NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
D.C. Court Holds the District of Columbia in Contempt for Withholding Budget Records
On February 11, 2026, the D.C. Superior Court held the District of Columbia in contempt for failing to release public‑records in Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP v. District of Columbia. The ruling concerns budget‑related documents that TPM first sought in a 2019 FOIA request related to DL v. DC, a special education case related to preschoolers. The Court ordered disclosure in 2021, and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed in 2025, but the District still did not produce the records.
Finding noncompliance with its 2021 order, the Court directed the District to produce—and post online—complete OSSE and DCPS budget‑request materials for FY 2019–2026 within 21 days, including Form Bs and related budget-needs documentation. The District will face a $1,500 daily fine if it misses the deadline.
More information about this case is here. Contact Todd Gluckman at tgluckman@tpmlaw.com or 202-204-8482 with any questions.
TPM Informs the Superior Court that Mayor Bowser Continues to Flout the Court’s Open Government Orders
In 2020, TPM brought a DC Freedom of Information Act case against the District of Columbia because the Mayor refused to turn over budget materials that reflect determinations by DC agencies about how much money they need to do their work. DC law requires that information be made public. TPM’s position was supported by the D.C. Council as well as various open government groups. TPM prevailed in the Superior Court and then in the Court of Appeals in June 2025. The Court of Appeals underscored the importance of this issue by quoting the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he generation that made the nation ... committed itself to the principle that a democracy cannot function unless the people are permitted to know what their government is up to.”
The same issues have for years been at play in a similar and longstanding conflict between the D.C. Council and the Mayor related to the Council’s access to the budget information. On October 14, 2022, the Washington City Paper reported on these interrelated open government issues in an article titled, “Bowser Fights Budget Transparency. No One Is Surprised.”
After TPM’s case returned to the Superior Court in August 2025 to determine what additional injunctive relief should be issued, the Mayor has continued to refuse to produce the budget documents that TPM sought. TPM moved for contempt in November 2025 and that motion is pending.
TPM recently learned that, on January 6, 2026, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff issued a memo instructing all agency heads that they should continue to withhold such budget request documents from the D.C. Council and, further, that they should assert the same deliberative process and executive privileges that were rejected by the Courts in TPM’s case. On January 30, 2026, TPM filed a notice informing the Court of this concerning development.
Coverage of developments related to this case, and related action by the D.C. Council, is here.
For more information, please contact Todd Gluckman at tgluckman@tpmlaw.com or 202-204-8482.
Notice to Plaintiff Class in DL v. District of Columbia
On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a request for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in DL v. District of Columbia, a class action related to special education services for preschool-aged children in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia (the defendant) agreed to pay those fees and expenses and the matter has been submitted to the Court for its approval. Class members may file objections with the Court to the fee request on or before March 7, 2026. For additional detail, click here for a copy of the notice related to this motion. Click here for additional information regarding this case.
TPM and CLASI Secure Settlement with Delaware Department of Education to Protect Rights of Incarcerated Students with Disabilities
WILMINGTON, DE—The Disability Rights Delaware program of Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (“CLASI”) and public interest law firm Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (“TPM”) have reached a settlement in their federal lawsuit with the Delaware Department of Education (“DDOE”) and its Adult and Prison Education Resources Workgroup (“APER”) to address the state’s systemic failure to provide required special education services to incarcerated students with disabilities.
Under a consent decree approved by the U.S. District Court on December 2, 2025, the DDOE and APER must develop and implement revised policies and procedures to ensure students receive the special education and related services required by federal and state law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (an anti-discrimination law), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The consent decree also requires the appointment of an independent evaluator to monitor and assess compliance, provides specific timelines that APER must follow in providing educational services, and increases the required amount of daily education time offered to students with disabilities at all Level V correctional facilities in Delaware.
It also provides up to three years of extended special education eligibility to many students who were in custody at Howard R. Young Correctional Institution or James T. Vaughn Correctional Center so that they can earn a high school diploma.
“CLASI filed this lawsuit because it was past time for the state of Delaware to make real, lasting changes in the provision of special education to incarcerated students with disabilities,” said Kym Davis Rogers, Legal Director of Disability Rights Delaware at Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. “We are pleased that the state has committed to complying with federal and state laws. Providing incarcerated students with the educational services they are entitled to benefits not just these students, but the entire community through reduction in recidivism and increased employment opportunities.”
“Protecting the rights of students with disabilities is essential for those in correctional facilities, where young people experience disabilities at far higher rates than their peers,” said Todd Gluckman, partner at Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP. “This consent decree is a major step forward to remedying longstanding issues in Delaware. It moves Delaware toward compliance with the law to ensure that incarcerated students can access the special education and related services they need. We are committed to working with Delaware to make these rights a reality.”
“We hope now there will be real accountability and policies in place so that other families won’t have to endure what we’ve been through, and these students can get the education and skills they need to be successful in the future,” said Denise Hampton, whose son was denied required special education services. “It’s been a very challenging time for my son and our family trying to get him the education he is entitled to, and sometimes we felt like giving up. We kept going because we wanted other families to know that their children have the right to an education and to have an educational representative to help them and advocate for them so they can succeed.”
