) -- Appellees
    • The district court correctly determined that the federal DBE program is facially constitutional
    • The district court correctly determined that the federal DBE program is constitutional as applied
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 345 F.3d 964 10/06/03
    Brief as Appellees 01/10/03
  • Danny R. v. Spring Branch Independent School District (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress clearly conditioned receipt of federal funds on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    • Section 504 is valid Spending Clause legislation
    • The TEA's authority to solicit and accept federal funds conditioned on a waiver of sovereign immunity is sufficient, as a matter of federal law, to support a waiver of immunity through acceptance of federal funds
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 124 F. App'x 289 03/30/05
    Brief as Intervenor 12/10/02
  • Radaszewski v. Garner (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
    • Eleventh Amendment is no nar to rivate suits against state officials to enjoin future violations of federal law
    • Congress did not display any intent to foreclose jurisdiction under Ex parte Young for suits under Title II And Section 504
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 383 F.3d 599 09/08/04
    Brief as Amicus 11/29/02
  • Endres v. Indiana State Police Department & Holmes v. Marion County (7th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Whether, in extending the reach of Title VII to cover state employers, Congress validly abrogated States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits for damages by private parties
     
    Document Date 
    Rehearing Dismissed 01/20/04
    Petition for Rehearing Granted 11/19/03
    Petition for Rehearing as Intervenor 08/08/03
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 334 F.3d 618 06/27/03
    Brief as Intervenor 07/29/02
  • Miranda B., et al. v. John Kitzhabeer, Governor of the State of Oregon, etc. (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Defendants' arguments about the validity of the Federal Statutory provisions regarding regarding their Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under Title II and Section 504 are foreclosed by binding circuit precedent
    • Suits under Title II and Section 504 may be brought against state officials in their official capacities for prospective relief
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 328 F.3d 1181 05/14/03
    Brief as Intervenor 07/23/02
  • Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, et al. and United States, et al. (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Sherbrooke has standing to challenge the DBE program
    • District court correctly concluded that recipients of TEA-21 financial assistance need not independemtly satisfy satisfy strict scrutiny
    • District court correctly determined that the federal DBE program is facially constitutional
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 345 F.3d 964 10/06/03
    Brief as Appellee 07/15/02
  • A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 and IDEA suits
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 341 F.3d 234 08/19/03
    Brief as Intervenor 07/03/02
  • M.A. & United States v. State-Operated School District of the City of Newark and New Jersey Department of Education, etc. (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor/Appellee
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 suits
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 344 F.3d 335 09/16/03
    Brief as Intervenor-Appellee 07/03/02
  • Doe v. State of Nebraska (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 suits
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 345 F.3d 593 10/07/03
    Brief as Intervenor 07/02/02
  • Bowers v. NCAA (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 suits
    • This court should not reach the constitutionality of Title II unless necessary
    • Title II is valid Fourteenth Amendment legislation as applied in the context of public education
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 475 F.3d 524 02/01/07
    Brief as Intervenor 08/15/06
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 346 F.3d 402 08/20/03
    Brief as Intervenor 06/28/02
  • Bruggeman v. Blagojevich (formerly Boudreau v. Ryan) (7th Cir.) -- Amicus/Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA may be enforced against state officials for prospective relief
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
     
