News

Posted by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact:
Elaine Poon, Managing Attorney
434-529-1816 elaine@justice4all.org

FOURTH CIRCUIT STRIKES DOWN UNCONSTITUTIONAL “HABITUAL DRUNKARD” STATUTE

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, July 16, 2019 — Today in Manning v. Caldwell, the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, struck down Virginia’s statutory scheme that permitted the state to interdict and prosecute people as “habitual drunkards”—a practice that unjustly targets Virginians with alcoholism who are also homeless. The Legal Aid Justice Center and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP brought this challenge on behalf of several Plaintiffs arguing that the statute singles them out for incarceration based on their disease and their homeless status in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fourth Circuit agreed.

The Court ruled that the term “habitual drunkard” is unconstitutionally vague under the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It found that the statute failed to provide fair notice to the public, “imposing criminal penalties on an untold number of chronically ill citizens.” The Court agreed that such vague language in a criminal statute invited arbitrary enforcement and allows for the state to “target persons, including the homeless, that state officials deem undesirable.”

Further, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment challenge, affirming a central Constitutional value that one cannot be punished for who they are rather than what they have done. The Court stated, “What the Eighth Amendment cannot tolerate is the targeted criminalization of otherwise legal behavior that is an involuntary manifestation of an illness.”

The Legal Aid Justice Center applauded this landmark decision by the Court. “It is clear that the Court understood the heart of the issues — that the Constitution cannot allow for the criminalization of illness and homelessness. We look forward to telling our clients about this victory, so that they can pursue their lives without the constant fear of arrest and prosecution,” said Elaine Poon of the Legal Aid Justice Center.

“We are thrilled the majority in the 4th Circuit agreed with the position in our amicus, and the one affirmed in the 9th Circuit’s decision in Martin v. Boise, that it is cruel and unusual to punish homeless individuals for involuntary conduct that must take place in public because they do not have an adequate alternative,” said Eric Tars, legal director at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. “Virginia’s cities, and other cities in the 4th Circuit, should take heed that if they want to reduce the negative impacts of homelessness on their community, the most effective, most cost-effective, and most constitutional way to do so is providing adequate housing and services. Using the criminal justice system to deal with a social service failure is not an option.”

Jonathan Marcus of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP argued the case and stated, “we applaud the Court of Appeals’ decision that Virginia’s habitual drunkard regime is unconstitutional. It is an important victory for those who suffer from the illness of alcoholism. We look forward to the development of humane and constructive solutions to the serious problems of homelessness and alcoholism that are called for by this decision.

4th Circuit Rehearing Opinion (PDF)

Background
In March 2016, the Legal Aid Justice Center of Virginia (LAJC) and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP filed a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s “habitual drunkard” statute, to the extent it criminalizes the possession or consumption of alcohol by homeless individuals suffering from alcoholism. The complaint asserts that Commonwealth’s Attorneys Offices across Virginia have used the state’s outdated “habitual drunkard” statute, or Interdiction Statute (Va. Code §§ 4.1,-305, 4.1-322, and 4.1-333), to repeatedly incarcerate homeless individuals, violating their constitutional rights by punishing homeless alcoholics for having the disease of alcoholism. It also violates their right to due process by criminalizing the possession or consumption of alcohol—an otherwise lawful activity—without required constitutional protections. The complaint also challenges the statute as unconstitutionally vague because it fails to define “habitual drunkard” and encourages arbitrary police enforcement. Virginia’s antiquated interdiction law imposes penalties far beyond the state law prohibiting public intoxication, which results in only a small fine. The Interdiction Statute, by contrast, allows a Commonwealth’s attorney to petition the circuit court to declare someone a “habitual drunkard.” Once given this stigmatizing label, that person is subject to up to a year in jail if caught simply possessing alcohol.
About the Legal Aid Justice Center

The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) fights injustice in the lives of individual Virginians while rooting out exploitative policies and practices that keep people in poverty. LAJC uses impact litigation, community organizing, and policy advocacy to solve urgent problems in areas such as housing, education, civil rights, workers’ rights, immigration, healthcare and consumer finance. LAJC’s primary service areas are Charlottesville, Northern Virginia, Richmond and Petersburg, but the effects of their work are felt statewide.

