List of Current Litigation
- Latest Update: Apr 18, 2026
Summary
The summary of our current litigation provides all updates since the previous report.
Freedom of Speech and Association
Protecting free speech, protest, organizing, and association from government censorship, punishment, or retaliation.
*Allen v. Mearns (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/26
These two cases were filed on behalf of a combined 11 undergraduate students at Ball State University, who were disciplined by the university after they entered an administration building with the goal of leaving notes for the university’s president expressing their opposition to the university’s refusal to divest from Israel. They left the building promptly at 5:00pm when it closed. They were disciplined for violating two policies: one prohibiting protests, demonstrations, or assemblies within 50 feet of most buildings on campus, and one requiring students to abide by any directives given to them by university personnel acting within the scope of their duties. Because one of the students was already on “conduct probation,” he received harsher discipline than the other students and was suspended for the spring 2026 semester. We have claimed that the 50-foot policy violates the First Amendment and the other policy violates due process. Because the students all wish to engage in expressive activities near campus buildings in the future, we sought a preliminary injunction against the prospective enforcement of the 50-foot policy. After we filed that motion, Ball Stand changed its policies so that they now prohibit any “protest or demonstration” within campus buildings or within 25 feet of those buildings if they are “audible” from within certain portions of the buildings. We have continued to argue that the now-current policies violate the First Amendment. The cases are proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleish
Brock v. Town of Kouts (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 9/26]
The Town of Kouts has a sign ordinance that violates the First Amendment as it prohibits political signs on residential property unless it is less than 30 days prior to the election. After the suit was filed, the Town agreed to repeal the ordinance. Once the case is formally settled, it will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Carr v. Trustees of Purdue University | McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind. [Filed 9/24]
These two cases, filed on behalf of professors at the above institutions, challenge Senate Enrolled Act 202 that constrains the academic freedom of university professors. An earlier case was dismissed as not ripe, and these two cases were filed and later consolidated. The case was dismissed by the district court on the grounds of ripeness, and the plaintiffs have appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of ripeness, and the case will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Exodus Immigration Inc. v. Rokita (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 9/25]
Attorney General Todd Rokita served a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) on Exodus, demanding responses to 39 interrogatories and 28 separate requests for production of documents seeking, among other things, an overwhelming amount of information as to Exodus’s work with its clients for the last three years, communications concerning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Exodus’s work with persons who are present in the United States without lawful status. The CID is part of a continuing pattern by the Attorney General of sending unreasonable and unlawful requests to immigrant service organizations and other entities across Indiana. These appear to be designed to advance a personal political agenda and to punish and deter organizations that assist, advocate for, and associate with immigrants and refugees. The investigation is without cause and is in bad faith, and we have challenged it on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment. The district court entered a preliminary injunction in plaintiff’s favor and the case is being appealed by the Attorney General’s office.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Lawmaster v. Spivey (U.S. Dist. Ct. - So. Dist. Of Ind.) (Filed 6/26)
Lee Lawmaster made comments to a number of elected officials Facebook pages that read only “86-[name of official].” He was visited by Kurt Spivey who is the Director of Investigations for the Indiana Attorney General’s office. Mr. Spivey, in a conversation that was filmed by a security camera, indicated that his posting of “86” was a threat and that Mr. Lawmaster had “crossed the line” and “we could easily indict you over this today.” Mr. Spivey cautioned Mr. Lawmaster "to tone it down a little bit.” We are seeking both an injunction and damages. We have fully briefed a motion for preliminary injunction and defendant has fully briefed a motion to dismiss.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Luken v. Snyder (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 7/25]
Ms. Luken was a teacher who volunteered to be a chaperone on a school trip to Washington, D.C. that was organized by a private company, not her employe school district. While on the trip she posed with a friend in front of the White House with a t-shirt reading “8647.” She posted it briefly on her Facebook page. After the post received negative attention she was ultimately told she had to resign as a teacher or be fired. She resigned. The case claims a violation of the First Amendment. Cross-motions for summary judgment are being briefed
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Patoka Valley AIDS Community Action Group, Inc. v. City of Loogootee(U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 6/24], and new case filed 1/26
This challenged the denial of the ability of plaintiff to conduct a Pride festival in Loogootee and the constitutionality of a hastily drawn up ordinance to regulate a public events ordinance. Although the festival was eventually allowed to occur in 2024, it was denied again in 2025, and Loogootee passed several iterations of new, but constitutionally infirm, ordinances. We sought another preliminary injunction and summary judgment simultaneously. The court granted our motion for summary judgment as to liability, and we settled the claim regarding the client’s damages. The defendant did not appeal, and the case was closed.
However, in a new turn of events, the City passed yet another new ordinance which reenacted portions of the old ordinance that the Court specifically found to violate the Constitution. We filed a motion in the closed case to hold the City in contempt, We also filed a new case challenging that ordinance. Following our contempt motion and the filing of the new case, the City again amended the ordinance, but several of its unconstitutional provision still remain. The Court held a hearing in March and found the City in contempt and ordered it to change its policy. We are asking for a preliminary injunction so that the 2026 Pride festival may occur as planned in September, and have asked that the Court consolidate the preliminary injunction with a decision on the merits. The Court ruled in plaintiff’s favor and entered a permanent injunction and Loogootee is appealing to the Seventh Circuit.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Pitcher v. Wayne County, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/26]
The plaintiff is a current employee of the Wayne County Coroner’s Office. His personal Facebook account was “blocked” from the official page of the Wayne County Commissioners, apparently due to personal grievances. We filed suit alleging that this violates the First Amendment. The case has since been resolved and will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Ruiz v. City of Indianapolis (U.S. Dist. Co. - So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/26]
Mianna Ruiz and Elaine Thiel are two longtime volunteers at the shelter operated by Indianapolis Animal Care Services (“IACS”), who we previously represented in an action challenging the constitutionality of certain policies applicable to volunteers. In November 2025, IACS disseminated a new Volunteer Handbook applicable to its volunteers. As is relevant here, that handbook prohibits volunteers (a) from engaging in any “disrespectful” behavior (including on social media) and (b) from disseminating any information that they learn as volunteers if that information is not “readily available to the public.” We have filed a lawsuit alleging that both provisions violate the First Amendment. The case is proceeding although the parties have entered settlement negotiations.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose
Smiley v. Jenner (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; 7th Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 6/23]
This is a challenge to a portion of House Enrolled Act 1608, effective July 1, 2023, that prohibits schools and teachers from engaging in “instruction” on “human sexuality” to students who are pre-K through third grade. Our lawsuit, brought on behalf of a teacher, argues that the law is both unconstitutionally vague and violative of the First Amendment. The Court denied our request for a preliminary injunction and the matter is being appealed to the 7th Circuit and was argued in February of 2024. The Court recently ruled against us, and the matter is being closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Sweeney v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [Filed 10/17]
This case challenges a new policy of the DOC that requires that all incoming non-legal correspondence be in plain white envelopes and requires that the correspondence “be on originally purchased, plain white, lined paper (no photocopies).” The case alleges that this violates the First Amendment. The Court certified the case as a class action and entered a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs. The DOC dismissed its appeal of the preliminary injunction, and the parties reached a settlement. The district court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate as required of class actions. The case remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Wirtshafter v. Trustees of Indiana University (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 5/24] + Akou v. Trustees of Indiana University (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 8/24]
These consolidated cases challenge (1) the constitutionality of the no-trespass orders issued to the plaintiffs following their participating in demonstration on Dunn Meadow on the IU Bloomington campus in April that prohibited the plaintiff from returning to campus to exercise their First amendment rights; and (2) Indiana University’s expressive activity policy that prohibits all expressive activities after 11:00 pm. and before 6:00 a.m. IU amended the challenged policy, but the new policy remains unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was entered in our favor. IU then amended the challenged policy once again. The Court recently issued its decision on cross-motions for summary judgment, which was a mixed but positive result for our clients. We won on our claim that the professors’ discipline violated the First Amendment and the Court ordered it expunged from their personnel records. The Court also held that the Professors’ First Amendment rights were violated when they were given the no-trespass orders but that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that there was no clearly established law on point at the time of the violation. No appeals were filed. We have sought attorneys’ fees and the University has also sought fees and costs. The matter has been briefed and we are awaiting a decision on the fee and cost claims.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
