Litigation

Public Rights Project’s aims to further its mission of empowering state, local, and tribal governments to protect and further civil rights, economic justice, and environmental protection by litigating in state and federal courts, including by filing amicus briefs.

Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commissions (SCoWI)

Public Rights Project — on behalf of a coalition of ten Wisconsin county and municipal election officials — filed an amicus brief urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reinstate ballot drop boxes, essential to effectively administering the 2024 presidential election, after banning them in 2022. Oral arguments are scheduled in the Wisconsin drop box case, Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Election Commission, for May 13.

Sixty-six of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, or 91%, used drop boxes in 2020 — as did 39 states — without significant issues. Absentee ballot usage skyrocketed during the pandemic with 40% of these voters using drop boxes. Since then, drop boxes have been a target of lawsuits and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court prohibited unstaffed drop boxes, holding that absentee voters could only return their ballots via the mail or by submitting their ballots directly to their municipal clerk or the clerk’s staff. The brief outlines three key reasons why ballot drop boxes benefit both voters and election clerks: drop boxes are secure, drop boxes are convenient for voters and local elections officials, and drop boxes ensure ballots are counted.

2024.18.04- Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commissions (SCoWI)

NAACP v. Schmidt

In March, a three-judge panel of the court held that federal law does not prohibit Pennsylvania from requiring election officials to reject mail-in ballots that are received on time, but are either missing a date on their return envelope or marked with an “incorrect” date (such as an incomplete date or a voter’s birthday).

The Voting Rights Act prohibits refusing to count a person’s vote based on an “error or omission” on a voting-related “record or paper” that is not “material in determining” a person’s qualifications to vote. The plaintiffs argued that this rule, known as the Materiality Provision, protects voters from having their otherwise-valid votes discounted based on technicalities like the envelope-date requirement (which  is irrelevant to whether a ballot is considered timely). The district court agreed. The panel at the Court of Appeals in this case, however, held that this provision only applies to a state’s determination of who may vote, overturning the lower court’s decision and allowing the regulation to stand.

The goal of PRP’s brief is to urge the Third Circuit to rehear the case en banc, allowing all of the active judges on the court to rehear the case, and potentially overturn the panel’s decision. It will be filed in support of requests for rehearing from the ACLU and the Department of State.

The brief explains what is at stake for state and local election officials in this case. Election officials have an interest in making sure that all eligible citizens in their jurisdiction can exercise the right to vote. Forcing election officials to screen and discard ballots based on immaterial errors requires them to expend time and other resources to ensure that every eligible vote in their jurisdiction will be counted. It also creates more potential for errors, ambiguity, and inconsistency at a time when election administrators are under intense scrutiny.

2024.17.04- NAACP v. Schmidt

Boston v. State of Georgia - Challenge to O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32

A bipartisan group of Georgia district attorneys filed a lawsuit challenging O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32, an anti-democratic statute that undermines prosecutorial discretion. Represented by Public Rights Project, Washington, Dreyer, and Associates, and Bruce P. Brown Law, Plaintiffs seek an interlocutory injunction to prevent the newly empowered Prosecuting Attorneys’ Qualifications Commission (“PAQC”) from opening any investigations or pursuing disciplinary measures against these elected DAs.  

The Georgia law—amended in 2024 by the General Assembly to remove  Georgia Supreme Court oversight—creates novel obligations for and discipline of local prosecutors, undermining their independence and threatening local democracy. Discretion is a structural element of a prosecutor’s job. DAs are elected by a local community to make decisions on whom to prosecute, what charges to bring, and which sentences to seek in order to promote safety and justice in their communities. The statute gives the PAQC the authority to investigate and remove prosecutors from office on the basis of these decisions. The members of the PAQC, who were all appointed by partisan executive and legislative officials, set their own standards for investigation and discipline. This statute is part of a nationwide trend of states adopting laws to infringe on the discretion of local prosecutors pursuing criminal justice reforms. 

Shortly after the PAQC began operation, Public Rights Project filed this litigation to combat the State's attempt to undermine the will of Georgia voters and the independence of the prosecutors they elect. The lawsuit by District Attorney Sherry Boston of Stone Mountain (DeKalb County) Judicial Circuit, Towaliga District Attorney Jonathan Adams, and Augusta District Attorney Jared Williams asserts that O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32 and the PAQC’s improperly promulgated rules violate the separation of powers doctrine and the First Amendment and unconstitutionally infringe upon Plaintiff’s prosecutorial discretion and democratic ideals.

2024.16.04- Boston v. State of Georgia

Idaho v. United States

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in a case about emergency abortions when the health of the pregnant person is in question. Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit, represented by PRP and the law firm of Selendy Gay Ellsberg PLLC, led a coalition of 32 current and former local prosecutors and law enforcement leaders. The case is about whether a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), blocks state abortion bans in emergency situation.

PRP's brief argues that EMTALA’s preemption is needed to ensure that local law enforcement is not required to evaluate the necessity of performing an abortion in an emergency. As the brief explains, doctors have made clear that determining when a medical crisis reaches the artificial legal threshold of life-or-death is practically impossible. It is particularly dangerous to ask medically untrained criminal justice actors to substitute their judgment for that of medical professionals acting in emergency situations.

2024.28.03- Idaho v. United States

Petersen v. Fontes

Public Rights Project and Protect Democracy — on behalf of a coalition of current and former election officials and administrators — filed an amicus brief in Petersen v. Fontes in the Maricopa County Superior Court. The brief urges the court to reject challenges to the 2023 Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM) brought by Arizona State Senate President Warren Petersen and Speaker of the House Ben Toma.

The lawsuit is part of a national trend of unprecedented legal challenges to undermine and disrupt elections administration across the country ahead of the 2024 presidential election. The new brief argues that the EPM provides crucial guidance to local election officials, fills gaps in existing laws, resolves ambiguities, and ensures that officials are able to implement fair and uniform election processes. Petersen and Toma contend that several provisions in the EPM incorrectly interpret state and federal law, and are seeking court intervention to block its use during this year’s election cycle.

The brief argues that the 2023 EPM plays a vital role in ensuring a smooth 2024 election cycle. Not only have election laws changed since the last EPM was issued in 2019, but election administrators have already used the 2023 EMP for the Presidential Preference Election. Additionally, they are training staff, allocating resources, and preparing for the July Primary Election and November General Election based on the 2023 EPM.

The brief also defends two key EPM provisions. The first prevents county boards of supervisors from changing vote totals or delaying certification of elections. The second protects against frivolous challenges to voter citizenship, based not on evidence but on factors like race or political party. The brief argues that these two provisions are both legally correct and practically important for election officials seeking to conduct fair and efficient elections.

2024.25.03- Petersen v. Fontes

Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc. v. Byrd

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief with the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 31 current and former Florida elected officials. The brief urges the court to protect Black voters in North Florida by reinstating a pre-2022 congressional map that ensures a Black-voting district is included in the 2024 election.

The case, Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc. v. Byrd, raises important legal issues about the ability of communities of color to have meaningful and sustained representation at all levels of government in Florida. It challenges the Florida congressional districts that were redrawn in 2022, after Governor Ron DeSantis strong-armed the state legislature into eliminating the historically-Black Congressional District 5, spanning Jacksonville to Tennessee, which had been represented by Black elected officials in Congress since 1992.

