Civil Rights

CIVIL RIGHTS

What's New?

State Legislature Passes Equality of Marriage Bill
February 9, 2012. The state house has joined the senate in passing SB 3269. The house vote was 55-43 on the equality of marriage bill and Senate had previously approvd it by a vote of 28 to 21. The bill now goes to the governor who has already indicated here support for the legislation. For more information and the legislation, see the Washington page of this website.

Ninth Circuit Rules Against California Prop 8
February 7, 2012. A panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued its long awaiting ruling in the Perry v. Brown case, finding that California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read the opinion.
Access the Ninth Circuit Website on the Prop 8 Litigation.

Oregon Groups Sue State in Challenge to Sheltered Workshops
January 27, 2012. United Cerebral Palsy and Disability Rights Oregon have filed suit in federal court against the state in a case styled Lane v. Kitzhaber, claiming that the use and operation of sheltered workshops for persons with disability violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For more information and the complaint in the case, see the Health Care, Disabilities, and Development page of this site.

DOJ Indicts East Haven, Connecticut Police Officers for Discrimination and Abuse of Latinos
January 24, 2012. The U.S. Attorney for the district of Connecticut and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice have announced the indictment and arrest of four East Haven police officers on a list of charges involving discrimination against and abuse of Latino residents. These actions follow the conclusion of an investigation of the East Haven police department launched in 2009 and concluded with a letter of findings in December 2011. The DOJ found a pattern of discrimination in the department: "The practices of the EHPD constitute a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing. Our investigation revealed that Latinos are subjected to disparate treatment, and that the impact on Latinos can only be explained by intentional bias." Civil Rights Division, Letter of Findings, Investigation of the East Haven Police Department, December 19, 2011, at 5.
   The press release issued by the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut charges that: "According to allegations contained in the indictment, from approximately 2007 through 2011, Miller, Cari, Spaulding and Zullo, while acting under color of law, conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate various members of the East Haven community in violation of their Constitutional rights. The indictment alleges that Miller and others maintained and perpetuated an environment where the use of unreasonable force and unreasonable searches and seizures was tolerated and encouraged. It is alleged that Cari, Spaulding and Zullo engaged in unreasonable searches and seizures, including unlawful searches of premises and arrests of individuals without probable cause or based on false and misleading information, and that Miller, Spaulding, Zullo and another officer used unreasonable force during lawful and unlawful arrests. It is alleged that this unreasonable force was used when victims were unarmed, neither resisting nor interfering with the police, but rather securely under the control of the police or otherwise cooperative. In some cases, the victims were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs when officers assaulted them. Some of the victims were particularly vulnerable because they were undocumented aliens or otherwise marginalized, having little perceived standing in the community, and thus unlikely to raise objection to the abuse. The indictment further alleges that Spaulding and Zullo intimidated, harassed and humiliated members of the Latino community and their advocates. Spaulding and Zullo conducted unreasonable and illegal searches at Latino-owned businesses, and Spaulding followed, intimidated and harassed advocates who worked to defend the rights of members of the Latino community."
   As a result of the investigation, the Justice Department has called upon the city to enter into a court supervised negotiated settlement with respect the department's practices. A civil suit brought by local residents against the department is still pending in federal district court in New Haven, Chacón v. East Haven Police Dept., Civil No. 3:10-cv-01692.
   Read the indictment in United States v. Miller et. al.
   Read the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut Press Release.
   Read the Remarks of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
   Read the Justice Department Findings Letter of December 2011 at the Conclusion of the Investigation of the East Haven Police Department.

Supreme Court Rejects Application of Americans with Disabilities Act to Church School Employee
January 12, 2012. In an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts, citing both the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment, rejected the efforts by an employee of a church school to bring an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chief Justice Roberts characterized the case as follows: "Certain employment discrimination laws authorize employees who have been wrongfully terminated to suetheir employers for reinstatement and damages. The question presented is whether the Establishment and FreeExercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an action when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group's ministers." In this case, the employee was a teacher classified as a called teacher. He concluded: "Both Religion Clauses bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers." Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553, Slip opinion, at 6. While the Court had previously ruled that there is a ministerial exception from civil suit, Chief Justice Roberts noted that it had not previously done so in a case involving civil rights statutes.
Read the opinion.

Justice Department Charges Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff's Department with Discrimination
December 22, 2011. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has issued a letter of findings to Maricopa County which is the result of ongoing investigations of the Sheriff's Department and which found a pattern and practice of discrimination based on national origin. Specifically, the letter stated: "Based upon our extensive investigation, we find reasonable cause to believe that MCSO engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing. Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, supervisory staff, and command staff, engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize MCSO's policies or practices, all in violation of Section 14141. MCSO's discriminatory police conduct additionally violates Title VI and its implementing regulations. We also find reasonable cause to believe that MCSO operates its jails in a manner that discriminates against its limited English proficient ("LEP") Latino inmates. Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, detention officers, supervisory staff, and command staff, routinely punishes Latino LEP inmates for failing to understand commands given in English and denies them critical services provided to the other inmates, all in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations." In addition to these formal findings and allegations, the letter also warned that:"In addition to the formal findings noted above, we have identified three additional areas of serious concern that, while not warranting a formal pattern or practice finding at this time, require further investigation. First, our investigation revealed a number of troubling incidents involving MCSO deputies using excessive force against Latinos. Second, we observed that MCSO has implemented its immigration enforcement program in a way that has created a "wall of distrust" between MCSO officers and Maricopa County's Latino residents-a wall of distrust that has significantly compromised MCSO's ability to provide police protection to Maricopa County's Latino residents? Third, we have expanded our investigation to encompass a review of serious allegations that MCSO failed to investigate a large number of sex crimes." Thomas E. Perez to Bill Montgomery, December 15, 2011, p. 2. The letter calls for a negotiated settlement but warns that if the county does not indicate its willingness to move forward on a negotiated resolution by January 4, 2012, the Justice Department will sue.
Read the DOJ Findings Letter on Maricopa County.
Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County News Release in Response to DOJ Letter.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Arizona Immigration Statute Case
December 12, 2011. The Surpeme Court has granted certiorari in No. 11-182, Arizona v. United States. The state of Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the District Court for the District of Arizona [reported at 703 F.Supp 2d 980 (DAZ 2010)] and the U.S. Circuit Court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit [reported at 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011)] that ruled against the state's immigration legislation S.B. 1070.
   Read the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
   Read the U.S. Brief in Opposition to the Petition for Certiorari.
   Access the Court's order granting certiorari.
   Read the Ninth Circuit opinion upholding the injunctions issued by the district court agains the act.
   Read the district court injunction against implementation of S.B.1070 issued July 28, 2010.

Supreme Court Blocks Three Judge District Court Ruling on Texas Reapportionment
December 10, 2011. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted probable jurisdiction and set for argument cases coming from Texas that challenge a three judge federal district court ruling on reapportionment. In issuing its order, the Court wrote: "The applications for stay presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court are granted, and it is ordered that the orders issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 23, 2011, in case Nos. 5:11-CV-360, and 5:11-CV-788, and the order of November 26, 2011, in case No. 5:11-CV-360, are hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. In addition, the applications for stay are treated as jurisdictional statements, and in each case probable jurisdiction is noted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The briefs of appellants and appellees, not to exceed 15,000 words, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Wednesday, December 21, 2011. Reply briefs, not to exceed 15,000 words, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, January 3, 2012. The cases are set for oral argument on Monday, January 9, 2012, at 1 p.m." As the order indicates, the lower court's order is stayed pending the decision by the Supreme Court. Also, the Court's order provides for expedited briefing and hearing.
Access the Supreme Court's order.