*Allen v. Mearns (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/26
These two cases were filed on behalf of a combined 11 undergraduate students at Ball State University, who were disciplined by the university after they entered an administration building with the goal of leaving notes for the university’s president expressing their opposition to the university’s refusal to divest from Israel. They left the building promptly at 5:00pm when it closed. They were disciplined for violating two policies: one prohibiting protests, demonstrations, or assemblies within 50 feet of most buildings on campus, and one requiring students to abide by any directives given to them by university personnel acting within the scope of their duties. Because one of the students was already on “conduct probation,” he received harsher discipline than the other students and was suspended for the spring 2026 semester. We have claimed that the 50-foot policy violates the First Amendment and the other policy violates due process. Because the students all wish to engage in expressive activities near campus buildings in the future, we sought a preliminary injunction against the prospective enforcement of the 50-foot policy. After we filed that motion, Ball Stand changed its policies so that they now prohibit any “protest or demonstration” within campus buildings or within 25 feet of those buildings if they are “audible” from within certain portions of the buildings. We have continued to argue that the now-current policies violate the First Amendment. The cases are proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleish
Brock v. Town of Kouts (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 9/26]
The Town of Kouts has a sign ordinance that violates the First Amendment as it prohibits political signs on residential property unless it is less than 30 days prior to the election. After the suit was filed, the Town agreed to repeal the ordinance. Once the case is formally settled, it will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Carr v. Trustees of Purdue University | McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind. [Filed 9/24]
These two cases, filed on behalf of professors at the above institutions, challenge Senate Enrolled Act 202 that constrains the academic freedom of university professors. An earlier case was dismissed as not ripe, and these two cases were filed and later consolidated. The case was dismissed by the district court on the grounds of ripeness, and the plaintiffs have appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of ripeness, and the case will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Exodus Immigration Inc. v. Rokita (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 9/25]
Attorney General Todd Rokita served a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) on Exodus, demanding responses to 39 interrogatories and 28 separate requests for production of documents seeking, among other things, an overwhelming amount of information as to Exodus’s work with its clients for the last three years, communications concerning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Exodus’s work with persons who are present in the United States without lawful status. The CID is part of a continuing pattern by the Attorney General of sending unreasonable and unlawful requests to immigrant service organizations and other entities across Indiana. These appear to be designed to advance a personal political agenda and to punish and deter organizations that assist, advocate for, and associate with immigrants and refugees. The investigation is without cause and is in bad faith, and we have challenged it on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment. The district court entered a preliminary injunction in plaintiff’s favor and the case is being appealed by the Attorney General’s office.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Lawmaster v. Spivey (U.S. Dist. Ct. - So. Dist. Of Ind.) (Filed 6/26)
Lee Lawmaster made comments to a number of elected officials Facebook pages that read only “86-[name of official].” He was visited by Kurt Spivey who is the Director of Investigations for the Indiana Attorney General’s office. Mr. Spivey, in a conversation that was filmed by a security camera, indicated that his posting of “86” was a threat and that Mr. Lawmaster had “crossed the line” and “we could easily indict you over this today.” Mr. Spivey cautioned Mr. Lawmaster "to tone it down a little bit.” We are seeking both an injunction and damages. We have fully briefed a motion for preliminary injunction and defendant has fully briefed a motion to dismiss.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Luken v. Snyder (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 7/25]
Ms. Luken was a teacher who volunteered to be a chaperone on a school trip to Washington, D.C. that was organized by a private company, not her employe school district. While on the trip she posed with a friend in front of the White House with a t-shirt reading “8647.” She posted it briefly on her Facebook page. After the post received negative attention she was ultimately told she had to resign as a teacher or be fired. She resigned. The case claims a violation of the First Amendment. Cross-motions for summary judgment are being briefed
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Patoka Valley AIDS Community Action Group, Inc. v. City of Loogootee(U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 6/24], and new case filed 1/26
This challenged the denial of the ability of plaintiff to conduct a Pride festival in Loogootee and the constitutionality of a hastily drawn up ordinance to regulate a public events ordinance. Although the festival was eventually allowed to occur in 2024, it was denied again in 2025, and Loogootee passed several iterations of new, but constitutionally infirm, ordinances. We sought another preliminary injunction and summary judgment simultaneously. The court granted our motion for summary judgment as to liability, and we settled the claim regarding the client’s damages. The defendant did not appeal, and the case was closed.
However, in a new turn of events, the City passed yet another new ordinance which reenacted portions of the old ordinance that the Court specifically found to violate the Constitution. We filed a motion in the closed case to hold the City in contempt, We also filed a new case challenging that ordinance. Following our contempt motion and the filing of the new case, the City again amended the ordinance, but several of its unconstitutional provision still remain. The Court held a hearing in March and found the City in contempt and ordered it to change its policy. We are asking for a preliminary injunction so that the 2026 Pride festival may occur as planned in September, and have asked that the Court consolidate the preliminary injunction with a decision on the merits. The Court ruled in plaintiff’s favor and entered a permanent injunction and Loogootee is appealing to the Seventh Circuit.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Pitcher v. Wayne County, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/26]
The plaintiff is a current employee of the Wayne County Coroner’s Office. His personal Facebook account was “blocked” from the official page of the Wayne County Commissioners, apparently due to personal grievances. We filed suit alleging that this violates the First Amendment. The case has since been resolved and will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Ruiz v. City of Indianapolis (U.S. Dist. Co. - So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/26]
Mianna Ruiz and Elaine Thiel are two longtime volunteers at the shelter operated by Indianapolis Animal Care Services (“IACS”), who we previously represented in an action challenging the constitutionality of certain policies applicable to volunteers. In November 2025, IACS disseminated a new Volunteer Handbook applicable to its volunteers. As is relevant here, that handbook prohibits volunteers (a) from engaging in any “disrespectful” behavior (including on social media) and (b) from disseminating any information that they learn as volunteers if that information is not “readily available to the public.” We have filed a lawsuit alleging that both provisions violate the First Amendment. The case is proceeding although the parties have entered settlement negotiations.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose
Smiley v. Jenner (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; 7th Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 6/23]
This is a challenge to a portion of House Enrolled Act 1608, effective July 1, 2023, that prohibits schools and teachers from engaging in “instruction” on “human sexuality” to students who are pre-K through third grade. Our lawsuit, brought on behalf of a teacher, argues that the law is both unconstitutionally vague and violative of the First Amendment. The Court denied our request for a preliminary injunction and the matter is being appealed to the 7th Circuit and was argued in February of 2024. The Court recently ruled against us, and the matter is being closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Sweeney v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [Filed 10/17]
This case challenges a new policy of the DOC that requires that all incoming non-legal correspondence be in plain white envelopes and requires that the correspondence “be on originally purchased, plain white, lined paper (no photocopies).” The case alleges that this violates the First Amendment. The Court certified the case as a class action and entered a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs. The DOC dismissed its appeal of the preliminary injunction, and the parties reached a settlement. The district court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate as required of class actions. The case remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Wirtshafter v. Trustees of Indiana University (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 5/24] + Akou v. Trustees of Indiana University (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 8/24]
These consolidated cases challenge (1) the constitutionality of the no-trespass orders issued to the plaintiffs following their participating in demonstration on Dunn Meadow on the IU Bloomington campus in April that prohibited the plaintiff from returning to campus to exercise their First amendment rights; and (2) Indiana University’s expressive activity policy that prohibits all expressive activities after 11:00 pm. and before 6:00 a.m. IU amended the challenged policy, but the new policy remains unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was entered in our favor. IU then amended the challenged policy once again. The Court recently issued its decision on cross-motions for summary judgment, which was a mixed but positive result for our clients. We won on our claim that the professors’ discipline violated the First Amendment and the Court ordered it expunged from their personnel records. The Court also held that the Professors’ First Amendment rights were violated when they were given the no-trespass orders but that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that there was no clearly established law on point at the time of the violation. No appeals were filed. We have sought attorneys’ fees and the University has also sought fees and costs. The matter has been briefed and we are awaiting a decision on the fee and cost claims.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
LGBTQ+ Issues
Protecting LGBTQ+ people’s freedom to live openly, safely, and equally under the law.
