|
U.S. child welfare systems often mistake poverty for neglect.  It is time to reconsider the orthodoxy of closed juvenile and family court sessions by letting some sunshine in. The first juvenile court in Chicago was open to the public, but over time many states closed sessions. In 1967, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of due process into juvenile court in In Re Gault. Justice Fortas observed that the excesses of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison to those of our juvenile courts. Comparing the excesses of English monarchs to what occurred in closed juvenile sessions might seem hyperbolic, but the harm done to youth and families in the name of good intent was palpable. We’ve made progress, but promoting a culture of greater transparency furthers the goals of systemic accountability, more rigor in fact-finding, and adherence to burdens of proof— proof beyond a reasonable doubt in youth justice cases and clear and convincing evidence in termination of parental right cases. Closed sessions enhance the danger of cheating the evidence by making comparative judgements about “best interest,” criminalizing and conflating poverty with neglect. Due process equals best interest. Opening the doors or peeking inside would also educate the public about the complexity of the issues explored in this chapter and raise the level of practice of lawyers and jurists. Opening or closing the doors is hardly a radical proposal. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution in 2005 recommending that dependency cases be presumptively open. This is not an either-or proposition. We can presumptively open the doors—as twenty states have done—by creating guard rails that balance privacy and public interest. Safeguards which would prevent stigmatizing youth or their families include precluding the publication of the names of parties and not allowing juvenile court records to be disseminated. Judges can also craft casebased orders regarding court access to particularly sensitive material. No state which has opened its doors has reversed its policy.
0 Comments
The federal government appealed in all four cases, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated all four appeals and also ordered them to be set for argument and decision by the same panel that will consider an appeal involving an individual attorney’s challenge to the denial of a security clearance.  Amicus briefs have been filed by multiple organizations in the consolidated case Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The briefs support four law firms--Perkins Coie LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP, and WilmerHale—that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a series of 2025 executive orders issued by the Trump administration. These orders imposed sanctions, including the revocation of security clearances and directives to terminate federal contracts, in retaliation for the firms' representation of clients and causes the administration viewed as political adversaries. Key arguments presented by Amicus briefs include:
In the consolidated cases, such as Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, the law firms and supporting amici (including the American Bar Association) successfully argued that the 2025 executive orders were unconstitutional on several fronts. Core Constitutional Challenges First Amendment Retaliation & Free Association: The firms argued the orders were an attempt to punish them for protected legal advocacy and political associations. By targeting firms for representing specific clients (e.g., the Democratic National Committee) or causes (e.g., voting rights), the government engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Fifth Amendment Due Process: Plaintiffs alleged the orders effectively "blacklisted" them—denying security clearances and federal contracts—without any fair procedure, notice, or opportunity to respond to accusations of "dishonest" conduct. Separation of Powers: The challenge asserted that the executive branch was usurping judicial power by sanctioning private firms for their conduct in litigation, which is a field exclusively regulated by the courts. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: The firms argued the orders undermined the relationship between attorneys and their clients, interfering with a client’s right to choose their own legal representation without fear of government retribution. Additional Legal Arguments Bill of Attainder: Some arguments likened the orders to unconstitutional Bills of Attainder because they singled out specific entities (like Perkins Coie) for punishment by executive fiat rather than through a judicial trial. Equal Protection: The orders were challenged for imposing restrictions on specific firms without a "rational basis," thereby violating equal protection under the law. Exceeding Procurement Authority: The firms contended the President exceeded authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), arguing that political blacklisting has no legitimate tie to promoting "economy and efficiency" in government procurement. Federal district judges upheld these arguments in 2025, finding the orders were driven by "personal vendettas" rather than legitimate national security or administrative interests Oral arguments for the consolidated appeals are scheduled for May 14, 2026.
