Pending Cases
The Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Jones (U.S. District Court): The ACLU-CT filed an amicus brief arguing that lobbying laws should not be extended to constitutionally protected gatherings, such as rallies at the state capitol. Martin Margulies and Emmanuel Margolis are counsel for the ACLU-CT.
Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University (U.S. District Court): The ACLU-CT has filed suit and moved to enjoin Quinnipiac University from eliminating its women's volleyball team in violation of Title IX, a statute that requires gender equity in education programs or opportunities. In order to be in compliance with Title IX, a university's athletic opportunities must be substantially proportionate to its enrollment. QU fails this test. According to its own reports, QU historically has had a female enrollment of around 62% but has had a female athletic participation rate of only 50%. By eliminating women's volleyball, the university is blatantly out of compliance. On May 22, the Court granted the ACLU-CT's motion for preliminary injunction, stating the plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. Shortly thereafter, QU reinstated the women's volleyball team. Cooperating counsel is Jonathan Orleans and Alex Hernandez from Pullman & Comley and Kristen Galles from Equity Legal in Alexandria, Virginia.
Hernandez v. State (Superior Court): The ACLU-CT has moved to file an amicus brief in a case challenging the constitutionality of the bail system in Connecticut. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the state's bail system violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive bail and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause (e.g., unequal treatment for the indigent). The suit also claims that the bail system violates the Connecticut Constitution's provisions that are similar to the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments, but broader and more detailed in scope. David Jaffe and Paul Spinella represent the plaintiff.
Lantz v. Coleman (Superior Court): The ACLU-CT represents Bill Coleman, an inmate at Osborn Correctional Institute, who is protesting what he believes is Connecticut's corrupt judicial system through a hunger strike. In this case, the ACLU-CT is asking a Superior Court judge to prevent the Department of Corrections officials from force-feeding Coleman through a nasogastric feeding tube without his permission. This highly invasive and painful procedure, it is argued, will bring Coleman's hunger strike to an end, violating his rights to protest and to deny unwanted medical treatment. Cooperating counsel is William Murray of Edwards Angell Palmer and Dodge.
United States v. DHHS (U.S. District Court): On January 15, 2009, the ACLU's National Reproductive Freedom Project and our affiliate filed a lawsuit over a Bush Administration regulation that dramatically expands the right of health care providers to deny patients access to contraceptive services and appropriate care in medical emergencies. The attorneys on this case are Jennifer Dalven, Diana Kasdan, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, and Sukti Dhital, all of whom are staff attorneys from the ACLU national office.
Cooper v. United States Postal Service (2nd Circuit): This case challenges the U.S. Postal Service's contract with a church run corporation to operate a post office unit in Manchester. The church run corporation has engaged in proselytizing while providing postal services. The District Court ruled in our favor finding that the USPS had violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The church corporation has appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Serving as cooperating counsel are Aaron Bayar and Kevin Smith of Wiggin & Dana.
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield (U.S. District Court): In July 2006, the ACLU-CT filed a complaint on behalf of several plaintiffs challenging portions of the state's new campaign financing law. The law discriminates against minor party candidates and bars lobbyists, state contractors and their immediate family members from contributing to candidates for state legislative and executive office. Mark Lopez (Lewis Clifton & Nikolaidis) and Mark Ladov (ACLU) are serving as co-counsel. On December 19, 2008, Judge Underhill ruled that recent political corruption scandals made it constitutional for the state to completely ban lobbyists, state contractors, and their immediate family members from voicing their political views through campaign contributions. Despite lack of evidence that a ban would have prevented these past scandals or would prevent future ones, the Court reasoned that preventing "perceived corruption" was enough to justify an outright ban of this kind of speech.
State v. Fernando A.(Connecticut Supreme Court): ACLU-CT filed an amicus brief arguing that due process requires an evidentiary hearing under Connecticut General Statutes § 54-63c before a court can issue a protective order that deprives an individual of the fundamental rights of entering their own home and associating freely with their children. Daniel J. Foster of Day Pitney is our cooperating counsel.
Monitoring Cases
West v. Manson (U.S. District Court): The ACLU-CT is responsible for monitoring compliance with a 1988 consent order governing conditions at the women's prison at Niantic. Most recently, we have focused on inadequate mental health care at the facility. Lynn Cochrane of Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc. is co-counsel and Andrew Gaillard of Day, Berry & Howard LLP is assisting as cooperating attorney.
Sheff v. O'Neill (Connecticut Superior Court): In 1996, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that "the needy schoolchildren of Hartford have waited long enough," and urged the legislature and executive branches of the state government to put school integration "at the top of their respective agendas." We, together with other members of the Sheff team, continue to work to achieve that goal and provide children with access to quality, integrated educational opportunities.
Roe v. Hogan (U.S. District Court): ACLU-CT is monitoring a State mental health facility to ensure its compliance with an agreement to provide fair treatment of residents who have been acquitted of criminal charges due to mental incompetency.
|
