Filed

In April 2017, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Sixth Circuit in support of a lawsuit that would prohibit discrimination against blind voters. 

In several states, such as Oregon, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, an online ballot-marking tool allows blind voters to mark absentee ballots privately and independently, without forcing them to rely on sighted individuals to cast their ballot for them. Our brief argues that this accommodation is legally required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

In November 2017 the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had stated a claim and were entitled to prove their case. 

(Hindel v. Husted; attorneys include ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg and National ACLU Attorneys Sophia Lin Larkin and Claudia Center.)

Read our Fall 2018 Legal Docket.

Before potential jurors can be selected for a trial, a question-and-answer process known as “voir dire” is used to test whether they can be impartial, unbiased, and don’t have any conflicts of interest. In Wayne County, Jeffrey Six was put on trial for criminal financial fraud. As part of his defense, he alleged that his former domestic partner, a man, was the one who actually engaged in the fraudulent transaction. Because this defense would require jurors to learn that he is gay, his attorneys requested that the jury voir dire include an inquiry into the jurors’ attitudes regarding gay relationships. The judge denied the request and Mr. Six was convicted. In 2018 the ACLU of Michigan joined Lambda Legal in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the Michigan Court of Appeals arguing that the right to a fair trial and an impartial jury requires voir dire regarding anti-gay bias when the fact of an LGBT relationship is inextricably bound up with the issues to be decided at trial. In 2020 the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for an explanation as to why the voir dire was not allowed. Following proceedings on remand, in 2021 we submitted an additional friend-of-the-court brief reaffirming our support of allowing voir dire to include inquiries regarding anti-gay bias. In April 2022, however, the Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision affirming the judge’s denial of the voir dire request. Mr. Six did not appeal. (People v. Six; ACLU Attorney Jay Kaplan; co-counsel Ethan Rice, Richard Saenz, and Max Isaacs of Lambda Legal.)

In 2017 Detroit Police Chief James Craig was provided with the report of the Committee on Race and Equality (CORE), a special investigative committee he had established in response to complaints of discrimination within the department. The report found that high-ranking command staff had engaged in racial discrimination, intimidation, and retaliation, that the department had a “racial problem,” and that racism was directed from command staff to the rank and file. Chief Craig rejected the findings of the report, however, and suspended CORE’s work. Just days later, Johnny Strickland, an African American police officer who had been with the department for ten years, was confronted, accosted, handcuffed and detained without cause by several white officers. Officer Strickland was off duty and inadvertently entered a suspected crime scene under investigation. Although Strickland identified himself as a police officer, one white officer continually screamed profanities in Strickland’s face and sarcastically ridiculed his tenure on the police force, calling him “stupid,” “dumb,” and an “idiot.” Another white officer purposely tightened handcuffs in order to cause injury, and still another conducted an unauthorized, unjustified K-9 search of Strickland’s vehicle. In 2018 the ACLU of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit on Officer Strickland’s behalf, alleging racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation. As part of our discovery in the case, the court ordered Chief Craig to sit for a deposition. In November 2019 Judge Nancy Edmunds dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that there was not enough evidence of discrimination, racial hostility, and retaliation to proceed with the case. In April 2021 the Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling that the retaliation and excessive force claims should proceed to trial. The case went to trial in December 2022, and the jury returned a verdict in Strickland’s favor, awarding him damages in the amount of $150,000. (Strickland v. City of Detroit; ACLU Attorneys Mark P. Fancher, Dan Korobkin, and Syeda Davidson; Cooperating Attorney Leonard Mungo.)