The federal legal aid program in Minnesota systematically engages in
politically-motivated litigation at the expense of meeting the poor’s true
legal needs. Currently, legal services lawyers are threatening to overturn
a key component of the state’s welfare reform plan.
Threatens to Sue Welfare Residency Rule
Minnesota legal services has said it will likely file a lawsuit challenging
Minnesota’s residency rule restricting welfare benefits for newcomers.
The residency requirement is part of a comprehensive package of welfare
reform measures that went into effect in July. Under the provision, new
residents may not receive welfare benefits for the first 30 days. After
that, they will only get the amount of welfare they would have received
in their previous state. Other states, most notably Wisconsin, have implemented
similar residency rules -- which have also led to legal services lawsuits.
Officials attach special importance to the residency rule because Minnesota’s
welfare reform entails a generous collection of job training, child care
and health care benefits. To contain costs, the state seeks to discourage
people from moving in just to collect welfare. In some counties, out-of-state
residents comprise nearly a third of welfare applicants. However, the Minneapolis
Legal Aid Society and Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance are threatening to
sue to overturn the measure. Legal Aid contends that the residency rule
is unconstitutional because it violates the poor’s freedom of movement.
Legal services attorneys are confident of success because in 1993
they struck down another residency rule Minnesota had sought to implement.
See Jean Hopfensperger, “New Set of Welfare Changes,” Star Tribune,
June 30, 1997, pg. 1A
Public Housing Residents Criticize Legal Aid Over Housing Suit
Minneapolis public housing residents are upset with the Minneapolis
Legal Aid Society for placing them on a class action lawsuit without their
consent. The controversy stems from a suit settled in 1995 that charged
the city of Minneapolis and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
with segregating minorities in public housing. As a result of the suit,
$100 million is to be spent building new housing that would deconcentrate
minorities into the suburbs. However, ethnic Hmong who live in one area
of public housing are protesting what they consider a forced relocation.
In a letter to Legal Aid, Hmong representatives complained, “We never
gave our consent to Legal Aid to represent us.” Kent Hill, Executive Director
of the Minnesota Tenant Union calls it a “class action suit without the
involvement of the class.” The Hmong are asking a federal judge to stop
their relocation. The Hmong said that Legal Aid’s suit is breaking up their
community where a common language and culture provide the group with support.
When Legal Aid filed the suit in 1992, city officials said that the accusation
of deliberate segregation was unfounded because many minority groups want
to live in the same neighborhoods as their family and friends.
See Randy Furst, “Hmong Ask Judge to Reopen Housing Settlement,”
Star Tribune, July 18, 1997, pg. 3B
Tries to Stop Deportation of Violent Criminal
In 1996, Southern Minnesota Legal Services tried to stop the deportation
of an immigrant who had committed a violent crime. The case began when
the Immigration and Naturalization Service ordered Kou Thao deported after
being convicted for assault using a firearm. Legal services’ case turned
on whether the offense constituted a serious enough crime to justify deportation.
A federal court ruled against legal services, holding that the law allows
immigration authorities to order an alien deported if he used a weapon
in the commission of a crime.
See Thao v. INS, No. 95-2272, U.S. App. Ct., 1996
Legal Services Overturns Welfare Residency Rule
In 1993, Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance overturned the state’s residency rule that limited welfare benefits for new residents. Minnesota adopted the measure in 1991 to discourage people from migrating to the state to collect welfare. Under the measure, individuals could not receive payments higher than their home state’s benefits for at least six months. The law was enacted to help reduce the state’s welfare budget by $200 million. However, legal services immediately filed a lawsuit to overturn the law on the grounds that it violated the poor’s constitutional right to travel. The state contended that the law didn’t effect the poor’s right to travel because they were still guaranteed the same amount of welfare they were receiving in their previous state. However, in 1993 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled for legal services, rejecting the state’s claim that controlling government spending was a legitimate reason to restrict benefits.
SeeMitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 1993
Minneapolis City Council Cuts Legal Aid Budget Over Costly Lawsuits
In 1992, the Minneapolis City Council voted to cut funding for the Legal
Aid Society of Minneapolis after filing costly lawsuits against the city.
Council members became exasperated with Legal Aid after the group filed
two major lawsuits against the city in just a period of a few months. One
suit accused the city of deliberately segregating minorities in public
housing. That case was settled in 1995 and will cost the city and federal
government $100 million. In cutting Legal Aid’s funding by $54,000,
one council member said, “We are both trying to help find more low-income
housing. Paying attorneys’ fees does not seem to me to be the best way
to get at housing needs.”
See Doug Grow, “City Hall Feeling Less Than Liberal,” Star Tribune,
December 18, 1992, pg. 3B