California Supreme Court Grants Standing for Proposition 8 Proponents to Defend the Proposition on Appeal Clearing the Way for Federal Court Ruling
November 18, 2011. As it considers the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to determine whether proponents of Prop 8 had standing to defend that measure before the Court, given that the California governor and attorney general have refused to do so. The state supreme court has determined that they do have standing and the case now returns to the Ninth Circuit for a ruling of the merits. The state court wrote: "As posed by the Ninth Circuit, the question to be decided is "[w]hether under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so." The court concluded: "In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so." Slip opinion at 5.
   Read the California Supreme Court opinion in Perry v. Brown.
   Read the Ninth Circuit order certifying the question on standing to the California state court.
   Access the Ninth Circuit website containing rulings and filings on this case.

GAO Issues Report on EPA Environmental Justice Policy
November 8, 2011. The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation by EPA of its environmental justice policy, currently known as EJ 2014. This is the latest of a series of reports on EPAs policy action on environmental justice.
Read the GAO report.
Access the EPA EJ 2014 Plan website.

Department of Justice Rejects Alabama Attorney General Efforts to Block Federal Discrimination Investigation Involving School Children
November 6, 2011. The Alabama Attorney General has attempted to block the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts to investigate whether the rights of school children are being violated by actions taken under the recently enacted Alabama immigration statute S.B. 56. Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez wrote to Alabama school superintendents on November 1, reminding them that: "As you know, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a State may not deny a child equal access to public education based on his or her immigration status." He wrote: "It has come to our attention that the requirements of Alabama's H.B. 56 may chill or discourage student participation in, or lead to the exclusion of school-age children from, public education programs based on their or their parents' race, national origin, or actual or perceived immigration status, or based on their homeless or foster care status and consequent lack of documentation. . . ." In order to determine whether there had been violations of civil rights laws, the DOJ requested information from superintendents on student withdrawals and attendance in addition to other information. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange wrote the Perez demanding to know the federal authority for the investigation. Perez replied to Strange on November 4 setting out a number of civil rights laws that authorize the federal action. Strange replied that the DOJ had failed to show authority for the investigation and wrote Alabama School Superintendents informing them of his determination. The correspondence is provided below.
   Read 11/1/2011 DOJ Letter to School Superintendents.
   Read The Justice Department Response to the AL Atty. Gen..
   Read AL Atty Gen Response to DOJ 11/4/2011.
   Read AL Atty Gen Letter to School Superintendents which rejects DOJ authority.
   Read the Supreme Court's opinion in Plyler v. Doe.

Federal District Judge Issues Injunction for Parts of Alabama Immigration Statute But Allows Other Parts to Stand
September 29, 2011. Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has issued her rulings in Parsley v. Bentley, 5:11-cv-2736-SLB; and United States of America v. Bentley, 5:11-cv-2746-SLB respectively, challenging Alabama's SB 56 immigration legislation (see post below from August 29). She rejected the injunction request in Parsley largely on grounds of standing to bring the suit. In the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, the judge granted in part and denied in part the request for an injunction, leaving in place some of the most controversial provisions of the Alabama law.
   Read the United States v. Alabama opinion.
   Read the United States v. Alabama order.
   Read the Parsley v. Bentley opinion.
   Read the Parsley v. Bentley order.
   Read the Hispanic Coalition of Alabama v. Bentley opinion.
   Read the Hispanic Coalition of Alabama v. Bentley order.

Pew Hispanic Center Report Finds Latinos Suffer the Highest Number of Children in Poverty
September 29, 2011. The Pew Hispanic Center has released a report entitled "The Toll of the Great Recession: Childhood Poverty Among Hispanics Sets Record, Leads Nation." The report finds that: "More Latino children are living in poverty -- 6.1 million in 2010 -- than children of any other racial or ethnic group. This marks the first time in U.S. history that the single largest group of poor children is not white. In 2010, 37.3% of poor children were Latino, 30.5% were white and 26.6% were black. . . ." Id. at 4. The report finds that Latinos have suffered particularly in the recession and since the downturn with unemployment running substantially higher than the national rate, "household wealth declined more sharply than either black or white households between 2005 and 2009," and food insecurity has trended up sharply with "nearly a third with (32.1%) of Latino households with children fac[ing] food insecurity" by 2008. Id. at 5.
Read the Full Report.
Read the Release Announcing the Report.

Federal District Judge Issues Temporary Injunction to Block Alabama Immigration Statute
August 29, 2011. Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has issued a temporary injunction againt the implementation by Alabama of its immigration legislation Act 2011-535 (also known as S.B. 56). Her ruling came in a case that consolidated three complaints brought by the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, three church leaders, and the U.S. Department of Justices. They are Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Bentley, 5:11-cv-2484-SLB; Parsley v. Bentley, 5:11-cv-2736-SLB; and United States of America v. Bentley, 5:11-cv-2746-SLB respectively. The judge cautioned in the order that: "In entering this order the court specifically notes that it is in no way addressing the merits of the motions." Order, p. 2. She also promises to issue a decision and order on the motions for a preliminary injunction by September 28.
   Read the court's order.
   Read the complaint in Hispanic Coalition of Alabama v. Bentley.
   Read the complaint in United States v. Bentley.
   Read the complaint in Parsley v. Bentley.

Alabama Church Leaders Sue the State to Block Immigration Law on First Amendment Grounds
August 14, 2011. Bishops of three churches in Alabama have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against the governor, seeking to block enforcement of Alabama's S.B. 56 immigration legislation, on grounds that the new law interferes with free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and is vague and overbroad. The Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church and the Archbishop of the Catholic Church brought the suit against Alabama's governor.
Read the complaint in Parsley v. Bentley.

Arizona Petitions for Review in the U.S. Supreme Court on Decisions Against State Immigration Law
August 14, 2011. The state of Arizona has now formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decisions of the district court and circuit courts that ruled against the state's immigration legislation S.B. 1070.
Read the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Justice Department Sues to Block Alabama Immigration Legislation
August 2, 2011. The U.S. Department of Justice has filled suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging recently enacted Alabama H.B. 56, a state immigration statute that goes even further than the Arizona law previously challenged by the United States and the Georgia law recently blocked by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As it has in the other cases, the Department of Justice has argued that the state law is preempted by federal immigration law and the law is therefore barred by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
   Read the DOJ Press Release.
   Read the Complaint filed by the Department of Justice.
   Access H.B. 56.

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Stays Order to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell
July 16, 2011. In response to requests from the Obama administration to allow time for implementation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and for completion of the appellate process, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stayed the order previously issued by the district court judge to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy immediately. However, in issuing the stay, the appeals court ordered that: "The district court's judgment shall continue in effect insofar as it enjoins appellants from investigating, penalizing, or discharging anyone from the military pursuant to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S., Slip opinion at 2.The ruling relies in significant part of a declaration filed in the case by Major General Steven A. Hummer, Chief of Staff of the Repeal Implementation Team of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness that standards for implementation of the repeal act will be ready for the Secretary of Defense by the end of July or beginning of August. Id.
Read the order.
Access the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Act P.L. 111-321.

Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Michigan Ban on Affirmative Action in Admissions
July 1, 2011. A panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a voter approved measure in Michigan that prohibits the use of racial information in admissions decisions. The opinion came in four actions that were consolidated and styled Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan. This is all the more interesting in light of the fact that the Supreme Court had previously ruled on admissions at the University of Michigan and for the University of Michigan School of Law.
Read the opinion.

