�Ĳʿ�� - Alabama

Alabama town stops prosecutions for late garbage bills after �Ĳʿ�� advocacy

sam.alefsen@splcenter.org — Fri, 27 Sep 2024 18:38:42 +0000

Features and Stories

Alabama town stops prosecutions for late garbage bills after �Ĳʿ�� advocacy

In the video: Marissa Davis of Chickasaw, Alabama, talks about the frustration of having her garbage collection suspended after she fell behind on her trash and sewage bills. (Credit: Hillary Hudson)

Growing up in Detroit, José Young saw firsthand how easy it was for young people to end up on the wrong side of the law. Instead of following that path, he made his way into the military, then to a factory where he assembled transmissions for the Ford Motor Co. until he lost his leg in an automobile accident and was unable to work.

So it was a shock when the Chickasaw, Alabama, resident found himself in court, charged with theft of services for falling behind on his sewage and trash collection bill.

“They were actually saying everything had to be paid in full,” Young said. “So even in court, right after being brought in, you either pay it all or you go to jail, right? That really had me worried.”

For a veteran who had made a conscious effort his entire life to stay on the right side of the law, the thought of having a criminal record was humiliating, especially when Alabama has a law that exempts people surviving on disability payments from trash collection fees. Young did not know he could apply for this exemption, and the city did not inform him of the exemption while his past-due fees accumulated.

Young was struggling to catch up on his bills and to get his garbage services restored when the �Ĳʿ�� sent a letter to the city raising constitutional concerns about its practices.

When the �Ĳʿ�� sent its letter on Sept. 11, the city’s policy was not to accept partial payments or restore services until past-due accounts were paid in full.

In bright red letters, each monthly bill stated: “All bills with a $125 balance or more are DUE IMMEDIATELY or Services will be Disconnected. If services are disconnected, additional late fees will apply and must be paid, in full, along with the balance before services can be reconnected. ... We do not make payment arrangements.”

Despite what his bill said, the court ultimately gave Young additional time to pay off his balance. Young had a court date set for Dec. 5 to show how much progress he has made toward erasing his $1,800 in past-due payments.

A failure to appear could have resulted in a warrant for his arrest.

But after being notified of the �Ĳʿ��’s concerns, the city of Chickasaw agreed this week to dismiss Young’s charges and he will no longer face the prospect of a criminal record for falling behind on his garbage bills.

The city is also in the process of dismissing all criminal charges for other residents who faced criminal charges.

The city has also agreed to return Young’s garbage can once he provides the city with paperwork about his disability.

“We spoke to dozens of residents who were in a similar situation as Mr. Young,” said Micah West, a senior attorney for the �Ĳʿ��’s Economic Justice litigation team. “Suspending garbage pickup, imposing harsh late penalties and prosecuting people who through no fault of their own are unable to pay their garbage and sewage bills does not make payment suddenly forthcoming. Those practices make the prospect of repayment that much harder. We are thankful that the city is willing to work with us to address these concerns.”

Since 2021, nearly 200 residents in Chickasaw, Alabama, have been cited and charged after falling behind on their utility bills. The city's poverty rate is nearly double the state's overall rate. (Credit: Dwayne Fatherree)

Preying on people experiencing poverty

This is not the first time that the city of Chickasaw, a town of fewer than 7,000 people near Alabama’s Gulf Coast, has chosen to criminalize its residents for falling behind on bills. �Ĳʿ�� attorneys approached city officials in 2016 after learning that the municipality was filing criminal charges against residents for overdue water bills, in addition to shutting off service until the overdue amount was fully paid. The municipal judge at the time signed a standing order to stop the practice, dismissing all pending cases, fees and costs.

But not even five years later, the city again began prosecuting people who fell behind on their utility bills, this time against residents who fell behind on their waste collection and sewage bills. Between 2021 and 2024, nearly 200 residents have been cited and charged under a city ordinance that, according to �Ĳʿ�� attorneys, violates their constitutional rights.