A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville et al (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. Of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals; U.S. Supreme Court) [12/21]
The plaintiff is a transgender boy who, when we filed the case, was attending a middle school within the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville. He has been diagnosed with and receives treatment for gender dysphoria. He wishes to use male facilities in the school He has been required to use either the girls’ restrooms or the single-person restroom in the nurse’s office. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and the school district has appealed to the Seventh Circuit. This appeal has been consolidated with the appeal of the B.E. case. The Seventh Circuit issued a ruling for us in August and the school filed for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied in January. The matter has now been sent back to the district court for further proceedings. The plaintiff is now a student at Martinsville High School. It is set for trial on March. The district court granted plaintiff a permanent injunction concerning restroom usage. Martinsville has appealed the permanent injunction and the matter is fully briefed. The Seventh Circuit held off holding argument pending a decision in the B.P.J. case. Now that the Supreme Court decided B.P.J. , the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on September 28, 2026 and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Allison v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [4/24] Wallace v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [4/24]
These are consolidated challenges by transgender prisoners against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. We are in discovery.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Josh T. Bleisch
K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Ind; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 4/23]
This is the challenge to the transgender health ban (S.E.A. 480). The district court has entered a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going into effect. The State has appealed the decision and the case was argued in February in the 7th Circuit. Although the panel has not yet issued a decision, shortly after the argument it issued a stay of the district court’s injunction, putting the law back into effect. The State had not asked for this stay; the panel did it on its own, which is extremely unusual. This means the law is in effect and gender-affirming hormones can no longer be provided to minors. Additionally, the aiding and abetting provision of the law, also back in effect, prohibits doctors and other practitioners from referring their patients for care out-of-state or even discussing their former patients with out-of-state practitioner seeking to assist the youth. The Seventh Circuit ruled against plaintiffs in a 2-1 decision. The Seventh Circuit denied further review. Skrmetti has now been decided, and the case was sent back to the district court. We have negotiated a dismissal of the remaining claims. There are multiple classes involved in the case and, before it can be dismissed, notice must be given and the district court must conduct a fairness hearing, which his set for September 10. The Court approved the dismissal and the case will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor. From National ACLU: Chase Strangio, Harper Seldin
Pride Center of Terre Haute, Inc. v. President, Indiana State University (“Work Study case”)(U.S. Dist.. Ct. - So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 9/25]
The Pride Center of Terre Haute, Inc. (“Pride Center”) is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to advocating for and creating a positive impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals in and around Vigo County. However, it serves and assists all persons, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. It is operated almost entirely by volunteers, although it has been able to also use student workers from Indiana State University who are paid in part by the Pride Center and in part by federal work-study funds and grants from the Sycamore Community Work Program both of which are administered by Indiana State University. Recently, Indiana State University has terminated all funding for the Pride Center, erroneously claiming that a “Best Practices” statement issued by the United States Department of Justice to avoid discrimination mandates the termination. We have challenged this termination on First Amendment grounds. We sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied and we appealed the case. The Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on October 1, 2026, and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
In re the Change of Gender of V.E. (Ind. Court of Appeals) [Appeal docketed 2/24/26]
V.E., a transgender woman, filed a petition for a court ordered change of gender marker in November 2024. Her local county trial court granted that petition in March 2025. Nearly four months later, the State of Indiana filed a motion to intervene in V.E.’s gender change petition so it could argue that the court order was contrary to state law. The trial court denied the State’s motion to intervene, and the State appealed. We argue in the Indiana Court of Appeals that the trial court made the right decision when it denied the State’s attempt at intervention in this closed case.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
In re the Matter of Z.C. (Marion Co. Superior Court)
R.C. is a transgender woman who filed a petition for a change of name and gender marker in August 2025. In October 2025, the trial court granted R.C.’s petition. But just like in the V.E. case above, the State filed a motion to intervene in a closed—this time seven months after the case’s resolution. The trial court granted the State’s motion to intervene without an opportunity for R.C. to respond or oppose. We filed our appearances and briefed the merits of the State’s motion for relief from the trial court’s order changing R.C.’s gender. The State Court granted the State’s motion for relief from the order, and we have appealed.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
*In re the Matter of Isabella Hughes (Monroe County Circuit Court)
Roman Hughes is a transgender man who filed a petition for a change of name and gender marker in July 2025. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition on October 2, 2025. In late-July 2026, the State of Indiana filed a motion to intervene in the closed case and a motion for relief from the court’s order granting the name and gender-marker change. Following a hearing on September 18, 2026, the trial court denied the State’s motion to intervene.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Stevie J. Pactor
*In re the Matter of A.G. (Monroe County Circuit Court)
A.G. is a transgender, minor girl who was granted an a name and gender-marker change order in February 2026. In late-September 2026, the State of Indiana filed a motion to intervene in the closed case and a motion for relief from the court’s order granting the name and gender-marker change. A hearing on the State’s motion to intervene is scheduled for November.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Stevie J. Pactor
A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville et al (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. Of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals; U.S. Supreme Court) [12/21]
The plaintiff is a transgender boy who, when we filed the case, was attending a middle school within the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville. He has been diagnosed with and receives treatment for gender dysphoria. He wishes to use male facilities in the school He has been required to use either the girls’ restrooms or the single-person restroom in the nurse’s office. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and the school district has appealed to the Seventh Circuit. This appeal has been consolidated with the appeal of the B.E. case. The Seventh Circuit issued a ruling for us in August and the school filed for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied in January. The matter has now been sent back to the district court for further proceedings. The plaintiff is now a student at Martinsville High School. It is set for trial on March. The district court granted plaintiff a permanent injunction concerning restroom usage. Martinsville has appealed the permanent injunction and the matter is fully briefed. The Seventh Circuit held off holding argument pending a decision in the B.P.J. case. Now that the Supreme Court decided B.P.J. , the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on September 28, 2026 and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Allison v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [4/24] Wallace v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [4/24]
These are consolidated challenges by transgender prisoners against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. We are in discovery.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Josh T. Bleisch
K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Ind; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 4/23]
This is the challenge to the transgender health ban (S.E.A. 480). The district court has entered a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going into effect. The State has appealed the decision and the case was argued in February in the 7th Circuit. Although the panel has not yet issued a decision, shortly after the argument it issued a stay of the district court’s injunction, putting the law back into effect. The State had not asked for this stay; the panel did it on its own, which is extremely unusual. This means the law is in effect and gender-affirming hormones can no longer be provided to minors. Additionally, the aiding and abetting provision of the law, also back in effect, prohibits doctors and other practitioners from referring their patients for care out-of-state or even discussing their former patients with out-of-state practitioner seeking to assist the youth. The Seventh Circuit ruled against plaintiffs in a 2-1 decision. The Seventh Circuit denied further review. Skrmetti has now been decided, and the case was sent back to the district court. We have negotiated a dismissal of the remaining claims. There are multiple classes involved in the case and, before it can be dismissed, notice must be given and the district court must conduct a fairness hearing, which his set for September 10. The Court approved the dismissal and the case will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor. From National ACLU: Chase Strangio, Harper Seldin
Pride Center of Terre Haute, Inc. v. President, Indiana State University (“Work Study case”)(U.S. Dist.. Ct. - So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 9/25]
The Pride Center of Terre Haute, Inc. (“Pride Center”) is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to advocating for and creating a positive impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals in and around Vigo County. However, it serves and assists all persons, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. It is operated almost entirely by volunteers, although it has been able to also use student workers from Indiana State University who are paid in part by the Pride Center and in part by federal work-study funds and grants from the Sycamore Community Work Program both of which are administered by Indiana State University. Recently, Indiana State University has terminated all funding for the Pride Center, erroneously claiming that a “Best Practices” statement issued by the United States Department of Justice to avoid discrimination mandates the termination. We have challenged this termination on First Amendment grounds. We sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied and we appealed the case. The Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on October 1, 2026, and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
In re the Change of Gender of V.E. (Ind. Court of Appeals) [Appeal docketed 2/24/26]
V.E., a transgender woman, filed a petition for a court ordered change of gender marker in November 2024. Her local county trial court granted that petition in March 2025. Nearly four months later, the State of Indiana filed a motion to intervene in V.E.’s gender change petition so it could argue that the court order was contrary to state law. The trial court denied the State’s motion to intervene, and the State appealed. We argue in the Indiana Court of Appeals that the trial court made the right decision when it denied the State’s attempt at intervention in this closed case.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
In re the Matter of Z.C. (Marion Co. Superior Court)
R.C. is a transgender woman who filed a petition for a change of name and gender marker in August 2025. In October 2025, the trial court granted R.C.’s petition. But just like in the V.E. case above, the State filed a motion to intervene in a closed—this time seven months after the case’s resolution. The trial court granted the State’s motion to intervene without an opportunity for R.C. to respond or oppose. We filed our appearances and briefed the merits of the State’s motion for relief from the trial court’s order changing R.C.’s gender. The State Court granted the State’s motion for relief from the order, and we have appealed.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
*In re the Matter of Isabella Hughes (Monroe County Circuit Court)
Roman Hughes is a transgender man who filed a petition for a change of name and gender marker in July 2025. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition on October 2, 2025. In late-July 2026, the State of Indiana filed a motion to intervene in the closed case and a motion for relief from the court’s order granting the name and gender-marker change. Following a hearing on September 18, 2026, the trial court denied the State’s motion to intervene.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Stevie J. Pactor
*In re the Matter of A.G. (Monroe County Circuit Court)
A.G. is a transgender, minor girl who was granted an a name and gender-marker change order in February 2026. In late-September 2026, the State of Indiana filed a motion to intervene in the closed case and a motion for relief from the court’s order granting the name and gender-marker change. A hearing on the State’s motion to intervene is scheduled for November.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Stevie J. Pactor
Prisoners’ Rights
Protecting incarcerated people from abuse, neglect, and violations of their constitutional rights.