U.S. District Court Issues Injunction Against Georgia Immigration Enforcement Statute
June 30, 2011. Federal District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the Northern District of Georgia has issued an injunction blocking implementation of Georgia's House Bill 87, entitled the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011. The case is Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal.
Read the Order by Judge Thrash.
Access the Complaint.

Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status for Wal-Mart Women Plaintiffs
June 20, 2011. The Supreme Court has reversed a lower court ruling and concluded that the women who sought to sue Wal-Mart for sex discrimination on behalf of 1.5 million had not defined a class that satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which sets forth the requisites for an acceptable class action lawsuit. The opinion, written by Justice Scalia for the Court, reversed a decision filed in April by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, that the massive Title VII suit could proceed as a class action.
   The Court did not decide anything about the merits of the TItle VII claims, but rejected the certification of the class action. Wal-Mart described the scope of the litigation in its petition as follows: "This nationwide class includes every woman employed for any period of time over the past decade, in any of Wal-Mart's approximately 3,400 separately managed stores, 41 regions, and 400 districts, and who held positions in any of approximately 53 departments and 170 different job classifications. The millions of class members collectively seek billions of dollars in monetary relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984." Petition for Certiorari, at i. The women had argued that their case was a classic, if very large, civil rights class action lawsuit and that, if they could not proceed as a class, the women would have little chance of seriously challening the retail giant in cases brought one by one on behalf of individual plaintiffs.
   Four members of the Court, led by Justice Ginsburg, agreed that the case did not satisfy the Rule 23 (b)(2) requirements, but argued that the plaintiffs should be able to make a case regarding a 23(b)(3) suit, the requirements for which are different. Instead, she wrote, the majority opinion forecloses all of those options.
   Read the Supreme Court Opinion.
   Read the en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit.

Federal District Court Rejects Effort to Overturn Earlier Ruling Striking Down California Measure 8
April 15, 2011. Chief Judge James Ware has issued an order and opinion rejecting the motion of the supporters of California's Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, to vacate the earlier decision issued by then Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker in which Walker struck down Proposition 8. The argument was that Walker should have recused himself from the case since he is a homosexual. Chief Judge Ware wrote: "The fact that a federal judge shares a fundamental characteristic with a litigant, or shares membership in a large association such as a religion, has been categorically rejected by federal courts as a sole basis for requiring a judge to recuse her or himself." Slip opinion at 5.
Access the Denial of the Motion to Vacate.

Supreme Court Takes Limited View of Trust Obligations
June 13, 2011. The Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Alito warned that the U.S. trust obligation does not offer all the protections that would normally be expected of a fiduciary relationship, but is considerably narrower than that. In United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Court refused to apply the fiduciary obligation exception to attorney/client privilege asserted by government lawyers with respect to a suit brought by the Jicarilla Apache Nation against the government for mismanagement of funds held in trust for the Nation. Justice Alito wrote: "In this case, we consider whether the fiduciary exception applies to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. We hold that it does not. Although the Government's responsibilities with respect to the management of funds belonging to Indian tribes bear some resemblance to those of a private trustee, this analogy cannot be taken too far. The obligations of the United States to the Indian tribes are established and governed by statute rather than the common law, and in fulfilling its statutory duties, the Government acts not as a private trustee but pursuant to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law." Slip opinion, at 2.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Justice Breyer, arguing that the Court did not need to go as far as it did in limiting the trust obligations in order to uphold the government's attorney/client privilege claim. Justice Kagan did not participate. Justice Sotomayor was the lone dissenter, arguing that what was "most troubling is the majority's disregard of our settled precedent that looks to common-law trust principles to define the scope of the Government's fiduciary obligations to Indian tribes." Dissent, Slip opinion, at 1-2.
Read the opinion.

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law on Sanctions Against Businesses Who Employ Undocumented Aliens
May 26, 2011. In a fragmented opinion, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona's law allowing sanctions against businesses found to employ undocumented aliens. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, No. 09-115, finding that federal immigration law did not preempt the state because of a savings clause in the statute that permits states to take action with respect to licensing. However, two parts of his opinion did not command a majority. Justice Kagan did not participate in the case. Justice Breyer issued a dissent joined by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor issued her own dissent. Breyer points out that while licensing is covered by the savings clause of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, it specifically preempts civil or criminal sanctions which the Arizona law imposes and is therefore specifically preempted. Justice Sotomayor rejected Chief Justice Roberts' reading of the federal law and concluded that the comprehensive design of federal regulation did not leave room for this kind of state action and was only meant to allow states to take action with respect to licensing where there had been a federal finding of a violation of federal immigration law.
Read the opinion.

Ninth Circuit Upholds District Court Injunctions in U.S. v. Arizona case
April 13, 2011. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in USA v. State of Arizona, No. 10-16645, the case examing the injunction issued by the federal district court against Arizona's SB 1070 (see the postings for November 2 July 28, 2010 below on this web page). In addition to the Ninth Circuit opinion just issued, the posting below also links to the video of the oral argument before the Court of Appeals panel last November.
Read the Ninth Circuit opinion.
Access the Oral Argument video.

House Subcommittee Holds Hearings on Barriers to Economic Development on Tribal Lands
April 7, 2011. The Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovenrmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on barriers to economic development and job creation." Testimony was provided by the following individuals and links are provided to their prepared statements.
   Read the testimony.
   Read the testimony of Acting Inspector General U.S. Department of the Interior.
   Read the testimony of Chairman Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.
   Read the testimony of Mr. Rodney M. Bordeaux, President, Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Presented by Patricia Douville, Council Representative Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

New ADA Rules Take Effect
March 17, 2011. The U.S. Department of Justice announced that new regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act would take effect on March 15. The rules concern Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services and Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. The DOJ explained that: "The revised rules are the department's first major revision of its guidance on accessibility in 20 years. The regulations apply to the activities of more than 80,000 units of state and local government and more than seven million places of public accommodation, including stores, restaurants, shopping malls, libraries, museums, sporting arenas, movie theaters, doctors' and dentists' offices, hotels, jails and prisons, polling places, and emergency preparedness shelters. The rules were signed by Attorney General Eric Holder on July 23, 2010, and the official text was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2010."
   Read the Justice Department Press Release on the New Regulations.
   Access the new rules on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services.
   Access the rules on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities.
   Read the DOJs new regulations on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities.
   View the 2010 standards for Accessible Design.
   Access the Justice Department ADA Website.

White House Releases Report on Women
March 2, 2011. The White House has released a report on the status of women in America that address a wide range of subjects and provides data for each, including: People, Families, and Income; Education; Employment; Health; Crime, Violence, and Criminal Justice; and Women Veterans.
   Read the report.
   Access the White House Council on Women and Girls website .
   Read the White House press release on the report.

National Congress of American Indians Issues State of the Indian Nations Report
January 29, 2011. Jefferson Keel, President of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has presented this year's State of the Indian Nation's Address entitled "Sovereign Indian Nations at the Dawn of a New Era." Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) delivered the congressional response to the address
   Read the State of the Indian Nations Report.
   Access the NCAI website.
   Access Senator Murkowski's congressional response.