They're not DEI. They're sovereign.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has terminated 49 out of 50 awarded grants under the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program, a nearly $300 million initiative. This mass cancellation, occurring in late March and early April 2026, has stalled critical tribal agriculture projects and stripped millions in funding from Native-led organizations.
Rationale for Termination The USDA justified the abrupt cancellations by citing:
Impact on Tribal Projects The loss of these funds has disrupted long-term planning for infrastructure and land acquisition:
Affected organizations are facing immediate operational crises:
Evidence from Jonathan Ross’ fatal shooting of the Minneapolis woman on Jan. 7 is sought as part of a separate case in which a man was convicted of dragging the federal agent with his car.  U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan ordered federal agencies to turn over unredacted files regarding Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis. The order requires the government to produce these records by May 1, 2026, for an in camera (private) review by a magistrate judge to determine if they can be used as evidence.
Context of the Order The ruling does not stem from a direct criminal case for Good’s death, but from the prosecution of Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala . The Connection:
The judge ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office, DOJ, DHS, and ICE to provide a wide range of materials:
A half-century ago, the Indigenous Tsimshian village of Metlakatla, in Southeast Alaska, preserved its reservation when others in Alaska were terminated. Today, the reserve sustains a thriving fishing industry — and the tribe is fighting in court to expand its territory.  The Metlakatla Indian Community on the Annette Islands Reserve is the only Native reservation in Alaska that successfully preserved its fishing culture by opting out of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). While 22 other reservations in Alaska were dissolved in exchange for land and cash payouts, Metlakatla chose to maintain its federal reservation status and the exclusive fishing rights that came with it. Key Factors in Saving Their Culture
Despite their success, the "salmon people" (as they call themselves) face ongoing hurdles:
In a press release about the lawsuit, Do No Harm said the scholarship’s requirement that applicants be “Native Hawaiians” was a violation of federal law and tantamount to “racial discrimination”.  The medical advocacy group Do No Harm filed a federal lawsuit in April 2026 to dismantle the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (NHHSP), arguing that its race-based eligibility criteria are unconstitutional. Key Details of the Lawsuit
About the Scholarship Program Established by Congress under the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, the NHHSP provides full tuition and a monthly stipend to students in exchange for a commitment to serve in medically underserved areas of Hawaii. Since its inception, it has supported more than 320 Native Hawaiian healthcare professionals. Had the Army listened to these red flags along the way, there would not be this many victims.  An eighth Jane Doe has filed an $8 million legal complaint against the United States Army and Department of Defense, alleging that former Dr. Blaine McGraw sexually abused her during medical appointments at the Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) administrative complaint, which also names the Defense Health Agency, was filed Tuesday by the law firm Sanford Heisler—which previously filed seven FTCA complaints in December 2025 on behalf of Jane Does 1-7, whose complaints allege they were also sexually abused by McGraw at Tripler Medical Center and Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center in Fort Hood, Texas. Tort claims under federal statute permits individuals to bring legal challenges against federal agencies, with an administrative complaint first being filed against an agency allegedly at fault. After a six-month period afforded to an agency to investigate, a litigant can then file suit in federal court. “[McGraw] clearly had an M.O.,” attorney Christine Dunn, who is representing Jane Doe 8, stated. “He engaged in unnecessary medical exams that really rose to the level of sexual abuse, and I think that's evident in some of the claims we filed in December. “It's evident in the one we filed today, where he did gratuitous multiple breast exams, those kinds of things. There are a lot of similarities, which is not surprising.” A DOD spokesperson deferred comment to the Army. An Army spokesperson said the service does not comment on ongoing litigation. McGraw's Many Charges It was previously reported that Maj. McGraw is currently facing numerous criminal charges for secretly recording dozens of female patients in the military medical system. On Dec. 9, 2025, the U.S. Army Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) announced that it had preferred four charges and 61 specifications against the obstetrician gynecologist who was assigned to the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center