Rockville “abuse” cases - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/25]
(Weddle, Long, and Johnson v. Mukona)
These are three separate cases filed on behalf of women incarcerated at the Rockville Correctional Facility. For different medical problems, each of the plaintiffs was referred by medical staff at the facility to receive physical therapy. The contracted physical therapist, however, utilized these sessions to sexually abuse and harass the women, including by intentionally forcing contact between the women and his genitalia. All three cases are proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Darty v. Marion County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 3/25]
The Marion County Sheriff prohibits inmates of the jail from receiving physical copies of literature, even when that literature is sent from established publishers or distributors (such as Amazon.com). We filed suit alleging that this policy violates the First Amendment. The case has been certified as a class action. The parties have proposed a settlement to the Court but, because the case has been certified as a class action, notice must be provided to the class and the Court must find the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
*Grigoryan v. Unknown Correctional Officers (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7.2026] *Grigoryan v. Centurion Health (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7.2026]
These two cases arise from issues at Miami Correctional Facility’s use as an ICE detention facility. Mr. Grigoryan has epilepsy, and the medication he takes to prevent seizures must be administered on a consistent schedule in order to prevent seizures. It was not. As a result, he suffered a seizure, hit his head, and was taken to the hospital after staff found him lying in a pool of blood. When he returned from the hospital, he was still disoriented and confused (a state that follows an epileptic seizure). When guards came to move him to another cell, he asked “what was going and why he was being moved.” In response, an officer or officers sprayed him with “OC,” which is made from the oil of hot chili peppers. People who have been sprayed are supposed to receive a decontamination shower to remove the OC. He did not. We have alleged that these actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose, Josh T. Bleisch
*Grubb v. Monroe County Council (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/26]
This is an action challenging the continuing unconstitutional conditions that prevail in the Monroe County Jail. Discovery is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Henson v. Regional Medical Director - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana [Filed 9/25]
Mr. Henson is a prisoner suffering from complex regional pain syndrome 2, which causes severe and unrelenting pain. It has been controlled by medicine delivered through an intrathecal pain pump, a device located in his abdomen with a catheter into his spinal fluid. However, the pump is empty and the DOC has refused to fill it. The pump has finally been filled and we will be attempting to resolve the matter.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Huerta v. Ewing - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [ACLU appointed 4/18]
This is a class action lawsuit challenging conditions at the Vigo County Jail. Kenneth Falk has recently been appointed to represent a class consisting of all the prisoners in the Jail, and summary judgment has been filed. The district court has entered summary judgment for the prisoners, finding that the conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court has scheduled frequent hearings to monitor progress towards building a new jail. The new jail is being built and has opened. However, population issues persist, and the Court is keeping the case open.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Kadamovas v. Director, Bureau of Prisons et al. - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/2023]
This is a putative class action filed on behalf of the inmates being held in the federal death row at the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute. It alleges that the inmates are being held in extreme isolation in a manner that violates the Eighth Amendment. The case is being co-counseled with lawyers from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Injunctive relief is sought on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class. The court denied a motion to dismiss the case and our motion for class certification is awaiting a decision. However, given that President Biden commuted the plaintiff’s death sentence and the death sentences of all but two persons in the unit, the case was stayed in anticipation of the prisoners being transferred to appropriate federal facilities. However, President Trump ordered that they all be transferred to ADX-Florence in Colorado, the most secure and severe federal prison. The move was enjoined by a district court in Washington, D.C. As a result the prisoners remain in the unit in Terre Haute for the indefinite future, and we are reviving the case and moving forward. The district court recently denied our motion to certify the case as a class action, and we are going to be attempting to amend additional plaintiffs into the case.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, co-counsel from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
Kuner v. Warden, New Castle Correctional Facility - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/ 25]
The plaintiff is a prisoner who was not allowed to receive a blank sketch book even though it had been sent directly from Amazon. The case alleges that this denial and any policy upon which it was based violates the First Amendment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court recently entered summary judgment for the Warden.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor. Joshua T. Bleisch
Morris v. Sheriff of Allen County - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/20]
This is a challenge to the conditions at the Allen County Jail. A class has been certified, and we have filed a motion for partial summary judgment that the Court held a hearing on just prior to the holidays. The Court issued summary judgment in favor of the prisoners, finding that conditions in the Jail are unconstitutional, and ordering the defendants to submit a plan as to the short and long-term steps they will take to remedy the constitutional deficiencies that the Court found. The County is building a new jail, and the Court is continuing to monitor the matter.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Samuel Bolinger (cooperating counsel)
Stacy v. Delaware County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 4/24]
The Delaware County Sheriff prohibits inmates of the jail from receiving literature through the mail even when that literature is sent from established publishers or distributors (such as Amazon.com). We filed suit alleging that this policy violates the First Amendment. The district court certified the case as a class action. The parties thereafter reached a settlement and, following notice to the class, the court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY: Gavin M. Rose
Warren v. Howard County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/24]
This is a challenge to the overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions at the Howard County Jail. A class was certified and the Court approved a settlement, which will result in a new jail being built. Ongoing monitoring continues.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Rockville “abuse” cases - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/25]
(Weddle, Long, and Johnson v. Mukona)
These are three separate cases filed on behalf of women incarcerated at the Rockville Correctional Facility. For different medical problems, each of the plaintiffs was referred by medical staff at the facility to receive physical therapy. The contracted physical therapist, however, utilized these sessions to sexually abuse and harass the women, including by intentionally forcing contact between the women and his genitalia. All three cases are proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Darty v. Marion County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 3/25]
The Marion County Sheriff prohibits inmates of the jail from receiving physical copies of literature, even when that literature is sent from established publishers or distributors (such as Amazon.com). We filed suit alleging that this policy violates the First Amendment. The case has been certified as a class action. The parties have proposed a settlement to the Court but, because the case has been certified as a class action, notice must be provided to the class and the Court must find the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
*Grigoryan v. Unknown Correctional Officers (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7.2026] *Grigoryan v. Centurion Health (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7.2026]
These two cases arise from issues at Miami Correctional Facility’s use as an ICE detention facility. Mr. Grigoryan has epilepsy, and the medication he takes to prevent seizures must be administered on a consistent schedule in order to prevent seizures. It was not. As a result, he suffered a seizure, hit his head, and was taken to the hospital after staff found him lying in a pool of blood. When he returned from the hospital, he was still disoriented and confused (a state that follows an epileptic seizure). When guards came to move him to another cell, he asked “what was going and why he was being moved.” In response, an officer or officers sprayed him with “OC,” which is made from the oil of hot chili peppers. People who have been sprayed are supposed to receive a decontamination shower to remove the OC. He did not. We have alleged that these actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose, Josh T. Bleisch
*Grubb v. Monroe County Council (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/26]
This is an action challenging the continuing unconstitutional conditions that prevail in the Monroe County Jail. Discovery is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Henson v. Regional Medical Director - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana [Filed 9/25]
Mr. Henson is a prisoner suffering from complex regional pain syndrome 2, which causes severe and unrelenting pain. It has been controlled by medicine delivered through an intrathecal pain pump, a device located in his abdomen with a catheter into his spinal fluid. However, the pump is empty and the DOC has refused to fill it. The pump has finally been filled and we will be attempting to resolve the matter.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Huerta v. Ewing - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [ACLU appointed 4/18]
This is a class action lawsuit challenging conditions at the Vigo County Jail. Kenneth Falk has recently been appointed to represent a class consisting of all the prisoners in the Jail, and summary judgment has been filed. The district court has entered summary judgment for the prisoners, finding that the conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court has scheduled frequent hearings to monitor progress towards building a new jail. The new jail is being built and has opened. However, population issues persist, and the Court is keeping the case open.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Kadamovas v. Director, Bureau of Prisons et al. - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/2023]
This is a putative class action filed on behalf of the inmates being held in the federal death row at the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute. It alleges that the inmates are being held in extreme isolation in a manner that violates the Eighth Amendment. The case is being co-counseled with lawyers from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Injunctive relief is sought on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class. The court denied a motion to dismiss the case and our motion for class certification is awaiting a decision. However, given that President Biden commuted the plaintiff’s death sentence and the death sentences of all but two persons in the unit, the case was stayed in anticipation of the prisoners being transferred to appropriate federal facilities. However, President Trump ordered that they all be transferred to ADX-Florence in Colorado, the most secure and severe federal prison. The move was enjoined by a district court in Washington, D.C. As a result the prisoners remain in the unit in Terre Haute for the indefinite future, and we are reviving the case and moving forward. The district court recently denied our motion to certify the case as a class action, and we are going to be attempting to amend additional plaintiffs into the case.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, co-counsel from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
Kuner v. Warden, New Castle Correctional Facility - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/ 25]
The plaintiff is a prisoner who was not allowed to receive a blank sketch book even though it had been sent directly from Amazon. The case alleges that this denial and any policy upon which it was based violates the First Amendment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court recently entered summary judgment for the Warden.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor. Joshua T. Bleisch
Morris v. Sheriff of Allen County - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/20]
This is a challenge to the conditions at the Allen County Jail. A class has been certified, and we have filed a motion for partial summary judgment that the Court held a hearing on just prior to the holidays. The Court issued summary judgment in favor of the prisoners, finding that conditions in the Jail are unconstitutional, and ordering the defendants to submit a plan as to the short and long-term steps they will take to remedy the constitutional deficiencies that the Court found. The County is building a new jail, and the Court is continuing to monitor the matter.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Samuel Bolinger (cooperating counsel)
Stacy v. Delaware County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 4/24]
The Delaware County Sheriff prohibits inmates of the jail from receiving literature through the mail even when that literature is sent from established publishers or distributors (such as Amazon.com). We filed suit alleging that this policy violates the First Amendment. The district court certified the case as a class action. The parties thereafter reached a settlement and, following notice to the class, the court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY: Gavin M. Rose
Warren v. Howard County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/24]
This is a challenge to the overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions at the Howard County Jail. A class was certified and the Court approved a settlement, which will result in a new jail being built. Ongoing monitoring continues.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause
Defending religious freedom for all and challenging government actions that favor or impose religion.