Posted by

RALLY TO PROTECT IMMIGRANT CHILDREN – STOP THE ABUSES AND DEATHS!

WHAT: Are you outraged at the recent reports of abuses and deaths of immigrant children detained in President Trump’s camps and looking for a way to fight back?  Come join us at our Rally to Protect Immigrant Children where we will demand that this administration provide safe and sanitary housing and care for all immigrants detained by DHS, respect the Flores Decree, and stop the devastating family separations.  Come out and make your voice heard in defense of immigrants’ rights.  These children need all of us to act.  We must not remain silent.

WHEN: Tuesday, July 2nd from 10:00 am to 11:00 am

WHERE: 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 (Outside U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
For more information, please contact novaintern@justice4all.org

Organized by: Centreville Immigration Forum (CIF), International Mayan League, Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), and Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations (VACOLAO).

Posted by

June 28, 2019

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:  Angela Ciolfi, Executive Director
434-529-1810
angela@justice4all.org

U.S. DISTRICT COURT REJECTS HERRING’S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE STINNIE v. HOLCOMB DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION LAWSUIT

Charlottesville, VA—Today, Judge Norman Moon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia issued an opinion in Stinnie v. Holcomb, a lawsuit filed in 2016 by the Legal Aid Justice Center and McGuireWoods LLP challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s law automatically suspending driver’s licenses for failure to pay court costs and fines.

Judge Moon denied DMV Commissioner Richard Holcomb and Attorney General Mark Herring’s request to dismiss the case.  The Attorney General had argued that the one-year freeze of court debt driver’s license suspensions created by the budget amendment—which takes effect July 1, 2019, and expires July 1, 2020—should end the case.

Judge Moon rejected that argument, finding “although the Budget Amendment may indeed reflect shifting political winds … future enforcement of [the court debt driver’s suspension law] remains reasonably possible such that this case is not moot …” The Court refused to dismiss the case based on the “hypothetical and speculative” facts offered by the Commissioner.  

However, Judge Moon decided to stay, or postpone, trial in the Stinnie case to give the General Assembly a chance to pass a permanent fix during the current one-year freeze.

“The Plaintiffs would have preferred to have their day in court this August and end this civil rights crisis permanently,” said Angela Ciolfi, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Justice Center. “But if the Commonwealth will not take responsibility for decades of violating people’s constitutional rights, we will continue to fight in the General Assembly to fix it for the future.”

The Plaintiffs, the Legal Aid Justice Center, McGuireWoods LLP, and their pro bono partners remain committed to ending the injustice of court debt driver’s license suspensions in Virginia. It is unfair, counterproductive, and unconstitutional.  It punishes the poor, and it must end. 

Background:
Stinnie v. Holcomb is a putative class action lawsuit, filed by Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) and McGuireWoods LLP, challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s statute automatically suspending the driver’s licenses of nearly one million Virginia drivers who cannot afford to pay court costs and fines. The case was originally dismissed at the District Court, but it was revived by the Fourth Circuit last year when the appeals court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint. When LAJC filed the amended complaint, they also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction, which would have the effect of ordering the DMV Commissioner to stop suspending driver’s licenses for non-payment of court debt while the lawsuit is pending.  On November 15, 2018, Judge Moon took evidence and heard arguments for and against the preliminary injunction.  On December 21, 2018 Judge Moon granted the preliminary injunction finding the driver’s license suspension statute likely unconstitutional and ordering the DMV Commissioner to reinstate Plaintiffs’ licenses while litigation proceeds. The Court also rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that the federal court lacked jurisdiction. The case had been set for trial in August 2019.  Today’s decision has the effect of postponing the trial until next year, to permit Virginia’s General Assembly to repeal Virginia’s court debt license suspension law.  

To download a copy of today’s opinion, go to https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/214-Memorandum-Opinion.pdf

To read more about the effect of the budget amendment, go to https://www.justice4all.org/2019/06/11/6-things-to-know-about-drivers-license-suspensions/

To read more about the lawsuit, or to download the briefs, go to http://www.justice4all.org/drive.