In response to the �Ĳʿ�� letter earlier this month, Chickasaw city officials agreed to put a moratorium on prosecutions.

As with most debt collection efforts of this type, those who are already struggling financially face the brunt of the effects, a burden that is borne unevenly across race and gender, West said.

The �Ĳʿ�� analyzed every criminal court file with demographic information between March 2021 and January 2024. This data showed that the city brought about 60% of prosecutions for theft of utilities against women, even though women comprise about half of the city’s population. And 37% of the cases were filed against Black women, who comprise 26% of the city’s population.

This criminalization of poverty occurred in one of the poorest municipalities in Alabama. Chickasaw has one of the highest poverty rates in the state; 31.5% of residents live below the federal poverty guideline. That is nearly double the state’s overall poverty rate of 16.2%.

At the time the �Ĳʿ�� sent its letter, residents who could not pay the flat $50 fee for sewage and $20 per month for trash pickup were charged a 35% late penalty every month, or $25. The price of falling behind on trash and sewage bills in Chickasaw was more than its actual trash collection fee.

But – until recently – even after the city had suspended trash pickup and eventually took the residents’ city-provided trash cans away, the service charge for trash pickup continued to accrue as if the service were continuing uninterrupted. In Young’s case, he was charged for trash collection service for two years after the city took his can away.

The true cost of suspensions

According to the United Nations, access to housing support services like sanitation is among seven defining elements of adequate housing. Though American courts have declined to recognize housing as a human right, the �Ĳʿ�� continues to work to affirm the human right to adequate housing. This is part of advancing racial justice in the Deep South.

“For communities already vulnerable to the effects of poverty – Black and Brown people, women and children, rural residents, elderly people and people with disabilities – removing a key part of adequate housing can be hugely destabilizing,” said Crystal McElrath, senior supervising attorney for the �Ĳʿ��’s Economic Justice litigation team. “Utility shutoffs are often like evictions. Policies that deny people access to sanitation in their homes force these people out of their homes. These policies perpetuate housing instability and homelessness, disproportionately denying Black, Brown and Indigenous communities the opportunity to access safe, secure and affordable housing and essential services – exactly what was happening in Chickasaw.”

The lack of sanitation can increase susceptibility to illness, which people living in poverty may not be able to afford to treat, McElrath said. The termination of a utility service renders a home uninhabitable, forcing people in this situation to move. Moving frequently can affect children’s education, as children who move often are more likely to repeat grades in school. And if the whole family cannot afford to move quickly or frequently, families may be separated.

The termination of a utility service can also impact a person’s credit and jeopardize their eligibility for public benefits, McElrath said. Utility debt burdens may also force a family to choose between paying bills and purchasing food or medicine, leading again to health issues that they cannot afford to treat.

“In short, depriving someone of trash service can cost much more than even the most astronomical utility bill,” McElrath said.

‘I cannot pay that’

In May 2021, Shaquala Jackson moved to Chickasaw. She said she had an agreement with the landlord that she would pay the water bill and he would cover the sewage and trash collection. In her first month, things went smoothly.

But the next month, the trash and sewage bill came to her. And it was far larger than she expected.

“It was in my name, and it was at $1,200. So then I call the landlord, told him, ‘Look, I’m on Social Security disability,’” Jackson said. “‘I cannot pay that.’”

The landlord told her to go to the city hall, but the clerk there was not able to tell her why the bill was so high, she said.

“So, I just kept using the trash can like regular,” Jackson said. “Next thing I know, they took my trash can.”

Like Young, the city did not inform her that she could apply for an exemption from trash collection fees under Alabama law. She started putting her trash on the side of the house, which earned her a visit from the city’s code enforcement inspector.

“I had three small kids and I’m getting rats in my house, so I had my friend give me cats to go after the rats,” Jackson said. “I wasn’t cooking in my house or anything because I was scared, and the cats didn’t even help the rat problem.”

