Federally-funded legal services lawyers in Virginia improperly engage
in a variety of ideological cases that includes opposition to welfare reform
and fighting the eviction of drug dealers from public housing.
Opposed State Welfare Reform Plan
In 1995, the LSC-funded Virginia Poverty Law Center was in the forefront
of the campaign to defeat Governor George Allen’s welfare reform plan.
The plan requires recipients to seek work after 90 days, cuts off benefits
after two years and denies additional assistance to welfare recipients
who have children. The measure had strong bipartisan support including
that of Democratic Lt. Gov. Donald Beyer who argued that “there has to
be a shift of responsibility from the government to the individual.”
However, the Law Center denounced the reforms as “anti-family” and accused
Democrats of lacking “the courage of their convictions” in supporting the
measure. After the legislature overwhelmingly approved the reforms, the
Law Center unsuccessfully lobbied the federal government to deny the state’s
application for the requisite waivers.
See Margaret Edds, “Assembly Passes Welfare Reform,” The Virginian
Pilot, February 26 1995, pg. A1
Advocates Expansion of Welfare Entitlements
The opposition of Virginia’s LSC grantees to welfare reform comes as
no surprise given their lengthy history of advocating major increases in
spending on the same entitlement programs. For instance, in 1989 the Virginia
Poverty Law Center and Rappahannock Legal Services filed a federal lawsuit
in an unsuccessful attempt to force the state to provide automatic cost-of-living
increases in AFDC payments. (Guidice v. Jackson, US Dist. Ct., 1989). That
same year, three LSC grantees including the Legal Aid Society of Roanoke
joined in a suit seeking to significantly expand welfare payments by excluding
non-AFDC welfare assistance in calculating a household’s eligibility for
AFDC (Stroop v. Jackson, US App. Ct., 1989). In 1990, five Virginia
LSC grantees filed suit in an attempt to force the state to increase its
Medicaid spending by overturning its relatively strict eligibility standards
(Mowbray v. Sullivan, US App. Ct., 1990).
Keeping Drug Dealers in Public Housing
In 1992, the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society of Richmond won a lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development for attempting to evict drug dealers from public housing. The case began in 1990 when HUD and the Justice Department teamed up to implement the Forfeiture Project, an aggressive program to combat drugs in public housing by allowing authorities to quickly evict suspected drug criminals. HUD Secretary Jack Kemp said that such swift and dramatic evictions would send a signal that the government was determined to rid public housing of drugs. However, the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society immediately sued the policy on the grounds that it violated constitutional rights to due process. A federal court agreed and struck down the policy .
See Richmond Tenants Org. v. Kemp, 956 F.2d 1300,
(US App. Ct.) 1992
Aiding and Abetting Drug Crime in Alexandria Public Housing
In 1994, Legal Services of Northern Virginia (LSNV) sued the Alexandria
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (AHRA) for terminating rental assistance
to a woman who had allowed illegal drug activity to take place at her apartment.
During a search of an apartment leased by Stacey Clark, police seized quantities
of heroin, cocaine and assorted drug paraphernalia. David Clark, Ms. Clark’s
estranged husband, admitted to owning the heroin and later pled guilty
to possession of cocaine. The ARHA then terminated Stacey Clark’s
Section 8 rental subsidy pursuant to HUD regulations which require the
termination of assistance to participants if they or their family members
engage in drug-related criminal activity. Despite Stacey Clark’s complicity
in her husband’s crimes, LSNV argued that the ARHA improperly terminated
Clark’s subsidy because David Clark, her legal husband, could not be considered
a family member even though he lived in the home with Stacey and kept his
personal property on the premises (most notably the drugs). Legal services
argued that because Stacey didn’t tell the authority that David was living
with her, the authority never officially classified David as “family" and
thus couldn't terminate Stacey’s assistance on the basis of a family member’s
crimes. On May 30, 1996, the Fourth US Appeals Court upheld the termination
of assistance to Clark, noting that legal services’ strained interpretation
of federal law would undermine the ability of housing authorities to fight
crime.
See Clark v. Alexander, 85 F.3d 146, (US App. Ct.) 1996
Defends Man Who Wanted $100 for Urine Sample
In 1992, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society sought unemployment
benefits for a man fired from his job for trying to sell his urine sample
as a condition for participating in a drug test. The case began when Gerald
Carter told his employer that he would only participate in a mandatory
drug test if the company paid him $100 for each of his urine samples. After
rejecting his offer, Carter refused to comply with the test and was fired.
Under Virginia law, individuals are only qualified for unemployment if
they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The Charlottesville-Albemarle
Legal Aid Society contended Carter deserved unemployment because the drug
test was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy. A state appeals court
rejected legal aid’s claim, ruling that Carter evinced “a mind obviously
motivated by personal gain rather than constitutional concerns.”
See Carter v. Extras, 420 S.E.2d 713 (VA App. Ct.) 1992