Bonds v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/26]
The plaintiff is a Karaite Jew who is being denied the ability to wear a turban, which is part of his religious practices and belief. The case was settled with the client being allowed to wear a turban. It will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. The Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana - (Marion Superior Court) (Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 9.22]
This is a challenge to Indiana’s new abortion law, SEA 1(ss), based on a violation of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The trial court has granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs and class certification, both of which the State appealed. The state requested direct transfer to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in almost all respects in a lengthy decision issued on April 24, 2024. The Court of Appeals affirmed the certification of the class and found that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction, but remanded the case to the trial court so it could make clear that the injunction would only apply to plaintiffs obtaining abortions for their sincere religious beliefs. The State sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court in May. The Supreme Court denied transfer and the case was sent back to the trial court. The trial court entered summary judgment in our favor, and the State has again appealed the case. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear it, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and the case was argued in the Indiana Supreme Court on September 8, 2026, and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. O’Bannon (U.S. Dist. Ct. -So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2000)
In 2000, we filed a lawsuit to challenge then-Governor O’Bannon’s plan to place a Ten Commandments monument onto the Statehouse grounds, to replace a monument that had been there earlier. We obtained an injunction prohibiting the placement. The State filed an unsuccessful appeal to the Seventh Circuit and then sought review in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. Things have been quiet on this front for all this time, but Governor Braun has now filed a motion to vacate the permanent injunction that had been issued so he can place the monument on the Statehouse grounds. The motion to reopen the case has been granted by the district court and the case is moving forward with us having to demonstrate that, under current Establishment Clause jurisprudence, putting the monument on the lawn of the Statehouse is still unconstitutional.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch, Grace Wenstrom
Leatherwood v. Allen and Shannon v. Liebel - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/25]
Terry Leatherwood and Michael Shannon are two Native American inmates at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. In the past, inmates at the facility have been permitted to construct a sweat lodge and to regularly engage in the practice of their religion through service in that lodge (which is constructed of willow branches and is not a permanent structure). In 2020, facility official ceased permitted Native American inmates to engage in these services at the facility but instead informed them that they must request a transfer to another facility where a sweat lodge exists. Both Mr. Leatherwood and Mr. Shannon are “elders” of the Native American community at Pendleton, however, and requesting a transfer would itself violate their religious obligations to their co-religionists. They filed separate pro se lawsuits challenging the failure to allow sweat lodge services at Pendleton. We subsequently entered our appearances in both cases and the cases have been consolidated. Both parties have sought summary judgment and those requests are pending.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Jones v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. - So. Dist. Of Ind.) [Relevant Filing 5/26]
We represented Mr. Jones many years ago and received a judgment, affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, that he was to be provided a halal or kosher diet with at least eight servings of meat a week. This was required by his understanding of Islam. When the DOC ceased providing him with this diet, we filed for contempt. The DOC responded by transferring him to Illinois, ostensibly so he could receive the meat-based diet. However, he was not given even a basic halal diet during his short-time in Illinois. We file an emergency motion that resulted in him being transferred back to Indiana. The Court held the Commissioner in contempt and ordered that we be provided attorneys’ fees. These have been paid and this matter will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk
Rich v. Commissioner of the Ind. Dep’t of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – Nor. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/25]
Sean Rich is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility. While he was briefly allowed to attend congregate orthodox services, consistent with his religious beliefs, after he was transferred to a different housing unit in the facility, he has not been able to do so. This is due to a combination of (a) the refusal by facility staff to bring him to a different housing unit for worship services and (b) DOC policy requiring that an average of at least five inmates participate in congregate services for those services to continue taking place. We have filed suit contending that, regardless of the origin of the failure to accommodate the plaintiff’s religion, this failure is illegal. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Shannon v. Fox (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 11/25]
Michael Shannon is one of the plaintiffs in the Leatherwood/Shannon cases noted above. Shortly after facility staff learned that he had filed a lawsuit challenging the facility’s failure to allow for sweat lodge services, a “shakedown” was conducted of his bed area and virtually all of his religious items were confiscated even though they were authorized by facility policy. Many of these items were either discarded entirely or damaged before being returned to him. We have filed a lawsuit alleging that these actions were conducted in retaliation for Mr. Shannon’s First Amendment exercise (that is, because he filed a lawsuit) and that, regardless of their motive, the actions violate his religious rights. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Bonds v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/26]
The plaintiff is a Karaite Jew who is being denied the ability to wear a turban, which is part of his religious practices and belief. The case was settled with the client being allowed to wear a turban. It will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. The Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana - (Marion Superior Court) (Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 9.22]
This is a challenge to Indiana’s new abortion law, SEA 1(ss), based on a violation of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The trial court has granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs and class certification, both of which the State appealed. The state requested direct transfer to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in almost all respects in a lengthy decision issued on April 24, 2024. The Court of Appeals affirmed the certification of the class and found that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction, but remanded the case to the trial court so it could make clear that the injunction would only apply to plaintiffs obtaining abortions for their sincere religious beliefs. The State sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court in May. The Supreme Court denied transfer and the case was sent back to the trial court. The trial court entered summary judgment in our favor, and the State has again appealed the case. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear it, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and the case was argued in the Indiana Supreme Court on September 8, 2026, and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. O’Bannon (U.S. Dist. Ct. -So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2000)
In 2000, we filed a lawsuit to challenge then-Governor O’Bannon’s plan to place a Ten Commandments monument onto the Statehouse grounds, to replace a monument that had been there earlier. We obtained an injunction prohibiting the placement. The State filed an unsuccessful appeal to the Seventh Circuit and then sought review in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. Things have been quiet on this front for all this time, but Governor Braun has now filed a motion to vacate the permanent injunction that had been issued so he can place the monument on the Statehouse grounds. The motion to reopen the case has been granted by the district court and the case is moving forward with us having to demonstrate that, under current Establishment Clause jurisprudence, putting the monument on the lawn of the Statehouse is still unconstitutional.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch, Grace Wenstrom
Leatherwood v. Allen and Shannon v. Liebel - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/25]
Terry Leatherwood and Michael Shannon are two Native American inmates at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. In the past, inmates at the facility have been permitted to construct a sweat lodge and to regularly engage in the practice of their religion through service in that lodge (which is constructed of willow branches and is not a permanent structure). In 2020, facility official ceased permitted Native American inmates to engage in these services at the facility but instead informed them that they must request a transfer to another facility where a sweat lodge exists. Both Mr. Leatherwood and Mr. Shannon are “elders” of the Native American community at Pendleton, however, and requesting a transfer would itself violate their religious obligations to their co-religionists. They filed separate pro se lawsuits challenging the failure to allow sweat lodge services at Pendleton. We subsequently entered our appearances in both cases and the cases have been consolidated. Both parties have sought summary judgment and those requests are pending.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Jones v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. - So. Dist. Of Ind.) [Relevant Filing 5/26]
We represented Mr. Jones many years ago and received a judgment, affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, that he was to be provided a halal or kosher diet with at least eight servings of meat a week. This was required by his understanding of Islam. When the DOC ceased providing him with this diet, we filed for contempt. The DOC responded by transferring him to Illinois, ostensibly so he could receive the meat-based diet. However, he was not given even a basic halal diet during his short-time in Illinois. We file an emergency motion that resulted in him being transferred back to Indiana. The Court held the Commissioner in contempt and ordered that we be provided attorneys’ fees. These have been paid and this matter will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk
Rich v. Commissioner of the Ind. Dep’t of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – Nor. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/25]
Sean Rich is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility. While he was briefly allowed to attend congregate orthodox services, consistent with his religious beliefs, after he was transferred to a different housing unit in the facility, he has not been able to do so. This is due to a combination of (a) the refusal by facility staff to bring him to a different housing unit for worship services and (b) DOC policy requiring that an average of at least five inmates participate in congregate services for those services to continue taking place. We have filed suit contending that, regardless of the origin of the failure to accommodate the plaintiff’s religion, this failure is illegal. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Shannon v. Fox (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 11/25]
Michael Shannon is one of the plaintiffs in the Leatherwood/Shannon cases noted above. Shortly after facility staff learned that he had filed a lawsuit challenging the facility’s failure to allow for sweat lodge services, a “shakedown” was conducted of his bed area and virtually all of his religious items were confiscated even though they were authorized by facility policy. Many of these items were either discarded entirely or damaged before being returned to him. We have filed a lawsuit alleging that these actions were conducted in retaliation for Mr. Shannon’s First Amendment exercise (that is, because he filed a lawsuit) and that, regardless of their motive, the actions violate his religious rights. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Reproductive Rights
Protecting reproductive freedom, bodily autonomy, and access to essential health care under the law.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health - (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court) [Filed 5/17]
This case challenges portions of Senate Enrolled Act No. 404 that amends Indiana law to:
1) Provide that in a bypass proceeding where a minor can seek judicial permission to obtain an abortion without parental consent the court can order that notice be provided to the parent; requires physicians to execute an affidavit where a parent consents to a minor’s abortion after receiving a photo ID and other unspecified evidence that “a reasonable person under similar circumstances would rely on the information provided . . . as sufficient evidence of [the] identity and relationship” between the minor and parent, and (3) prohibit persons from aiding or assisting an unemancipated minor from seeking an abortion from obtaining one without satisfying the consent or bypass requirements under Indiana law. This last provision would prohibit PPINK from advising minors that they could obtain abortions out of state. A preliminary injunction was granted, and the State is appealing the portion of the preliminary injunction prohibiting it from enforcing the parental-notice requirement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed by a 2-1 decision and rehearing en banc was denied. The State sought review in the United States Supreme Court. On July 2, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case back to the Seventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of June Medical Services. The Seventh Circuit again affirmed the District Court and the State again sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed in light of Dobbs and sent the case back. Following Dobbs the State moved to vacate the preliminary injunction, and we have indicated that we have no grounds to oppose the motion. Dobbs doomed the first argument concerning the notice issue and changes to Indiana’s abortion laws meant that we could no longer pursue the vagueness claims concerning the identification requirements, but we continued to pursue the First Amendment issue. The district court entered summary judgment in our favor on this issue and enjoined the enforcement of the statute. The State appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the court recently ruled in our favor. The State has sought rehearing en banc and the matter is pending.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health - (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court) [Filed 5/11]
