The summary of our current litigation provides all updates since the previous report.
Freedom of Speech and Association
Bilbrey v. Sproles - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/23]
After posting a critical comment, Kristopher Bilbrey was “blocked” from a Facebook page operated by Henry County Sheriff John Sproles. Although the page was originally created as a “candidate page,” since Sheriff Sproles took office in January of 2023 he has routinely utilized the page to post official governmental communications. The lawsuit alleges that the blocking of Mr. Bilbrey violates his First Amendment rights. The district court recently entered partial summary judgment in our favor, concluding that the “blocking” of our client violated his First Amendment rights and requiring that he be “unblocked.” The remainder of the case was subsequently settled. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Carr v. Trustees of Purdue University
McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind. [Filed 9/24]
These 2 cases 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. It is currently being briefed at the Seventh Circuit.
ATTORNEY(S): 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.) [Filed 9/25]
Recently, 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 is 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. We are seeking injunctive relief and have filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Grundell v. Asbury - (Ind. Ct. App.) [Filed 7/25]
After multiple encounters with Trooper Grundell of the Indiana State Police, where Keith Asbury believes that Trooper Grundell acted inappropriately, Mr. Asbury created a satirical Facebook page dedicated to his criticisms of Trooper Grundell. Trooper Grundell thereafter sought an order of protection against Mr. Asbury and, while both parties were proceeding pro se, the trial court issued such an order that, among other things, required Mr. Asbury to “take down” the Facebook page in question. We entered our appearances in order to appeal the trial court’s order to the extent that it requires the removal of the Facebook page.
ATTORNEY(S): Joshua T. Bleisch, Gavin M. Rose
Patoka Valley AIDS Community Action Group, Inc. v. City of Loogootee - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 6/24]
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. 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 time for the defendant to appeal has not yet run.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
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. We are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Swierc v. President of Ball State University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 9/25]
This case challenges the termination of a Ball State University employee for her protected speech on Facebook regarding the killing of Charlie Kirk. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages.
ATORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose
Wirtshafter v. Trustees of Indiana University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 5/24]
This challenges 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. Damages are sought. A motion for partial summary judgment is being briefed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Akou v. Trustees of Indiana University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist of Ind.) [Filed 8/24]
This is a challenge to the new policy at Indiana University that prohibits all expressive activities after 11:00 pm. and before 6:00 a.m. The case has been consolidated with the Wirtshafter case. 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 parties are now briefing summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Bilbrey v. Sproles - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/23]
After posting a critical comment, Kristopher Bilbrey was “blocked” from a Facebook page operated by Henry County Sheriff John Sproles. Although the page was originally created as a “candidate page,” since Sheriff Sproles took office in January of 2023 he has routinely utilized the page to post official governmental communications. The lawsuit alleges that the blocking of Mr. Bilbrey violates his First Amendment rights. The district court recently entered partial summary judgment in our favor, concluding that the “blocking” of our client violated his First Amendment rights and requiring that he be “unblocked.” The remainder of the case was subsequently settled. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Carr v. Trustees of Purdue University
McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind. [Filed 9/24]
These 2 cases 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. It is currently being briefed at the Seventh Circuit.
ATTORNEY(S): 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.) [Filed 9/25]
Recently, 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 is 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. We are seeking injunctive relief and have filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Grundell v. Asbury - (Ind. Ct. App.) [Filed 7/25]
After multiple encounters with Trooper Grundell of the Indiana State Police, where Keith Asbury believes that Trooper Grundell acted inappropriately, Mr. Asbury created a satirical Facebook page dedicated to his criticisms of Trooper Grundell. Trooper Grundell thereafter sought an order of protection against Mr. Asbury and, while both parties were proceeding pro se, the trial court issued such an order that, among other things, required Mr. Asbury to “take down” the Facebook page in question. We entered our appearances in order to appeal the trial court’s order to the extent that it requires the removal of the Facebook page.
ATTORNEY(S): Joshua T. Bleisch, Gavin M. Rose
Patoka Valley AIDS Community Action Group, Inc. v. City of Loogootee - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 6/24]
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. 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 time for the defendant to appeal has not yet run.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
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. We are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Swierc v. President of Ball State University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 9/25]
This case challenges the termination of a Ball State University employee for her protected speech on Facebook regarding the killing of Charlie Kirk. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages.
ATORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose
Wirtshafter v. Trustees of Indiana University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 5/24]
This challenges 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. Damages are sought. A motion for partial summary judgment is being briefed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Akou v. Trustees of Indiana University - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist of Ind.) [Filed 8/24]
This is a challenge to the new policy at Indiana University that prohibits all expressive activities after 11:00 pm. and before 6:00 a.m. The case has been consolidated with the Wirtshafter case. 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 parties are now briefing summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
LGBTQ+ Issues
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) [Filed 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. But the Seventh Circuit has indicated it will not take up the case until after the Supreme Court decides the BPJ case next year that deals with a ban on transgender female athletes in middle and high school.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Cordellioné v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 8/23]
This case challenges the new statute, Ind. Code § 11-10-3-3.5(a) [eff. 7/1/23], that bans transgender prisoners within the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. The district court granted our motion for preliminary injunction on September 17, 2024, and ordered that the DOC take steps to provide the plaintiff with surgery at the earliest opportunity. After being argued on appeal, because the client was due to be released from incarceration, the suit was voluntarily dismissed. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Allison v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/24]
This is another challenge by a transgender prisoner against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. This case recently sprung back into action after Cordellione was dismissed. We are in discovery.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Wallace v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/24]
Yet another challenge by a transgender prisoner against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. This case recently sprung back into action after Cordellione was dismissed. We are in discovery.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
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 is back at the district court to litigate a narrow subset of remaining issues..
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
From National ACLU: Chase Strangio, Harper Seldin
L.A. v. Braun - (U.S. Dist. Ct.-So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit) [Filed 3/25]
Governor Braun’s Executive Order 25-36. issued March 4, 2025, is entitled “Respecting the Biological Dichotomy Between Men and Women as a Fundamental & Deeply Rooted Legal Principle Embedded in Indiana,” and is similar to one issued by President Trump. Based on this, the Department of Health is refusing to honor state court decisions that order that gender markers on birth certificates be changed. The lawsuit alleges that this violates both equal protection and due process. A preliminary injunction was denied, and we have appealed that decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Pride Center of Terre Haute, Inc. v. President, Indiana State University (“Work Study case”) - (U.S. Dist.. Ct. - So. Dist. of Ind.) [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 and are seeking injunctive relief. We have filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
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) [Filed 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. But the Seventh Circuit has indicated it will not take up the case until after the Supreme Court decides the BPJ case next year that deals with a ban on transgender female athletes in middle and high school.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Cordellioné v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 8/23]
This case challenges the new statute, Ind. Code § 11-10-3-3.5(a) [eff. 7/1/23], that bans transgender prisoners within the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. The district court granted our motion for preliminary injunction on September 17, 2024, and ordered that the DOC take steps to provide the plaintiff with surgery at the earliest opportunity. After being argued on appeal, because the client was due to be released from incarceration, the suit was voluntarily dismissed. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Allison v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/24]
This is another challenge by a transgender prisoner against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. This case recently sprung back into action after Cordellione was dismissed. We are in discovery.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Wallace v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/24]
Yet another challenge by a transgender prisoner against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. This case recently sprung back into action after Cordellione was dismissed. We are in discovery.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
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 is back at the district court to litigate a narrow subset of remaining issues..