PRP’s brief speaks to the shared community of interest spanning Jacksonville to Tallahassee, especially among voters of color. Versions of this district have been represented in Congress by Black elected officials – Congressman Al Lawson and, previously, Congresswoman Corrine Brown – since 1992.

As the brief argues, eliminating Benchmark CD-5 unconstitutionally diminished the voting power of North Florida’s Black residents, a conclusion shared by the trial court. As a result, the new map should be altered to protect Black voters in the region. In the brief, the elected officials also argue that the First District Court of Appeals (DCA) applied an incorrect test when concluding that the benchmark district was improper and flawed.

PRP’s amicus brief pushes back against this assessment by the First DCA and documents the extensive history of both racial oppression and resistance that have shaped North Florida. PRP asks the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision and reinstate the prior Congressional district map.

2024.11.03- Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc. v. Byrd

GenBioPro v. Raynes, Baltimore City and County Amicus Brief

Public Rights Project filed a brief on behalf of the City and County of Baltimore, Maryland in a fight to preserve access to medication abortion in West Virginia. The appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was filed by the generic manufacturer of mifepristone–GenBioPro–and challenges West Virginia’s deauthorization of this essential drug for reproductive healthcare. Our brief argued that West Virginia’s abortion bans and treatment of mifepristone overburden Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Maryland’s health systems and funds because West Virginians are now forced to travel to Maryland for abortion care. Baltimore and Maryland’s clinics, providers, and funds have taken extraordinary measures to support out-of-staters seeking abortion care, but they do so while straining to meet the healthcare needs of their own residents. The brief explains that only the federal Food and Drug Administration has authority to restrict access to mifepristone and that West Virginia has improperly overstepped, causing great harm to its own residents and overburdening health systems regionally.

2024.15.02- GenBioPro v. Raynes, Baltimore City and County Amicus Brief

Mifepristone Litigation – U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Public Rights Project filed amicus briefs on behalf of more than 100 local governments and local elected leaders in Food and Drug Administration, et al. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al., a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is an attack on access to mifepristone, one of two drugs most commonly used in medication abortion.

In the brief, PRP supports the FDA’s position that mifepristone is a safe and effective drug used for miscarriage management and medication abortion. Our amicus brief demonstrates clear flaws in the arguments challenging mifepristone, including the misuse of the federal courts for ideological interest: the plaintiffs in the case are not directly affected by mifepristone. The brief focuses on the flaws in plaintiffs’ standing and argues that the case should be dismissed. 

This amicus brief also shows the significant harm the lower court rulings, if allowed to stand, will inflict on those residents’ access to essential healthcare, as well as on local governments’ health and social services systems. PRP has filed briefs at every appellate stage of this litigation, following a deeply flawed and controversial decision by the district court in early 2023.

2024.01.30 Mifepristone Litigation – U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Trump v. Anderson

This is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which former President Donald Trump is appealing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision ruling him ineligible to appear as a presidential candidate on the March 5, 2024 Republican primary ballot.

Based on a challenge brought by a group of voters, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that President Trump was ineligible because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Public Rights Project has filed a brief on behalf of leading historians and in support of the voters who brought the challenge. Through a compelling historical narrative, the brief makes three important and clear points.

The framers intended Section Three: (1) to automatically disqualify insurrectionists; (2) to apply not only to the Civil War but also to future insurrections; and (3) to bar anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming President of the United States.

The brief relies on their extensive research on the period as well as crucial primary sources that inform the original public meaning of Section 3. In addition, the amicus brief rebuts misleading historical assertions made in briefs supporting President Trump.

2024.01.29 Trump v. Anderson

Warren v. DeSantis

Case Update

On January 10, the federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important ruling (PDF) that affirmed the rights of elected prosecutors to make public statements about issues of public concern without fear of retribution.

In a case brought by suspended Hillsborough County, Florida (13th Judicial District) State Attorney Andrew Warren, the Court of Appeals found that joint letters expressing support for reproductive rights and transgender health were protected by the First Amendment.

As a result, the decision by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to suspend Warren in August 2022 might have violated the First Amendment. The case will be returned to the district court in Tallahassee for further consideration of the Governor’s motivation to suspend Warren from his position.

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief (PDF) in support of Warren’s appeal and has been supporting Warren since early in the litigation.

2024.01.10 Warren v. DeSantis – Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

——

PRP filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in support of Florida prosecutor Andrew Warren’s lawsuit challenging his wrongful suspension by Governor Ron DeSantis on August 4, 2022. As a prosecutor, Warren sought to further the civil rights of the Hillsborough County, Florida residents that he served. He also joined with other prosecutors around the country to stand against attacks on reproductive healthcare and LGBTQ rights.

The district court determined that DeSantis’s purported reasons for suspending Warren were false and that all of the actual motivations were unlawful. In fact, DeSantis acted out of a combination of retaliation for First Amendment protected activities and political motives that were illegal under Florida law. Yet the district court still refused to reinstate Warren, based on a narrow interpretation of its authority.

PRP’s brief highlights the core principle of democratic self-government that motivates both the Florida constitution and the First Amendment. This shared principle illustrates why the district court was wrong not to reinstate Warren. By allowing DeSantis’s decision to stand, the court disenfranchised the voters of Hillsborough County, who had twice chosen Warren as their prosecutor.

PRP Legal Director Josh Rosenthal testified in support of a bill to improve voter registration in California before the California Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. SB 846, would streamline the state's automatic voter registration regime in an effort to register the estimated 4.6 million California citizens who are eligible to vote but not registered. The PRP testimony focused on the ways that this streamlined registration system would also help protect non-citizens from inadvertently registering to vote, and therefore risking deportation and criminal prosecution.

2023.03.20 Warren v. DeSantis – Brief for Amicus Curiae Public Rights Project in Support of Appellant

Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in support of the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel’s petition for rehearing en banc of the Eighth Circuit’s November 20, 2023 problematic ruling that Section 2 of Voting Rights Act does not have a private right of action. The brief is on behalf of 42 local governments and leaders in support of the plaintiffs’ argument that the VRA allows private parties to file lawsuits. Kansas City Mayor Quinton D. Lucas led the brief on behalf of the local governments and leaders, and PRP received significant support from Ingham County, Michigan Clerk Barb Byrum.

The brief explains how the Eighth Circuit decision will undermine enforcement against discriminatory laws and practices impacting all election cycles and elected offices. The decision represents a radical change in interpretation of the VRA after nearly 60 years of private enforcement in federal courts throughout the country -- including hundreds of cases. No other court has ever reached the same conclusion, and it is essential to ensure that groups and individuals can continue to protect their rights through the courts.

12/19/2023 - Arkansas State Conference NAACP - Eighth Circuit Amicus Brief

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal — Boston v State

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41(a)(1), the Plaintiffs to the above-captioned actions state as follows:

1. In 2023, the General Assembly passed, and Governor Kemp signed into law, Senate Bill 92 (“SB 92”), which established the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission (“PAQC”).

2. Pursuant to SB 92, the PAQC has “the power to discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of appointed or elected district attorneys . . . .” O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32(a).

3. The General Assembly obligated the PAQC “with the assistance of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of the State of Georgia” to “promulgate standards of conduct and rules for the commission’s governance.” O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32(g).

4. SB 92 provides “that such standards and rules shall be effective only upon review and adoption by the Supreme Court.” O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32(g).

5. On or about September 30, 2023, the PAQC sent its draft standards and rules to the Georgia Supreme Court for its review and adoption.

