Advocacy & Litigation

NAACP and civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll filed a federal lawsuit February 16 accusing Donald J. Trump, Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers of conspiring to incite a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, with the goal of preventing Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election. The lawsuit alleges that, by preventing Congress from carrying out its official duties, Trump, Giuliani and the hate groups directly violated the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. 

Plaintiffs include Representatives Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Karen Bass (D-CA); Steve Cohen (D-TN); Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ); Veronica Escobar (D-TX); Hank Johnson, Jr. (D-GA); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Jerrold Nadler (D-NY); Pramila Jayapal (D-WA); and Maxine Waters (D-CA).

Read the full filing

This case involves a rural town in Tennessee that is on the verge of great financial growth. Mason is predominantly African-American and under predominantly African-American leadership – its Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Financial Officer are all African-American. Under previous leadership, Mason incurred debt that its then-leaders failed to repay. Under its current leadership, however, Mason has taken steps to cut the debt in half, and it has proposed austerity measures that will allow it to repay all amounts owned within 27 months.

The Comptroller seeks to strip Mason of its autonomy. When the leadership of Mason announced that it would not relinquish its charter, the Comptroller threatened Mason with a financial takeover and proposed drastic restrictions that had not existed while Mason was under the previous predominantly white leadership that actually caused the debt.

Read the full filing.

The NAACP Georgia State Conference, with the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, GALEO Latino Community Development Fund, Common Cause, and the Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe, are suing Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and members of the State Election Board to prevent them from enforcing any provisions of SB 202 – Georgia's new voting law that is designed to restrict the right of Georgia citizens to vote. 

The lawsuit states that SB 202 is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race, and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as undue burdens on the right to vote and the right to free speech and freedom of association.

Read the full filing

The NAACP Florida State Conference, along with Disability Rights Florida and Common Cause, sued the Florida Secretary of State on May 6, seeking to prevent the enforcement of S.B. 90, Florida's newly enacted law that suppresses the right to vote and access to the ballot.  S.B.90 disproportionately impacts Black voters by making it more difficult to vote by mail, cast a ballot in ballot drop boxes, and will result in long lines at polling places. The lawsuit claims the statute violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We're seeking to prevent Secretary of State Laurel M. Lee from enforcing the discriminatory and restrictive provisions of the new law.

Read the full filing

On January 20, 2021, the NAACP submitted an amicus brief in Brnovich v. DNC in the U.S. Supreme Court, alongside the Lawyers' Committee, arguing that the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must not be limited. The NAACP brief argues that the Court should uphold the lower court's ruling that Section 2 should be interpreted broadly, in order to allow for continued and effective enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to protect access to the ballot. The brief argues that Section 2 should not be construed to prohibit only restrictions on voting "qualifications" but also must apply to any "time, place or manner" requirements, and that a voting practice can violate Section 2 even if it doesn't impact enough voters to influence an election's outcome.

Read the full filing.

On May 3, NAACP filed an amicus brief in Terkel v. Center for Disease Control in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The brief argues that the CDC's eviction moratorium is a lawful exercise of the federal government's Commerce Clause power.  It explains the disproportionate consequences that COVID-19 has had on the health and financial well-being of people of color and makes it clear that preventing evictions in the face of an unprecedented pandemic is within the government's power. 

State and local NAACP units in North Carolina filed a lawsuit in Iredell County Superior Court seeking the removal of a Confederate monument that sits in front of the Iredell County Government Center in Statesville, NC. The lawsuit alleges that the monument is a glorification of slavery, secession, and white supremacy in violation of multiple provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. We argue that it poses a threat to public safety and is a drain on the public purse, also in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Talbot County, Maryland NAACP, along with the Maryland ACLU and Maryland Public Defender, filed a lawsuit in federal court against Talbot County seeking the removal of the Lost Boys Confederate Statute.  

In Crystal LaVon Mason-Hobbs v. The State of Texas, the Texas State Conference NAACP, alongside the League of Women Voters of Texas, filed an amicus brief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to protect voter participation in Texas. In this case, the defendant, a felon on probation who didn't know she wasn't allowed to vote, was sentenced to five years in prison for casting a provisional ballot. She was found to have violated the Illegal Voting Statute.