Arizona State School Superintendent Rules Tucson Mexican-American Studies Program Violates New Arizona law
January 8, 2011. Just before leaving office as Superintendent of Public Instruction to become the Attorney General of Arizona, Mr. Tom Horne declared the Tucson School District's Mexican-American Studies Program to be in violation of the states new law restricting ethnic studies programs A.R.S. Section15-112 and gave the district 60 days to eliminate the program or face a loss of state funding. Horne had supported the new law and specifically targeted the Tucson program. It was the only program declared illegal under the new act by the superintendent and other programs in the district for other ethnocultural groups were not targeted. The new superintendent has supported Horne's finding despite the fact that his release noted that: "I have not had the opportunity to review all the facts and evidence he has compiled in this matter and, therefore, will not prematurely comment on specifics" (Press Release, January 4, 2011, p. 1).
   A number of teachers from the district brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in October, seeking a declaration that the new statute is a violation of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and free speech under the First Amendment as applied to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and requesting an injunction to block its operation. No ruling has been issued yet. The complaint in the case is provided below. Also, the other information and documents regarding the new law, HB 2281 were discussed in a previous post from May 10, 2010 and is repeated below.)
   Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed HB2281 which bans ethnic studies programs in schools into law only weeks after signing the controversial state level immigration enforcement statute. Section 1(A) provides that "A School District or Charter School in this State shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following: 1. promote the overthrow of the United States government. 2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people. 3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. 4. advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treatment of pupils as individuals." State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has pushed the legislation for some time and particularly aimed his criticisms of such programs at the Mexican American Studies program in the Tucson School District. The legislation, Horne's press release on its passage, and a Tucson Board of Education Powerpoint on the success of the program are provided below. Mr. Horne's press release also references an "Open Letter to the Citizens of Tucson" that he sent in 2007, arguing that the program should be terminated. Tucson school officials deny that the district's Mexican American studies program violates even the new state law and argue that the program has been extremely successful.
   Access the complaint in Acosta v. Horne, Civ. No. 4:2010cv00623, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
   Read the New Superintendent of Public Instruction Press Release Supporting the Ruling Against the Tucson Mexican-American Studies Program.
   Read HB 2281.
   Access the January 2010 Powerpoint Report to the Tucson School Board on the Mexican American Studies Program.
   Access the Tucson School District Mexican American Studies Department website.
   Read Superintendent of Public Instruction Press Release.
   Read the Superintendent of Public Instruction's "Open Letter . . . Tucson" of 2007.

Congress Passes and President Signs Legislation to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
December 23, 2010. The Congress enacted and the President has signed into law H.R. 2965, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. It is now Public Law No: 111-321.
Read H.R. 2965.

Supreme Court Grants Wal-Mart Request for Review in Class Action Suit
December 6, 2010. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Wal-Mart seeking review of a decision filled in April by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, that the massive Title VII suit now styled Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores could proceed as a class action. The arguments at this stage is not about the merits of the TItle VII claims, but to the certification of the class action. Wal-Mart describes the scope of the litigation in its petition as follows: "This nationwide class includes every woman employed for any period of time over the past decade, in any of Wal-Mart's approximately 3,400 separately managed stores, 41 regions, and 400 districts, and who held positions in any of approximately 53 departments and 170 different job classifications. The millions of class members collectively seek billions of dollars in monetary relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984." Petition for Certiorari, at i.
   Certiorari was granted in the case, which is now No. 10-277 on the Supreme Court docket with the following statement from the Court. "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question I presented by the petition. In addition to Question I, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]."
   See the Court's order granting cert.
   Read the en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit.
   Access Wal-Mart's Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court via the New York TImes website.

Congress Votes to Approve Settlements in Native American and African American Civil Rights Suits Against Interior and Agriculture Departments
November 30, 2010. The House of Representatives has approved H.R. 4783, now known as the Claims Resolution Act, which provides support for the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, entitled in the legislation the "Indian Money Account Litigation" and also In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation both of which were announced earlier (see posting below).
Read H.R. 4783.

Oral Argument in Arizona Immigration Case Before Ninth Circuit Televised
November 2, 2010. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has posted video of the oral argument in USA v. State of Arizona, No. 10-16645, the case examing the injunction issued by the federal district court against Arizona's SB 1070 (see the posting for July 28 below on this web page). The Ninth Circuit has launched a new website that is now carrying oral arguments.
Access the Oral Argument video.
Access the new Ninth Circuit website with access to oral argument videos.

Ninth Circuit Stays Federal District Court "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Injunction
October 21, 2010. A panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a temporary stay of the Federal District Judge Virginia A. Phillips' injunction against the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The post below on this page contains links to her opinions in the case. The appeals court had received an emergency stay motion from the Justice Department and has entered a temporary stay to allow arguments on the request for a stay of the district court's ruling until the appeal of that ruling has been resolved.
   Read the Ninth Circuit Stay Order.
   Read the Justice Department motion for a stay.
   Read the Log Cabin Republicans' opposition to the government's request for a temporary stay.

Parties in Native American Agricultural Assistance Discrimination Suit Announce Settlement
October 20, 2010. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture have announced a settlement in the case of Keepseagle v. Vilsack, Civil Action No. 99-3119 (D.D.C.), a case file in November 1999 alleging discrimination by the Department of Justice in the awarding of agricultural financial assistance. The settlement must now await approval by the federal district court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Read the Justice Department Announcement.
Read the USDA announcement.

Federal District Court Issues Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy
October 13, 2010. Federal District Judge Virginia A. Phillips has issued a ruling against the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and an injunction to stop it, despite Justice Department efforts to avoid that action.
Read the Amended Final Memorandum Opinion October 12, 2010.
Read September 9, 2010 opinion.

U.S. Justice Department Sues Maricopa County and County Sheriff
September 3, 2010. The Department of Justice has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Maricopa County and its Sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio. The U.S. alleges that the Sheriff and the County have interfered with the Justice Department's efforts to obtain information essential to an investigation as to whether there have been violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of national origin-based discrimination. The suit seeks an declaratory relief and an injunction compelling delivery of that information.
   Read the complaint in U.S. v. Maricopa County.
   Read the Justice Department Press Release.
   Access the press release in response by the Sheriff and his counsel.

Justice Department Issues New Publication on Medical Care for Persons with Mobility Disabilities
September 3, 2010. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a new document entitled Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities. For more information and links, go to the Health Car, Disability, and Development page of this website.

Ninth Circuit Holds Stay on District Court California Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ruling
August 16, 2010. A panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion for a stay pending the decision of the Court of Appeals of the order issued by the district court in its ruling striking down Proposition 8. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit scheduled the case for a hearing during the week of December 6. In its order, the Ninth Circuit also warned: "In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997)."
Read the Order granting a stay pending appeal.

District Court Rules on Stay Request to its Ruling on California Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Case
August 13, 2010. Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued his ruling on motions to end a stay of the court's order issued last week providing findings of fact and conclusions of law in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 3:09-cv-02292, the case challenging California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage. The complaint alleged violations of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Judge Walker agreed. He concluded: "Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials sease enforcement of Proposition 8. . . . Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8." Slip opinion, at 136.
   Read Special Website for the case in the Northern District of California.
   Read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
   Read the Stay Order.

U.S. District Court for Arizona Rules on SB 1070 Injunction Request
July 28, 2010. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona had ruled today on the request for an injunction to block implementation of Arizona's SB 1070 which is scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. She issued a preliminary injunction against parts of the legislation and let other portions stand, though this is only a preliminary injunction with further proceedings on the merits to follow.
   Judge Susan R. Bolton wrote in part: "Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United State is likely to succeed on the merits in shoring that the following Sections of S..B. 1070 are preempted by federal law: Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. Section 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person. Section 3 of S.S. 1070, A.R.S. Section 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alience registration papers. Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. Section 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work. Section 6 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. Section 13-3883(A)(5):authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
   The court has now created a webpage on the several cases that have been filed as challenges to the Arizona statute.
   Read the Order of the Court.
   Access the District Court for the District of Arizona SB 1070 Case Information Webpage.