Jackson eventually started paying someone to remove her garbage, fearful that the rats would harm her kids and because the garbage was threatening their health and the habitability of her home.

“I was paying somebody $100 every two weeks to come out to pick up the trash that accumulated,” Jackson said, an amount five times the monthly total of her garbage bill.

Jackson paid this amount because she could not get her trash can back unless she paid her entire $2,000 balance in full, an amount far beyond her means.

Then she received a letter saying she had to go to court, where an even bigger shock awaited her.

“I went to court, and it [the bill] was, at this point … thousands of dollars,” Jackson said. “I said, ‘I cannot afford that, so can I make payments? They wouldn’t take the payments from me or let me make partial payments to them.”

After barely six months in Chickasaw, Jackson packed up her three children and moved out of the city. She left the enormous and expanding bill behind. In the criminal complaint against her, the city claimed she had “allowed unpaid trash and sewer services at [her] residence to total $71,500 before the account was terminated and trash cart was picked up.”

The criminal complaint was inaccurate. It would have taken 80 years of nonpayment for the 27-year-old Jackson to accrue that much garbage and sewage debt. She lived in her home for only six months.

Finding solutions

The effort to end the criminalization of financial indebtedness in Chickasaw follows a similar �Ĳʿ�� effort last year in Valley, Alabama. In that town, the newly elected district attorney agreed to dismiss all pending charges against residents for outstanding trash collection fees.

This sort of activity is also coming to light in other areas of the state. In Fayette, Alabama, a 47-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 days in jail in mid-September for unpaid trash collection fees.

“Alabama appears to be alone in prosecuting people who fall behind on their garbage and sewage bills,” said Ellen Degnan, a senior attorney with the �Ĳʿ��’s Economic Justice litigation team. “We are not aware of any other state that criminalizes people who fall behind on their utility bills.”

In the letter to the city of Chickasaw, �Ĳʿ�� attorneys recommended several steps to assist residents. In addition to rescinding the city ordinance that had been used to justify prosecuting residents and immediately stopping all prosecutions under the ordinance, the letter notes that state law allows exemptions from municipal trash collection fees for senior citizens and people who earn less than three-fourths of the federal poverty level.

Attorneys also urged the city to allow customers to make partial payments on their accounts instead of having to pay overdue bills in one lump sum.

Additionally, the attorneys asked the city to make its residents aware of any programs that are available to exempt those with lesser means from its trash collection fees.

“We are pleased that the city is open to adopting many of our recommendations and agrees that residents should not be denied essential solid waste services or prosecuted simply because they cannot afford a trash or sewer bill,” Degnan said.

Although progress is being made in Chickasaw, cities all over Alabama continue to criminalize nonpayment of utility bills and the �Ĳʿ�� continues to receive more requests for help than the organization can field.

“The need for statewide reform is undeniable,” Degnan said.

�Ĳʿ�� attorneys and advocates said they hope that Alabama elected officials will take up the issue to prohibit the use of criminal prosecution and jail time to recover unpaid fees, to make it simpler for people with low incomes to obtain exemptions from solid waste fees, and to limit the late fees that can be assessed on unpaid solid waste fees.

“No other states criminalize unpaid trash bills like Alabama and yet, in Alabama, residents are becoming too accustomed to this unjust reality,” McElrath said.

Young agreed with that assessment.

“The crazy thing that I’m noticing is that this [not having trash collection] is not anything out of the ordinary for people in this town,” Young said. “People know that this is a problem on the street.”

Image at top: Chickasaw, Alabama, charged resident José Young with theft of services after he fell behind on sewage and trash collection bills, even though state law exempts people who receive disability payments from trash collection fees. The city has since agreed to dismiss the charges.(Credit: Dwayne Fatherree)

Dwayne Fatherree

Investigative Journalist

September 27, 2024

Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Fri, 31 May 2024 15:22:36 +0000

In March 2024, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a sweeping new voter suppression law that targets, restricts and severely punishes civic engagement efforts that encourage voting and enable access to the ballot box.