The December 2020 brief argues that by criminalizing the act of submitting a provisional ballot when the citizen incorrectly believes that he or she is eligible to vote, the court has undermined the purpose of provisional voting, which allows a citizen to cast a provisional ballot without being turned away. The ballot is only counted as a vote after the individual's eligibility to vote is confirmed. Under state law, a provisional ballot is not a vote and the voter needs to subjectively know that she was ineligible to vote to be convicted. The brief argues that the voter's actions were expressly permitted by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) so they cannot constitute a felony in Texas. If left uncorrected, the Court of Appeals' opinion will threaten the integrity of future elections by deterring voting among citizens who fear criminal prosecution for honest errors in assessing their eligibility to vote.

In 2016, NAACP filed a lawsuit, as co-counsel, against the State of Michigan, the City of Flint, and various other defendants as a result of the Flint water crisis. The lawsuit was consolidated with various other lawsuits filed on this issue. In January 2021, preliminary approval of a partial settlement of $641 million was granted in the consolidated class action in the Eastern District of Michigan, 80% of which is reserved for children. The settling defendants include the State of Michigan, the City of Flint, government officials, medical groups, and hospitals. Frances Gilcreast, President of the Flint NAACP, is a named plaintiff in the settlement. NAACP is working with co-counsel to set up informational sessions for any NAACP members who might have questions about the settlement or who might need assistance registering as members of the class so that they can qualify for compensation. The deadline to register for the partial settlement was March 29, 2021.

On February 1, 2021, in Cook (A.C). v. Raimondo, the NAACP, alongside the Advancement Project, filed an amicus brief in the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court decision. We argue that Rhode Island is not providing adequate preparation for civic participation to its Black and Latinx students, in violation of their equal protection and substantive due process rights. The brief argues that:

• Equal access to quality civics education is critical to a healthy democracy and is an issue of racial justice.
• Federal judicial decisions and Congressional enactments have long recognized that providing equal access to education is necessary to establish racial justice.
• The Courts have long recognized a Constitutional right to participate effectively and intelligently in our political system.
• Rhode Island is not providing adequate preparation for civic participation to Black and Brown students; students of color have had and continue to have inadequate access to education in Rhode Island and throughout the country.
• Inequitable access to civics education for Black and Brown students reduces their ability to participate in civic life and advance on the basis of individual merit.

Read the full filing.

On January 11, 2021, in Harris County, Texas and Kevin Vailes v. Barbara Coats and Ali Amron, the Texas NAACP, alongside the ACLU Foundation of Texas, filed an amicus brief asking for an en banc reconsideration of a panel decision so that constables and their deputies remain accountable for unconstitutional policies and egregious acts of violence.

In this case, a constable deputy in Harris County, Texas suffocated Jamail Amron, a 23-year-old Black man, to death, and the family filed a lawsuit to hold the constable deputy accountable. Under the panel's reasoning, constables and their deputies would largely be immune from municipal liability and could adopt unconstitutional policies that largely fall beyond judicial review; and plaintiffs in civil rights cases would be required to shoulder the impossible burden of disproving all other proximate causes of death. The brief argues that a constable should be considered a "final policymaker" for the county for policies that were promulgated by the constable and caused constitutional violations in a particular case. We believe the court erred in looking to whether the overall function of a deputy constable was to engage in law enforcement and whether the constable's jurisdiction was county-wide to determine whether he is the final policymaker. Left uncorrected, this decision could allow constables to adopt unconstitutional policies with impunity and make it virtually impossible for such policies to be challenged in court, including in cases for injunctive relief. 

The brief argues that the court erred in requiring the plaintiffs to disprove all other possible causes of death, rather than allow liability to be imposed where there are multiple proximate causes of death. The brief states, "No matter how unjustified the use of force may be, a police officer and municipality could claim immunity under the panel decision's reasoning if the victim has an underlying heart condition, is having a heat stroke, or has some other factor contributing to their death."

The en banc court denied the request to rehear the case with a 4-4 vote.