Federally-funded legal services programs in Texas violate their mission
of helping the deserving poor by engaging in illegal political advocacy
and representing accused criminals.
Legal Services Championed Sandinista Cause in the ‘80s
One of the most famous cases of legal services political advocacy occurred
in 1988 when Texas Rural Legal Aid (TRLA) sued the federal government for
trying to stop a protest group from transporting supplies to the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua. The “Veterans Peace Convoy,” a loose-knit group
of U.S. veterans, attempted to transport food, medicine and trucks to Nicaragua
despite the fact that the country was under a U.S. trade embargo at the
time. After the convoy was blocked at the border by customs officials,
TRLA successfully sued to allow the food and medicine to proceed. Because
the case was so blatantly political and none of the plaintiff’s were even
eligible for legal services representation, the LSC cut $150,000 from the
group’s $4.3 million budget. However, the Corporation was later forced
to restore the money so that TRLA was never effectively sanctioned for
the illegal action.
See Dawn Weyrich, “Funds Cut for Legal Group,” The Washington
Times, May 18, 1990, pg. A5
Bail Bondsmen Sued for Apprehending Fugitive
East Texas Legal Services is currently suing a bail bond company for allegedly violating the civil rights of a fugitive they arrested for missing a court appearance. The man in question, Brian Landry, was arrested in Lafayette, Louisiana and charged with felony theft. He then entered a bail agreement with A-Able Bonding. Like all bail agreements, Landry posted bail on the promise that he would show up for court. However, Landry left town and missed his court appearance. After discovering that he was living in Port Arthur Texas, A-Able bondsmen promptly drove to Port Arthur, arrested him without incident and transported him to the Lafayette Parish Jail. It was then that East Texas Legal Services sued A-Able claiming that they violated Landry’s civil rights. Legal services argued that Landry was falsely imprisoned because the bail bondsmen had no right to arrest him even though he was a “fugitive from justice” and the law clearly allows bail agents to arrest such individuals. While a U.S. Appeals Court dismissed this part of legal services claim, the court ultimately sided with legal services because the bondsmen technically violated the law by not taking Landry before a Texas judge following his arrest. East Texas is also seeking monetary damages to compensate Landry for the “fear and emotional distress caused by his arrest and detention during the two and one-half hour drive from Texas to Louisiana.” The case was sent back to U.S. District Court where it is to be retried.
See Landry v. A-Able Bonding, Inc., 75 F.3d 200, US App.
Ct., 1996
TRLA Tries to Stop Drug-Related Eviction
In 1994, Texas Rural Legal Aid (TRLA) tried to stop the eviction of
a public housing tenant involved in illegal drug activity. TRLA’s client,
Maria Barajas, shared an apartment with Angel Segura at the Le Moyne Gardens
Housing Project in Harlingen, Texas. Police began investigating Segura
after receiving confidential information that he was selling cocaine to
virtually anyone who came to the project. Segura was arrested after selling
cocaine to an undercover officer behind the apartment. Segura pled guilty
to the charges. The housing authority then moved to evict Barajas for complicity
in her roommate’s drug crimes. TRLA took the authority to court claiming
that they violated Barajas’ right to due process by not giving her a hearing
before proceeding with the eviction. A state appeals court rejected TRLA’s
defense as lacking merit because federal law clearly allows a public housing
authority to immediately evict any tenant involved in drug-related criminal
activity.
See Barajas v. Housing Authority of the City of Harlingen, 882
S.W.2d 853, Tex. App. Ct., 1994
Teacher Competency Test Called Discriminatory
In 1989, East Texas Legal Services helped bring a lawsuit against the
Texas school system claiming that the state engaged in racial discrimination
by requiring minority school teachers to take a teacher competency test.
The state instituted the Texas Examination for Current Administrators and
Teachers (TECAT) in the 1980s to insure that all teachers have basic reading
and writing skills. East Texas filed suit on behalf of four black school
teachers who lost their jobs after failing the test. Legal services argued
that the passing score was deliberately set to insure that a disproportionate
number of black teachers failed. As evidence, legal services cited
statistics which showed that minority teachers failed the test at higher
rates than whites. However, in 1993 a U.S. Appeals Court rejected
all the claims because of the insignificant disparities in the pass rate.
It seems 99.75% of white teachers passed the test as opposed to 95.5% of
black teachers. The court held that a 4 percentage point disparity was
insufficient to prove that the state was using the TECAT to deliberately
reduce the number of minority teachers.
See Frazier v. Garrison, 980 F.2d 1514, US App. Ct., 1993
Dallas Ban on Public Sleeping Challenged
In 1995, Legal Services of North Texas encouraged homeless people to sue the city of Dallas for enforcing a ban on sleeping in public. After the city began issuing citations in the fall, homeless advocate John Fullinwider protested the measure by camping out downtown. Legal services assisted Fullinwider by helping him prepare a form that homeless people could use to file suit against the city. Noting that free shelters were available to the homeless, Mayor Ron Kirk called it irresponsible for activists to encourage the homeless to sleep in the winter weather.
See Laura Griffin, “Homeless Advocate Protests Public Sleeping
Ban,” The Dallas Morning News, Dec. 19 1995, pg. 28A