The following month, a coalition of civil rights, voting rights and disability rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the law, naming as defendants the Alabama attorney general, the secretary of state and the state’s 42 district attorneys.

SB 1 is among the most extreme law of its kind ever enacted and was the latest development in Alabama’s long history of restricting the political engagement of Black voters and other marginalized communities.

Among other provisions, it would criminalize most forms of helping voters apply for absentee ballots, with felony penalties ranging up to 20 years in prison. The law’s restrictions harm voters who need assistance with their absentee ballot applications – particularly Black voters, elderly voters, incarcerated voters, voters with disabilities and low-literacy voters – as well as nonpartisan civic engagement groups, including churches, that work to help Alabamians participate in the political process.

The lawsuit contends that SB 1 violates the First and 14th amendments, the Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. It was filed on behalf of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, Greater Birmingham Ministries, the League of Women Voters of Alabama and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Date Filed

April 04, 2024

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - AL

Co-Counsel

Campaign Legal Center, Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program

Active Case

Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, et al.

Case Number

2:24-cv-00420-RDP

Rissling, et al. v. Bobo, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Thu, 30 May 2024 21:35:58 +0000

The �Ĳʿ�� and its co-counsel filed a federal lawsuit against three Alabama counties for their failure to provide an accessible option for absentee voting by blind and print-disabled voters.

Filed on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind in Alabama and four individuals, the lawsuit alleges that Jefferson, Mobile and Tuscaloosa counties violate the rights of blind and print-disabled voters under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by failing to provide an accessible means to mark and return absentee ballots.

Blind and print-disabled voters rely on accessible technology, such as screen readers or magnification programs, to vote independently and privately. However, the defendants have not implemented remote accessible vote-by-mail (RAVBM) systems that allow the use of such technology, making it impossible for blind and print-disabled voters to mark and return their ballots without assistance and thereby denying them their right to a secret ballot.

Technology allowing blind and print-disabled voters to read, mark and return absentee ballots electronically is readily available and being used in other states for these voters. Alabama makes an RAVBM system available to military and overseas voters but has denied its use to voters with disabilities.

By failing to implement accessible absentee voting options, the plaintiffs argue, the defendants are effectively disenfranchising blind and print-disabled voters.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to compel the defendants to provide an accessible option for absentee voting.

Date Filed

October 03, 2023

Status

Active

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - AL

Co-Counsel

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program and Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP.

Active Case

Rissling, et al. v. Bobo, et al.

Case Number

7:23-cv-01326-LSC

Hester, et al. v. Gentry, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Thu, 07 Sep 2023 17:42:05 +0000

In Cullman County, Alabama, hundreds of people are routinely jailed before trial due to their inability to pay a bail bond for their release. The �Ĳʿ�� and its partners intervened in a federal class action lawsuit to end the practice.

The lawsuit describes how the county operates a wealth-based justice system where conditions of release were determined by a person’s wealth. For example, plaintiff Bradley Hester, who was arrested in 2017 on a misdemeanor charge, could not pay a $1,000 bond because he was indigent. He was held in the Cullman County Jail simply because he could not afford his freedom. The �Ĳʿ�� and its partners sought to end this practice, alleging that Cullman County’s practices deprived indigent defendants of due process and equal protection and their fundamental right to pretrial liberty.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction in September 2018, which temporarily stopped Cullman County from relying on a secured bail schedule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit later reversed that preliminary injunction and found that changes that Cullman County made to its bail policies after the �Ĳʿ�� filed its litigation were facially constitutional. A request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the 11th Circuit decision – also known as a writ of certiorari – was denied.

Despite the 11th Circuit’s decision, the preliminary injunction allowed thousands of people to return home to their families rather than languish in jail because they could not afford a bail bond.

Although the circuit court reversed the preliminary injunction, there has not been a final ruling on the merits. The case continues in the trial court.