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
From National ACLU: Chase Strangio, Harper Seldin
L.A. v. Braun - (U.S. Dist. Ct.-So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit) [Filed 3/25]
Governor Braun’s Executive Order 25-36. issued March 4, 2025, is entitled “Respecting the Biological Dichotomy Between Men and Women as a Fundamental & Deeply Rooted Legal Principle Embedded in Indiana,” and is similar to one issued by President Trump. Based on this, the Department of Health is refusing to honor state court decisions that order that gender markers on birth certificates be changed. The lawsuit alleges that this violates both equal protection and due process. A preliminary injunction was denied, and we have appealed that decision.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Pride Center of Terre Haute, Inc. v. President, Indiana State University (“Work Study case”) - (U.S. Dist.. Ct. - So. Dist. of Ind.) [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 and are seeking injunctive relief. We have filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Joshua T. Bleisch
Prisoners’ Rights
Miami “dark cell” cases - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed at different times in 2021]
These cases involve prisoners who were confined in restrictive housing (segregation) cells at Miami Correctional Facility that did not have working lights and where the windows were covered with sheet metal. Many of the cells had live wires hanging from where the fixtures had been and in some of the cases prisoners were shocked by the wires. We are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The first-filed case was Blanchard, followed by those also listed below, all in the Northern District of Indiana. Most of the cases have settled and only two remain pending. We have so far recovered over one million dollars in damages for our clients.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
- Anderson v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Blanchard v. Hyatte (Filed 3/21) (settled)
- Bennett v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Brisker v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21) (settled)
- Campbell v. Hyatte (Filed 12/21) (settled)
- Carter, T. v. Hyatte (Filed 9/21) (settled)
- Carter, C. v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21) (settled)
- Duckworth v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Hackner v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Lukes v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Calvin Lyons v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Charles Lyons v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Maxwell v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Mitchell v. Hyatte (Filed 9/22) (settled)
- Nur v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- O’Neal v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Owen v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Parish v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Priscal v. Hyatte (Filed 3/22) (settled)
- Pryor v. Hyatte (filed 7/22) (settled)
- Reed v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Rodgers v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Rollins v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Sapp v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Thompson v. Hyatte (Filed 1/22) (settled)
- Wagner v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Werden v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21) (settled)
- Winners v. Hyatte (Filed 2/22) (settled)
ATTORNEY(S): 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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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. We have filed a motion to have the case certified as a class action, and the case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): 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 2 persons in the unit, the case has been stayed and is likely to be dismissed when people are transferred out of the unit.
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 case is proceeding.
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 condition 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.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Samuel Bolinger (cooperating counsel)
Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/08]
This is a case challenging the conditions at the Monroe County Jail. The case has been settled and is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
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, and the case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): 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.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Welch v. Hartz - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/25]
Mr. Welch is a prisoner who was denied a photocopy of a book concerning criminal justice standards promulgated by the American Bar Association because the copy allegedly violated copyright law. The litigation claimed that the denial violated the First Amendment. The Department of Correction agreed that Mr. Welch could have the materials. The case has been dismissed following the successful settlement and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Miami “dark cell” cases - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed at different times in 2021]
These cases involve prisoners who were confined in restrictive housing (segregation) cells at Miami Correctional Facility that did not have working lights and where the windows were covered with sheet metal. Many of the cells had live wires hanging from where the fixtures had been and in some of the cases prisoners were shocked by the wires. We are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The first-filed case was Blanchard, followed by those also listed below, all in the Northern District of Indiana. Most of the cases have settled and only two remain pending. We have so far recovered over one million dollars in damages for our clients.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
- Anderson v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Blanchard v. Hyatte (Filed 3/21) (settled)
- Bennett v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Brisker v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21) (settled)
- Campbell v. Hyatte (Filed 12/21) (settled)
- Carter, T. v. Hyatte (Filed 9/21) (settled)
- Carter, C. v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21) (settled)
- Duckworth v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Hackner v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Lukes v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Calvin Lyons v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Charles Lyons v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Maxwell v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Mitchell v. Hyatte (Filed 9/22) (settled)
- Nur v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- O’Neal v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21) (settled)
- Owen v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Parish v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Priscal v. Hyatte (Filed 3/22) (settled)
- Pryor v. Hyatte (filed 7/22) (settled)
- Reed v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Rodgers v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Rollins v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Sapp v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21) (settled)
- Thompson v. Hyatte (Filed 1/22) (settled)
- Wagner v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21) (settled)
- Werden v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21) (settled)
- Winners v. Hyatte (Filed 2/22) (settled)
ATTORNEY(S): 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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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. We have filed a motion to have the case certified as a class action, and the case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): 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 2 persons in the unit, the case has been stayed and is likely to be dismissed when people are transferred out of the unit.
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 case is proceeding.
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 condition 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.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Samuel Bolinger (cooperating counsel)
Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/08]
This is a case challenging the conditions at the Monroe County Jail. The case has been settled and is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
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, and the case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): 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.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Welch v. Hartz - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/25]
Mr. Welch is a prisoner who was denied a photocopy of a book concerning criminal justice standards promulgated by the American Bar Association because the copy allegedly violated copyright law. The litigation claimed that the denial violated the First Amendment. The Department of Correction agreed that Mr. Welch could have the materials. The case has been dismissed following the successful settlement and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause
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 has been sent back to the trial court where it is moving forward with a summary judgment argument set for December.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, 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 has been sent back to the trial court where it is moving forward with a summary judgment argument set for December.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Joshua T. Bleisch
Reproductive Rights
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 has appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the case has been argued.
ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, etc. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana - (Monroe Circuit Court; Indiana Supreme Court; Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 8/22)
This is the challenge to Indiana’s new abortion law (S.E.A.1[ss]) based on a violation of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction. The State appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the preliminary injunction on June 30, 2023. However, the reversal left open the question of whether the very narrow health care exception in S.E.A. 1 [ss] satisfies the limited state-constitutional right that the Supreme Court recognized. A new injunction was sought on the grounds that the above-noted health exception is unconstitutionally narrow. After a three day trial in May, the trial court issued a decision on September 11, 2024 that upheld the constitutionality of the statute. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed and we have sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.
ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose, Stevie Pactor, and attorneys from Wilmer Hale, national Planned Parenthood, and the Lawyering Project
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. We have informed the Court that we recognize that vacatur may be appropriate but that we would like to consider whether any other grounds exist to challenge the law. The State’s motion remains pending.
ATTORNEY(S); 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 has appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the case has been argued.
ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, etc. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana - (Monroe Circuit Court; Indiana Supreme Court; Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 8/22)
This is the challenge to Indiana’s new abortion law (S.E.A.1[ss]) based on a violation of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction. The State appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the preliminary injunction on June 30, 2023. However, the reversal left open the question of whether the very narrow health care exception in S.E.A. 1 [ss] satisfies the limited state-constitutional right that the Supreme Court recognized. A new injunction was sought on the grounds that the above-noted health exception is unconstitutionally narrow. After a three day trial in May, the trial court issued a decision on September 11, 2024 that upheld the constitutionality of the statute. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed and we have sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.
ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose, Stevie Pactor, and attorneys from Wilmer Hale, national Planned Parenthood, and the Lawyering Project
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. We have informed the Court that we recognize that vacatur may be appropriate but that we would like to consider whether any other grounds exist to challenge the law. The State’s motion remains pending.
ATTORNEY(S); Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Rights of Those with Disabilities and Medicaid
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(S): 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(S): 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(S): 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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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. Injunctive relief is sought. The case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Next Step Recovery Home, Inc. v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2/24]
This organization has 1 group home that is being discriminated against in the same way as the above cases. A preliminary injunction hearing was issued. The case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Harmony Home of Huntington 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. Injunctive relief is sought. The case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): 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 case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Johnson v. Ind. Dep’t of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 3/25]
Michael Johnson is a deaf individual who was incarcerated at Plainfield Correctional Facility, operated by the DOC, for approximately two years until his release in late 2024. Because he is not able to hear, during his incarceration he was denied a wide array of programs or services, including the ability to make phone calls, the ability to participate in classes, the ability to participate in disciplinary hearings, and even the ability to attend meals and recreation (as these are announced orally and often during periods when many inmates are asleep). We have filed suit alleging that the failure to accommodate Mr. Johnson’s disability violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): 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 has finally been provided with hearing aids and the case is proceeding on his claim for damages.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): Kenneth J. Falk
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(S): 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(S): 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(S): 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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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. Injunctive relief is sought. The case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Next Step Recovery Home, Inc. v. State of Indiana - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2/24]
This organization has 1 group home that is being discriminated against in the same way as the above cases. A preliminary injunction hearing was issued. The case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Harmony Home of Huntington 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. Injunctive relief is sought. The case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): 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 case is being briefed on summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Johnson v. Ind. Dep’t of Correction - (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 3/25]
Michael Johnson is a deaf individual who was incarcerated at Plainfield Correctional Facility, operated by the DOC, for approximately two years until his release in late 2024. Because he is not able to hear, during his incarceration he was denied a wide array of programs or services, including the ability to make phone calls, the ability to participate in classes, the ability to participate in disciplinary hearings, and even the ability to attend meals and recreation (as these are announced orally and often during periods when many inmates are asleep). We have filed suit alleging that the failure to accommodate Mr. Johnson’s disability violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): 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 has finally been provided with hearing aids and the case is proceeding on his claim for damages.
