2024 Grantees Submit Third Quarter Case Reports
In accordance with the Foundation’s requirements for grant reporting, the 2024 grantees submitted their third quarter case updates and timesheets of the grant year. Their case updates appear below.
All grantees are meeting the requirements of their grant. The average amount of hours of attorney time spent by each grantee on their respective case was 246.38 hours with an average dollar value of $160,373.97.
The ABC team has been busy with the remaining discovery this spring and early summer, and things are moving along as we approach trial. ABC and our co-counsel have almost completed discovery depositions and depositions of the defendants’ experts. Defendants have completed their depositions of our experts. The data we have continued to gather reveal amazingly high caseloads for workers, many workers with caseloads over 50 families. Defendants have moved for summary judgement, which we do not expect to be granted. You can read more about the motion for summary judgement and ABC’s response here. We are confident that we have a very strong case to present to the court when this case finally goes to trial in November.
Over the past quarter Rights Behind Bars has continued to litigate CCWP v. BOP. Following the closure of FCI Dublin the matter is concerned with the conditions of confinement in the facilities where class members have been transferred. The Special Master issued a report concerning BOP's failures to uphold constitutional rights and Plaintiffs are litigating the release and use of that report. Defendants have moved to dismiss the matter and invalidate the report and Plaintiffs have opposed both. Discovery is ongoing and a hearing on the report will be held in late September or early October. The case has spurred action from Congress which held hearings questioning the director of the BOP and sent the first major prison reform legislation since the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to President Biden for signature.
This lawsuit was filed on behalf of arrestees under Operation Lone Star (“OLS”), Texas Governor Abbott’s migrant detention program. The Governor claims OLS has now resulted in over 40,000 arrests. Our clients, four of those arrestees, were detained for weeks to months after they were entitled to release from a jail system set up outside of the regular state criminal processes. The lawsuit raises important issues regarding due process and the right to timely release. It seeks damages to hold accountable government actors and a private corporation that have benefited from the establishment of OLS’s shadow criminal legal system. TFDP serves as Plaintiffs’ Counsel along with co-counsel, the ACLU of Texas and Covington & Burling LLP in this suit filed in federal court in the Western District of Texas in August 2023.
Across the Winter and early Spring, we filed our oppositions to Motions to Dismiss filed by all the Defendants. In late April, we argued the motions, and in late June, the District Court denied the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, upholding all of our claims. In his order, the Judge found that we sufficiently pled that none of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity, writing, “[A]ll of the individual Defendants … acted objectively unreasonably in failing to address the constitutionally deficient release policy for OLS detainees, which they knew was causing a pattern of overdetentions.” The individual defendants have now noticed an appeal and are seeking a stay of all proceedings in the District Court, which we oppose.
After the State deposed the plaintiffs in March and April, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ arguments centered on SB 458’s various constitutional violations; the State’s response focused almost exclusively on standing. These motions were fully briefed on June 28. On July 17, 2024, Upper Seven deposed Jeff Laszloffy, a former Montana legislator turned lobbyist who was SB 458’s primary drafter.
On June 25, 2024, another district court judge ordered SB 458 permanently enjoined in Reagor v. State, No. DV-23-1245 (Mont. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct.), finding that the bill violates a procedural requirement under the Montana Constitution. This differs from Upper Seven’s challenge, which levels substantive constitutional challenges—violations of the right to dignity, the right of privacy, and the right to equal protection. We have therefore filed a notice of supplemental authority, noting the importance of resolving the distinct constitutional questions present in Edwards and requesting that the Court to rule on the competing summary judgment motions notwithstanding the Reagor decision. On July 22, the State moved for a stay of the proceedings. Briefing on that motion is underway.
Status of the case:
We hope to argue the cross motions for summary judgment in late August. Despite the State’s motion to stay, counsel for the State has indicated a desire to argue their motion. Accordingly, there is some uncertainty about how the Court will proceed.