Legal Services Subjects Michigan Farmers to Regulatory Harassment
Due to a lawsuit filed by Migrant Legal Services of Michigan, the federal
government is threatening to foreclose on hundreds of farmers’ migrant
housing for not adhering to regulations the federal government previously
told them they didn’t have to follow. The case started in the 1980s when
federal farming officials initiated the 514 migrant housing program. The
program offered farmers loans at 1 percent interest to build migrant housing.
However, most farmers didn’t want to apply because of the onerous stack
of regulations an inch-and-a-half thick they had to follow governing the
rent for migrant workers. Eager to get farmers involved, the USDA waived
the regulatory paperwork in return for the farmers agreeing to charge the
migrant workers only utilities and limited rent. Growers signed up and
everything went smoothly until Migrant Legal Services sued the USDA for
waiving the regulatory requirements. In 1996, a federal judge ruled against
the USDA and told them to enforce the regulations. Now, the USDA is telling
the farmers they granted waivers to refund all the utilities and rent they
charged to any migrant worker who ever stayed in their housing. Federal
regulators are telling farmers that they will be prohibited from all federal
programs if they don’t comply. Farmers complain that the end result of
legal services regulatory vise will be to dissuade other farmers from offering
housing to their workers.
See The Great Lakes Fruit Growers News, February 1997
Opposes Policy of Making Illegal Aliens Pay For Their Deportation
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) is currently protesting
a new federal policy of making illegal aliens pay for their transportation
out of the country. Under the U.S. Illegal Immigrant and Migrant Responsibility
Reform Law that went into effect in April, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) stopped giving illegal aliens being deported free transportation
to the border. In cases where the undocumented aliens lack the funds to
pay for their tickets, INS officials take a portion of their money, leaving
them with a small amount for use after returning home. Many Congressmen
and Governors, including Pete Wilson of California, support the policy
as a way to deter the massive influx of illegal aliens seeking work in
the U.S. However, CRLA is protesting the law. CRLA lawyer Claudia
Smith says it is stingy for the federal government to make illegal aliens
bear part of the costs for their deportation.
See “Illegals Pay Their Own Way Home,” Worldsources Online,
April 14, 1997
HUD Sued for Denying Housing Assistance to Illegal Aliens
In 1996, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) sued the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for prohibiting illegal aliens from
receiving federal housing assistance. Pursuant to the federal 1980
Housing and Community Development Act, HUD re-issued regulations in 1995
that restricted federal housing aid to U.S. citizens and certain eligible
aliens. However, CRLA filed suit claiming that the regulation violated
the constitutional rights of citizens and aliens who were denied assistance
because some members of their households were undocumented aliens. A state
district court ruled that a regulation denying citizens the right to cohabitat
with illegal aliens did not substantially interfere with Fifth Amendment
rights to equal protection. The court did rule that HUD must re-work the
regulation for administrative reasons.
See Yolano-Donnelly Tenant Ass’n v. Cisneros, S-86-846 MLS PAN,
E.D. Cal., 1996
Neighborhood Legal Services Sues Welfare Residency Rule
In 1995, Neighborhood Legal Services of Pittsburgh was partly unsuccessful
in its challenge to the state’s 60-day residency rule for welfare applicants.
Prior to 1994, anyone could move to Pennsylvania and immediately
be eligible for General Assistance benefits, a state-run welfare program.
Concerned that the state’s high welfare benefits could make it a haven
for recipients from neighboring states, the state legislature passed a
residency rule requiring newcomers to wait 60 days before applying for
welfare. NLS filed suit on behalf of applicants denied aid under the law,
claiming it violated their constitutional right to travel. Although a state
district court agreed to allow the case to proceed, it rejected NLS’s claim
for preliminary relief. The court ruled that NLS was unlikely to succeed
on the merits because the 60-day rule does not violate an individual’s
right to travel. The court concluded that Pennsylvania’s efforts to encourage
employment and self-reliance is a legitimate goal and the residency rule
advances that goal.
See Warrick v. Snider, No. 94-1634, W.D. Pa., 1995
Maine Prison Sued for Refusing to Allow Inmate to Wear Ear Rings
In 1995, Pine Tree Legal Assistance of Maine won its lawsuit against
the state prison system for refusing to allow a Native American prisoner
to wear ear pieces. Apparently, prison authorities refused to allow the
inmate in question the right to wear his ear rings pursuant to regulations
limiting inmate’s use of jewelry. However, Pine Tree Legal Assistance filed
suit claiming that this interfered with the prisoner’s right to practice
his religious beliefs. It seems the ear pieces were a family heirloom and
according to the man’s tribal beliefs were sacred objects. On appeal before
a state court, the prison commissioner settled the case and agreed to let
the convict resume wearing his ear rings.
See Larkin v. Corrections, No. 94-2014, Me. Cir. Ct., 1995