Justice Dept. Presses Civil Rights Agenda in Local Courts
Matt Apuzzo
WASHINGTON — Burlington, Wash., was a small city fighting what seemed like a local lawsuit. Three poor people said that their public lawyers were too overworked to adequately represent them in municipal court cases. The dispute went mostly unnoticed for two years, until the Obama administration became involved.
Unannounced, the Justice Department filed documents in the case and told the judge that he had broad authority to demand changes in Burlington and nearby Mount Vernon. The judge quickly agreed and ordered the cities to hire a new public defense supervisor. He also said he would monitor their legal aid program for three years.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
U.S. Requests Lower Bond for Palestinian Appeal of Terror CaseAUG. 11, 2015
The ruins of Persepolis, the ancient Persian capital, in the early 1930’s.
In a Lawsuit Aimed at Iran, Terror Victims Focus on Ancient Artifacts in a Chicago MuseumJULY 18, 2006
That 2013 decision was a significant victory for the Justice Department in a novel legal campaign that began early in the Obama administration and has expanded in recent years. In dozens of lawsuits around the country involving local disputes, the federal government has filed so-called statements of interest, throwing its weight behind private lawsuits and, in many cases, pushing the boundaries of civil rights law.
The federal government has typically waded into local court cases only when the outcome directly affected a federal interest, such as national security or diplomacy. Recently, however, the Justice Department has filed statements of interest in cases involving legal aid in New York, transgender students in Michigan, juvenile prisoners in solitary detention in California, and people who take videos of police officers in Baltimore. The government has weighed in on employment discrimination claims brought by transgender plaintiffs and a lawsuit over the right of blind people with service dogs to be able to use Uber, a car-sharing service.
“The Justice Department is sending a clear message: that we will not accept criminal justice procedures that have discriminatory effects,” former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in February after filing documents in a case involving high court bonds in Alabama. “We will not hesitate to fight institutionalized injustice wherever it is found.”
Loretta E. Lynch, who became attorney general in April, has continued the initiative unabated.
Civil rights groups have applauded the move — and in turn flooded the Justice Department with requests for government intervention in their cases. But to lawyers on the other side, it can feel as if the government is using private court cases to make political points.
“From the community’s perspective, it was an ongoing nightmare,” said Scott G. Thomas, the lawyer for Burlington in the lawsuit over legal aid. The Obama administration’s involvement turned the city of about 8,000 people into a national symbol. “Why is the Department of Justice interested in a little case involving two little communities in northwest Washington?” Mr. Thomas said.
Federal law allows the attorney general to argue on behalf of the government’s interest in any court in the country. Often, that means stepping in when foreign policy or national security are at issue. Under President George W. Bush, for example, the Justice Department weighed in on a lawsuit by victims of terrorism who were trying to seize valuable Iranian antiquities held by American museums. The administration urged a judge to “exercise circumspection in light of the potential foreign policy implications” of the case.
The Obama administration recently waded into a similar lawsuit in New York on the same grounds.
By using such court filings in civil rights cases, the Obama administration is saying it has an interest in preserving constitutional rights in the same way it has an interest in foreign policy. There are examples of past administrations using statements of interest to coax public policy — such as in 2005 when the Bush administration intervened in the case over whether to keep Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman with severe brain damage, on life support. But neither career Justice Department officials nor longtime advocates can recall such a concerted effort to insert the federal government into local civil rights cases.
“We want to do as much federal civil rights work as possible, and statements of interest are effective, efficient tools,” Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department’s top civil rights prosecutor, said in an interview. She said she had encouraged her lawyers to look for local cases that presented opportunities for the federal government to make important civil rights arguments.
As a legal matter, the Justice Department wades into these cases very narrowly to argue specific matters of constitutional law. Government lawyers typically do not argue the facts of the case or say which side should win. As a practical matter, though, the court filings give clear support to plaintiffs and put the federal government on the record in cases that are at the forefront of civil rights law.
CONTINUE READING.....