located in Fort Hood. McGraw is charged with 54 specifications for indecent visual recording, five specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, one specification of willful disobedience of a superior officer, and one specification of making a false official statement in violation of multiple articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Army previously stated that leaders suspended McGraw and began investigating him “within hours” after receiving a patient complaint in October 2025. He was serving as an OBGYN at Darnall Medical Center at the time of his arrest. Complaint: McGraw 'Caused Great Distress' A redacted seven-page complaint states that Jane Doe 8 began seeing McGraw at Triper Medical Center as she was seeking to establish a relationship with a new obstetrician-gynecologist (OBG-YN). The redacted complaint does not show the number of times they met, though notes how not all of Jane Doe’s visits were documented in Genesis, the patient portal. The complaint alleges that McGraw “performed unnecessary medical exams on me,” including breast and abdominal exams at multiple appointments when “there was especially no medical reason for so many breast exams. ”McGraw purportedly never asked Jane Doe if she preferred a chaperone during visits, and he allegedly remained in the small room with her as she undressed. She added that in the middle of her appointments, McGraw allegedly answered text messages and phone calls, which she found “inappropriate” and increasingly concerned her that “he videotaped me during these visits without my consent.” He also allegedly commented on her breasts, mentioning “how good” they looked. “His comments struck me as sexual in nature rather than medical, and made me feel exposed, objectified and unsafe in what should have been a professional, medical setting,” the complaint says. Army Ignored 'Red Flags' Dunn said she expects more victims of McGraw to come forward due to the number of patients he had combined with the fortitude of the eight women who so far have filed complaints. When asked about the Army’s culpability and whether they did their due diligence when all of McGraw’s purported nefarious activities took place, Dunn said “there were warning signs along the way” and referenced recent media reports alleging such behavior at Tripler. Other questions the Army is being asked to answer include how much it knew, when it knew it, and why it took so long and so many victims until McGraw was relieved of his duties and later criminally charged. Dunn said just knowing should have been “bad enough,” but having actual knowledge of what occurred and looking the other way would rise to something “really problematic.” The complaints speak for themselves, she added. "I think it's important for a lot of reasons,” Dunn said. “I think it's empowering for survivors to come forward and to tell their stories. I think it's empowering for other survivors who may not have come forward yet to see that people experienced similar victimization. “And I think it's powerful because it puts pressure on the Army. It lets the Army know that there are a lot of women out there who are not going to stand for this behavior and that are calling for accountability.” A preliminary hearing for the original charges was waived by McGraw. The next step is for a neutral officer to be assigned and a date scheduled to conduct a preliminary hearing, the latter of which is required before charges can be referred for trial by general court-martial pursuant to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The ruling in C.B. v. Naseeb Investments, Inc. (consolidated with claims against Northbrook Industries) clarifies the evidentiary standards for "beneficiary" claims against property owners.  In a landmark decision issued on March 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived three civil lawsuits brought by survivors of child sex trafficking, ruling that hotels can be held liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) without having specific knowledge of individual victims. Key Legal Clarifications
Attorneys for the survivors state the opinion "makes it easier for survivors to get to a jury" by lowering the barrier to entry for civil trials. By reversing previous summary judgment wins for the hotels, the Eleventh Circuit has signaled that circumstantial evidence of a hotel "turning a blind eye" may be sufficient to proceed to trial. The cases involved the United Inn and Suites in DeKalb County and the Hilltop Inn in Conley, Georgia. IHS physicians sterilized at least 25 percent of American Indian women between the ages of fifteen and forty-four. Cheyenne tribal judge Marie Sanchez questioned fifty Cheyenne women and discovered that IHS doctors had sterilized twenty-six of them.  During the 1960s and 1970s, the United States government, primarily through the Indian Health Service (IHS), oversaw a campaign of forced and coerced sterilization of Native American women. Investigations and researchers estimate that between 25% and 50% of Native women of childbearing age were sterilized between 1970 and 1976 alone. Scope and Scale of the Practice
|
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.