6. On November 22, 2023, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an order in Matter No. S24U0190 relating to the PAQC. The Georgia Supreme Court “decline[d] to take any action on the draft standards of conduct and rules.” In re: Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission Rules and Code of Conduct, Order at 2. The Court explained “we have grave doubts that it would be within our power to take action on the draft standards and rules, and the statute imposes no affirmative duty that would require us to decide conclusively whether such a duty is constitutionally permissible.” Id.

7. Because the PAQC is without standards and rules that have been reviewed and adopted by the Georgia Supreme Court, the PAQC is not able to take any action to “discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of appointed or elected district attorneys . . . . .” O.C.G.A. § 15-18-32(a).

8. The PAQC will not be able to take any such action unless and until the General Assembly amends SB 92.

9. Accordingly, because there is no further relief to obtain against Defendants relating to SB 92, Plaintiffs are dismissing their claims in this litigation without prejudice.

10. By this notice, Plaintiffs do not waive their rights to reinstitute litigation should the PAQC take any subsequent action without Legislative authorization or if the General Assembly amends SB 92.

2023-12-08 - Notice of Voluntary Dismissal -- Boston v State

Zurawski v. Texas

Public Rights Project partnered with Local Progress to file an amicus brief in Zurawski v. Texas, a case pending before the Texas Supreme Court seeking clarity regarding the medical exception to Texas’s extreme abortion ban. The brief was submitted on behalf of 26 current and former local elected officials supporting the Center for Reproductive Rights’ impact lawsuit.

The case was brought on behalf of 20 Texas women—each denied abortion care after facing severe and dangerous pregnancy complications—and two Texas obstetrician-gynecologists. Texas’s statewide abortion ban includes an exception for medical emergencies, but Texas’s hostile abortion landscape, the threat of criminal prosecution, and vague and inconsistent language in the exception has deterred Texas physicians from providing their patients with abortion care.

In August, a Texas district judge issued an injunction blocking Texas’s abortion bans as they apply to dangerous pregnancy complications, clarifying that doctors can use their own medical judgment to determine when to provide abortion care in emergency situations. However, the state immediately appealed the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, blocking it from taking effect.

Our amicus brief focuses on the negative health impacts that pregnant people face due to a lack of clarity regarding the law’s medical emergency exception, particularly on women of color and low-income women. Our brief also addresses some of the sovereign immunity arguments the state has made in an effort to avoid being held accountable in court. In addressing those arguments, we seek to ensure that the Plaintiffs’ stories are heard in court and they are offered the respect and empathy that they deserve.

11/22/2023 - Zurawski v. Texas

Florida Ballot Initiative Amicus

Public Rights Project filed a brief with the Florida Supreme Court arguing that Floridians should be allowed to petition for a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution to protect abortion rights. On behalf of 10 former Florida Republican elected officials, the brief argues against bad-faith attempts by the Florida Attorney General, Susan B. Anthony Fund, and others to keep this amendment from the voters.

The brief argues against efforts by the Florida Attorney General and others to rewrite the rules for putting a proposed amendment before the people. It also explains why this proposed amendment satisfies the well-established rules in Florida: it deals only with a single subject (abortion) and is summarized in appropriately non-argumentative terms.

11/13/2023 - Florida Ballot Initiative Amicus

Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to support a challenge of the gerrymander of the Wisconsin state legislative map in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. In that case, Law Forward -- which represents the petitioners bringing the challenge -- argues that current maps in Wisconsin have divided communities, prevented fair representation, and diminished the voices of voters across the state.

Written on behalf of Wisconsin local elected officials, our amicus brief highlights the many challenges local elected officials face in their attempt to effectively govern due to the lack of representation in the state legislature caused by unfair maps. As an example, local initiatives to protect workers, renters, and the environment have been preempted at the state level. State funding for cities has often been inadequate, city projects have been stalled or underfunded, and city governments have been left without adequate voice at the state house.

The brief also explains how the existing maps violate parts of the Wisconsin Constitution, on the issue of contiguity of legislative districts. The legislative map’s failure to provide compact districts has meant that many cities are underrepresented at the state house. As a result, local democracy has suffered.

PRP filed the brief on behalf of 19 local elected officials including mayors, city council members, and school board members from 14 different cities in Wisconsin.

11/08/2023 - Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Public Rights Project filed a brief supporting the requests of the FDA and Danco Laboratories for U.S. Supreme Court review of the mifepristone litigation. In that case, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is challenging FDA approval of the drug, which has been used safely for nearly 6 million abortions in the United States since 2000. Mifepristone is one of two drugs most commonly and safely used for early-pregnancy medication abortions.

A decision by the Fifth Circuit restricts some of the FDA’s approvals for mifepristone and threatens access across the country. The case is an unprecedented attack on abortion, with nationwide implications, and represents the first time FDA approval has been overturned by the federal court.

PRP filed a brief on behalf of 88 local governments and local government leaders from 26 states, including Alaska, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. The brief argues that Supreme Court review is warranted because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by mifepristone approval, the lower courts improperly substituted their judgment for that of an expert agency, and the case is of national importance.

10/12/2023 - FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Robinson v. Ardoin -- U.S. Supreme Court

Public Rights Project filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus and other elected leaders of color in the state. The brief supports an emergency application filed by the plaintiffs in an ongoing Voting Rights Act case.

In this case, the plaintiffs achieved a preliminary injunction holding that Louisiana’s congressional map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The original map provides only one opportunity district for Black voters. After being stayed at the Supreme Court while the Alabama case was pending, the case was sent back down this past June. Now Louisiana has asked to stop any hearing at the district court about the implementation of a remedial map. And the Fifth Circuit obliged with a writ of mandamus.

The plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to stop the Fifth Circuit’s order and allow for the hearing about a new map to go forward. Our brief highlights why the Louisiana Legislature has had ample time to put together a new map and how a lengthy delay could imperil implementation of a new map for the 2024 election cycle -- and further deprive Black voters in Louisiana of their rights.

10/02/2023 - Robinson v. Ardoin -- U.S. Supreme Court

Kaul v. Urmanski - Dane County Circuit Court, Wisconsin - Amicus Brief on Abortion Access

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief with the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA) in Kaul v. Urmanski, the major abortion litigation pending in Wisconsin state courts. The case is a challenge to an historic statute that anti-choice activists view as banning almost all abortion in the state. The case was brought by the state attorney general against district attorneys in three Wisconsin counties that were once home to abortion clinics. Physicians later intervened, and the trial court judge preliminary ruled that the statute is in fact not an abortion statute, but a feticide statute, and cannot be used to prosecute consensual medical abortions.

PRP and APA filed their brief in support of progressive prosecutors who seek clarity on the law. The brief urges the court to reach a final judgment declaring that the statute is in fact a feticide statute and leaves no room for prosecutorial discretion or uneven enforcement of abortion-related conduct. The brief also seeks a broad declaratory judgment from the court that applies statewide and provides clarity and finality to all state prosecutors.

09/29/2023 - Kaul v. Urmanski

KC v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — Amicus Brief on Gender-Affirming Care

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of 81 cities, counties, and local officials from 26 states in K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case is a challenge to Indiana’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender youth. Local government amici urge the Court to affirm the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of S.E.A 480, which undermines local government efforts to serve transgender communities.