About the Legal Aid Justice Center
The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) fights injustice in the lives of individual Virginians while rooting out exploitative policies and practices that keep people in poverty. LAJC uses impact litigation, community organizing, and policy advocacy to solve urgent problems in areas such as housing, education, civil rights, workers’ rights, immigration, healthcare and consumer finance. LAJC’s primary service areas are Charlottesville, Northern Virginia, Richmond and Petersburg, but the effects of their work are felt statewide.

Posted by

Know Your Rights Training in Case of ICE Raids for Service Providers

WHAT: The Legal Aid Justice Center is organizing a “Know your Rights” presentation for service providers in Northern Virginia in response to a recent announcement of large-scale ICE raids in the DMV region. Although President Trump cancelled the raids hours before they were set to begin, we don’t know if it is a permanent cancellation. He has suggested in media interviews that he will reinstitute them in two weeks if Congress is unable to agree on a deal to handle the humanitarian crisis at the border.

The uncertainty created by these announcements has resulted in widespread fear among the immigrant communities that we serve. We are working to ensure that our community members and neighbors know their rights when interacting with law enforcement/ICE agents in order to combat their fear and help them ensure their rights are respected. We hope you will be able to attend this upcoming training so that you can assist us with this effort. 

We will be updating attendees on the proposed public charge rule change and the and Dream and Promise Act as well.

WHEN: Thursday, June 27th from 3:00 to 5:00 pm

WHERE: 2110 Washington Blvd. 2nd FL Arlington, VA 22204 (Syphax Education Center)

REGISTRATION required: Please fill out this link:https://forms.gle/ieSsnUkffdD8gNkx8

For more information, please contact novaintern@justice4all.org  

Organized by Legal Aid Justice Center’s Immigrant Advocacy Program in collaboration with VACOLAO 

Posted by

 

Virginia Schools Need Investment in Support Staff—Not More School Resource Officers

Yesterday, Governor Northam announced over $3.47 million in School Resource Officer (SRO) incentive grants to 53 localities across the Commonwealth. The funding will allow school divisions to add more SROs to Virginia’s K-12 public schools, increasing the number of SROs in Virginia by 10 percent, according to the press release. To create safer schools where all children can learn and thrive, Virginia must divest from placing law enforcement inside schools and make bold new investments in school support staff and trauma-informed and restorative practices.

School Policing Is A Racial Justice Issue

African-American students are disproportionately swept into the criminal justice system for incidents that take place at school. A 2017 Virginia Tech study uncovered significant racial disparities in referrals to law enforcement for school-based offenses: African-American students accounted for roughly 23 percent of the student population in Virginia but nearly 50 percent of referrals to the juvenile justice system. Those disparities are heightened inside school buildings and persist throughout Virginia’s law enforcement and juvenile court process. A single report of a student to law enforcement, even if it does not lead to a juvenile court intake, can have devastating and ongoing consequences for a student: stigmatization by school staff and peers, erosion of trust in school staff, susceptibility to more police encounters, and loss of interest in school.

As outlined in an extensive report from The Advancement Project, school policing has roots in efforts to quash youth support for the Civil Rights movement, and African-American students report feeling less safe with police in schools.

Our Schools Don’t Need More SROs

According to Virginia’s 2017 Statewide School Safety Audit Survey, 87 percent of high schools and 85 percent of middle schools have either a full-time or part-time SRO. In recent years, in headline after headline, we have heard about school police officers responding with force against students with disabilities, using chemical restraints like pepper spray against middle school students, threatening or intimidating students, and harboring ties to white supremacist groups. Through data collection, we see vague, subjective behavioral “offenses” like disorderly conduct charges decrease in the community, yet substantially increase in our schools. Only this past General Assembly session did lawmakers mandate that all SROs receive training specific to their duties—a law that will not even go into effect in full until July 2020.    

Both the data and historically overpoliced communities themselves tell us clearly: rather than providing for the safety of students, a school law enforcement presence merely shuttles more students—and disproportionately more African-American students—into court for school discipline matters that should be handled by school personnel.