This case was previously closed. In 2011, we initiated this lawsuit to challenge Indiana’s then-recent “defunding” statute, which prohibited providers of abortions from receiving any state funds (including federal funds that passed through the state). We prevailed to the extent that the statute applied to Medicaid funds, as the Seventh Circuit concluded that this violated the Medicaid Act’s “free choice of provider” provision, and a permanent injunction was entered against the statute. Last term, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Medina v. Planned Parenthood that this provision may not be enforced in lawsuits by private parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following Medina, the State therefore asked that the injunction we received be vacated based on the change in governing law. After some procedural maneuvering, the district court ultimately granted the State’s request and vacated the injunction.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health - (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court) [Filed 5/17]
This case challenges portions of Senate Enrolled Act No. 404 that amends Indiana law to:
1) Provide that in a bypass proceeding where a minor can seek judicial permission to obtain an abortion without parental consent the court can order that notice be provided to the parent; requires physicians to execute an affidavit where a parent consents to a minor’s abortion after receiving a photo ID and other unspecified evidence that “a reasonable person under similar circumstances would rely on the information provided . . . as sufficient evidence of [the] identity and relationship” between the minor and parent, and (3) prohibit persons from aiding or assisting an unemancipated minor from seeking an abortion from obtaining one without satisfying the consent or bypass requirements under Indiana law. This last provision would prohibit PPINK from advising minors that they could obtain abortions out of state. A preliminary injunction was granted, and the State is appealing the portion of the preliminary injunction prohibiting it from enforcing the parental-notice requirement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed by a 2-1 decision and rehearing en banc was denied. The State sought review in the United States Supreme Court. On July 2, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case back to the Seventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of June Medical Services. The Seventh Circuit again affirmed the District Court and the State again sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed in light of Dobbs and sent the case back. Following Dobbs the State moved to vacate the preliminary injunction, and we have indicated that we have no grounds to oppose the motion. Dobbs doomed the first argument concerning the notice issue and changes to Indiana’s abortion laws meant that we could no longer pursue the vagueness claims concerning the identification requirements, but we continued to pursue the First Amendment issue. The district court entered summary judgment in our favor on this issue and enjoined the enforcement of the statute. The State appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the court recently ruled in our favor. The State has sought rehearing en banc and the matter is pending.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health - (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court) [Filed 5/11]
This case was previously closed. In 2011, we initiated this lawsuit to challenge Indiana’s then-recent “defunding” statute, which prohibited providers of abortions from receiving any state funds (including federal funds that passed through the state). We prevailed to the extent that the statute applied to Medicaid funds, as the Seventh Circuit concluded that this violated the Medicaid Act’s “free choice of provider” provision, and a permanent injunction was entered against the statute. Last term, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Medina v. Planned Parenthood that this provision may not be enforced in lawsuits by private parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following Medina, the State therefore asked that the injunction we received be vacated based on the change in governing law. After some procedural maneuvering, the district court ultimately granted the State’s request and vacated the injunction.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Rights of Those with Disabilities and Medicaid
Defending the rights, dignity, and equal access of people with disabilities, including access to Medicaid and essential care.
Blade v. City of Richmond - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/04]
This case challenges the lack of accessible sidewalks in Richmond, Indiana. A settlement has been reached and has been approved by the Court. It is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Cantrell v. Town of Liberty - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/02]
This is a challenge under the ADA to the fact that the Town of Liberty does not have accessible sidewalks. The case has been settled in plaintiff’s favor. It remains open for monitoring as the sidewalks are made accessible.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Culvahouse v. City of LaPorte (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/06]
This is a class action challenge to the failure of LaPorte to have sidewalks that are accessible to disabled persons as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both sides have sought summary judgment. The trial court has entered partial summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. The parties have entered into a settlement of all remaining issues and the case is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Ind. Protection & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/24]
The Health and Wellness Medicaid Waiver Program is a Medicaid home- and community-based waiver program approved by the federal government. Through this program, eligible persons with disabilities who might otherwise require institutionalization are able to receive services necessary to ensure that they may live in a community environment. For years, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which operates the program, has allowed the parents or other “legally responsible individuals” of waiver enrollees to be reimbursed for providing personal care services to enrollees. This has been absolutely vital for many persons with significant medical needs because home nursing is not universally available and because family members of persons with disabilities have often been trained to attend to medical needs in a way that other potential caretakers have not been. These needs might include G-tube feedings, seizure monitoring and responses, medication administration, and a wide variety of other issues (in addition to, of course, assistance with the activities of daily living). Effective July 1, 2024, FSSA ceased allowing these family members to continue providing these services.
Our clients are the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Administration (which has authority under federal law to pursue claims on behalf of persons with disabilities) as well as two medically fragile children with significant medical needs. We have alleged that FSSA’s changes place enrollees at significant risk of institutionalization and therefore violate the “integration mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. We have further alleged that FSSA’s failure to ensure the availability of home nursing violates Medicaid law. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the two individual plaintiffs only. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the injunction in our favor. The case has been returned to the district court and the parties have reached a settlement.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, attorneys from Indiana Disability Rights
Inspiration Ministries, Inc. v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/23]
Plaintiff has a number of group homes that are identical in structure to other single-family homes. However, defendant is imposing onerous regulatory requirements that are not required of single-family homes occupied by “regular” families. The case alleges that this violates the Fair Housing Act Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families. The State is appealing and the case is being briefed in an appeal consolidated with the cases below.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Next Step Recovery Home, Inc. v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit) [Filed 2/24]
This organization has one group home that is being discriminated against in the same way as the above cases. A preliminary injunction hearing was issued. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Harmony Home of Huntington v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit) [Filed 7/24]
Like the cases above , this case challenges the fact that the State is subjecting a group home for persons with disabilities—alcohol and substance abuse disorders—to more onerous standards than it would if the identical structure were occupied by nuclear families. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Place of Grace v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/24]
Like the cases above, this case challenges the fact that the State is subjecting a group home for persons with disabilities—alcohol and substance abuse disorders—to more onerous standards than it would if the identical structure were occupied by nuclear families. This case seeks damages as well as injunctive relief. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families. The court also ordered the State to pay the group home operator $206,232.11, representing the additional costs that the operator had to pay to build two new single-family homes to the more onerous standard than would have applied if the identical structure was occupied by a nuclear family.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Marshall v. Hankins - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/25]
Joshua Marshall is an inmate at Miami Correctional Facility with a well-documented seizure disorder. After his seizures began to increase in frequency, medical staff at the facility issued a “bottom bunk” pass to Mr. Marshall – which would have promoted his safety by ensuring that he was moved from his upper bunk – and sent this pass to an administrative official. For eleven days, this official failed to process this “bottom bunk” pass. Mr. Marshall then experienced a seizure while getting off his top bunk, resulting in serious injury necessitating that he be transported to the hospital. Mr. Marshall filed a pro se lawsuit against the administrative official responsible for processing the “bottom bunk” pass and two correctional officials to whom he complained, alleging that their actions violated the Eighth Amendment. We subsequently appeared to represent him and the case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Meeker v. Kosciusko Community Fair, Inc. - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14]
The client, who is a person with disabilities, challenges the lack of accessibility of the Kosciusko County Community Fair fairgrounds. A settlement has been filed and has been approved. The case remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Taflinger v. Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2/25]
The plaintiff is a prisoner who suffers from profound hearing loss and has been unable to receive hearing aids. The case alleges that this violates the Rehabilitation Act in that it represents intentional discrimination and a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The plaintiff was provided with hearing aids and the case is proceeding on his claim for damages. Cross-motions for summary judgment are being filed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Targett v. City of Brazil - (U.S. Dist. Ct.- So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/00]
This case challenges the failure of the City of Brazil to maintain accessible sidewalks in violation of the ADA. Discovery is being done. A settlement was approved. Contempt was filed since it is alleged the City has not complied with the settlement. We entered a new settlement which the City did not comply with and we again sought contempt. The matter was resolved, and we are monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
*Williams v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind (Filed 7/26)
Mr. Williams is a prisoner who is totally blind. He was placed in a disciplinary unit where he was not provided any accommodations whatsoever. The suit asked for an injunction and damages. He has now been moved out of segregation into a prison unit where he is receiving accommodations. The action will proceed on plaintiff’s claim for damages.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Blade v. City of Richmond - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/04]
This case challenges the lack of accessible sidewalks in Richmond, Indiana. A settlement has been reached and has been approved by the Court. It is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Cantrell v. Town of Liberty - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/02]
This is a challenge under the ADA to the fact that the Town of Liberty does not have accessible sidewalks. The case has been settled in plaintiff’s favor. It remains open for monitoring as the sidewalks are made accessible.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Culvahouse v. City of LaPorte (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/06]
This is a class action challenge to the failure of LaPorte to have sidewalks that are accessible to disabled persons as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both sides have sought summary judgment. The trial court has entered partial summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. The parties have entered into a settlement of all remaining issues and the case is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Ind. Protection & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/24]
The Health and Wellness Medicaid Waiver Program is a Medicaid home- and community-based waiver program approved by the federal government. Through this program, eligible persons with disabilities who might otherwise require institutionalization are able to receive services necessary to ensure that they may live in a community environment. For years, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which operates the program, has allowed the parents or other “legally responsible individuals” of waiver enrollees to be reimbursed for providing personal care services to enrollees. This has been absolutely vital for many persons with significant medical needs because home nursing is not universally available and because family members of persons with disabilities have often been trained to attend to medical needs in a way that other potential caretakers have not been. These needs might include G-tube feedings, seizure monitoring and responses, medication administration, and a wide variety of other issues (in addition to, of course, assistance with the activities of daily living). Effective July 1, 2024, FSSA ceased allowing these family members to continue providing these services.