Ninth Circuit Ruling Opens Discussions of Women as Target Group in Guatemala
July 27, 2010. A panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in the Perdomo v. Holder, No. 06-71652, that addresses the claim that women in Guatemala constitute a particular group that may have a well founded fear of persecution and thuse be eligible for refugee status under U.S. law. The appeal came from a rejection by an Immigration judge of the claim that as a Guatemalan woman between 14 and 40 years of age Perdomo was a member of a particular group that faced a well founded fear of persectution. She ruled that Perdomo was not a member of a particular social group entitled to consideration for refugee status, but part of a demographic that was not a particular group that would qualify under the law. A panel of the Ninth Circuit did not resolve the final question in the case, but did reject the finding by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals that Perdomo's claim concerned a group too broad and not adequately defined to qualify for refugee consideration. The panel concluded: "We therefore remand for the BIA to determine in the first instance whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether Perdomo has demonstrated a fear of persecution 'on account of' her membership in such a group." Slip opinion at 9936.
Read the opinion.

Federal Court Rules Against University Cheerleading Program as Title 9 Alternative to Athletics Support
July 22, 2010. Federal District Judge Stefan R. Underhill ruled against a university's effort to count a cheerleading program as a sport for purposes of Title 9 support for women's athletics in Bidiger v. Quinnipiac University, No. 3:09cv621 (SRU). Its creation of the competitive cheerleading program followed the university's cancellation of its women's volleyball team.
Read the memorandum opinion.

Federal District Court Strikes Portions of Federal Defense of Marriage Act
July 8, 2010. Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has issued a decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Civil Action No. 09-10309-JLT striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act which "defines the terms 'marriage' and 'spouse,' for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman." Slip opinion at 2. Tauro concluded: "[T]his court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Id. at 38.
   In a separate case brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Tauro also ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment powers of the states. In Massachusetts v. HHS, Civil Action No. 1:09-11156-JLT,
   Access Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.
   Read Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. HHS.

Conviction and Guilty Plea in Long Island Hate Crimes
July 8, 2010. The Suffolk County District Attorney has provided news releases detailing the guilty pleas, convictions, and sentences for hate crimes that resulted in the death of Marcelo Lucero in Patchogue, Long Island in November of 2008.
   These actions come after studies demonstrated a serious pattern of discriminatory behavior toward Hispanics on Long Island. See the report of the Southern Poverty Law Center report posted on this page on October 17, 2009.
   Access the Suffolk County DA News Release on Guilty Plea.
   Access News Release on Sentencing for Manslaughter in Lucero case.
   Access News Release on Conviction for Manslaughter in the Lucero case.
   Access the indictment for Manslaughter and other charges in the Lucero case, Jeffrey Conroy, Jordan R. Dasch, Anthony M Hartford, Nicholas A. Hausch, Christopher J. Overton, Jose M Pacheco, & Kevin P. Shea.
   Access News Release of Guilty Plea in Lucero Case.
   DA Addounces Indictments of Six Defendants for Targeted Robberies of Hispanics

Department of Justice Files Suit Against Arizona's SB 1070
July 6, 2010. The United States Department of Justice has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to have Arizona's SB 1070 declared pre-empted by the Constitution and federal statutes as well as in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The suit, United States v. Arizona, also seeks a preliminary injunction in order to prevent the Arizona law from going into effect with the expectation that a permanent injunction will follow once the matter is fully litigated. The federal government challenge was anticipated and now joins challenges brought by civil rights organizations, two Arizona cities, and a Tucson police officer the documents for which are provided in previous postings on this webpage.
   Read the Complaint in U.S. v. Arizona.
   Access the U.S. Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of that motion.
   Read the Justice Department News Release on the Case.

Legal Challenges Mount Against Arizona's Controversial SB1070
June 19, 2010. Additional suits have been filed and others, most notably a challenge by the U.S. Department of Justice, are expected to the constitutional validity of Arizona's immigration enforcement bill, SB1070. The first was filed in April by a Tucson police officer, Martin H. Escobar, in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. Officer Escobar alleges that the statute violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and is preempted by federal law. At the beginning of June, the City of Tucson filed its response and counterclaim, joining the officer in his effort to have the court strike down SB 1070. The City of Flagstaff has also joined the challengers to the law. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) have also filed suit joined by a number of other group in a case entitled Friendly House et al. v. Halliday. The Department of Justice has not officially announced a suit as yet, but that action is widely anticipated at any time.
   Read the Police Officer's Complaint.
   Read the MALDEF Complaint.
   Access the exhibits that accompany the MALDEF Complaint.
   Access Arizona's SB1070 with final approval.
   Access a .pdf version of the Senate bill.
   Access the Governor's Executive Order on SB1070.
   Access the MALDEF announcement on its planned challenge to the state law.

Another New Arizona Statute Adds Controversy
May 14, 2010. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed HB2281 which bans ethnic studies programs in schools into law only weeks after signing the controversial state level immigration enforcement statute. Section 1(A) provides that "A School District or Charter School in this State shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following: 1. promote the overthrow of the United States government. 2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people. 3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. 4. advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treatment of pupils as individuals." State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has pushed the legislation for some time and particularly aimed his criticisms of such programs at the Mexican American Studies program in the Tucson School District. The legislation, Horne's press release on its passage, and a Tucson Board of Education Powerpoint on the success of the program are provided below. Mr. Horne's press release also references an "Open Letter to the Citizens of Tucson" that he sent in 2007, arguing that the program should be terminated. Tucson school officials deny that the district's Mexican American studies program violates even the new state law and argue that the program has been extremely successful.
   Read HB 2281.
   Access the January 2010 Powerpoint Report to the Tucson School Board on the Mexican American Studies Program.
   Access the Tucson School District Mexican American Studies Department website.
   Read Superintendent of Public Instruction Press Release.
   Read the Superintendent of Public Instruction's "Open Letter . . . Tucson" of 2007.

Report and Data Issued on Conditions and Challenges for Latino Children
April 29, 2010. The National Council of LaRaza has issued a report and the supporting data base entitled America's Future: Latino Child Well-Being in Numbers and Trends, prepared by Mark Mather and Patricia Foxen detailing conditions, challenges, and trends facing Latino children in the U.S. Along with that report, NCLR has made available the data base that supports the analysis in spreadsheet form. There are five different spreadsheets organized by Population Trends and Geographic Distribution, Nativity Status and Citizenship, Family Structure and Income, Education and Language Health, Juvenile Justice.
   Read the report.
   Access the Population Trends and Geographic Distribution spreadsheet.
   Access the Nativity Status and Citizenship spreadsheet.
   Access the Family Structure and Income spreadsheet.
   Access the Education and Language.
   Access the Health Insurance Status spreadsheet.
   Access the Juvenile Justice spreadsheet.
   Access the NCLR website on the report and the data bases.

