Following a class certification and preliminary injunction, plaintiffs filed two motions for summary judgment, one with respect to defendants' violation of 5 U.S.C. §706(a), which was denied, and one with respect to defendants' policy being inconsistent with the APA, which was granted. The court found that the defendant's policy of withholding COVID-19 monetary relief from incarcerated individuals was arbitrary and capricious because there was no adequate reason given for excluding them. The court ordered the IRS to "reconsider advance refund payments to those who are entitled to such payment based on information available in the IRS's records."
Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F. Supp. 3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
All charges, state and federal
Class Certification, Monetary Relief, Preliminary Injunction (PI)
Plaintiffs' first motion for summary judgment was denied because the government was not "failing to act" (which is necessary for a 5 U.S.C. §706 violation) by withholding relief to incarcerated people, but rather they were acting in an "arbitrary and capricious way." Their second motion for summary judgment was granted because the IRS's policy was inconsistent with the APA. The court ordered a permanent injunction.
COVID-19 Positive or Symptomatic
COVID-19 in Jail Prison or Detention Center
Crowdsourced legal documents from around the country related to COVID-19 and incarceration, organized, collected, and summarized for public defenders, litigators, and other advocates. Created and managed by Bronx Defenders, Columbia Law School’s Center for Institutional and Social Change, UCLA Law COVID-19 Behind Bars Data Project, and Zealous. Mostly federal court opinions, but now expanding to states and legal filings, declarations, and exhibits.
This resource is designed to help lawyers, advocates, researchers, journalists, and others interested in challenging, remedying, or drawing attention to the grave risk that Covid-19 poses to individuals who are detained.