Department of Justice

  • April 6, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Laura Abel, Deputy Director, National Center for Access to Justice. This piece is cross-posted at NCAJ’s blog.


    The Department of Justice has released startling evidence that language barriers are leading to serious injustices in courts in North Carolina. In a March 8 letter, DOJ warned North Carolina that its ongoing failure to provide court interpreters in civil cases, and in some criminal cases, violates the federal Civil Rights Act, which bars courts and other recipients of federal funding from providing worse services to people on the basis of English language ability.  

    DOJ reports that prosecutors in Wake and Durham counties ask people with limited English proficiency to plead guilty and then, assuming the role of “interpreters,” convey the guilty pleas to the courts. A judge relying solely on “prosecutorial interpreting” cannot know whether the person is even aware that a guilty plea is being entered, much less whether he understands the charges and consequences. When the federal government then deports the person, it cannot know whether it is deporting an innocent person. 

    The quality of justice is equally in doubt in civil cases. In 2010, a mother in Wake County lost permanent custody of her children after a trial in which she struggled to understand basic facts because she had limited command of the English language. Although she told the judge about her language difficulty, the court provided no interpreter. She also had no lawyer to help. Communication was so poor that at the end of the case she did not even understand that the judge’s ruling would cause her to lose her children.

  • March 22, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The tragic slaying of a Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old in Florida, is drawing scrutiny, albeit far too late, of public policy that celebrates a Wild West mentality.

    The law, enacted in 2005, dubbed “stand your ground,” provides great legal protection to those who kill others outside their homes, claiming they used deadly violence in self-defense. Under pressure from outraged citizens and public interest groups, such as the NAACP, the U.S. Department of Justice said earlier this week it would investigate the killing of the young African American.

    Part of the mounting pressure included 911 recordings that revealed that George Zimmerman, a “watchman” for a Sanford, a community near Orlando, was ordered to stay put as police had been dispatched to the area. The 911 recordings also reveal that Zimmerman, a large, 28 year-old, refused to heed the 911 operator’s plea, responding, “They always get away,” before leaving his car to pursue the youngster.

    In a piece for The Nation, Bryce Covert says the so-called stand your ground laws, which have been adopted by 20 other states, are not only rooted in romanticism of a “cowboy-esque” mentality, but also in a “deep distrust in the police force.”

    “Beyond emboldening individual actors,” Covert continues, “this distrust has real consequences on police forces’ ability to ensure protection and justice. It weakens and distorts the force itself.”

    As noted recently by The New York Times, the Florida law was pushed by the National Rifle Association. Likely not terribly surprising was the involvement of the conservative lobbying group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

    Writing for Media Matters for America, Matt Gertz notes that Florida’s law is “virtually identical to Section 1 of ALEC’s Castle Doctrine Act model legislation as posted on the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). According to CMD, the model bill was adopted by ALEC’s Civil Justice Task in August 2005 – just a few short months after it passed the Florida legislature – and approved by its board of directors the following month.” 

  • March 6, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While a large public school district in Minnesota has taken steps, prompted by legal action, to combat discrimination against LGBT students, the U.S. Department of Education has released information, which perhaps not surprisingly, reveals persistent discrimination against black students in public schools nationwide.

    Reporting for the Pioneer Press, Sarah Horner details the Anoka-Hennepin school district board’s vote, with one member resigning in protest, to “accept a settlement agreement with [Dylon] Frei and five other former and current district students who had filed two lawsuits over a policy requiring staff to remain neutral when the topic of sexual orientation came up in the classroom.” As Horner notes Frei and the other students had repeatedly faced sexual harassment and gender stereotyping. Frei, Horner reports, told a crown outside the school board offices that his peers had repeatedly called him “fag,” and physically harmed him.

    The school board voting 5-1 approved a consent decree that will resolve the students’ lawsuit brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The decree also resolves a separate complaint lodged in Nov. 2010 by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education.

    The consent decree filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota includes a number of requirements that Anoka-Hennepin school officials will have to undertake to ensure they comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bar harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.

    For example the school district, the largest in Minnesota, must retain a consultant to review the district’s policy on harassment, create and implement “a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment,” and improve “its system for maintaining records of investigation and responding to allegations of harassment.”

  • January 25, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    East Haven, Conn., Mayor Joseph Maturo, perhaps not surprisingly, is displaying staunch support for the city’s police department after the U.S. Department of Justice lodged criminal charges against several of its officers for misconduct aimed at the city’s Latino community.

    As The New York Times reported this morning, federal authorities, after lengthy investigations, have accused a group of East Haven police officers of targeting the Latino community. “They stopped and detained people, particularly immigrants, without reason, federal prosecutors said, sometimes slapping, hitting or kicking them when they were handcuffed, and once smashing a man’s head into a wall,” the newspaper reports. “They followed and arrested residents, including a local priest who tried to document their behavior.” The FBI arrested four East Haven officers yesterday, The Times reports, “on charges of conspiracy, false arrests, excessive force and obstruction of justice over what the indictment described as years of mistreatment of individuals, especially Hispanics, and efforts to cover it up.”

    Maturo (pictured) told The Times that it was “a sickening feeling to have your officers arrested, but nevertheless they’re innocent until proven guilty.” He added that he has “confidence” in the entire Department.

    The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division following an investigation of the East Haven Police Department (EHPD) issued a report concluding that it engaged in discrimination against the Latino community, and failed to take action to stop the misconduct.

    The EHPD “engages in a pattern of systematically discriminating against Latinos by targeting Latinos for discriminatory traffic enforcement, treating Latino drivers more harshly than non-Latino drivers after a traffic stop and intentionally failing to design and implement internal systems of control that would identify, track and prevent such misconduct,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in press statement. “We found that the pattern of practice and unlawful conduct was deeply rooted in the Department’s culture.”

  • January 6, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The Obama administration’s signature domestic achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires many people to purchase health care coverage in 2014, is a reasonable and constitutional means to provide millions of uninsured with health care coverage, the Department of Justice argues in a brief lodged today with the Supreme Court.

    The brief “arguments track the Obama administration’s arguments before lower courts,” Brian Beutler reports for TPM, which also provides access to the 130-page document.

    As Beutler notes, the DOJ explains why the law’s so-called individual mandate is a constitutional means to help millions of Americans afford health insurance. The law bars insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more to people who have pre-existing medical conditions. For that provision of the law to work, however, the law must require individuals who can afford health insurance to obtain minimum coverage or pay a penalty via their annual income tax returns.

    The DOJ’s brief argues that the law is a permissible regulation under its constitutional authority to regulate commerce and its taxing power.

    The federal government already regulates the health care market – Medicare and Medicaid are examples. However, millions of people, because of a lack of additional regulation have been unable to afford health care insurance or been denied it because of preexisting conditions.

    The DOJ argues that the law’s so-called individual mandate will bridge the gap.

    “The uninsured shift tens of billions of dollars of costs for the uncompensated care they receive to other market participants annually,” the brief states. “That cost-shifting drives up insurance premiums, which, in turn, makes insurance unaffordable to even more people.”