Date Filed

March 09, 2018

Status

Active

Issue Area

Economic Justice

Co-Counsel

American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, American Civil Liberties Union Criminal Law Reform Project and Civil Rights Corps

Active Case

Hester, et al. v. Gentry, et al.

Yellowhammer Fund v. Attorney General of Alabama Steve Marshall

rudy.isaza_2663 — Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:56:23 +0000

After Alabama’s attorney general threatened to criminalize people helping pregnant Alabamians access legal abortion care in other states, The Lawyering Project, joined by the �Ĳʿ��, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the attorney general from making good on his threat.

The attorney general threatened organizations such as the plaintiff, the Yellowhammer Fund, an organization that provides funding and support to pregnant Alabamians forced to leave the state for legal abortion care. While abortion is banned in Alabama, the state has no power to criminalize people engaging in lawful activity in other states. However, the fear of prosecution forced the Yellowhammer Fund to cease operation of its abortion fund.

The lawsuit describes how the attorney general’s threats violate the Yellowhammer Fund’s rights to free expression, association, travel and due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The threats also violate the sovereignty of states that allow abortion. The lawsuit seeks an injunction blocking the attorney general from prosecuting individuals and organizations helping pregnant Alabamians access legal abortion care in other states.

Almost 2,000 people traveled from Alabama to other states to obtain abortion care in 2021 – before abortion was banned in Alabama. The burden of such travel significantly impacts Black people and other communities of color, who are already at a greater risk of criminalization.

Date Filed

July 31, 2023

Status

Active

Issue Area

Criminal Justice Reform

Co-Counsel

The Lawyering Project

Active Case

Yellowhammer Fund v. Attorney General of Alabama Steve Marshall

Case Number

2:23-cv-00450

Hudson v. Ivey

rudy.isaza_2663 — Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:15:35 +0000

After a state commission moved a judgeship from a diverse Jefferson County community to majority-white Madison County, the �Ĳʿ�� and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the move.

The lawsuit was filed by voting rights groups on behalf of Tiara Young Hudson, an attorney seeking to serve on the bench for the 10th Judicial Circuit Court, Place 14 in Birmingham. Hudson won the Democratic nomination for that judgeship and would have faced no opposition in the general election. Shortly after her primary victory, Judge Clyde Jones announced his retirement from the position, effective immediately, creating a vacancy. Hudson has applied to the Jefferson County Judicial Commission to fill the vacancy.

However, the Alabama Judicial Resources Allocation Commission voted to relocate the judgeship to Madison County. The commission’s vote to transfer the judgeship broke along racial lines, with all white members voting for the move and all the Black members voting against it. The decision could prevent Hudson from seeking to fill the Jefferson County vacancy. It also would strip the county of a critical resource.

During a meeting before the commission’s vote, members of the public overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to the move. What’s more, testimony at the meeting noted that the Legislature had the funds to create 20 new judgeships, which would render a transfer from one county to another unnecessary.

The commission was created by the Legislature as an agency with purported authority to alter the number of judgeships in each district and circuit. However, the Alabama Constitution states that only the Legislature, incorporating recommendations of the Alabama Supreme Court, may change the number of judges allocated to a circuit or district. The lawsuit describes how the commission violated the constitution by usurping the Legislature’s role.

Date Filed

July 19, 2022

Status

Dismissed

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - AL

Co-Counsel

American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama

Hudson v. Ivey

Case Number

SC-2022-0836

National Federation of the Blind of Alabama, et al. v. Wes Allen

sam.alefsen@splcenter.org — Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:51:39 +0000

Alabama’s absentee ballot program is inaccessible to blind voters and voters with print disabilities. It requires those voters to secure another person’s assistance to complete their absentee ballot – forfeiting their right to vote privately and independently.