Departments of Justice and Interior Announce Settlement of the Cobell Case Conerning Native American Trust Funds
December 8, 2009. The U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior have announced a settlement in the thirteen year long case brought by Elouise Pepion Cobell against the Secretary of the Interior demanding a full accounting and proper payment of Native American Trust Funds to those entitled to receive them. The case, now styled Cobell v. Salazar is a class action suit. The settlement provides for $1.4 billion to be paid to class members and an additional $2 billion to create a program "for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests. The land consolidation program will provide individual Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for divided land interests and free up the land for the benefit of tribal communities." DOJ press release. There is also to be set aside from the proceeds of the land resolution up to 5% to support a college and vocational school fund for Native American students. As Attorney General Holder indicated, "What began in 1996 has seen 7 full trials constituting 192 trial days; has resulted in 22 published judicial decisions; has been up to the Court of Appeals ten times; and has been the subject of intense, and sometimes difficult, litigation." Attorney General statement.
   Access the Justice Department Press Release on the Settlement.
   Access the Class Action Settlement Agreement.
   Access Statement by Attorney General Holder on the Settlement.
   Access .
   Access Statement by Associate Attorney General Perrelli.
   Access Department of Interior Announcement of the Settlement.
   Access the Cobell Settlement Website.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Takes Effect
November 23, 2009. The Genetic Information Policy Act (GINA) took effect on November 21. As the Department of Health and Human Services Fact Sheet explains: "The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (P.L. 100-233, 122 Stat. 881), also referred to as GINA, is a new Federal law that prohibits discrimination in health coverage and employment based on genetic information." Fact Sheet, p. 1.
Access HHS Fact Sheet on GINA .
Access the full statute P.L. 110-233.

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act Goes to President for Signature
October 23, 2009. The Senate has voted to approve the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention as Division E (sections 4701-4714) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2010. Section 4707 of the new provisions add the following to the existing offenses listed in Section 249 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. "Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. . . . Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. . . ." It also extends coverage of these matters to U.S. maritime jurisdiction and to territories. (NOTE: The defense authorization act is a very large statute and therefore a large .pdf file).
Access the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2010.

Southern Poverty Law Center Issues Report on Anti-Latino Racism in Suffolk County, New York
October 17, 2009. The November 2008 murder of Ecudaorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero in the Long Island community of Patchogue has prompted renewed attention to anti-immigrant and racially based discrimination in contemporary America. The Southern Povery Law Center in September issued a report on the problem in Suffolk County, New York entitled "Climate of Fear: Latinos Immigrants in Suffolk County, N.Y." Although attempts were made by local officals to dismiss the claim that the case was symptomatic of a much larger and more pervasive problem, the report found that: "THe situation in Suffolk County, in fact, is a microcosm of a problem facing the enture United States, where FBI statistics suggest a 40% rise in anti-Latino hate crimes between 2003 and 2007, the latest numbers available. The number of hate groups in America has been rising, too, climing more than 50% since 2000, mainly by exploiting the issue of undocumented non-white immigration." Id. at 5.
Access the Report.
Access the SPLC Homepage

Weschester County Housing Cases Produces Consent Agreement
August 10, 2009. The Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York and Westchester County, New York have announced an agreement to remedy a False Claims Act suit brought by the center, claiming that the county had falsely verified in federal grant applications that it was aggressively moving to address possible housing discrimination and a lack of low and moderate income housing in the county. Judge Denise Cote issued an opinion and order in March, granting partial summary judgment to the Center U.S. ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York v. Westchester County, 06 Civ. 2860 (DLC).
   Read a summary of the provisions of the agreement .
   Read the full text of the order of settlement.
   The Judge Cote's March 24, 2009 opinion and order.
   Read the original complaint in the case.

President Commits U.S. to Sign U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
July 26, 2009. President Obama has issued a proclamation commemorating the enactment of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), proclaiming July 26 to be the anniversary of the Act, and committing the U.S. to sign the U.C. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
   Read the Proclamation on the Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
   Access U.N. Enable, the Website on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
   Read Convention and Optional Protocol.

Supreme Court Delivers Ruling in the New Haven Firefighters Case
June 29, 2009. The Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in the Ricci v. DeStefano case, concerning the New Haven, Connecticut firefighters promotion test. The 5-4 ruling was delivered by Justice Kennedy, striking the city's decision not to use the results of the test for promotions. Justice Kennedy wrote: "We conclude that race-based action like the City's in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. The respondents, we further determine, cannot meet that threshold standard. As a result, the City's action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII. IN light of our ruling under the statutes, we need not reach the question whether respondents' actions may have violated the Equal Protection Clause." Slip opinion at 2-3. Justice Ginsburg wrote for the four dissenters, warning that the Court had ignored law, history, and the clear facts of the New Haven case.
   Read the opinions in the Connecticut case.
   Read the oral argument transcript.
   Read Brief for Petitioners.
   Read the Brief for Respondents.
   Read the Brief Amicus Curiae of the U.S..

Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling Limiting Remedial Authority of Federal Courts in Arizona English Language Learners Case
June 26, 2009. A sharply divided Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Horne v. Flores, a case that originally came from English language instruction in the school district of Nogales, Arizona. However, the focus of the case as it came to the Supreme Court was not on ELL, but actually on the judge's continuing rulings about the remedy for the problem. As the Justice Alito put it, writing for the majority, "the question at issue in these cases in not whether Arizona must take 'appropriate action' to overcome the language barriers that impede ELL students. Of course it must. But petitioners argue that Arizona now is fulfilling its statutory obligation by new means that reflect new policy insights and other changed circumstances." Slip opinion at 2.
   The court of appeals upheld the federal district court's actions in the face of demands by some state officials, most notably the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate of the Arizona legislature, that the court should end its role in the case. Ironically, the State of Arizona and the Arizona State Board of Public Education filed a brief in support of the family in the case, as did a number of the state's other school districts. The United States filed as amicus curiae also in support of the family.
   The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito for a five person majority found that the judge had indeed exceeded his authority. Four justices dissented in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. The importance of the case as a precedent for the future is more about the manner in which judges exercise remedial authority in cases than it is just about the particular facts of the Arizona dispute. The Court's language warns judges in "institutional reform" cases to return control to state and local officials as soon as possible once there is a remedy in place or circumstances have changed. The majority found that, in this case, the lower court did not "fairly consider" the changes that had taken place in the education policy that gave rise to the legislation. However, writing for the dissenters, Justice Breyer disputed both the Court's interpretation of the law governing the judge's remedial authority and the facts of the case. He argued that the focus of the case in the lower court at the time of this ruling was not on how to teach ELL students, but whether the state and school district had provided the resources essential to meet the conditions that were central to the ELL problem in the first place and the proposed state and local response to it. As to the majority's application of a new standard, he warned: "insofar as the Court goes beyond the technical reord-based aspects of this case and applied a new review framework, it risks problems in future cases. The framework it applies is incomplete and lacks clear legal support or explanation. And it will be difficult for lower courts to understand and apply that framework, particularly if it rests on a distinction between 'institutional reform litigation' and other forms of litigation." Slip opinion at 44. And to the degree it meant to be an even wider statement, there are additional difficulties. "[T]he Court may mean its opinion to express an attitude, cautioning judges to take care when the enforcement of federal statutes will impose significant financial burders upon states. An attitude, however, is not a rule of law. . . . I do not see how this Court can now require lowere court judges to take yet greater care, to proceed with even greater caution, while at the same time expecting those courts to enforce the statute as Congress intended. " Id. at 44-45.
   Both the majority's discussion of the law that must control efforts by lower courts to remedy civil rights violations and the focus on limiting judicial rulings affecting financial aspects of the problem are likely to be broadly applicable to a variety of cases involving state institutions and services.
   Read the Horne v. Flores opinion.
   Read the oral argument transcript.
   Read the Brief for Petitioner Horne, State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
   Read the Brief for Petitioner, Speaker of the Arizona House.
   Read Brief for Respondents State of Arizona and Arizona State Board of Education.
   Read Brief for Respondent Flores.
   Read Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae in support of Repondent.

