The federal legal services program in Iowa has long had a reputation
for misusing taxpayer dollars to file ideologically-motivated lawsuits
that have little to do with meeting the poor’s real legal needs. These
controversial cases include opposition to welfare reform, fighting the
seizure of drug dealers’ property and defending violent prisoners. In addition,
Iowa legal services has spent 20 years advocating taxpayer-funded sex-change
operations, an issue of questionable relevance to the poor.
Legal Services Seeks Medicaid Funding for Sex Change Operations
Legal Services Corporation of Iowa (LSCI) is most notorious for its
successful advocacy in the 1970s of Medicaid-funded sex-change operations.
These sex change cases have been often cited by critics of the federal
legal services program as an example of how activist lawyers misuse taxpayer
dollars to pursue controversial agendas. Supporters of the LSC on the other
hand complain that these cases in particular have been overly cited and
are not indicative of the real work of legal services. However, the
Legal Services Corporation of Iowa (LSCI) has in fact aggressively continued
its campaign on behalf of medicaid-funded sex-change operations into
the ‘90s. In 1994, the Iowa Department of Human Services proposed a regulation
to reverse the policy of having the state pay for sex-changes. The state
was prompted into action after yet another individual represented by LSCI
got Medicaid to pay $13,600 for the procedure. The state argued that it
shouldn’t have to expend limited resources for sex-changes when it can’t
even provide essential care for those in need. However, the LSCI lawyer
insisted that Medicaid should pay for sex changes because their cost is
just a “drop in the bucket.” Even the pro-LSC Des Moines Register
supported the state, calling the operation “exotic and expensive.”
See The Des Moines Register, December 12 1994, pg. 10
Opposes Welfare Reform
The Legal Services Corporation of Iowa (LSCI) has strongly opposed Iowa’s
attempts to reform welfare and encourage recipients to become self-sufficient
since the state began experimenting with reforms in 1993. That year, the
federal government granted waivers to the state to implement its Family
Investment Program (FIP). The centerpiece of Iowa’s welfare reform, the
FIP requires welfare recipients to sign agreements detailing how they will
achieve financial self-sufficiency by either getting a job, entering a
job training program or going back to school. Recipients who refuse to
sign the agreements are penalized by having their benefits reduced
for a three month period, reduced again in the next three month period
if still in non-compliance and losing all benefits after nine months. LSCI
steadfastly opposed this self-sufficiency plan from its inception despite
the fact that the plan had overwhelming bipartisan support. Iowa Senator
Tom Harkin (D) even praised the plan saying it could serve as a model for
other states. Nevertheless, LSCI objected to the policy on the grounds
that making welfare recipients work somehow violates federal laws against
illegal medical experiments on humans.
See A. Thomas, “Attorney Attacks Welfare Contracts,” The Des
Moines Register, May 15 1993, pg. 1
Sues State for Disciplining Violent Prison Inmate
In 1993, Legal Services Corporation of Iowa (LSCI) sued the state prison
system for disciplining a violent and dangerous inmate. LSCI’s client,
Ron Cooley, had been disciplined for a variety of infractions in the late
‘80s including assault and other disruptive conduct. In one of the incidents,
Cooley threatened to break the necks of the prison guards for not bringing
him a telephone in a timely manner. In another incident, Cooley again threatened
the guards after confiscating prohibited items in his cell. LSCI tried
to overturn the punishments on the grounds that his threats shouldn’t have
been taken seriously. They contended that the incident where Cooley said
he would break the guards’ necks if he was “on the street” did not constitute
a real threat because he was not on the street when he made the threat.
Likewise, LSCI argued that Cooley shouldn’t have been punished for telling
one of the guards who confiscated his contraband property that “You need
what that son of a @!&* got down at the gym”, a reference to an inmate
assaulted the previous day. LSCI claimed that the statement did not subject
the officer to abusive or defamatory language. A US Appeals Court ruled
against legal services.
See Cooley v. Grossheim, 994 F.2d 842, US App. Ct., 1993
Fights Efforts to Seize Property of Convicted Drug Dealers
In 1991, the Legal Services Corporation of Iowa (LSCI) tried to stop
the federal government from seizing the house that convicted drug dealers
used to commit their crimes. Throughout the 1980s, John and Judy Bly systematically
used their home to buy, sell and consume illegal drugs. In March 1988,
police raided the house and arrested the Blys after discovering illegal
drugs and drug paraphernalia. Both Blys were later convicted of serious
drug charges. In 1990, the US Attorney’s office initiated forfeiture proceedings
of the Bly’s property under federal law which requires that all property
used to commit or facilitate a felony be forfeited. However, LSCI unsuccessfully
tried to keep the property in the Bly’s hands by resorting to a litany
of often far-fetched arguments. For instance, legal services argued
that it was unconstitutional for the government to seize the Bly’s house
because even though they had used it to deal drugs, they had legitimately
acquired it. The federal district court judge rejected the claim noting
that legal services lawyers failed to “explain how using properly acquired
real estate to facilitate drug transactions is constitutionally protected
conduct.”
See United States v. One Parcel of Property, 786 F. Supp.
1497, US Dist. Ct., 1991