The �Ĳʿ�� and its co-counsel filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind of Alabama and individual Alabamians asserting that Alabama’s inaccessible absentee voting system violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

Alabama excludes blind and print disabled Alabamians from its absentee voting system because its absentee ballots are transmitted, marked and returned entirely on paper. To comply with federal law and to provide Alabamians who are blind or have a print disability an equal chance to vote privately and independently by absentee ballot, Alabama must offer accessible electronic ballots that voters can read and mark on their own computers or smart devices using their own assistive technology.

Date Filed

June 08, 2022

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - AL

Co-Counsel

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program and Brown Goldstein & Levy

National Federation of the Blind of Alabama, et al. v. Wes Allen

Case Number

2:22-cv-721-CLM

Boe, et al., v. Marshall, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:19:20 +0000

After Alabama legislators passed a law criminalizing healthcare for transgender children and adolescents, the �Ĳʿ�� joined a coalition of civil rights advocates to file a federal lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of a group of families, a reverend and two health care providers affected by it.

The law, known as SB 184, prohibits parents from obtaining essential medical care for their transgender children by imposing criminal penalties on them and their children’s doctors for providing that care. It also punishes parents for making important decisions about their children’s health care and health care providers for even suggesting well-established medically necessary care. The punishment can include up to 10 years in prison.

The complaint, previously known as Eknes-Tucker, et al. v. Ivey, et al., describes how the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process by impermissibly intruding into parents’ fundamental right to obtain safe, effective and medically necessary care for their children. It also details how the law violates Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including gender identity, by health care providers that receive federal funding. Additionally, the law violates the First Amendment by restricting the speech of health care providers, a spiritual adviser or a parent, if it resulted in gender dysphoria treatment for transgender children.

The family plaintiffs, who come from various communities in Alabama, would be subject to criminal prosecution if they sought and obtained appropriate medical care for their children. Plaintiffs also include two health care providers who would be subjected to criminal penalties for providing medical care for transgender children.

Another plaintiff, the Rev. Paul A. Eknes-Tucker, provides pastoral counseling for parents raising transgender children. Eknes-Tucker is concerned he will face criminal penalties for his pastoral work with transgender minors who begin medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims by Eknes-Tucker after Alabama represented to the court that “a person cannot violate the Act simply by advising a minor to take transitioning medications” and a new lead plaintiff was named.

Date Filed

April 19, 2022

Issue Area

LGBTQ Rights

Co-Counsel

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, National Center for Lesbian Rights, King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.

Active Case

Boe, et al., v. Marshall, et al.

Khadidah Stone, et al. v. Wes Allen, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 14:26:00 +0000

In 2021, Alabama lawmakers enacted a new district map for the Alabama state Senate that significantly diminishes the power of the state’s Black voters. The �Ĳʿ�� and its co-counsel filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s discriminatory Senate map.

The lawsuit seeks two additional majority-Black state Senate districts. It describes how Alabama’s new state Senate map denies Black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process, which violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Plaintiffs include Greater Birmingham Ministries, Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and voters Khadidah Stone and Evan Milligan.

The plaintiffs argue that the map impermissibly dilutes the voting strength of Alabama’s Black voters by unnecessarily packing them into state Senate District 26 in Montgomery to avoid drawing another reasonably configured majority Black district. The lawsuit also describes how the state unnecessarily “cracked” and diluted the strength of Black voters in Huntsville by dispersing them among three districts instead of drawing them into one reasonably configured majority-Black district.

The plaintiffs argue that myriad factors – including Alabama’s racially polarized voting patterns and Alabama’s history of discrimination in voting – establish that the new map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by preventing Alabama’s Black voters from having an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.

Legislative districts – drawn as part of a once-in-a-decade redistricting process triggered by the 2020 census data – determine the allocation of political power and access to resources at every level of government for the next 10 years. The lawsuit describes Alabama’s “sordid record” when it comes to redistricting. In five of the six redistricting cycles since 1960, the U.S. Department of Justice or federal courts found that Alabama’s political districts – congressional, state legislative or both – violated the rights of voters under the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. After the last redistricting in 2010, a federal court struck down 12 legislative districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.