Meanwhile, Virginia understaffs positions critical to student support—positions that should be the first line of support for students who instead are garnering charges—and student caseloads are staggering. School counselors had an average caseload of 385 students in 2016, well above the recommended standard of 250 students. In 2015, school social workers had an average caseload of 1,600 students; the national recommendation was 1,000.

Virginia Must Fix Its School Funding Crisis

SROs are law enforcement officers, not student support personnel. Rather than prioritizing SROs, the Commonwealth must first fulfill its state constitutional duty to invest in high-quality, twenty-first century schools with adequate student support staff. But given the opportunity, the administration has neglected to propose, and the General Assembly has declined, over and over, to fully fund the required staffing positions to achieve high-quality schools for all students. Despite broad support for a new law, effective July 1, to require school divisions to lower counselor-to-student ratios, the state’s FY20 budget doesn’t fully fund the new caseload requirements—leaving local school divisions with an unfunded mandate. This shortfall also exists despite recommendations from the Virginia Board of Education to lift the state budget’s arbitrary “support position cap”—which limits funding for school support positions, including central office positions, attendance officers, school social workers, and maintenance personnel.

To truly create supportive learning enforcements for our students—Virginia must fully fund our schools.

 

 

 

Posted by

UPDATED

6 Things To Know Right Now about the recent Virginia budget amendment

to temporarily halt driver’s license suspensions for unpaid court debt:

 

  • 1. The budget amendment should lift current driver’s license suspensions for unpaid or delinquent court debt, and will prevent future such suspensions beginning July 1, 2019 and lasting until June 30, 2020. (We don’t yet know what the policy will be after the budget amendment expires.)
    • According to the DMV, if your license is suspended solely for unpaid court debt AND it is not expired AND you still have it in your possession, your driver’s license will automatically become valid (and reinstatement fee will be waived) on July 1, 2019, and you will not have to do anything.
    • If your license is suspended solely for unpaid court debt and it IS expired or otherwise needs to be updated (for example, you lost it or you need to update your “proof of legal presence”), your suspension will be lifted and reinstatement fee waived BUT you will likely need to contact the DMV to renew your license and will likely be charged renewal or other administrative fees, which will vary by individual.
    • If your license is suspended for unpaid court debt AND some other reason, the DMV says it will lift the court debt suspension BUT you will still need to serve out the other suspension(s) and fulfill any court or DMV obligations related to those suspensions before your license can become valid. We do not yet know how DMV will implement this.
    • If your Virginia driver’s license was suspended for court debt and you now live in another state, the Virginia DMV says this suspension “will no longer be visible” to other states, but we do not yet know what this means in practice.
    • The DMV says they will send a letter to individuals in Virginia listing any additional actions, if any, they will need to take to get a valid license (renewal applications, fees, etc.).

2. Though it lifts current court debt-related driver’s license suspensions and prevents future such suspensions through June 30, 2020, the budget amendment does not cancel debt owed.

You will still be required to pay your court debt, & the court could still pursue collections against you with mechanisms that include: wage garnishment, tax intercept, debt collector intervention, and, possibly, issuing a kind of warrant called a “show cause” that will require you to appear in court to answer for the debt, which could result in some jail time.

In some cases, payment of your court debt may be a part of probation requirements or to maintain a suspended jail sentence term—please consult your attorney in these matters for advice.

3. The budget amendment only lifts/prevents license suspensions that are solely due to unpaid court fines & fees.
This does not include, for example, license suspensions given for unpaid child support. It does not include suspensions directly resulting from convictions for reckless driving, DUI, or simple possession—though it would include a license suspension based solely on any unpaid fines & fees tied to those convictions.

4. It’s possible to have more than one kind of driver’s license suspension at the same time. If you have a license suspension for an offense like a DUI, reckless driving, etc., AND a license suspension for unpaid court fines and fees, the budget amendment should still cause the unpaid fines/fees suspension to be lifted. This means, however, that the other suspension(s) will still be in effect. Again, the best way to keep track of this is to obtain your DMV compliance report on or before July 1 of this year, or as soon as you can after that.

5. The Virginia state budget that contains this budget language goes into effect July 1, 2019, and the DMV says eligible licenses will automatically become valid (unless there are administrative requirements or other suspensions), but our advice: make sure your license is valid before you drive. This law will not come into effect until July 1, 2019, so none of this applies until then!

