2025 Grantees Submit Third Quarter Case Reports
All of the Barbara McDowell Social Justice Center’s 2025 grantees were contacted in July in accordance with the Center’s requirements and reported with respect to the progress of their case through the third quarter of their grant cycle. Each grantee’s report can be found below.
In addition to reporting on their progress, each grantee submitted third quarter timesheets for their case work and met with the Center team to discuss their cases. The average dollar value in attorney time spent by each grantee on their respective case for the third quarter was $197,589.68. For the first three quarters combined, the average dollar value in attorney time was $137,105.12.
In Jeremiah M. vs. Crum, A Better Childhood (ABC), and Perkins Coie, and the Disability Law Center Alaska (DLCAK), are challenging Alaska’s Governor, Alaska’s Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and Alaska’s Office of Children’s Services (OCS) for violations of foster children’s constitutional and statutory rights.
Claims are brought on behalf of a general class of children in foster care of over 3000 children; and two subclasses: children in kinship placements that are unnecessarily disrupted and children who have disabilities whose needs for services are unmet. The general class includes many native children, who are disproportionately represented in the foster care system. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce Alaska foster children’s constitutional and federal statutory rights. Issues in the system include children being shuffled across many placements, high child maltreatment rates, high caseloads for caseworkers, frequent inappropriate placements (including native children placed in non-native homes), lack of placements, lack of permanency plans, and the failure to meet the needs of children with disabilities.
ABC filed the case in May of 2022. A Motion to Dismiss was argued in the District Court for the District of Alaska in December 2022. In September 2023, the Court ruled in plaintiffs' favor and found that the lawsuit had stated constitutional claims and could proceed. The Court upheld the children’s allegations that the state violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by placing children at serious risk of future institutionalization. The Court also ruled that the state could immediately petition the Ninth Circuit to accept an appeal; however, the 9th Circuit declined the appeal in early 2024.
A trial date has been set for August 25, 2025. Importantly, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class on June 25. In addition, the district court, in April 2025, denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs have stated legally cognizable claims under several provisions of the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, including the claim for a detailed case plan, the claim for a case review system and the requirement to file a petition to terminate parental rights to free a child for adoption. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the substantive due process and the ADA claims are still pending.
Plaintiffs’ counsel are developing witness lists, filing Daubert motions to exclude some of defendants’ experts, filing motions to respond to defendants’ attempts to exclude plaintiffs' experts, and filing other relevant pre-trial motions. The pre-trial conference is set for August 12.
Case discovery shows a system in Alaska continuing to struggle with a lack of appropriate placements for all children, but primarily for children with behavioral issues. Plaintiffs' counsel has seen no real attempts by defendants at correcting some of the serious problems that continue to plague the State's foster care system. Alaska relies upon for a defense the remoteness of some villages and bad weather, without coming up with any new programs to address the many problems in the system, as well as relying on the fact that systems in other states are struggling.
Center for Public Representation
Status of District Court Litigation
On March 25, 2025, federal judge Amy Totenberg issued an opinion denying the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Isaac A. vs. Carlson, a lawsuit filed by CPR and co-counsel on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children with Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED) in Georgia. As described in the Plaintiffs’ complaint, these children and youth are being denied access to intensive mental health services in the community, leading to a worsening of their conditions and causing them to be repeatedly admitted to emergency departments, institutionalized in psychiatric facilities, and separated from their families.
In a 95-page decision, the Court set out in detail the bases for Plaintiffs’ allegations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment and Reasonable Promptness provisions of the Medicaid Act. The Court concluded that the Individual Plaintiffs had adequately stated a claim for relief under these statutes and had standing to pursue those claims. The Georgia Advocacy Office, the Protection and Advocacy agency for the State of Georgia, was also found to have associational standing. Additionally, the Court considered and rejected Defendants’ arguments that: 1) they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; 2) relevant provisions of the Medicaid statute were not privately enforceable; and 3) the Plaintiffs’ requested relief violated anticommandeering principles.
On April 2, 2025, Defendant Commissioners from Georgia’s Medicaid, Child Welfare and Behavioral Health/Developmental Disability agencies filed their notice of intent to appeal the Court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit. A Motion to Stay the litigation in the District Court was granted pending the outcome of Defendants’ appeal.