    Document Date 
    Petition for Rehearing Withdrawn 05/09/03
    Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc 05/07/03
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 324 F.3d 906 04/07/03
    Brief as Intervenor 11/25/02
    Brief as Amicus 06/19/02
  • Biggs v. Board of Education of Cecile County, Maryland (4th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 suits
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 01/17/03
    Reply Brief 08/15/02
    Brief as Intervenor 06/14/02
  • Assoc. of Disabled Americans v. Florida International University (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • As applied to discrimination in education, Title II is congruent and proportional to the constitutional rights at issue and the history of discrimination
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 405 F.3d 954 04/06/05
    Corrected Supplemental Brief as Intervenor 07/21/04
    Brief as Intervenor 05/24/02
  • Wilkes v. Wyoming Dep't of Employment (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions charging illegal discrimination on the basis of sex
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 314 F.3d 501 12/23/02
    Brief as Intervenor 05/20/02
  • Wilson v. Pennsylvania State Police Dep't (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Congress validly conditioned receipt of federal funds on waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 suits
    • Title I of the ADA may be enforced against state officials for prospective relief
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2002 WL 31492373 11/07/02
    Reply Brief 06/07/02
    Brief as Intervenor 04/23/02
  • Vadie v. Miss. State Univ. (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • University is precluded from asserting an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense by law of the case
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions charging illegal retaliation for making Title VII complaint
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 218 F.3d 365 06/25/02
    Brief as Intervenor 04/01/02
  • Project Life v. Glendening (4th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 46 F. App'x 147 09/04/02
    Brief as Intervenor 03/25/02
  • Wessel v. Glendening (4th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Title II of the ADA may be enforced by injunction against state officials
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 306 F.3d 203 09/26/02
    Brief as Intervenor 02/26/02
  • Johnson v. Hamrick (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is valid legislation to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
    • Defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is barred by law of the case
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 296 F.3d 1065 07/05/02
    Brief as Intervenor 01/28/02
  • Patrick W. v. Anderson (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 actions
    • Section 504 may be enforced by injunction against state officials
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 03/06/03
    Brief as Intervenor 01/11/02
  • Nanda v. Univ. of Illinois (7th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 303 F.3d 817 09/17/02
    Brief as Intervenor 12/13/01
  • Chisolm v. McManimon (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid legislation under the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II and Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 275 F.3d 315 12/28/01
    Brief as Intervenor 11/02/01
  • Thomas v. Nakatani (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II actions
    • Title II of the ADA may be enforce by injunction against state officials
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 309 F.3d 1203 11/06/02
    Brief as Intervenor 10/28/01
  • Koslow v. Pennsylvania (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 actions
    • Title I of the ADA may be enforced by injunction against state officials
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 302 F.3d 161 08/21/02
    Reply brief 12/13/01
    Brief as Intervenor 10/23/01
  • Simmons v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 34 F. App'x 152 03/21/02
    Brief as Intervenor 08/08/01
    Brief as Intervenor 08/08/01
  • Lovell v. Chandler (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid legislation under the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II and Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 303 F.3d 1039 09/05/02
    Brief as Intervenor 07/09/01
  • Vinson v. Thomas (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid legislation under the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II and Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 288 F.3d 1145 05/03/02
    Brief as Intervenor 06/12/01
  • Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (6th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 276 F.3d 808 01/10/02
    En Banc Brief as Intervenor 05/30/01
  • Root v. Georgia State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II actions
     
    Document Date
    Petition for Rehearing Denied 05/17/01
    Petition for Rehearing 04/26/01
  • McAleese v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections (3d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid legislation under the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II and Section 504 actions
    • Title II and Section 504 may be enforced against statute officials through injunctive relief even if Congress did not validly remove States' sovereign immunity
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 275 F.3d 36 08/27/01
    Brief as Intervenor 05/02/01
  • Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center (2d Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title II of the ADA is valid legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid legislation under the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to ADA Title II and Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied 02/06/02
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc 11/16/01
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 280 F.3d 98 09/25/01
    Brief as Intervenor 04/13/01
  • Robinson v. Kansas (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is valid exercise of the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid exercise of the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VI and Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 295 F.3d 1183 07/09/02
    Brief as Intervenor 02/05/01
  • Lunnie v. University of Arkansas (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title VII's prohibitions on race discrimination and retaliation are valid exercises of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 255 F.3d 615 06/20/01
    Brief as Intervenor 12/29/00
  • Okruhlik v. University of Arkansas (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title VII's prohibitions on sex discrimination and retaliation are valid exercises of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title VII actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 255 F.3d 615 06/20/01
    Brief as Intervenor 12/06/00
  • Asbury v. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (8th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is valid exercise of the Spending Clause
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid exercise of the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to IDEA and Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 9 F. App'x 558 04/18/01
    Brief as Intervenor 11/07/00
  • Siler-Khodr v. University of Texas Health Science Center (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act actions
     
    Document Date 
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied 05/16/02
    Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10/19/01
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 261 F.3d 542 08/24/01
    Brief as Intervenor 09/15/00
  • Roary v. Freeman (4th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is valid exercise of the Spending Clause
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 actions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 3 F. App'x 114 02/14/01
    Reply Brief 10/16/00 
    Brief as Intervenor 08/16/00
  • Thompson v. Colorado (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • May enforce Title II against state officials in their official capacities (Ex parte Young)
    • Title II of ADA is valid exercise of the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Title II actions
     
    Document Date 
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied 10/09/01
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc 09/20/01
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 258 F.3d 1241 08/07/01
    Supplemental Brief as Intervenor 04/13/01
    Brief as Intervenor 06/23/00
  • Pawlowski v. Regents of the University of Colorado (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Equal Pay Act is valid exercise of Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
    • No Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Pay Act actions
     
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 08/22/00
    Brief as Intervenor 06/15/00
  • Cisneros v. Wilson (10th Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • Title I of ADA is valid exercise of the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment
    • May enforce Title I against state officials in their official capacities (Ex parte Young)
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 226 F.3d 1113 09/11/00
    Brief as Intervenor 05/25/00

 

 

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 June 12, 2023