    • If you drive, please drive with caution—our best advice is to seek your DMV compliance report until it shows your suspension has been lifted. Then, you may want to carry the compliance report with you if you drive, just as a precaution.
    • Even if your suspension is lifted, your license might not be VALID, and if you drive, you could be charged with “Driving Without An Operator’s License” (DWOL) until you fulfill the necessary requirements. The new law does not prevent consequences for DWOL or DWLS (Driving With License Suspended) charges—if your license is not valid or you are still serving another suspension or you drive from now until July 1, 2019, while under a court-debt suspension, you can still be subject to these charges.

6. If your driver’s license was suspended solely for unpaid court debt, you should not be charged the $145+ license reinstatement fee by the DMV for that reinstatement. If you have another type of license suspension, or if you need to obtain a new driver’s license or renew an expired one, the DMV may charge you fees related to either reinstating your license once you’ve served your other suspension, or fees associated with renewing or first obtaining a license. If your only license suspension is for unpaid court fines and fees, however, you should not be charged a fee related to the suspension, but could face fees for renewal, replacement, etc.

If you have questions about your driver’s license suspension, please contact the DMV. Their website has some information, as well as a contact email form specific to these cases, and other phone numbers and ways to reach them: www.DMVnow.com

Access a share-able PDF of this FAQ here. 

For more information about our Legal Aid Justice Center work on these issues, please visit our website at http://www.justice4all.org/drive.

 

 

Posted by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Shannon Ellis, Attorney
Legal Aid Justice Center
434-529-1815
shannon@justice4all.org

WOMAN PRISONER AT FLUVANNA SEEKS RELIEF FROM LIFE-THREATENING MEDICATION FAILURES

Charlottesville, Va., April 30, 2019 — A woman incarcerated at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women (FCCW) filed a motion today in federal court seeking relief from the prison’s repeated, life-threatening mismanagement of her medication. Ms. Margie Ryder, 39, suffers from terminal pulmonary arterial hypertension and is dependent for her survival upon appropriate administration of a powerful medication continuously delivered to her heart through a pump.  Over the past year, Ms. Ryder has been repeatedly hospitalized due to FCCW’s failure to appropriately provide this medication.  The motion filed today describes the daily fear Ms. Ryder suffers, wondering each time she receives her medication whether FCCW’s next mistake will be the one that kills her. 

Under the terms of the Scott v. Clarke class action Settlement Agreement approved by a federal judge in 2016, FCCW is obligated to provide medications in a “timely, safe, and sufficient manner.”  In January 2019, the federal court overseeing the Scott case ruled that FCCW had failed to comply with this requirement, as well as numerous other provisions of the Settlement Agreement. After hearing evidence in a weeklong enforcement trial, the Court concluded that FCCW had failed to appropriately and timely supply, distribute, and administer medications, and that this failure was of such a broad, systemic nature that the prison’s repeated dangerous medication mistakes were “hardly surprising.”  Among other remedies, the Court ordered FCCW to conduct extensive re-training of the nurses employed at the prison and to develop a new protocol ensuring that patients had access to appropriate medical care.  Unfortunately, the need for today’s motion makes it clear that—months later—FCCW’s medication failures continue, seriously endangering the lives of women like Ms. Ryder.

“My sentence was to serve a period of time, not to die,” said Ms. Ryder.  “I desperately want to make it through the rest of my sentence so that I can be released back to my family before my time comes.”

“Ms. Ryder’s suffering is a direct result of the Department of Corrections’ ongoing failure to adequately address long-standing, well-known problems at FCCW,” said Shannon Ellis, an attorney at the Legal Aid Justice Center and co-counsel for the Plaintiff prisoners.  “Failures in funding, failures in staffing, and a fundamental culture of disrespect and disregard for prisoner patients fuel a dysfunctional system that results in tragedy.”

Today’s motion, filed by lawyers at the Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), Wiley Rein LLP, and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee (WLC), asks the Court to order DOC to develop and implement a plan to safely administer Ms. Ryder’s medications, including ensuring appropriate nurse training and oversight.  It also seeks to open lines of communication at the prison between the medical staff and the plaintiff attorneys to ensure that future situations like Ms. Ryder’s can be addressed as quickly and cooperatively as possible.

