The federal legal services program in Massachusetts has repeatedly violated
its ostensible mandate of assisting the poor in their day-to-day legal
needs by litigating on behalf of drug criminals and the right of illegal
aliens to welfare benefits.
Sues City for Confiscating Welfare Cards of Drug Criminals
In 1989, legal services lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against
the city of Lawrence for confiscating the welfare ID cards of people arrested
for drug crimes. Mayor Kevin Sullivan implemented the confiscation
policy after discovering that 80 percent of the people arrested in Lawrence
on drug charges were also receiving welfare. Sullivan argued that individuals
arrested for dealing drugs and making $50,000 a month had no right to be
on welfare. He pointed to one case where a woman on public assistance paid
$10,000 to bail out her husband within hours of his being arrested. However,
Merrimack Valley Legal Services sued the policy claiming that it was unconstitutional
to deprive criminal defendants of their “property,” meaning their welfare
benefits. Sullivan lashed out at legal services accusing them of taking
the side of criminals who are destroying the community and ignoring
the rights of law-abiding citizens. In vowing to fight for his confiscation
policy, Sullivan said he would not allow “some legal services attorney
to dictate to me what the quality of life will be in this city.”
See Renee Graham, “Lawrence Mayor’s Tactics on Drugs Stir Rights
Fears,” The Boston Globe, June 27 1989, pg. 13
Attacks Boston Policy for Quick Eviction of Drug Criminals
In 1993, Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) accused the Boston Police Department and Housing Court of violating the rights of drug dealers by evicting them under a streamlined eviction policy. To clean up troubled neighborhoods and aid frustrated landlords, police began using an old anti-prostitution law to quickly evict drug pushers through an injunction that avoided the cumbersome eviction process. Housing Court judges and landlords had complained that lawyers could too easily drag out the eviction of drug criminals over several months to more than a year under the normal eviction process. The streamlined procedure reduces evictions to just three weeks and has become a favorite tool of the police in their war on drugs. Between 1988 and 1993, between 1000 and 2000 tenants heavily implicated in illegal drug activity were evicted. Despite its great success, GBLS called the speedy evictions “trial by ambush” and a violation of the rights of suspected criminals.
See Matt Carroll, “Drug Dealers Beware,” The Boston Globe,
May 23 1993, pg. A1
Supports Keeping Dangerous Tenants in Public Housing for the Elderly
In 1992, legal services lawyers opposed a congressional law to remove drug abusers and dangerous mental patients from public housing for the elderly. Rep. Chester Atkins (D-MA) drafted the bill following a series of violent crimes against elderly public housing residents by younger “disabled” tenants. The problem began in 1989 when Congress expanded the definition of “disabled” to include drug addicts, alcoholics and mental patients. By being so classified, this qualified them to live in public housing for the elderly. Attention focused on the issue after a 38-year-old former mental patient raped a 90-year-old woman in her publicly-subsidized apartment in Boston. Public housing directors complained that elderly tenants were so frightened that they refused to use elevators or attend social functions for fear of coming into contact with these people. However, Merrimack Valley Legal Services opposed the bill arguing that having dangerous drug addicts and mental patients live with seniors helps "integrate the handicapped . . . into society.” Rep. Atkins rejected such claims and argued that “To put a recovering heroin addict in with 70, 80, and 90 year-olds makes no sense whatever.”
See Casey Anderson, “HUD, Advocates for Disabled Divided
Over Elderly Housing Policy,” States News Services, April 24, 1992
Advocates Welfare for Illegal Aliens
In 1989, legal services lawyers sued the state for withholding $1 million
in welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Faced with a soaring budget deficit,
Governor Michael Dukakis reversed his previous policy and issued an administrative
order to cut off General Relief benefits to approximately 600 illegal aliens.
General Relief went to adults who were ostensibly disabled or unemployed.
Greater Boston Legal Services, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and
Cambridge-Somerville Legal Services immediately sued the cutoff despite
the fact that illegal aliens were still getting state-financed employment
training, day care, English lessons and emergency medical care. A Superior
Court judge overturned the Governor’s order leading one legal services
attorney to call it an important victory for “all people suffering from
the budget-slashing mentality.” The state legislature disagreed with legal
services and passed a law approving the denial of General Relief to undocumented
aliens. Said one Democratic legislator in voting for the bill, “If you’re
here illegally, you don’t have a legal right to anything.”
See M.E. Malone, “Welfare Benefit Cuts Draw Advocates’ Fire,”
The Boston Globe, September 3, 1989, pg. 25
Opposes Linking Welfare to School Attendance
In 1990, Democratic State Senator William Keating introduced a bill
that would limit AFDC benefits to teenagers with excessive school absentee
records and eliminate all assistance to those who drop out. Keating said
his “Educare” bill would reduce the dropout rate and encourage family responsibility.
However, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute criticized the bill, claiming
that linking welfare to school attendance would only aggravate the economic
problems of the poor.
See Renee Loth, “Cool Reaction Faces Bill Linking Welfare, School,”
The Boston Globe, April 18 1990, pg. 26