ATTORNEY(S): 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(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Search and Seizure Issues
Goring v. Town of Farmersburg - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (filed 9.25)
The case alleges that Cole Pickett, who was then a Deputy Marshal employed by the Farmersburg Police Department, assaulted Victoria Goring without cause, notice, or warning, and forced her roughly to the ground and handcuffed her. This caused a fracture of the scaphoid bone in her right wrist and other injuries and has caused continuing painful physical and emotional injuries to Ms. Goring. Deputy Town Marshal Pickett acted in violation of Ms. Goring’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for which he is liable and committed torts for which his then-employer, the Town of Farmersburg, is liable under Indiana law.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
K.S. v. Milleman - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 1/24)
K.S. is a 7th grader who was subject to a search when a false report was made that she had a gun, made apparently by a student who had falsely reported in the past. In front of a school nurse and male administrator she was forced to lift up her shirt to show her waist and was forced to lift up her outer garments and pull the bottom of her bra away from her body. The case alleges that this violates the Fourth Amendment. This case has settled and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Singleton v. Starke County Deputy Sheriff McKee - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/24]
The plaintiff was stopped without cause and placed in handcuffs because of his “attitude.” He was eventually released without receiving a ticket. Damages are sought and the case is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
S.H. v. Milleman - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 1/24)
S.H. is a sophomore who on two occasions was subject to intrusive searches by a male school administrator and a female school nurse to look for a vape. The searches involved, among other things, the student being required to pull out the front of her bra and expose part of her breasts. The case alleges a Fourth Amendment violation. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Goring v. Town of Farmersburg - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (filed 9.25)
The case alleges that Cole Pickett, who was then a Deputy Marshal employed by the Farmersburg Police Department, assaulted Victoria Goring without cause, notice, or warning, and forced her roughly to the ground and handcuffed her. This caused a fracture of the scaphoid bone in her right wrist and other injuries and has caused continuing painful physical and emotional injuries to Ms. Goring. Deputy Town Marshal Pickett acted in violation of Ms. Goring’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for which he is liable and committed torts for which his then-employer, the Town of Farmersburg, is liable under Indiana law.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Joshua T. Bleisch
K.S. v. Milleman - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 1/24)
K.S. is a 7th grader who was subject to a search when a false report was made that she had a gun, made apparently by a student who had falsely reported in the past. In front of a school nurse and male administrator she was forced to lift up her shirt to show her waist and was forced to lift up her outer garments and pull the bottom of her bra away from her body. The case alleges that this violates the Fourth Amendment. This case has settled and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Singleton v. Starke County Deputy Sheriff McKee - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/24]
The plaintiff was stopped without cause and placed in handcuffs because of his “attitude.” He was eventually released without receiving a ticket. Damages are sought and the case is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
S.H. v. Milleman - (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 1/24)
S.H. is a sophomore who on two occasions was subject to intrusive searches by a male school administrator and a female school nurse to look for a vape. The searches involved, among other things, the student being required to pull out the front of her bra and expose part of her breasts. The case alleges a Fourth Amendment violation. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Second Amendment
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 U.S. 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. No answer as yet been filed by the defendants.
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 U.S. 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. No answer as yet been filed by the defendants.
ATTORNEYS: Joshua T. Bleisch, Kenneth J. Falk
Miscellaneous
McLachlan v. DOC - (Marion County Superior Court)
Indiana had not executed anyone since 2009, but in December 2024, the State started them up again. Before the executions restarted, the federal/state capital case teams that represented some condemned inmates sought records from DOC under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) regarding the lethal injection drugs to be used. The drugs have been very difficult for the State to secure, and there are significant concerns that the drugs are inappropriate for this purpose, for veterinary use, expired, etc. We were contacted by the capital defense team representing Roy Ward to see if we could do anything to try to get them the records, because his APRA requests were also denied. Ultimately the State disclosed a small group of records for a court’s in camera review, but that process did not result in Roy being able to challenge his execution on Eighth Amendment grounds. He is scheduled to be executed on October 10, 2025.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, 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 repeal 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.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
McLachlan v. DOC - (Marion County Superior Court)
Indiana had not executed anyone since 2009, but in December 2024, the State started them up again. Before the executions restarted, the federal/state capital case teams that represented some condemned inmates sought records from DOC under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) regarding the lethal injection drugs to be used. The drugs have been very difficult for the State to secure, and there are significant concerns that the drugs are inappropriate for this purpose, for veterinary use, expired, etc. We were contacted by the capital defense team representing Roy Ward to see if we could do anything to try to get them the records, because his APRA requests were also denied. Ultimately the State disclosed a small group of records for a court’s in camera review, but that process did not result in Roy being able to challenge his execution on Eighth Amendment grounds. He is scheduled to be executed on October 10, 2025.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, 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 repeal 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.
ATTORNEY(S): 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.