On Feb. 13, 2024, a federal district court judge denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The denial was noteworthy because it rejected an emerging legal argument threatening voting rights: the belief that private citizens cannot sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court’s order roundly rejected the argument, preserving an important tool for citizens to defend voting rights. A trial date has been set for late 2024.

Date Filed

November 15, 2021

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - AL

Co-Counsel

American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb

Active Case

Khadidah Stone, et al. v. Wes Allen, et al.

C.C. v. Buckner

catherine.valentine_1700 — Wed, 07 Jul 2021 16:58:56 +0000

The Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) discriminates against foster children and youth with mental impairments by unnecessarily segregating them in restrictive, psychiatric residential treatment facilities and by denying them an opportunity to grow up in loving homes and community-based settings.

Along with the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program and Children’s Rights, the �Ĳʿ�� filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four teens with mental impairments placed in or at risk of placement in these restrictive settings. This population is disproportionately Black. DHR has left many children to languish in these facilities for years, despite a medical recommendation that they are ready to be placed in a home. Rather than developing an adequate network of supports and services, DHR often shuffles these children from facility to facility, further isolating them from their families, friends, schools and communities, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit targets these placements as violations of DHR’s obligation under federal laws to administer its services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to meet the needs of the children in its care. Children segregated into these institutional settings are less likely to achieve permanency and are more likely to age out of the foster care system without the appropriate community-based care needed for a successful transition to adulthood.

In a 2020 letter, the groups urged state leaders to make sweeping changes to protect foster children placed in facilities run by Sequel Youth and Family Services, after documenting unsanitary conditions and widespread abuse of youth at these facilities. The complaint describes numerous reports of violence against children in facilities across the state, including staff slamming children against walls, punching and slapping children in the face, using chokeholds and laying on top of children who are being held face down on the ground, causing serious and life-threatening injuries. 

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring DHR to immediately change its policies and practices to ensure that no foster child is unnecessarily placed in these draconian facilities. Advocates also want to ensure children in DHR custody have access to appropriate community-based services, supports and placements, including an adequate number of therapeutic foster homes, among other changes.

Date Filed

May 20, 2021

Status

Active

Issue Area

Children's Rights

Co-Counsel

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Children’s Rights

Active Case

C.C. v. Buckner

Case Number

2:21-cv-367-ECM

�Ĳʿ��� - Alabama

Alabama town stops prosecutions for late garbage bills after �Ĳʿ��� advocacy

Alabama town stops prosecutions for late garbage bills after �Ĳʿ��� advocacy

Preying on people experiencing poverty

The true cost of suspensions

‘I cannot pay that’

Finding solutions

Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, et al.

Case Number

Rissling, et al. v. Bobo, et al.

Date Filed

Status

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Rissling, et al. v. Bobo, et al.

Case Number

Hester, et al. v. Gentry, et al.

Date Filed

Status

Issue Area

Co-Counsel

Hester, et al. v. Gentry, et al.

Yellowhammer Fund v. Attorney General of Alabama Steve Marshall

Date Filed

Status

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Yellowhammer Fund v. Attorney General of Alabama Steve Marshall

Case Number

Hudson v. Ivey

Date Filed

Status

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Hudson v. Ivey

Case Number

National Federation of the Blind of Alabama, et al. v. Wes Allen

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

National Federation of the Blind of Alabama, et al. v. Wes Allen

Case Number

Boe, et al., v. Marshall, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Boe, et al., v. Marshall, et al.

Khadidah Stone, et al. v. Wes Allen, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Khadidah Stone, et al. v. Wes Allen, et al.

C.C. v. Buckner

Date Filed

Status

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

C.C. v. Buckner

Case Number

�Ĳʿ�� - Alabama

Alabama town stops prosecutions for late garbage bills after �Ĳʿ�� advocacy

Alabama town stops prosecutions for late garbage bills after �Ĳʿ�� advocacy