Our clients are the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Administration (which has authority under federal law to pursue claims on behalf of persons with disabilities) as well as two medically fragile children with significant medical needs. We have alleged that FSSA’s changes place enrollees at significant risk of institutionalization and therefore violate the “integration mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. We have further alleged that FSSA’s failure to ensure the availability of home nursing violates Medicaid law. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the two individual plaintiffs only. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the injunction in our favor. The case has been returned to the district court and the parties have reached a settlement.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, attorneys from Indiana Disability Rights
Inspiration Ministries, Inc. v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/23]
Plaintiff has a number of group homes that are identical in structure to other single-family homes. However, defendant is imposing onerous regulatory requirements that are not required of single-family homes occupied by “regular” families. The case alleges that this violates the Fair Housing Act Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families. The State is appealing and the case is being briefed in an appeal consolidated with the cases below.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Next Step Recovery Home, Inc. v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit) [Filed 2/24]
This organization has one group home that is being discriminated against in the same way as the above cases. A preliminary injunction hearing was issued. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Harmony Home of Huntington v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit) [Filed 7/24]
Like the cases above , this case challenges the fact that the State is subjecting a group home for persons with disabilities—alcohol and substance abuse disorders—to more onerous standards than it would if the identical structure were occupied by nuclear families. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Place of Grace v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/24]
Like the cases above, this case challenges the fact that the State is subjecting a group home for persons with disabilities—alcohol and substance abuse disorders—to more onerous standards than it would if the identical structure were occupied by nuclear families. This case seeks damages as well as injunctive relief. The district court recently entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, entering an injunction requiring the State to treat the home the same as single-family homes operated by “regular” families. The court also ordered the State to pay the group home operator $206,232.11, representing the additional costs that the operator had to pay to build two new single-family homes to the more onerous standard than would have applied if the identical structure was occupied by a nuclear family.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Marshall v. Hankins - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/25]
Joshua Marshall is an inmate at Miami Correctional Facility with a well-documented seizure disorder. After his seizures began to increase in frequency, medical staff at the facility issued a “bottom bunk” pass to Mr. Marshall – which would have promoted his safety by ensuring that he was moved from his upper bunk – and sent this pass to an administrative official. For eleven days, this official failed to process this “bottom bunk” pass. Mr. Marshall then experienced a seizure while getting off his top bunk, resulting in serious injury necessitating that he be transported to the hospital. Mr. Marshall filed a pro se lawsuit against the administrative official responsible for processing the “bottom bunk” pass and two correctional officials to whom he complained, alleging that their actions violated the Eighth Amendment. We subsequently appeared to represent him and the case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Meeker v. Kosciusko Community Fair, Inc. - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14]
The client, who is a person with disabilities, challenges the lack of accessibility of the Kosciusko County Community Fair fairgrounds. A settlement has been filed and has been approved. The case remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Taflinger v. Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2/25]
The plaintiff is a prisoner who suffers from profound hearing loss and has been unable to receive hearing aids. The case alleges that this violates the Rehabilitation Act in that it represents intentional discrimination and a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The plaintiff was provided with hearing aids and the case is proceeding on his claim for damages. Cross-motions for summary judgment are being filed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Targett v. City of Brazil - (U.S. Dist. Ct.- So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/00]
This case challenges the failure of the City of Brazil to maintain accessible sidewalks in violation of the ADA. Discovery is being done. A settlement was approved. Contempt was filed since it is alleged the City has not complied with the settlement. We entered a new settlement which the City did not comply with and we again sought contempt. The matter was resolved, and we are monitoring.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
*Williams v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind (Filed 7/26)
Mr. Williams is a prisoner who is totally blind. He was placed in a disciplinary unit where he was not provided any accommodations whatsoever. The suit asked for an injunction and damages. He has now been moved out of segregation into a prison unit where he is receiving accommodations. The action will proceed on plaintiff’s claim for damages.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Search and Seizure Issues
Defending people from unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, and other violations of privacy and due process.
Boomershine v. Frame (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 6/26]
Codie Boomershine was approached by a police officer outside of her home who requested that she talked to him about a traffic issue. When she refused and walked into her home he followed her, dragged her outside, and eventually forced her to the ground and arrested her. All charges were dismissed. The case alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk., Joshua T. Bleisch
* Brown v. Zuber et al (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/26]
An anonymous person called the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Department and reported seeing a boy of five or six wearing tractor pajamas walking along the road by himself. Deputies knocked on Ms. Brown’s door, explained that, and asked if she had any kids who might be missing from home. She indicated that her younger son was 10, though might look younger due to his small size. He had walked a few houses down earlier in the morning to visit her mother, though he was not wearing tractor pajamas, and was now home. Officers closed the investigation and asked Ms. Brown to identify herself, which she did not want to do “as she had not done anything wrong and did not want to be listed in a police report” due to a history of being stalked by her ex-husband. As she turned to walk back inside her home, a deputy grabbed her by the arm and accused her of resisting arrest. She was handcuffed and put in the back of a patrol car, where she remained for roughly half an hour. The deputy ultimately released her and apologized, telling her that the officers had discussed the incident and believed it was based on “a horrible misunderstanding.” Even so, on November 14, charges were filed against her for resisting arrest. Those charges were ultimately dismissed.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Josh T. Bleisch
Boomershine v. Frame (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 6/26]
Codie Boomershine was approached by a police officer outside of her home who requested that she talked to him about a traffic issue. When she refused and walked into her home he followed her, dragged her outside, and eventually forced her to the ground and arrested her. All charges were dismissed. The case alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk., Joshua T. Bleisch
* Brown v. Zuber et al (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/26]
An anonymous person called the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Department and reported seeing a boy of five or six wearing tractor pajamas walking along the road by himself. Deputies knocked on Ms. Brown’s door, explained that, and asked if she had any kids who might be missing from home. She indicated that her younger son was 10, though might look younger due to his small size. He had walked a few houses down earlier in the morning to visit her mother, though he was not wearing tractor pajamas, and was now home. Officers closed the investigation and asked Ms. Brown to identify herself, which she did not want to do “as she had not done anything wrong and did not want to be listed in a police report” due to a history of being stalked by her ex-husband. As she turned to walk back inside her home, a deputy grabbed her by the arm and accused her of resisting arrest. She was handcuffed and put in the back of a patrol car, where she remained for roughly half an hour. The deputy ultimately released her and apologized, telling her that the officers had discussed the incident and believed it was based on “a horrible misunderstanding.” Even so, on November 14, charges were filed against her for resisting arrest. Those charges were ultimately dismissed.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Josh T. Bleisch
Second Amendment
Examining cases involving Second Amendment rights and the constitutional limits of firearm regulation.