Supreme Court Rules in School Strip Search Case
June 25, 2009. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 opinion, ruled against school officials in a case in which they had engaged in a strip search of a young girl. The opinion in No. 08-479, Stafford Unified School District v. Redding. Writing for the Court, Justice Souter concluded that the type of search involved was both intrusive and degrading and therefore was not justified by the facts. "We do mean . . . to make it clear that the T.L.O. concern to limit a school search to reasonable scope requires the support of reasonable suspicioy of danger or of resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts. The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably fee, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions." Slip opinion at 11.
   Read the opinion.
   Read the oral argument transcript.
   Read Brief for Petitioners.
   Read the Brief for Respondents.
   Read the Brief Amicus Curiae of the U.S..

Supreme Court Avoids Constitutional Question in Challenge to Voting Rights Act
June 23, 2009. The Supreme Court has issued a ruling in a case brought by a Texas special district, but it avoided the important constitutional questional raised by the briefs and oral argument. Indeed, the Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, refused to strike Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The utility district sought to apply a doctrine developed long after passage of the Act and the rulings of the Supreme Court upholding it as a valid exercise of the Fifteenth Amendment to strike the preclearance requirement of Section five on grounds that it is not a "proportional and congruent" remedy for voting rights problems. However, the Court's interpretation of the statute suggests that the will be more conflicts ahead.
   Read the opinion.
   Read the oral argument transcript.
   Access the audio of the oral argument via CSPAN.
   Read Brief for Petitioners.
   Read the Brief for Respondents.

Congress Moves Apologies for Civil Rights Violations
June 19, 2009. Senator Tom Harkin (D. Iowa) led the successful effort in the Senate to pass S. Con. Res. 26, An Apology For Enslavement And Racial Segregation Of African-Americans. The resolution apologizes for slavery and for Jim Crow segregation laws and other actions. It has been sent to the House. As a concurrent resolution, this measure would not need to go to the president.
   There is also an effort led by Senator Brownback (R. Kansas) and Representative Dan Boren (D. Oklahoma) to adopt a resolution "To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States." The Senate version is S.J. Res. 14 and the House number is H.J. Res. 46. The language as the resolutions stand currently is provided below. If the measure passes, as a joint resolution it will go to the president.
   Access S. Con Res. 26.
   Access Senator Harkin's Speech on the Apology.
   Read S.J. Res 14.
   Read H.J. Res 46.

The Supreme Court Once Again Rejects Navajo Suit for Breach of Trust Obligations
April 10, 2009. Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected Navajo claims against the government for misconduct in the Department of the Interior in the United States v. Navajo Nation case. For links to the opinion, oral argument, and briefs, see the Public Law, Policy, and Public Administration page of this website.

Cobell Case Continues into Obama Administration
April 5, 2009. The latest round in the Indian Trust Fund case, Cobell v. Salazar, continues with reports that the data security issues continue. A Department of the Interior Inspector General report from 2008 surfaced as the Justice Department provided information to the U.S. District Court. The report has not yet been published since reports on data security are generally not made public, though news sources indicate that it was filed by the government with the federal district court in Washington in the past week. The following sites contain information on the current status and historical information on the case.
   Department of the Interior, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.
   Department of Justice Filings in the Cobell case.
   Native American Rights Fund Individual Indian Money (IIM) Accounts site.
   Indian Trust: Cobell v. Salazar, case website operated by the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund.

Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Marriage Law Restrictions
April 4, 2009. The Iowa Supreme Court has announced its opinion in the case of Varnum v. Brien in which it affirmed a lower court, finding that the state's marriage statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The Court began its discussion of the constitutional basis of the case by noting that the question posed by the parties was: "How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage." Slip opinion at 18. The Court based its ruling on the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution which reads: "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." Id., at 19. The Court approached the case with what it termed a heightened level of scrutiny: "Because we conclude Iowa's same-sex marriage statute cannot withstand internediate scrutiny, we need not decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Id., at 49.
Read the opinion.

Federal District Court Overturns FDA Limit on Plan B Access
March 24, 2009. Judge Edward R. Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a ruling in Tummino v. Torti, No. 05-CV-366, a case brought to challenge the denial by the Food & Drug Administration of a petition by a number of groups and individuals to make the "Plan B" medications available to women of all ages for nonprescription over-the-counter sales. The FDA had denied the petition and said the drug could be available to women 18 and older. The challengers argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and the judge agreed. In fact, the judge wrote, the FDA actions were characterized by "political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making." Slip opinion at 3. The judge went on to find that the decision was largely controlled by political intervention rather than expert decision-making. He vacated and remanded the FDA decision for further action, but ruled that the drug is to be available to women 17 years of age and older, the position taken by expert staffed at FDA.
Read the opinion.

President Signs Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
January 31, 2009. President Obama has signed S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which is intended to reverse the ruling by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The act is now P.L. 111-2. The bill states that it is intended to "amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice." The Supreme Court had rejected Ledbetter's claim because it did not satisfy filing limits relative to the alleged discrimination. However, Ledbetter had asserted that she could not have filed the action earlier because she did not know at the time that there was discriminatory pay and only learned that much later. The bill is now headed to the White House for the president's signature.
Read S. 181 as passed by the Senate.
Read the Ledbetter v. Goodyear opinion.

Supreme Court Overturns Narrowing Interpretations of Reprisals in Harassment Cases
January 27, 2009. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County that interprets protection against reprisal for reports of sexual harassment broadly. The opinion for the Court written by Justice Souter announced" "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . forbids retaliation by employers against employees who report workplace race or gender discrimination. The question here is whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer's internal investigation. We hold that it does." Slip opinion, at 1. There were no dissenting opinions, but Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Thomas.
Read the opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Title IX as Sole Option for Sexual Harassment Claims in Schools
January 21, 2009. The Supreme Court has handed down an unanimous ruling rejecting a finding by lower courts that Title IX of The Education Amendments of 1972 is the only route available for sexual harassment claims in schools as compared to 42 U.S.C. �1983 or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Alito wrote for the Court, holding that: Section 1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause remain available to plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools." Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, No. 07-1125, Slip Opinion, p. 11. In this case, parents had launched actions under Section 1983, claiming gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in addition to their claim of a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The lower courts had dismissed the 1983 claim and ruled against the plaintiff on the Title IX issue. The Supreme Court reversed.
Read the opinion.

Airline Removes Nine Islamic Americans from Flight
January 3, 2009. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington based advocacy organization, has filed a civil rights complaint alleging discrimination with the U.S. Department of Transportation following an incident in which an Islamic family was removed by AirTran airlines from a flight from Washington to Orlando, Florida following a report by other passengers of what they thought was suspicious behavior. Some of the family members were simply discussing where the safest place to sit on an airliner was. They were removed from the flight and the airline refused to rebook them after FBI authorities promptly determined that there was no problem and that the family had been inappropriately excluded from the flight. The airline initially rejected any criticism, but later issued an apology to all passengers inconvenienced by the episode and to the families targeted by the removal action.
Read the CAIR Release on DOT Complaint.
Read the AirTran Release Apologizing to Passengers.

Nation Congress of American Indians Advances Transition Agenda for Obama Administration
December 22, 2008. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has provided a report that outlines key transition issues for the Obama administration as it comes to office. This agenda provides a number of unique characteristics relative to other groups who have been advocating priorities for the new administration because of the special government to government relationship of sovereign Native American tribes and nations with the U.S. Government. The document is entitled Indian Nations and the 2009 Presidential Transition.
Access the Report.

Two Ecuadorians with One Dead in Brooklyn Attack
December 16, 2008. Soon after a Suffolk county hate crime left one Ecuadorean dead, two men from Ecuador were attacked and one is now dead in Brooklyn. The two brother, Jose and Romel Sucuzhanay, were reportedly attacked by seven African-Americans who shouted racial and anti-gay epithets at they attacked. Jose Sucuzanay, a local businessman, later died of his injuries. His brother was visiting the family in New York.
Read the statement of the National Council of LaRaza on this case.