The Appellees in the cases, represented by the ACLU, have challenged S.E.A 480 under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. PRP filed in support of this legal argument, arguing that the law sidelines parents from medical decisions pertaining to their children. The ACLU’s case also includes a First Amendment challenge to S.E.A 480’s aiding and abetting provision, which bans Indiana providers from helping patients obtain care that is lawful outside of the state.

In the brief, the local governments explain that laws like S.E.A 480 impair their ability to serve their already vulnerable constituents. Because the law prevents access to necessary medical care for children, the harm of S.E.A 480 will extend to their communities as local governments will be forced to bear the subsequent consequences, such as crisis response to victimization, housing security, and educational attainment.

The brief is led by Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit. PRP partnered with Local Progress on the formation of this coalition of 81 signatories from 75 different jurisdictions.

09/27/2023 - KC v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana — Amicus Brief on Gender-Affirming Care

Boston v. State of Georgia - Challenge to Georgia's SB 92

On behalf of four district attorneys, Public Rights Project filed a request with the Fulton County Superior Court for a preliminary injunction in a case challenging SB 92.

The new Georgia law — enacted in 2023. — creates new obligations for and oversight of local prosecutors, undermining their independence and threatening local democracy.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to stop the newly formed Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission from opening any investigations or taking any steps to discipline them. The request for a preliminary injunction explains how SB 92 violates the Georgia and U.S. constitutions and why the public interest would be served if an order is entered.

Supporting the filing are eight affidavits. In addition to the four plaintiff district attorneys, the testimony in support includes statements from an Augusta pastor, Women on the Rise, the Deep Center, and a criminal defense attorney.

8/24/23 Challenge to Georgia's SB 92

Worrell v. DeSantis

PRP filed in support of the challenge to the suspension of State Attorney Monique Worrell by Governor DeSantis. The case was filed directly with the Florida Supreme Court, and Worrell is seeking reinstatement arguing that the grounds for her suspension are not valid.

Our brief focuses on the arbitrary nature of the suspension and the lack of notice this provides to other officials about what is considered malfeasance or misfeasance according to the Governor. We argued that left unchecked, a governor’s abuse of this power interferes with state officials’ performance of duties–local government officials cannot adequately represent the interests of their constituents if they are chilled by the possibility of suspension.

The brief was filed on behalf of 31 current and former elected officials in Florida.

9/18/23 - Worrell v. DeSantis

Milligan v Allen — Alabama Redistricting Case

PRP filed a brief in support of challenges to the latest redistricting map in Alabama. Written on behalf of state and local elected officials of color, the brief responds directly to the Alabama state legislature’s new map (following the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision issued in June) and argues that the map does not provides adequate opportunity for black voters in the state.

The brief is led by Randall Woodfin, the mayor of Birmingham, and Steven Reed, the mayor of Montgomery. A hearing in the case is set for Monday August 14, 2023. Joining the brief are:

Mayor Randall Woodfin of Birmingham.

Mayor Steven L. Reed of Montgomery.

Senator Merika Coleman, who represents District 19 in Jefferson County, and is the Chair of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus.

Senator Linda Coleman-Madison, who represents District 20 in Jefferson County.

Representative Napoleon Bracy, Jr., who represents District 98 in Mobile County and serves as the Vice President of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and Chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus.

Representative Patrick Sellers, who represents District 57 in Jefferson County.

Commissioner Sheila D. Tyson, who is a Jefferson County Commissioner representing District 2.

Mayor Jason Q. Ward of Lisman.

8/11/23 -Milligan v Allen — Alabama Redistricting Case

PRP filed on behalf of 20 elected leaders of color in opposition to Alabama’s effort to have the Supreme Court intervene in favor of its latest redistricting map. The brief responds to the state legislature’s new map and demonstrates that it violates the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the district court's decision should remain.

Following our filing, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Alabama's request for a stay of the district court decision. Proceedings with the special master continue and the district court will decide which new map to implement.

10/2/23 Allen v. Milligan Update

LW v. Skrmetti & Doe v. Thornbury — Sixth Circuit Amicus Brief on Gender-Affirming Care

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of 28 cities, counties, and local officials in two cases pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that challenge bans on gender-affirming care in Tennessee and Kentucky. Local government amici strongly urge the Court to uphold the district courts’ injunctions of these dangerous laws.

The plaintiffs in the cases, represented by the ACLU, have challenged the abusive state laws under both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. PRP filed in support of those legal arguments.

In the brief, the local governments explain that they operate with limited resources and laws like Tennessee’s SB 1 and Kentucky’s SB 150 impair their ability to serve their constituents with housing, law enforcement, and health resources. The brief demonstrates that, because both laws prevent access to beneficial medical care, local governments will shoulder the burden of the downstream consequences, namely the resulting adverse mental health outcomes from denial of care.

The brief is led by Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit.

8/10/23 - LW v. Skrmetti & Doe v. Thornbury Brief

Boston v. State of Georgia - Challenge to Georgia's SB 92

Public Rights Project filed a complaint on behalf of four District Attorneys in Georgia challenging the anti-democratic SB 92 law, which creates an unconstitutional oversight commission that threatens prosecutorial independence and overrides the will of voters.

SB 92 creates the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission (“PAQC”), which has the authority to investigate and remove prosecutors from office. Members of the PAQC are appointed by partisan executive and legislative officials, including Governor Brian Kemp. The PAQC sets its own standards for investigation and discipline, targeting progressive prosecutors who adopt alternative policies to incarceration. Georgia’s law is part of a trend of states adopting laws that infringe on the discretion of local prosecutors pursuing criminal justice reform.

With PRP as counsel, and Washington, Dreyer, and Associates and Bruce P. Brown Law as local counsel, four district attorneys filed a preliminary injunction against the State of Georgia and members of the PAQC. Led by District Attorney Sherry Boston of Stone Mountain (DeKalb County) Judicial Circuit and joined by Towaliga District Attorney Jonathan Adams, Augusta District Attorney Jared Williams, and Cobb District Attorney Flynn Broady, our complaint asserts that SB 92 unconstitutionally infringes on their prosecutorial discretion, chills protected speech, and disenfranchises their constituents.

8/1/23 - Boston v. State of Georgia Complaint

Fitz-James v. Attorney General Bailey (Missouri Supreme Court)

The Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas and Public Rights Project filed a brief in the Missouri Supreme Court in a reproductive rights/ballot initiative case. Missourians seek to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution by putting the issue to voters in 2024 but their effort has been blocked by the Missouri Attorney General.

The brief argues that the Attorney General’s refusal to approve and forward the papers necessary to move the ballot initiative forward is based on misstatements of Missouri law and a flawed understanding of the effects of abortion access. The brief explains how the Attorney General acted outside of his authority, caused a loss of over seventy days for signature collection, and stripped Missouri citizens of their sovereignty and constitutional right to initiative.

The brief builds on PRP’s engagement on this issue in the Cole County Circuit Court, where that court issued a writ of mandamus to compel the AG’s action and prevent further delay. This brief asks the Supreme Court to uphold that decision. The case is set for oral argument on July 18, 2023.

7/13/23 - Fitz-James v. Attorney General Bailey Amicus Brief

Saunders v. Mississippi — Challenge to Mississippi’s HB 1020

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief as counsel for the City of Jackson in a case before the Supreme Court of Mississippi challenging HB 1020, a new law that creates four unelected judicial positions in the Hinds County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs in the case are residents of Hinds County, where Jackson is located. They are seeking an injunction to stop the appointment of these four judges by the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court. Under the state constitution, judges are elected by the local community—HB 1020’s appointment of judges by the judicial branch therefore arguably violates the state constitution. 