Emergency Motion (PDF)

About the Legal Aid Justice Center
The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) fights injustice in the lives of individual Virginians while rooting out exploitative policies and practices that keep people in poverty. LAJC uses impact litigation, community organizing, and policy advocacy to solve urgent problems in areas such as housing, education, civil rights, immigration, healthcare and consumer finance. LAJC’s primary service areas are Charlottesville, Northern Virginia, Richmond and Petersburg, but the effects of their work are felt statewide.

About Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein LLP is a leading law firm located in Washington, DC, where it is a dominant presence with more than 270 attorneys and public policy advisors. Wiley Rein has earned international prominence by representing clients in complex, high-stakes regulatory, litigation, and transactional matters. 

About The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
From its inception in 1968, the mission of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs has been to mobilize the resources of the private bar to address issues of civil rights violations and poverty in our community. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee provides pro bono representation in a broad range of civil rights and related poverty issues impacting every group protected by our federal, state and local civil rights laws.

###

Follow Legal Aid Justice Center on Twitter @LegalAidJustice and find us on Facebook.

 

Posted by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Hallie Ryan, Managing Attorney, 703-226-3426, hallie@justice4all.org
Tim Wallace, Dir. of Development, 434-529-1853, twallace@justice4all.org

Fourth Circuit: If ICE agents break into your house illegally, you have no remedy

Falls Church, Va., April 26, 2019 — Today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that ICE agents may violate clearly-established constitutional rights, and that the victims – U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike – have no legal remedy. Tun-Cos et al. v. Perrotte et al. is a case challenging unconstitutional, warrantless home raids by agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“The decision flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedent providing that victims of unconstitutional home raids by law enforcement can sue,” says Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Legal Director of the Legal Aid Justice Center’s Immigrant Advocacy Program. “The effect of this decision is to treat ICE agents differently from FBI agents and other federal officers, granting ICE agents complete impunity if they commit egregious constitutional violations – a troubling result that should alarm all of us.”

The Tun-Cos case involved so-called “Bivens” claims, which are claims for damages against federal officials for violations of constitutional rights. The ability to recover damages for harms suffered at the hands of government officials when they violate clearly established constitutional rights deters illegal conduct and serves as a critical protection for all those living in America. Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that such lawsuits may be brought against federal law enforcement officers who commit unconstitutional searches and seizures, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit found that immigration enforcement presented a “new context” and that the plaintiffs had no right to bring a Bivens claim against the agents.

“This decision allows ICE agents to go from door to door, invading U.S. citizens’ homes without a warrant or probable cause, based instead on racial profiling, and those citizens will have no ability to hold them accountable, no matter how flagrant the conduct,” says Sandoval-Moshenberg. “This decision affects every single person, citizen and noncitizen alike.”

The Legal Aid Justice Center and pro bono co-counsel at Covington & Burling are reviewing the decision and all options for further review, including a petition to the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. “This case strikes at the heart of protections granted by the Bill of Rights – can the government invade your home without probable cause and without a warrant, and leave you without a remedy?” said Hallie Ryan, Managing Attorney at Legal Aid Justice Center. “An issue of this importance should be decided by the entire Fourth Circuit.” 

Fourth Circuit Opinion (PDF)

Background on the Case
Tun-Cos et al. v. Perrotte et al. is a lawsuit which alleges that at 5 a.m. on February 8, 2017, a team of ICE agents coerced entry into the northern Virginia home of Jose Carcamo without a warrant, purportedly searching for a suspect. Once inside, the team of agents went from door-to-door in the home, rounded up all the male residents and detained them in the living rooms, and demanded they produce proof of U.S. citizenship. When some could not, the ICE agents arrested them. The plaintiffs alleged that mid-raid, one ICE agent asked the U.S. citizen homeowner “are there any other Spanish families on this street?”  A few days later, the plaintiffs allege that the same team of ICE agents invaded a second home just a few miles away. In this incident, the ICE agents boxed in the car of two men as they were leaving for work, marched them to the door of their homes and demanded entry. Once inside, the agents again went from door-to-door, detained all the male residents and arrested those who could not produce proof of immigration status on-demand. The U.S. citizen homeowner, his family members, and those arrested all sued the ICE agents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, demanding they be held accountable for the egregious constitutional violations.