Teenagers Indicted in Suffolk County Hate Crime
November 22, 2008. .
   Read Access the indictment.
   Read the Suffolk County District Attorney statement on the case.
   Read the statement of civil rights groups on recent hate crimes.

Congress Passes the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
September 19, 2008. Congress has passed and President Bush has promised to sign S3406, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The legislation was designed to reverse a number of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that limited eligibility for Americans with Disabilities Act protections and a variety of other purposes.
Read S. 3406 as approved by the House and Senate.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 Signed Into Law
May 28, 2008. Congress has passed and the president has signed H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. One title of the act addresses discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of genetic information and the other major title deals with disrimination by employers based on genetic information about employees.
Access H.R. 493.

D.C. Circuit Strikes Rules that U.S. Paper Currency Violates the Rehabilitation Act
May 20, 2008, 2008. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that the current manner in which U.S. paper money violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For details and links, see the Health Care, Disability, and Development page of this website.

Urban Indian Health Commission and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Issue Report "Invisible Tribes" Report
December 5, 2007. The Urban Indian Health Commission has issued a report entitled Invisible Tribes: Urban Indians and Their Health in a Changing World. For further information and links, see the Health Care, Disability, and Development.

Report Finds One in Five Latinos in the U.S. Faces Food Insecurity
December 20, 2006. The National Council of La Raza has issued a report entitled Sin Provecho: Latinos and Food Insecurity. Among the conclusions reached by the report is the finding that: "Nearly one in five Latinoes (19.6%) faces food insecurity each year, which compromises their health and well-being. If the trends of food insecurity within the Latino community persist, the impact of insufficient nutrition will greatly increase the risk that the next generation will become even less healthy." p. iii.
Read full report.
Read the executive summary.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that the Burden of Proof in IDEA Hearings Rests on the Family Challenging an IEP
November 14, 2005. Writing for the majority in Shaffer v. Weast Docket No. 04-698, Justice Sandra O'Connor rejected a call by parents that the burden of proof in a due process hearing challenging the adequacy of an Individual Education Plan under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) should be on the school district. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg dissented.
Read the Schaffer v. Weast Opinion.

Civil Rights Law: Constitution, Statutes, and Regulations

Constitution of the United States
Access the U.S. Constitution via Cornell Legal Education Insittute.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
   Title VI -- Discrimination in programs receiving federal funds.
   Access Title VI
    Title VII -- Discrimination in Employment.
   Access Title VII

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Access Title IX.

Civil Rights Act of 1991
Access the 1991 Act.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Reauthorized
Read P.L. 108-446

Americans with Disabilities Act
U.S. Department of Justice ADA page provides a great deal of information on the act and regulation.
Access the DOJ page on the Americans with Disabilities Act
Read the ADA

The Developmental Disabilities Assistanceand Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act)
Read the DD Act

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
Read the Act

The Equal Pay Act of 1963
Access the Equal Pay Act

Fair Housing Law
    The two most commonly employed statutes in this field are the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The other commonly cited statute in this field is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of
   Access the Fair HousingAct
   Access the Civil Rights Act of 1866
   Access the Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968
Read the Act.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Access the Declaration

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Read the Act.

Voting Rights Act of 1965
Access the Voting Rights Act.

Executive Orders
   Executive Order 13160 To Prohibit discrimination because of "Race, Sex, Color, National Origin, Disability, Religion, Age, Sexual Orientation, and Status as a Parent in Federally Conducted Education and Training Programs"
   Read EO 13160.
   Executive Order 13145 [.pdf format] To Prohibit Discrimination in Federal Employment Based on Genetic Information
   Read EO 13145
   Executive Order 13166 Required Access to Federally Funded Programs for Persons With Limited English Proficiency
   Read EO 13166

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Regulations
Access EEOC regulations.

Cultural Competency and Equity Issues and Civil Rights Policy

National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care
    The national standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services in health care were developed and explained in detail in the Final Report: National Standards for Culturally and LinguisticallyAppropriate Services in Health Care issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesOffice of Minority Health in March 2001. (Note: it is easiest to download the file and then open it offline.} The standards themselves are provided on the website of the Office of Minority Health.
   Access the CLAS Standards National Standards for Culturally and LinguisticallyAppropriate Services in Health Care.
   Access the Final Report.
   Access the Oficina de Salud de law Minor�as en espa�ol.

National Center for Cultural Competency
   Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development (one of the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities See AUCD below under Professional Associations and Family Support Organizations)).
   Access the National Center for Cultural Competency Site.
   Access the National Center for Cultural Competency Site, en espanol Language.

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Cultural Competence Resources for Health Care Providers
Access the HRSA Cultural Competency Site.

National Council on Disabilities Studies and Resources for Native American Communities
People with Disabilities on Tribal Land: Education, Health Care. Vocational Rehabilitation, and Independent Living.
Understanding Disabilities in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities:Toolkit Guide.

Proceedings of the Oregon Cultural Competency Summit
Access the Summit Report

Governmental Bodies in Civil Rights Policy

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has a wide variety of responsibilities under various civil rights statutes and executive orders.
    http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/
    Access the "Disability Rights Home Page."
    Access the "Disability Rights Online News."

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
.
http://www.eeoc.gov/

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
.
Access the Commission Homepage

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights
.
Access the HHS Civil Rights Homepage

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Civil Rights
.
Access the Homepage

Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD)
The ADD is part of the Administration for Children & Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/add/

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
The AHRQ, among other things, publishes the National Health Care Disparities Report.
AHRQ Home Page.
Access National Health Care Disparities Report 2006.

National Institute of Mental Health
The ADD is part of the Administration for Children & Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/

DisabilityInfo.gov
This site is operated by the president's New Freedom Initiative.
http://www.disabilityinfo.gov/digov-public/public/DisplayPage.do%3fparentFolderId=500

National Council on Disability
http://www.ncd.gov/

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html

Civil Rights Advocacy and Policy Organizations

American Civil Liberties Union
Access the ACLU

Asian American Legal Defense Fund
Access the AALDF Homepage

Civil Rights. org
"CivilRights.org is a collaboration of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund."
Access Civil Rights.org

Council on American Islamic Relations
Access the CAIR Homepage

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Access the DREDF Homepage

LatinoJustice PRLDEF
LatinoJustice is the name of the organization that began as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Access the LatinoJustice Homepage

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Access the LCCR Homepage

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Access the LULAC

Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
Access the MALDF Homepage

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
Access the NAACP Homepage

NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
Access the LDF Homepage

Native American Youth and Family Center
Access the NAYFC Homepage

National Congress of American Indians
Access the NCAI Homepage

Native American Rights Fund
Access the Native American Rights Fund Homepage

National Council of La Raza
Access the La Raza Homepage

National Organization for Women
Access the NOW Homepage

National Women's Law Center
Access the NWLC Homepage

Southern Poverty Law Center
Access the SPLC Homepage

Civil Rights Glossary

Civil Rights Glossary from CivilRights.org
Civil Rights.org Civil Rights Glossary

Civil Rights Glossary Via Findlaw.com
Civil Rights Glossary via Findlaw.com

Civil Rights Glossary of the USDA/FSIS
Civil Rights Glossary of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Civil Rights Glossary of the Civil Rights Coalition for the 21st Century
Civil Rights Glossary by the Civil Rights Coalition for the 21st Cntury