Our brief reinforces that the plaintiffs have standing to seek the injunction as taxpayers, voters, and direct participants in local democracy in Hinds County. Additionally, we argue that HB 1020, which was allegedly passed in order to respond to concerns about judicial backlogs, addresses these concerns in an unconstitutional manner. We in turn highlight alternative, evidence-based reforms to court backlogs that would be a better solution than HB 1020. 

HB 1020 is just one of many laws passed in the 2023 legislative session in states across the country that seek to restrict the electoral and judicial power of communities of color, including multiple bills in Mississippi. The stripping of local democracy and community power by gerrymandered state legislatures is part of a troubling trend intended to further diminish the voting and political power of people of color. 

6/14/23 - Saunders v. Mississippi Amicus Brief

Fitz-James v. Attorney General Bailey

PRP filed a brief in support of Dr. Anna Fitz-James in Missouri state court challenging the Missouri Attorney General’s attempt to block ballot initiatives that would establish a right to reproductive freedom in the Missouri constitution. The Attorney General has refused to fulfill his statutory duties, thus indefinitely delaying pro-choice ballot initiatives from reaching Missourians. Public Rights Project aims to push back against this undemocratic effort in Missouri, and a broader nationwide trend of state officers acting outside their authority to prevent ballot initiatives that would restore or advance reproductive rights from reaching citizens. 

Dr. Anna Fitz-James, a Missouri citizen, submitted to the Missouri Secretary of State eleven initiative petitions, each of which would amend the Missouri constitution to establish a right of reproductive freedom. The initiatives should have been certified by May 1, 2023 to allow for the early collection of signatures. Attorney General Bailey, however, prevented the certification by acting outside of his authority and refusing to accept the fiscal impact statement prepared by the State Auditor. Attorney General Bailey cited flawed studies to disagree with the Auditor’s report of the relevant and reasonable information the Auditor received and inaccurately inflate the cost of the pro-choice initiatives. Reputable studies in fact indicate the opposite: restrictions on abortion and contraception access are costly and voter initiatives restoring reproductive rights should lead to an expected overall reduction in costs to state and local governments. 

PRP’s brief argues that the Attorney General does not have the authority to prevent the initiative from reaching Missourians based on his own flawed analysis of the initiatives’ fiscal impact. Instead, the Attorney General has a ministerial duty to approve a fiscal note summary when presented in its proper form by the Auditor, which happened here. Our brief reviews how the Attorney General acted outside of his prescribed duties, usurped the powers of other officials, and undermined democratic processes to further his policy preferences. Our brief asks the court to compel the Attorney General to follow the law and ensure prompt production of a ballot title.. 

The case is set for a bench trial in the Cole County Circuit Court in Jefferson City, Missouri on June 7, 2023. 

06/07/2023 - Fitz-James v Bailey Missouri | PRP Amicus Brief

McKay v. Tennessee

PRP filed a brief on behalf of Shelby County, Tennessee District Attorney Steve Mulroy opposing the state legislature’s attempt to strip him of his authority to represent the will of the voters who elected him in post-conviction death penalty proceedings.

DA Mulroy was elected as a reform candidate in 2022, defeating an incumbent DA who had faced criticism for her persistent refusal to acknowledge the claims of a death row prisoner whose intellectual disability made executing him unconstitutional. In recent months, DA Mulroy decided to use his discretion as an elected DA to not contest similar claims brought by a death row prisoner. The Tennessee Legislature responded by passing a law that strips the state’s elected DAs of their power to represent the state in trial-level post-conviction proceedings in capital cases–proceedings that are used in Tennessee to bring forth newly discovered evidence–and transferred it to the state’s unelected Attorney General.

With PRP as counsel, DA Mulroy filed in support of a death row prisoner’s motion to disqualify the Attorney General from representing the state in trial-level post-conviction proceedings in his capital case. Our brief argues that the recently enacted law violates the Tennessee Constitution, which gives DAs–not the AG–the exclusive responsibility and duty to seek justice by evaluating new evidence in capital cases to decide whether seeking the death penalty is appropriate. Furthermore, we argue that the recently enacted law violates the Tennessee Constitution by transferring this authority to the unelected Attorney General, thereby depriving local voters of their ability to have their chosen DA implement their values and policy preferences in criminal proceedings.

05/31/2023 McKay v. Tennessee

California v. Olson - Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief

With co-counsel Veena Dubal, Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of workers’ rights organizations supporting the State of California’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc in California v. Olson, a case recently decided by a panel of the Ninth Circuit allowing Uber and Postmates’ equal protection challenge to AB 5 to move forward. The California State Legislature passed AB 5 in 2019 to ensure that app-based workers were properly treated as employees under state law.

Our amicus brief argues that the panel decision conflicts with past decisions of the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court and should be reviewed and overturned. The panel decision ignores numerous rational reasons that legislators in California had for including app-based ride-hail and delivery companies like Uber and Postmates under AB 5 and goes against longstanding precedent giving legislatures significant leeway to craft incremental economic regulations. App-based transportation work is the only area where there has been significant growth in independent contracting and app-based transportation workers are at greater risk of harmful misclassification because of low-wages, power imbalances, and companies’ use of opaque algorithmic management.

Our brief further argues that the panel’s finding that Uber and Postmates plausibly alleged animus on the part of the California legislature conflicts with well-established equal protection principles. Uber and Postmates are not a “politically unpopular group” deserving of heightened legal protection and have shown repeatedly that they are able to use the political process to their benefit. Moreover, statements by individual legislators that they intend to regulate certain companies, after hearing from workers that such regulation is needed, does not constitute impermissible animus. The panel’s approach to animus would shield powerful corporations from needed oversight, silence elected officials from publicly sharing their legislative aims, and punish workers for their successful political advocacy.

05/08/23 California v. Olson - Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. – Fifth Circuit Amicus Briefs 

Public Rights Project filed amicus briefs on behalf of 45 cities, counties, and public entities in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al., a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Local government amici support the FDA’s position that mifepristone is a safe and effective drug used for miscarriage management and medication abortion.

Our amicus briefs demonstrate clear flaws in the plaintiffs’ procedural arguments. Plaintiffs have an ideological interest in the abortion issue and invoked the power of a federal court, even though they are not directly affected by mifepristone. Our brief further argues that the judge’s opinion is an overreach of judicial authority and unjustified on the merits.

There are decades of evidence-based research and regulation by the FDA that prove that mifepristone is safe, effective, and necessary. This unprecedented undermining of the FDA--if allowed to stand--could threaten the FDA's ability to regulate other drugs and healthcare for a variety of medical conditions and has severe consequences for amici local governments and governmental entities.

The Texas district court judge's order threatens access nationwide to this medication used by millions to terminate an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy, and to treat miscarriages and other pregnancy complications. Without a reversal of the judge’s order, pregnant people nationwide will lose access to mifepristone and suffer devastating consequences.

2023.05.01 Unopposed Motion Of Local Governments To File Brief As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants And Intervenor–Appellant

2023.04.11 Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al.

Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Arizona Attorney General and Intervenor Eric Hazelrigg

Public Rights Project filed a brief with its client and co-counsel the Pima County Attorney's Office urging the Arizona Supreme Court to deny a Petition for Review that seeks to reinstate a 19th century law that would ban nearly all abortion in the state. The Petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision that doctors may still perform abortions in compliance with the state's extensive regulation of abortion.  The Court of Appeals carefully reviewed dozens of abortion-related Arizona statutes to reach its conclusion that licensed physicians in Arizona may provide abortions up until 15 weeks gestation, as well as for medical reasons.

Neither the plaintiff nor defendants in the case--not Planned Parenthood, not the Arizona Attorney General, and not the Pima County Attorney--sought review of the Court of Appeals decision. Instead, Intervenor Eric Hazelrigg inserted himself in the case, purporting to speak for the interests of all unborn fetuses in Arizona. He now demands that the Arizona Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals and strike down recently enacted abortion laws in favor of the territorial-era all-out abortion ban.

The brief highlights the careful textual analysis the Court of Appeals completed, looking at all of the duly enacted Arizona abortion statutes together. It argues that adopting Intervenor Hazelrigg's view of the Arizona statutes would thwart the plain text of the statutes and undercut the express intent of the Legislature. The Arizona Supreme Court will next decide whether it will grant Hazelrigg's petition for review or allow the Court of Appeals decision to stand.

04.28.23 Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Arizona Attorney General and Intervenor Eric Hazelrigg

George Gascón v. Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of a group of law professors in support of prosecutorial discretion to make charging decisions that avoid unfairly long sentences. This lawsuit sought to enjoin Los Angeles District Attorney Gascón’s policy not to seek sentencing enhancements under California’s draconian Three Strikes law. The plaintiff union representing his deputy district attorneys, arguing that the text of the Three Strikes law requires prosecutors to “plead and prove” all applicable strike enhancements.

PRP’s brief canvasses state constitutions across the United States to show the importance of prosecutorial charging discretion in state constitutional law–and particularly under California’s constitution. California’s constitution deliberately gives locally-elected DAs the power to decide what charges to bring in a given case, and places the primary check on DAs’ exercise of this power in the hands of the communities who elect these officers, not the state legislature.

Our brief highlights the comparable choices that other states have made to empower local democracy and protect the discretion and independence of their DAs by making them into locally elected constitutional officers. We explain that over two dozen states have made the same choice that California has made to enshrine elected DAs in their constitutions. Furthermore, our brief showcases how many state high courts have found that these constitutional structures protect DAs’ independent charging discretion–and local communities’ electoral choices on important matters of criminal justice reform–from punitive legislative micromanagement.

2023.04.20 George Gascón v. Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County

Comments on: FTC Non-Compete Clause Rulemaking, Matter No. P201200

Public Rights Project submitted a comment letter on behalf of 11 local governments, agencies, and officials in support of the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete clause rulemaking. The FTC’s proposed rule would find that non-compete clauses are an unfair method of competition under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and would ban non-compete clauses nationwide for all workers.

An estimated one in five workers in the United States is subject to a non-compete clause, including many low-wage workers. Non-competes suppress wages and benefits by restricting workers’ ability to move freely between jobs or to pursue new business opportunities. Even in states where non-compete agreements are currently unenforceable, research indicates that employers still enter into such agreements and they nonetheless impact worker and employer behavior. The existence of non-competes drives down wages and benefits across the labor market, harming all workers and the FTC estimates that the proposed rule will increase workers’ total earnings by $250 to $296 billion per year.

Our comment letter highlights the interest of local governments in a strong federal ban on non-compete clauses, including localities’ ongoing efforts to protect low-wage workers, examples of local authority to enforce prohibitions on unfair methods of competition, and the importance of worker mobility for localities acting in their proprietary capacity. The comment also offers support for specific aspects of the proposed rule: its coverage of independent contractors; its requirement that employers rescind existing non-compete clauses and give notice to workers; its preemptive effect, which sets a federal floor rather than a ceiling; and its functional test for defining “non-compete clause,” which captures other constraints on worker mobility, such as some Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs). The comment letter further urges the FTC to strengthen its final rule by narrowing an existing exception for franchisees and broadening the scope of the rule to more fully address TRAPS, other forms of employer-driven debt, and no-poach agreements.

If adopted, the FTC’s non-compete clause rule would boost worker bargaining power and raise wages and benefits for all workers.

2023.04.14 Comments on: Non-Compete Clause Rulemaking, Matter No. P201200

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. – Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the FDA and mifepristone manufacturer Danco’s emergency applications for a stay of the lower courts’ rulings. 40 cities, counties, and other local government entities joined the brief. The amicus brief highlights the egregious procedural flaws in plaintiffs’ case and highlights the nationwide chaos that will ensue if access to the safe and effective medicine mifepristone is disrupted. Additionally, the amicus brief shows that both the district court and the court of appeals improperly substituted their uninformed views for the expertise of a federal agency and its decades-long study of the drug.

Local governments are in a unique position to protect the health and safety of their residents. This amicus brief shows the significant harms the lower court rulings, if allowed to stand, will inflict on those residents’ access to essential healthcare, as well as on local governments’ health and social services systems. The brief asks the Court to grant the FDA’s and Danco’s emergency applications and stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

2023.04.14 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al.

Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in Planned Parenthood v. Florida, a case pending before the Florida Supreme Court about the state’s 15-week abortion ban, known as HB 5. The brief was submitted in support of the challengers–the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood (supported by Jenner & Block)--on behalf of a coalition of more than 60 current and former elected officials. This is PRP’s biggest coalition yet!

The case challenges Florida’s HB 5, passed in 2022, which amended Florida’s law to restrict abortions to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some limited and unworkable exceptions. According to Florida health records, about 5,000 people have abortions after 15 weeks each year.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and its impending decision threatens abortion access for all Floridians, but particularly impacts people of color.

Our amicus brief demonstrates HB 5 as a clear violation of Florida’s well-established right to privacy, which has long included the right to access health care. Our brief further argues that this violation is most pronounced for people of color, especially Black and Latino, who have been left behind and harmed by systemic racism in health care. Our brief takes a particular focus on pregnant people of color, low-income pregnant people, and other marginalized communities, highlighting that HB 5 will disproportionately and negatively impact them (and already has).

2023.03.09 Brief of Amici Curiae Current and Former Elected Representatives for Reproductive Justice in Support of Petitioners

Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of 40 local governments in 24 states -- part of a broader coalition spearheaded by the Student Borrower Protection Center and Democracy Forward -- to defend the Department of Education’s plan for student debt relief of up to $20,000 per student borrower. The plan would eliminate altogether the student debt burden of an estimated 20 million people and significantly reduce the burden for over 20 million more, bringing billions of dollars of debt relief to local residents. 

Our brief focuses on the issue of state standing in Biden v. Nebraska. We argue that the state’s only offer speculative and indirect financial harms while at the same time the states and their residents will significantly benefit in economic and other ways from student debt cancellation. The brief highlights these benefits: increased tax revenue, greater housing security, reduced workforce strain in public service professions, and improved public health.

If the Department of Education’s plan is allowed to move forward, it will mark an important step in addressing the nearly $1.7 trillion in outstanding student loan debt in the United States which disproportionately burdens Black and low-income student borrowers. Argument in the case is set for February 28th.