In April 2018, the district court allowed the lawsuit to go forward after the ICE agents attempted to dismiss the case. The court found that the plaintiffs had alleged violations of clearly established constitutional rights and had the right to hold the agents accountable.

Legal Aid Justice Center brought the case with the support of Covington & Burling pro bono counsel.

About the Legal Aid Justice Center
The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) fights injustice in the lives of individual Virginians while rooting out exploitative policies and practices that keep people in poverty. LAJC uses impact litigation, community organizing, and policy advocacy to solve urgent problems in areas such as housing, education, civil rights, immigration, healthcare, workers’ rights, and consumer finance. LAJC’s primary service areas are Charlottesville, Northern Virginia, Richmond and Petersburg, but the effects of their work are felt statewide.  www.justice4all.org 

Posted by

 

April 24, 2019

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Angela Ciolfi, Executive Director, 434-529-1810, angela@justice4all.org

 

VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDERMINES CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION RELIEF PERMANENT

Charlottesville, VA—Yesterday, the Attorney General and Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner filed a motion to delay or prematurely end the litigation in Stinnie v. Holcomb, a lawsuit filed in 2016 by the Legal Aid Justice Center and McGuireWoods LLP challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s statutes automatically suspending driver’s licenses for failure to pay court costs and fines. The Attorney General took this action despite knowing the license suspension law—which a court has said is likely unconstitutional—is still within the Virginia Code and will resume as the law of the land next year without a permanent solution, notwithstanding the historic budget amendment that temporarily eases the pain of nearly one million Virginians as of July 1, 2019.

Plaintiffs have always sought a permanent end to automatic license suspension, knowing the only way to achieve that is for the Commonwealth to declare this law unconstitutional and unenforceable, and to assure that those already subject to the law are restored from its harms. The passage of the budget amendment by the 2019 General Assembly does not produce this outcome and thus does not moot the Stinnie case. Justice demands that suffering families shouldn’t have to wait another year or more for a chance that relief might finally be delivered by the legislature when they have the opportunity right now to receive it from the court.

“The actions of the Commissioner and Attorney General are deeply disappointing. They would rather hold people hostage to delay and dithering, instead of letting long-suffering Virginians have their day in court,” said Angela Ciolfi, Executive Director for the Legal Aid Justice Center. “The Attorney General seeks to play legislative roulette with nearly one million families, abdicating his responsibility to stop unconstitutional practices within the Commonwealth, in the chance that the General Assembly does the right thing to make the relief permanent. If the litigation is dismissed and the General Assembly fails to pass a clean repeal bill next year, nearly one million Virginians will be plunged back into the court debt trap on July 1, 2020.”

“The automatic license suspension law is still in the books. It still affects and strikes fear in nearly one million Virginians. The General Assembly did a great thing with the Governor’s budget amendment, but it failed twice to rid the Commonwealth once and for all of this unconstitutional practice. We look forward to our day in court to push for a positive outcome to this civil rights issue.” said Jonathan Blank, partner at McGuireWoods and lead counsel in the case. “It’s time to let justice take its course.”

The Legal Aid Justice Center calls on the Commonwealth to uphold its duty under the U.S. Constitution not to enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws, or to let the case proceed to trial in August and allow the court to rule.

Background:

Stinnie v. Holcomb is a class action lawsuit, filed by Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) and McGuireWoods LLP, challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s statute automatically suspending the driver’s licenses of nearly one million Virginia drivers who cannot afford to pay court costs and fines. The case was originally dismissed at the Circuit Court, but it was revived by the Fourth Circuit this summer when the appeals court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint. When LAJC filed the amended complaint, they also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction, which would have the effect of ordering the DMV Commissioner to stop suspending driver’s licenses for non-payment of court debt while the lawsuit is pending.  On November 15th, Judge Moon took evidence and heard arguments for and against the preliminary injunction.  On December 21, Judge Moon granted the preliminary injunction finding the driver’s license suspension statute likely unconstitutional and ordering the DMV Commissioner to reinstate Plaintiffs’ licenses while litigation proceeds. The Court also rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that the federal court lacked jurisdiction. The case is set for trial in August 2019.

