This case, brought by a class of people who are or will be on parole or supervised release in Washington, D.C., challenges the failure of the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system to accommodate individuals with disabilities as required by federal law.
For many, a criminal sentence does not end after leaving custody. Instead, it extends for years—and sometimes a lifetime—in the form of either “parole” or “supervised release.” People subject to these forms of supervision are required to comply with myriad and onerous conditions even after they have returned to their communities. In D.C., failing to follow the most technical conditions can easily land one back in jail or prison—even if no new criminal conduct is alleged. In 2021 and 2022, at least 10% of all alleged supervision violation reports in D.C. were based solely on "technical" violations of release conditions, meaning non-criminal conduct like missing appointments with supervision officers.
People with disabilities, who are over-represented among the supervision population, are set up to fail in the federal government’s supervision system for residents of the District. To meaningfully participate in their supervision, many people with disabilities require reasonable accommodations. For instance, people with disabilities may be unable to fully comprehend the dozens of complex requirements of supervision or to physically move throughout the city to attend the numerous appointments, meetings, and programs that supervision requires. Absent reasonable accommodations, it is exceedingly difficult for many people with disabilities to comply with their supervision requirements. People with disabilities thus face a heightened risk of sanctions—including the imposition of additional and more onerous conditions, the extension of their term of supervision, and even incarceration.
Among all individuals on supervision in D.C., 10% faced violation proceedings for exclusively technical violations in 2021 or 2022; among individuals whom the supervision agency classified as having a mental disability, the proportion was almost twice as high (18%). Those with disabilities are thus denied the same opportunity as others to meet their supervision conditions, and thereby successfully complete supervision. The inability to meaningfully access their supervision, combined with the ever-looming threat of arrest, sanctions, and further imprisonment, leads to severe stress and needless incarceration.
Because of its systematic failure to accommodate individuals with disabilities, the government’s supervision system in D.C. violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Rehabilitation Act requires the government to affirmatively provide reasonable accommodations to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to the benefits of the supervision system—foremost among them, the opportunity to be released from supervision upon successfully completing the supervision term. The United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (“CSOSA”)—the two federal agencies that dictate the conditions of supervision and the consequences of non-compliance for D.C. residents— flout this mandate because they systematically fail to assess people’s accommodation needs and to provide reasonable accommodations. The result is discrimination on the basis of disability at each stage of supervision: when setting conditions of supervision, when enforcing the conditions of supervision, when re-incarcerating people for failing to comply with these conditions, and again when releasing people to the very same conditions that, absent accommodation for their disability, they could not follow to begin with.
Our two named plaintiffs’ experiences on supervision illustrate these systematic violations. Plaintiff W. Mathis is a 70-year-old Black military veteran with congestive heart failure who has been on parole for 18 years. His heart condition makes it difficult for him to travel throughout the city to his multiple supervision appointments each week. His heart condition has also led to numerous hospitalizations and medical appointments at the Veterans Affairs hospital, and Mr. Mathis has been punished—and even incarcerated—for missing supervision appointments on dates when he received medical treatment at the hospital. He was then released on the same supervision conditions he had struggled to meet due to his disability, without any accommodations.
Plaintiff K. Davis is a middle-aged Black man who lives with chronic pain and mobility limitations stemming from third-degree burns, as well as anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. His disabilities make it difficult for him to get to required meetings and otherwise navigate his parole requirements, which include multiple weekly appointments and drug tests. Defendants are aware of Mr. Davis’s disabilities, but nonetheless had him arrested after he did not contact his CSO for a period of less than two weeks, despite the fact that he made it to every single drug testing appointment and tested negative every time. While serving a 12-month prison sentence for technical violations related to his disabilities, Mr. Davis missed a necessary surgery for his burns.
In May 2024, together with the National ACLU, D.C. Public Defender Service. and the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP, we filed this case on behalf of Mr. Mathis, Mr. Davis, and a class of similarly situated people, to require the Commission and CSOSA to implement a system to affirmatively assess people’s accommodation needs and provide the reasonable accommodations they need to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision.
When we filed the case, we moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the Commission and CSOSA to provide our clients with accommodations while the case proceeds. The agencies opposed our motion, and also moved to dismiss the case entirely. They argued, among other things, that our clients hadn't faced disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act because other factors also contributed to their "technical violations" of their conditions of release, and also that the Rehabilitation Act could not be enforced in court because Congress hadn't specifically stated that it could be.
In September 2024, the court granted the preliminary injunction and denied the government's motion to dismiss. The court held that it had authority to enforce the Rehabilitation Act under its inherent power to enjoin violations of federal law. On the merits, the court held that the Rehabilitation Act is violated when the government's failure to accommodate a disability causes obstacles that impede access to a government program or benefit; it doesn’t matter that the plaintiffs may suffer larger, “downstream” harms (like incarceration for failure to comply with conditions of release) because of other factors also. As the court explained, Mr. Mathis and Mr. Davis had a valid claim "the moment their disabilities made it harder for them—compared to their nondisabled counterparts—to participate in the Government’s supervision programs without reasonable accommodations.” Accordingly, the court ordered the Commission and CSOSA to assess what accommodations our clients need and to provide them.
Tragically, Mr. Mathis passed away while the case was ongoing. We continue to litigate on behalf of Mr. Davis, and we have also asked the court to certify a class action. Even though Mr. Mathis did not live to see it, we hope others will benefit from his courageous decision to assert his right to fair treatment.