2023.01.11 Brief of Amici Curiae Local Governments in Support of Petitioners

In Re: Application for Correction of Birth Record of Hailey Emmeline Adelaide

On behalf of Columbus and Cincinnati, Public Rights Project and the law firm of WilmerHale filed an amicus brief in the Ohio Supreme Court case of In Re: Application for Correction of Birth Record of Hailey Emmeline Adelaide.

This case challenges a probate court's refusal to change the sex markers on a birth certificate to reflect a transgender person's identity. State and local governments can easily accommodate sex marker corrections, and refusing to correct the birth certificates of transgender Ohioans undermines efforts of the City of Columbus and the City of Cincinnati in providing important services and benefits to residents of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities.

In the brief, we ask that the Ohio Supreme Court reverse the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals to ensure that all probate courts allow transgender people to change their birth certificate sex markers.

2022.12.20 Columbus and Cincinnati Amicus Brief

Karamo v. Winfrey

11/7/2022 Brief Update: Wayne County court denied relief in a lawsuit that would have disenfranchised thousands of Detroit voters on the eve of the upcoming elections.

Read the court’s decision HERE.

—

Public Rights Project, on behalf of 8 local election officials in Michigan, filed an amicus brief in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The brief opposed a motion for a preliminary injunction engineered to disrupt Detroit’s administration of the 2022 midterm elections and disenfranchise thousands of Detroit voters.

The case was filed on behalf of several candidates for office. They urge the court to invalidate Detroit’s–and only Detroit’s–procedures for, among other things, processing absentee ballot applications and matching signatures on absentee ballots. Most significantly, they demand that all absentee ballots that Detroit voters applied for via mail or the internet go uncounted.

Our amicus, led by Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum, pushes back on these unfounded arguments and illustrates how disastrous the desired injunction would be. Plaintiffs base their arguments on groundless accusations of election fraud and inaccurate readings of state law, and seek an extreme remedy that would invalidate thousands of absentee ballots.

11.4.2022 Brief to oppose a motion for a preliminary injunction engineered to disrupt Detroit’s administration of the 2022 midterm elections and disenfranchise thousands of Detroit voters.

O’Halloran v. Benson

11/3/2022 Brief Update: In O'Halloran v. Benson, Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief arguing that the lower court erred both by failing to recognize the authority of Secretary Benson and by enjoining a manual after election officials hard relied on it. Given that Michigan election officials have faced unprecedented abuses of electoral processes to baselessly question the integrity of recent elections, this order is an important win to protect election administration in Michigan.

—

Public Rights Project, on behalf of 8 Michigan election officials, filed amicus briefs to the Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in O’Halloran v. Benson, seeking a stay of the Michigan Court of Claims decision to invalidate essential guidance to local election officials about election challengers and poll watchers.

 Michigan election officials, like officials across the country, have faced unprecedented abuses of electoral processes to baselessly question the integrity of recent elections. Looking toward the 2022 election, there were concerns that groups would use election challengers, not for their important but modest role in ensuring confidence in election integrity, but instead to undermine the electoral process. In response, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson issued a Manual setting forth common-sense means to combat misuse of the election challenger process for voter intimidation or disenfranchisement. Months after local election officials had trained staff and election workers on the Manual, would-be challengers sued to invalidate it, and the Michigan Court of Claims ruled that officials should not implement several of its provisions.

 Our amicus brief argues that the Michigan Court of Claims erred both by failing to recognize the authority of Secretary Benson and by enjoining the Manual after election officials had relied on it and on the eve of the election. The Court of Claims ruling will undermine the public interest, as Michigan election officials scramble to retrain all election workers or reverse all previously provided instructions relating to the Manual. For those reasons, we request that the Michigan Court of Appeals issue the stay sought by Secretary Benson to ensure the orderly administration of the 2022 general election.

10.31.22 Brief to stay a recent order stopping election administrators from implementing guidance re poll watchers & challengers.

Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles

Public Rights Project collaborated with the City of Chicago in filing a local government amicus brief in defense of the Los Angeles eviction moratorium. A landlord association sued to stop the moratorium. The amicus brief defended the decision of the City of Los Angeles to impose a temporary moratorium on all nonpayment evictions in the state. The eviction moratorium is essential for public health as displacement through eviction increases the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. This is especially important as Los Angeles faces another COVID-19 spike. Eviction also places vulnerable residents at higher risk of job loss and economic insecurity.

Wood v. Superior Court of California

Public Rights Project and five other non-profit and legal aid organizations filed an amicus letter in support of a petition before the California Supreme Court that would protect the confidentiality of communications between pro se complainants and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), the state’s main civil rights enforcement agency. The letter challenges and seeks review of the court of appeal’s decision, which concluded that DFEH’s communications with the complainant were discoverable and not protected by attorney-client privilege or the common interest doctrine. This decision makes it even more difficult for victims of discrimination and harassment to come forward and to vindicate their claims, especially low-income complainants who do not have the resources necessary to obtain counsel. The services provided by DFEH are a vital resource for these individuals.

City and County of San Francisco, State of California, County of Santa Clara. and State of Washington v. Azar and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

PRP worked with our Fellows in Columbus and Oakland to organize and file an amicus brief to support challenges to the Trump administration’s Conscience Rule. The Conscience Rule explicitly permits EMTs and paramedics to decline to provide lifesaving healthcare services based on religious objections. The rule demands that local governments make an impossible choice. If they do not permit discrimination in the provision of services like healthcare and emergency medical care, local governments will likely risk losing critical federal funding. The Conscience Rule endangers reproductive and LGBTQ healthcare and disproportionately harms low-income and vulnerable populations. We are proud to fight back with our Fellows.

Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center v. Trump, No. 5:20-CV-07741-BLF (N.D. Cal).

Public Rights Project collaborated with the City of Seattle to file an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs’ opposition to President Trump’s Executive Order 13950, an unconstitutional attempt to ban the use of comprehensive diversity trainings by federal contractors. The brief, joined by 20 local governments, urges the federal district court for the Northern District of California to block enforcement of the Executive Order, the latest stage of the Trump Administration’s all-out assault on an anti-racist vision for the future. If enforced, the Executive Order forces amici and thousands of entities around the country to choose between losing significant federal funding or abandoning diversity trainings that mention concepts such as systemic racism or unconscious bias. These trainings not only allow amici to engage with their most vulnerable and marginalized community members, but also create greater understanding and momentum behind organizational goals such as the hiring and retention of a diverse workforce and the creation of an inclusive work environment. The Executive Order jeopardizes these goals and blatantly undermines the values reinforced in these trainings.

Anti-Defamation League Austin, Southwest and Texoma Regions, et al. v. Abbott, et al.

Public Rights Project collaborated with 17 cities and counties in filing an amicus brief supporting the challenge to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s efforts to limit the number of drop-off sites for absentee ballots to one site per county. The Southwest region of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Common Cause Texas sued to enjoin Governor Abbott from enforcing the one-site-per-county limit. The amicus brief showcases why Texas counties, as the closest, most accessible, and most accountable government to constituents, are the best situated to understand the voting needs of their constituents and the most likely to be able to meet those needs head-on. That is why, as the amicus brief explains, Texas law gives officials deference and discretion when it comes to making choices to enhance access to the polls and protect the voting rights of their residents. Given the significant risks posed by COVID-19 and voter concerns about USPS’s ability to timely deliver ballots, the need to defer to counties’ expertise on the number of drop-off locations needed to ensure voters can safely and securely vote is more important than ever. Governor Abbott’s decision to restrict counties to a single drop-off location in each county runs counter to these long-held principles and is inconsistent with the flexibility granted to the counties to ensure their residents are provided access.

