VOTER’S RIGHT’S CASES
United States v. Mississippi:
The Department of Justice accused Mississippi's election system of disenfranchising African American voters and violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The system required candidates to win both the popular vote and a majority of House districts, causing African American candidates to win the popular vote but lose the election, which a federal judge in 2019 declared unconstitutional.
United States v. North Carolina:
In this case, the Department of Justice alleged that the state of North Carolina passed a law that discriminated against African American voters. The law included provisions such as a requirement for photo ID to vote and restrictions on early voting, Sunday voting, and same-day registration. The Department of Justice argued that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent and had a disproportionate impact on African American voters. In 2016, a federal appeals court struck down the law, finding that it violated the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
United States v. Texas:
In this case, the Department of Justice challenged the constitutionality of Texas's voter ID law, which required voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. The Department of Justice argued that the law disproportionately affected African American and Hispanic voters, who were less likely to have the required ID. In 2017, a federal judge ruled in favor of the Department of Justice, finding that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent and had a discriminatory effect. The judge ordered the state to revise the law to remedy the discrimination. However, in 2020, a federal appeals court overturned the ruling, finding that the law was not enacted with discriminatory intent.
Disability Rights Cases
United States v. California Department of Developmental Services:
The case was brought in 2018 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) against the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), alleging that it paid female employees in four job classifications less than their male counterparts for equal work in violation of the federal Equal Pay Act. The DDS provides services to people with developmental disabilities in the state of California. The DOJ alleged that the pay disparities persisted despite the fact that women were consistently rated higher than men in performance evaluations. In 2020, a federal judge ruled in favor of the DOJ and ordered the DDS to pay more than $2.3 million in back pay and interest to hundreds of female employees who were affected by the pay disparities.
United States v. City of Los Angeles:
The case was filed in 2016 by the DOJ against the city of Los Angeles, alleging that the city's public transportation system (known as the LA DASH) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The DOJ alleged that the city failed to maintain accessible stops and routes for individuals with disabilities, failed to provide adequate paratransit services, and failed to ensure that its fixed-route bus and rail systems were accessible to individuals with disabilities. In 2017, the city entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ that required it to take a number of steps to improve accessibility, including developing and implementing an ADA compliance program, improving accessibility at stops and routes, and ensuring that new bus and rail vehicles are accessible.
United States v. University of Alabama:
The case was brought by the DOJ in 2011 against the University of Alabama, alleging that the university's admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against African American applicants. Specifically, the DOJ alleged that the university's use of race as a factor in admissions decisions was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest of diversity, and that the university did not use race-neutral alternatives that would have achieved the same goal. In 2015, a federal judge ruled in favor of the university, finding that its admissions policies were narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity and did not discriminate against any particular racial group. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand.
Immigration Cases
United States v. Arizona:
In this case, the Department of Justice challenged a controversial Arizona state law, known as SB 1070, that allowed law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stopped or arrested if there was "reasonable suspicion" that the individuals were in the country illegally. The Department of Justice argued that the law was preempted by federal immigration law and violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the law, but upheld the provision allowing police officers to inquire about immigration status during lawful stops.
United States v. Maricopa County:
This case involved allegations that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office engaged in a pattern or practice of racial profiling against Latinos. The Department of Justice investigated the Sheriff's Office and found that its practices and policies violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as federal anti-discrimination laws. The Sheriff's Office was accused of using race as a factor in making traffic stops and other law enforcement decisions, and of engaging in retaliatory actions against those who criticized the Sheriff's Office. In 2013, the Department of Justice and Maricopa County reached a settlement agreement that required the Sheriff's Office to make significant reforms to its policies and practices.
United States v. Sheriff Arpaio:
This case involved allegations that former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination against Latinos. The Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against Sheriff Arpaio in 2012, alleging that he and his deputies engaged in racial profiling, unlawful searches and seizures, and other civil rights violations. In 2017, Sheriff Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt of court for defying a court order to stop racial profiling, but he was later pardoned by President Donald Trump.