To download a copy of this release, click here.

To read more about the lawsuit, or to download the briefs, go to http://www.justice4all.org/drive

About the Legal Aid Justice Center

The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) fights injustice in the lives of individual Virginians while rooting out exploitative policies and practices that keep people in poverty. LAJC uses impact litigation, community organizing, and policy advocacy to solve urgent problems in areas such as housing, education, civil rights, workers’ rights, immigration, healthcare and consumer finance. LAJC’s primary service areas are Charlottesville, Northern Virginia, Richmond and Petersburg, but the effects of their work are felt statewide. 

Posted by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Becky Wolozin, Attorney, 703-720-5606, becky@justice4all.org
Tim Wallace, Dir. of Development, 434-529-1853, twallace@justice4all.org

4th Circuit decision on ICE transfers upholds court oversight but fails families

Falls Church, Va., April 16, 2019 — Today the 4th Circuit issued a decision in Reyna v. Hott, a case challenging ICE’s practice of transferring detained parents across the country and far away from their children and families. In an important win for immigration advocates, the Court unequivocally held that it had the power to hear cases challenging the way ICE transfers detainees to different detention centers. This important holding will allow advocates to continue to challenge unlawful and harmful ICE practices.

However, the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, failing to recognize a right to family unity for detained immigrants and their U.S. citizen children. In Virginia, the majority of immigrants that are detained by ICE have been living in the United States and many have families and US Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident children who also live in Virginia. Nonetheless, ICE transfers these detained parents across the country with no consideration of the needs of their children to visit their parents, or their own rights as parents to provide care and nurture to their children through in-person visits during the traumatic period of detention.

“While we are happy the court recognized its power to hold the government accountable for its arbitrary and punitive transfer practices, we are disappointed that the 4th circuit failed to recognize the importance of family unity in the context of detainee transfers. The parent-child relationship is not an on-off switch, and being able to visit their parents in person while their parents are detained is important to mitigate the harm done by the fact of detention,” says Becky Wolozin, attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center. “Instead, the 4th Circuit declined to provide relief for parents detained at great distances from their children, making in person visitation impossible causing exponential harm to the child and to the parent-child relationship.”

Fourth Circuit Opinion (PDF)

Background:
Reyna v. Hott was a lawsuit attempting to require ICE to consider the interests of the parent and the child in providing care and nurture through in-person visits before transferring parents far away from their families. The claim was based on a violation of due process because the government is unlawfully infringing on the liberty interest in family unity (held by both the parent and the child in the 4th circuit). The Plaintiffs contended that ICE was infringing on this interest because they did not provide notice or an opportunity for the parent or child to be heard regarding the harm that transfer of the parent would cause the child or the parent-child relationship.

The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss because the judge found that the harm was done by the fact of detention, and that there was no further harm done by transferring parents great distances from where there children live, thereby essentially preventing visitation between parents and children.

Legal Aid Justice Center brought the case with the support of CapitalOne pro bono counsel.

About the Legal Aid Justice Center
The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) fights injustice in the lives of individual Virginians while rooting out exploitative policies and practices that keep people in poverty. LAJC uses impact litigation, community organizing, and policy advocacy to solve urgent problems in areas such as housing, education, civil rights, immigration, healthcare, workers’ rights, and consumer finance. LAJC’s primary service areas are Charlottesville, Northern Virginia, Richmond and Petersburg, but the effects of their work are felt statewide.  www.justice4all.org

About CaptialOne
Capital One Financial Corporation is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Its subsidiaries, Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Bank (USA), N. A., offer a broad spectrum of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. We apply the same principles of innovation, collaboration and empowerment in our commitment to our communities across the country that we do in our business. We recognize that helping to build strong and healthy communities – good places to work, good places to do business and good places to raise families – benefits us all and we are proud to support this and other community initiatives. www.capitaloneinvestingforgood.com