Update on Appellate Advocacy
On April 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefing on the question of its jurisdiction over the Defendants’ appeal. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ responses were filed simultaneously on May 6, 2025. Shortly thereafter, the parties were directed to attend mandatory mediation by the Court, which occurred on June 11, 2025.
On June 12, 2025, Defendants filed their opening brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking direct appellate review of two sovereign immunity questions: (1) Whether Georgia’s sovereign immunity is abrogated under the ADA; and (2) whether the Commissioners are proper defendants under the Ex Parte Young exception. Defendants also argued for pendant appellate jurisdiction which would allow the Court to revisit whether the Plaintiffs stated a claim under the Medicaid Act, ADA, and Re-habilitation Act, and their standing to raise these claims.
The Court then issued a stay on Plaintiff/Appellees’ briefing schedule, pending the outcome of the jurisdictional question.
National Immigration Litigation Alliance
In Mansor v. USCIS, the district court certified a nationwide class of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants who are seeking declaratory relief to enforce their statutory right to work permits while they wait for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate their TPS applications. Plaintiffs and the certified class are represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), and Kurzban, Kurzban, Tetzeli & Pratt, P.A.
Prior to this quarter, the parties completed briefing cross-motions for summary judgment, in which Plaintiffs argued that USCIS violates their rights under the TPS statute, regulations, and the U.S. Constitution by failing to issue TPS applicants temporary work authorization documentation upon receipt of a TPS application, despite clear statutory language requiring them to do so. However, before the district court could either set oral argument or issue a decision on the summary judgment motions, Defendants submitted a Notice of Administrative Action, explaining that USCIS had paused its new review process for temporary work authorization documentation for TPS applicants, purportedly to review the sufficiency of the background checks used in the process. After briefing on an Order to Show Cause, the district court held that it could not review certain claims at issue in the summary judgment motions while Defendants were conducting their review and ordering a status report. Since then, Defendants have indicated that their review of the sufficiency of background checks has progressed but is not complete. On June 12, 2025, based on Defendants’ most recent status report, the court continued its stay on the cross motions for summary judgment until July 11, 2025, at which time the motions are to be re-noted on the docket.
On June 11, 2025, counsel gor the youth plaintiffs in Sagoonick v. State of Alaska II, filed the opening brief with the Alaska Supreme Court, addressing two main issues on appeal. First, plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are justiciable under the political question doctrine, asserting that Alaska’s courts have both the authority and duty to hear constitutional claims and to remedy constitutional rights and violations. Specifically, plaintiffs argue: (1) the Supreme Court’s decisions in two previous constitutional climate cases, Kanuk and Sagoonick I, establish precedent for the justiciability of plaintiffs’ claims; (2) Alaska’s separation of powers imposes a fundamental judicial duty to hear constitutional claims and provide redress for constitutional violations; and (3) their claims do not implicate any of the recognized factors the court applies to identify nonjusticiable political questions. Second, plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the prudential considerations that were at issue in Kanuk and Sagoonick I.
The youth request that the Supreme Court reverse the erroneous dismissal of their case and remand the case for proceedings allowing theman opportunity to present evidence supporting their constitutional claims. The defendants now have until July 24, 2025, to submit their response brief. Finally, the plaintiffs will submit a reply brief within 20 days of the defendants’ submission. We anticipate that the Supreme Court will schedule an oral argument in late 2025 or early 2026.
Since April 1, 2025, Montana Conservation Voters v. Jacobsen has been on appeal before the Montana Supreme Court, following a jury trial and final judgment in the Lewis and Clark County District Court in February.
On June 6, Appellants filed their Opening Brief, contesting several aspects of the District Court’s decision. The brief argues that the court erred by requiring plaintiffs to prove intent in their claim that the PSC map dilutes non-Republican votes in violation of the right of suffrage. It also challenges the application of a deferential federal presumption of legislative “good faith” when evaluating claims of political discrimination under the Montana Constitution. Additionally, the appeal disputes the court’s conclusion that the map was not intentionally drawn to favor Republicans, despite securing all five PSC seats for Republicans. Finally, it argues that the court wrongly recognized an absolute legislative privilege—unprecedented in Montana—that prevented plaintiffs from accessing key discovery materials. Appellee’s response is expected by August 5.