El Papel, LLC et al. v. City of Seattle et al. (W.D. Wash.)

Public Rights Project collaborated with the City of Chicago in filing a local government amicus brief in defense of Seattle’s eviction moratorium. A group of landlords sued to stop the moratorium. The brief defended the decision of the City of Seattle to impose a temporary moratorium on nearly all evictions in the city and to require that landlords accept reasonable rental repayment plans by tenants. The eviction moratorium is essential for public health as displacement through eviction increases the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. This is especially important as the United States faces a third spike in COVID-19 cases. Eviction also places vulnerable residents at higher risk of job loss and economic insecurity.

People of the State of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Lyft, Inc.

PRP wrote and filed an amicus brief in support of the case brought by California Attorney General, City of San Francisco, City of Los Angeles, and City of San Diego against Uber and Lyft for misclassifying its drivers. The brief is joined by 15 civil rights, gender justice, and worker rights organizations. The brief focuses on how the companies made their drivers vulnerable to harassment and assault through misclassification and how they take advantage of their drivers through predatory arrangements and by saddling drivers with hidden costs.

New York, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (D.D.C.)

Pennsylvania, et al. v. Louis DeJoy, et al. (E.D. Pa.)

Washington, et al. v Donald J. Trump, et al. (E.D. Wash.)

Public Rights Project collaborated with Santa Clara County to file briefs supporting challenges brought by state attorneys general to recent policy changes to the United States Postal Service (USPS). The brief, joined by 32 local and tribal governments, argues that reliable and efficient mail services are essential to the administration of core local government functions, including election administration, collecting fees and taxes, sending pension payments, and enforcing local ordinances. The brief also emphasizes that local government reliance on USPS is even more acute today because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (SCOTUS)

Public Rights Project collaborated with the City of New York and Freedom for All Americans in filing a local government amicus brief in support of local non-discrimination policies. A private contractor challenged Philadelphia's requirement that contractors place foster children with families without discriminating on the basis of any protected characteristic, including sexual orientation. The amicus brief defends both this policy and the non-discrimination policies of local government serving 53 million residents. Permitting contractors providing government services to opt out of non-discrimination policies based on religious grounds would implicate these local governments in a message of exclusion. Discrimination in government services would also injure their most vulnerable residents seeking food, housing, and transportation among other essential services. 

Matorin et al. v. Massachusetts and Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (Suffolk County Superior Court)

Public Rights Project collaborated with the City of Chicago in filing a local government amicus brief in defense of the Massachusetts eviction moratorium. Two landlords sued to stop the moratorium. The amicus brief defended the decision of the Massachusetts Legislature to impose a temporary moratorium on all nonpayment evictions in the state. While landlords remain able to collect rent that is owed, tenants are protected from displacement due to an inability to pay the rent. The eviction moratorium in Massachusetts is one of dozens across the country put in place to protect the nearly 28 million households at high risk of displacement by eviction due to COVID-19 and the economic downturn.

HIAS v. Donald Trump

PRP helped file amicus briefs on behalf of cities, mayors, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the official non-partisan organization of cities with a population of 30,000 or larger. The amicus briefs support a challenge to stop the Trump Administration from giving states and counties a veto over refugee resettlement. Executive Order 13888 requires states and counties to affirmatively opt into accepting refugees, while ignoring the input of city governments. Cities are responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of their communities, including their refugee communities. Permitting the Administration to ignore the historic and current benefit of refugees to cities ignores Congress’ intent and undermines cities’ ability to match local support to refugee resettlement.

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (SCOTUS)
Pennsylvania v. Trump (SCOTUS)

PRP, partnering with the Oakland City Attorney’s Office, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down two Trump Administration rules that would permit employers to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees and plan beneficiaries. In addition to arguing that the moral exemption rule has no legal justification, the brief also discusses the impact of these rules on the delivery of healthcare in many cities and counties. Because some of them serve as the healthcare provider of last resort, people without contraceptive coverage will seek care from city- and county-run clinics. As a result, local governments will be forced to pay for care that would otherwise be covered by private insurance. In addition, as a result of the rules, some individuals will forego contraceptive care, while others will be forced to obtain less effective types of contraception. These impacts may result in other costs to these communities whether they relate to unplanned pregnancies or health needs of children. 

People of the State of California v. Maplebear, Inc. (Instacart), No. D077380 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2020)

PRP with the City of Oakland and the City of Santa Monica filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit by the City of San Diego to require Instacart to treat their workers as employees. During a pandemic like COVID-19, it’s essential that employers provide their employees with the protections they are entitled to--such as paid sick and family leave, unemployment insurance, and worker’s compensation. Properly classifying their workers as employees would also require companies to pay into the unemployment insurance fund, which is currently experiencing a surge in demand due to coronavirus.

As governments responsible for the health and safety of their communities, cities also know that voluntary company policies cannot substitute for enforceable state and local law. Several state and local governments have already expanded emergency sick leave for workers impacted by the coronavirus. 

Cook County, Illinois and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights v. McAleenan, et al.

PRP helped file an amicus brief on behalf of 30 local governments throughout the country in support of Cook County’s lawsuit to put a stop to the Public Charge Rule. Because local governments operate and fund many of the basic government services that sustain the health and safety of American neighborhoods, they know the effects of this rule firsthand. Families will forgo crucial benefits for fear of immigration consequences, rendering all of our communities less healthy and vibrant.

City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. (N.D. Cal.)

PRP helped file an amicus brief on behalf of 29 local governments throughout the country in support of San Francisco and Santa Clara’s lawsuit to put a stop to the Public Charge Rule. Because local governments operate and fund many of the basic government services that sustain the health and safety of American neighborhoods, they know the effects of this rule firsthand. Families will forgo crucial benefits for fear of immigration consequences, rendering all of our communities less healthy and vibrant.

HomeAway and Airbnb v. City of Santa Monica (9th Circuit)

PRP and local government partners filed amicus briefs in support of Santa Monica’s efforts to combat its housing affordability crisis. In this case, HomeAway and Airbnb sued to block Santa Monica’s short term housing regulation and argued that Santa Monica’s ordinance violated the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. The court ruled in our favor. 

Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (3rd Circuit)

PRP helped to organize an amicus brief of local governments in support of Philadelphia’s wage equity ordinance, which combats the wage gap by prohibiting employers from asking about a prospective employee’s salary history. The Chamber of Commerce challenged the ordinance on First Amendment grounds. 

Zabriskie v. Federal National Mortgage Association (9th Circuit)

PRP and local government partners filed an amicus brief asking the court to reconsider its decision interpreting the Fair Credit Report Act, which would have negative consequences for individuals who seek to access mortgages, rental housing, jobs, and more. 

States of Oregon et al. v. Azar et al. (District of Oregon)

PRP helped to organize an amicus brief of local governments in support of the challenge brought by many state attorneys general to the rule adopted by the Federal Administration that would impose a “gag requirement” prohibiting funds for reproductive care under Title X from going to any clinics that provide services relating to abortion, including abortion referral and counseling. 

Bostock v. Clayton, County, Georgia (SCOTUS)

Altitude Express v. Zarda (SCOTUS)

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (SCOTUS)

PRP helped to organize an amicus brief in support of LGBT workers who had been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether Title VII, federal law protecting employees from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. protects LGBT workers.