Plowman v. Bondi - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 9/25)
The plaintiff was convicted of two non-violent felonies (soliciting a bribe and attempted extortion). He has been denied a license for a weapon because of a state statute that denies a gun license to anyone convicted of a felony. The cases are split as to whether the law is constitutional as applied to persons convicted of non-violent felonies, as was Mr. Plowman. The case alleges that the statute violates the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Plowman.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Plowman v. Bondi - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 9/25)
The plaintiff was convicted of two non-violent felonies (soliciting a bribe and attempted extortion). He has been denied a license for a weapon because of a state statute that denies a gun license to anyone convicted of a felony. The cases are split as to whether the law is constitutional as applied to persons convicted of non-violent felonies, as was Mr. Plowman. The case alleges that the statute violates the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Plowman.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Miscellaneous
Addressing civil liberties issues that fall outside core categories but still impact constitutional rights and protections.
Cupp v. Norwell Community Schools (Wells County Circuit Court) [Filed 2/2026)
Ms. Cupp’s daughter has been subjected to the frequent use of restraint and seclusion in her public school. Ms. Cupp has sought a variety of records regarding the district’s policies as to the use of seclusion and restraint, as well as documents specific to her daughter. Despite the clear command of the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, Indiana Code § 5-14-3 (“APRA”), Norwell Community Schools (“NCS”) refuses to provide the requested public records. We have filed a complaint under APRA seeking those records. Note: an attorney from the National Youth Law Center brought this issue to our attention and is working with us informally. It is anticipated that the documents being withheld will contain evidence of violations of various federal laws pertaining to special education, and if that is so, NYLC will continue to represent the client as appropriate on those issues.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
*Litherland v. State (Court of Appeals of Indiana) [Appeal filed 9/26]
Mr. Litherland pleaded guilty in 2016 to two sex offenses regarding children, in which neither victim was his own child. He has completed his term of incarceration and has been released, subject to a term of probation. One of his probation conditions states that he may not have any contact with anyone under the age of 16 (including his own children, who are 14-year-old twins) without court approval. He filed a pro se petition to modify that probation condition, which the twins’ mother did not oppose, and it was denied. We are representing him in his appeal.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Mosha v. English (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 4/26]
Yury Mosha is a Russian national who is currently detained at Miami Correctional Facility while his immigration case proceeds. Under federal law, he is not eligible for release on bond while that case proceeds. In conjunction with attorneys from the Legal Aid Society of New York, who represent him in his immigration case and who are serving as lead counsel, we have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the failure to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to be released on bond. He has now been detained for more than a year and a half. The habeas petition has been fully briefed, and we are waiting on a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Legal Aid Society of N.Y.
Rokita v. IPS (Marion County Superior Court)
We’re in the unusual (for us) position of representing the defendant in this case. Attorney General Rokita filed an action against Indianapolis Public Schools alleging that their policies violate Indiana law by failing to ensure cooperation with federal immigration enforcement “to the greatest extent possible.” The trial court denied the Attorney’s General’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the Attorney General is not appealing. We are awaiting the next move.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose, Josh T. Bleisch
*Shannon v. Appeal Review Officer and Shannon v. Cole (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 9/26]
Michael Shannon is an inmate at Pendleton Correctional Facility who, after a photograph that had been in his possession and received through the mail was discovered, was disciplined by prison officials for violating a rule prohibiting him from possessing certain “personal information” of other persons. The disciplinary proceedings included a number of procedural anomalies, ranging from officials changing the rule he was alleged to have violated after the hearing to uncertainty over what precisely he was alleged to have done wrong. We filed two cases raising due process challenges to the proceedings. Because of a dispute in authority on a procedural issue—the proper mechanism for challenging prison discipline that resulted in a loss of credit time for an inmate sentenced to life (such that he does not earn credit time)—it was necessary to file two separate actions. We have asked that the actions be consolidated, and that request is pending.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
State v. Leach (Huntington Circuit Court)
The client was ordered to pay $50 a week to pay a debt owing to Community Corrections. The order specified that if she failed to do so she would be imprisoned for 60 days. The client was unable to pay as she was pregnant and close to delivery. We filed a motion that sought to relieve her from this obligation. The Court extended the time for her to start paying until July.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Vasel v. Braun - (Monroe County Superior Court) [Filed May 2025]
Prior to May 6, 2025, every institution of higher learning in Indiana that predominantly offers four-year baccalaureate degrees and offers graduate degrees provided a method for alumni of the institution to select members of the institution’s board of trustees. However, Indiana’s recently enacted budget bill, HEA 1001, signed into law by the Governor on May 6, 2025, contains provisions at Indiana Code § 21-20-3-2, et seq. (eff. May 6, 2025), which repealed prior law that gave Indiana University alumni a voice in selecting members of the board of trustees. There is no formal alumni input anymore, and the Governor has removed the three elected trustees and appointed three new ones. The suit alleges that the new law violates the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition of “local” laws. The Court awarded summary judgment to the Governor and we are not appealing. The matter will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Cupp v. Norwell Community Schools (Wells County Circuit Court) [Filed 2/2026)
Ms. Cupp’s daughter has been subjected to the frequent use of restraint and seclusion in her public school. Ms. Cupp has sought a variety of records regarding the district’s policies as to the use of seclusion and restraint, as well as documents specific to her daughter. Despite the clear command of the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, Indiana Code § 5-14-3 (“APRA”), Norwell Community Schools (“NCS”) refuses to provide the requested public records. We have filed a complaint under APRA seeking those records. Note: an attorney from the National Youth Law Center brought this issue to our attention and is working with us informally. It is anticipated that the documents being withheld will contain evidence of violations of various federal laws pertaining to special education, and if that is so, NYLC will continue to represent the client as appropriate on those issues.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
*Litherland v. State (Court of Appeals of Indiana) [Appeal filed 9/26]
Mr. Litherland pleaded guilty in 2016 to two sex offenses regarding children, in which neither victim was his own child. He has completed his term of incarceration and has been released, subject to a term of probation. One of his probation conditions states that he may not have any contact with anyone under the age of 16 (including his own children, who are 14-year-old twins) without court approval. He filed a pro se petition to modify that probation condition, which the twins’ mother did not oppose, and it was denied. We are representing him in his appeal.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Mosha v. English (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 4/26]
Yury Mosha is a Russian national who is currently detained at Miami Correctional Facility while his immigration case proceeds. Under federal law, he is not eligible for release on bond while that case proceeds. In conjunction with attorneys from the Legal Aid Society of New York, who represent him in his immigration case and who are serving as lead counsel, we have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the failure to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to be released on bond. He has now been detained for more than a year and a half. The habeas petition has been fully briefed, and we are waiting on a decision.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Legal Aid Society of N.Y.
Rokita v. IPS (Marion County Superior Court)
We’re in the unusual (for us) position of representing the defendant in this case. Attorney General Rokita filed an action against Indianapolis Public Schools alleging that their policies violate Indiana law by failing to ensure cooperation with federal immigration enforcement “to the greatest extent possible.” The trial court denied the Attorney’s General’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the Attorney General is not appealing. We are awaiting the next move.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose, Josh T. Bleisch
*Shannon v. Appeal Review Officer and Shannon v. Cole (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 9/26]
Michael Shannon is an inmate at Pendleton Correctional Facility who, after a photograph that had been in his possession and received through the mail was discovered, was disciplined by prison officials for violating a rule prohibiting him from possessing certain “personal information” of other persons. The disciplinary proceedings included a number of procedural anomalies, ranging from officials changing the rule he was alleged to have violated after the hearing to uncertainty over what precisely he was alleged to have done wrong. We filed two cases raising due process challenges to the proceedings. Because of a dispute in authority on a procedural issue—the proper mechanism for challenging prison discipline that resulted in a loss of credit time for an inmate sentenced to life (such that he does not earn credit time)—it was necessary to file two separate actions. We have asked that the actions be consolidated, and that request is pending.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
State v. Leach (Huntington Circuit Court)
The client was ordered to pay $50 a week to pay a debt owing to Community Corrections. The order specified that if she failed to do so she would be imprisoned for 60 days. The client was unable to pay as she was pregnant and close to delivery. We filed a motion that sought to relieve her from this obligation. The Court extended the time for her to start paying until July.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
Vasel v. Braun - (Monroe County Superior Court) [Filed May 2025]
Prior to May 6, 2025, every institution of higher learning in Indiana that predominantly offers four-year baccalaureate degrees and offers graduate degrees provided a method for alumni of the institution to select members of the institution’s board of trustees. However, Indiana’s recently enacted budget bill, HEA 1001, signed into law by the Governor on May 6, 2025, contains provisions at Indiana Code § 21-20-3-2, et seq. (eff. May 6, 2025), which repealed prior law that gave Indiana University alumni a voice in selecting members of the board of trustees. There is no formal alumni input anymore, and the Governor has removed the three elected trustees and appointed three new ones. The suit alleges that the new law violates the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition of “local” laws. The Court awarded summary judgment to the Governor and we are not appealing. The matter will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Stay Informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.