Police Misconduct Cases
United States v. City of Ferguson:
This case involved allegations that the Ferguson Police Department engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing against African American residents. The Department of Justice launched an investigation following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer in 2014. The investigation found that the Ferguson Police Department had engaged in unconstitutional practices such as using excessive force, making unlawful stops and arrests, and engaging in racial bias. In 2016, the City of Ferguson and the Department of Justice entered into a consent decree that required significant reforms to the police department's policies and practices.
United States v. City of Cleveland:
This case involved allegations that the Cleveland Division of Police engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force against citizens, particularly against African Americans. The Department of Justice launched an investigation in 2013 following a series of high-profile incidents involving police use of force, including the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy. The investigation found that the police department had a pattern of using excessive force and engaging in other unconstitutional practices. In 2015, the City of Cleveland and the Department of Justice entered into a consent decree that required significant reforms to the police department's policies and practices.
United States v. New Orleans Police Department:
This case involved allegations that the New Orleans Police Department engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing, including excessive use of force, unconstitutional stops and searches, and discriminatory policing against African American and LGBT residents. The Department of Justice launched an investigation in 2010, following Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent breakdown of law enforcement in the city. The investigation found that the police department had engaged in a wide range of unconstitutional practices, including excessive use of force, improper stops and searches, and discriminatory policing. In 2012, the City of New Orleans and the Department of Justice entered into a consent decree that required significant reforms to the police department's policies and practices.
Housing Discrimination Cases:
United States v. City of Jacksonville:
This case involved allegations that the City of Jacksonville, Florida violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against individuals with disabilities who sought to live in group homes in certain residential neighborhoods. The Department of Justice argued that the City's zoning code and land use regulations effectively prohibited group homes for individuals with disabilities in most areas of the city. In 2018, the City of Jacksonville and the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement that required the City to amend its zoning code and policies to allow group homes in more areas of the city.
United States v. Cornerstone Mortgage Company:
This case involved allegations that Cornerstone Mortgage Company, a mortgage lender in Missouri, engaged in discriminatory lending practices against African American and Hispanic borrowers. The Department of Justice alleged that the company charged higher interest rates and fees to minority borrowers than to similarly situated white borrowers, and that it engaged in other discriminatory practices. In 2016, Cornerstone Mortgage Company and the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement that required the company to pay $5 million in damages to affected borrowers and to implement policies to prevent discrimination in its lending practices.
United States v. Forest City Enterprises:
This case involved allegations that Forest City Enterprises, a real estate developer based in Ohio, engaged in housing discrimination against African American and Hispanic residents at several of its properties. The Department of Justice alleged that the company's policies and practices resulted in discriminatory treatment of minority residents, including higher rents, lower quality of housing, and limited access to amenities. In 2014, Forest City Enterprises and the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement that required the company to pay $650,000 in damages to affected residents and to implement policies to prevent discrimination in its housing practices.
Religious Discrimination Cases:
United States v. Maricopa County:
This case involved allegations that Maricopa County, Arizona, engaged in discriminatory policing practices against Hispanic individuals in violation of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Department of Justice alleged that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office engaged in a pattern or practice of racial profiling, unlawful stops and arrests, and discriminatory jail practices. In 2013, the Department of Justice and Maricopa County entered into a settlement agreement that required the County to implement reforms to its policing practices and to establish an independent monitor to oversee compliance.
United States v. City of Sterling Heights:
This case involved allegations that the City of Sterling Heights, Michigan, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying a permit to build a mosque in the City. The Department of Justice alleged that the City's denial of the permit was based on discriminatory reasons and that it placed a substantial burden on the mosque's ability to practice its religion. In 2019, the City of Sterling Heights and the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement that required the City to allow the mosque to be built and to pay $1.7 million in damages to the mosque and its supporters.
United States v. Pittsfield Charter Township:
This case involved allegations that Pittsfield Charter Township, Michigan, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying a permit to build a Muslim school in the Township. The Department of Justice alleged that the Township's denial of the permit was based on discriminatory reasons and that it placed a substantial burden on the school's ability to practice its religion. In 2015, Pittsfield Charter Township and the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement that required the Township to allow the school to be built and to pay $1.7 million in damages to the school and its supporters.