CLASI filed the lawsuit in May 2024 in its capacity as Delaware’s “Protection & Advocacy” system designated by the Governor to advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities. The suit detailed evidence that Delaware students were suffering irreparable harm as they waited months to receive any educational services while in custody, had extremely limited instruction time, and were not being provided the individualized instruction or behavioral supports required to make educational progress.
As a result, students were falling behind and were less likely to earn a high school diploma and develop the skills they needed to successfully reengage with their communities. This put them at much greater risk of facing unemployment, poverty, and future interactions with the criminal justice system.
To address these issues, the consent decree includes the following provisions:
Revised Policies and Procedures: APER must develop and implement new policies and procedures to comply with the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and Delaware statutes.
Extended Special Education Eligibility: APER must offer up to three years of extended special education eligibility to many students who are or have been at Howard R. Young Correctional Institution or James T. Vaughn Correctional Center so that they can earn a high school diploma.
Timelines for Services: APER must follow specified steps within detailed timeframes regarding meeting with students and offering them special education services.
Increased Instruction Time: APER must offer a minimum of four hours of education per school day to students with disabilities.
Individualized Services: APER must ensure that Individualized Education Program (IEP) plans are individualized to provide an appropriate education and also provide individualized post-secondary education planning and behavioral supports to students.
Teacher Certification: APER must provide teacher-led instruction by certified teachers, including common concept group instruction with peers when more than one student is learning the same subject area.
Educational Representatives: APER must identify if there is an educational representative who holds decision-making authority for each student.
Designated Coordinator: APER is required to designate an employee to coordinate responsibilities under the IDEA, ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.
Independent Evaluator: APER will hire an independent evaluator, agreed upon by CLASI and APER, who will evaluate their compliance with the consent decree and issue reports.
CLASI is separately litigating three cases related to individual students, which were filed before this systemic case. Those cases are still pending before the District Court.
A copy of the full consent decree is available here.
###
About Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. and Disability Rights Delaware
Founded in 1946, the mission of Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (“CLASI”) is to combat injustice through creative and persistent civil legal advocacy on behalf of vulnerable and underserved Delawareans. CLASI provides free legal representation to people with disabilities, people aged 60 or over, people with low incomes, and victims of crime and discrimination to help them obtain shelter, government benefits, educational services, medical services, orders of protection from abuse, legal immigration status, and other civil legal remedies. CLASI has offices in Wilmington, Dover, and Georgetown, Delaware. To learn more, please visit: http://www.declasi.org/
CLASI’s Disability Rights Delaware (“DRD”) program provides free legal representation to children and adults with physical and mental disabilities to protect them from abuse and neglect and to advocate for their legal rights. DRD is designated by the Governor as Delaware’s “Protection and Advocacy” system (“P&A”) for people with disabilities. To learn more about DRD, please visit: https://www.declasi.org/drd/
About Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (“TPM”) was established in Washington, DC in 1970 as one of the first private public interest law firms in the country. TPM specializes in complex civil rights litigation and has represented individuals and groups in the areas of civil rights, environmental law, and open government, serving those who could not otherwise afford legal representation. Its cases include advocating for special education access in the District of Columbia for young children and for young adults in correctional facilities, ensuring DC Medicaid recipients, including those with disabilities, have access to services, and pursuing the clean-up of hazardous and other waste sites. Learn more at: https://www.tpmlaw.com/.
Todd Gluckman Testifies Before the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole about Special Education and Budgetary Issues in DL v. District of Columbia and TPM v. DC
On December 10, 2025, TPM Partner Todd Gluckman testified before the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole at a public hearing related to special education. He explained that the District has not yet complied with the 2016 DL v. DC injunction related to timely special education for preschoolers, described work that the District still needs to do to achieve compliance, and described related problems that have prevented children from receiving the special education that they need. The District’s problems are particularly concerning because time is of the essence to provide these young children with special education that could, when started early, improve their educational outcomes and impact them throughout their lives. Chairman Mendelson expressed concern about the amount of time that the District has been out of compliance since the DL injunction issued and was surprised that new barriers to compliance continue to arise, particularly regarding children with disabilities that need self-contained classrooms but received no education for part of the 2024-2025 school year.
Mr. Gluckman also described the District’s continued failure to produce budget-related documents from OSSE and DCPS in violation of the orders of the Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals in TPM v. DC. On November 12, 2025, TPM moved for contempt due to this noncompliance, describing the government’s disregard of the laws and Court orders as profoundly regrettable. Chairman Mendelson expressed deep concern and astonishment that the District government continues to disregard binding rulings from both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, forcing TPM to take the extraordinary step of filing a motion for contempt.
A written version of Mr. Gluckman’s testimony can be found here.
TPM Partner Carolyn Smith Pravlik wins 2025 Excellence in Environmental Stewardship Award
We are incredibly proud of our colleague Carolyn Smith Pravlik, who was recently honored by the Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. at its annual gala with the 2025 Excellence in Environmental Stewardship Award, in recognition of Carolyn’s many contributions to environmental law, particularly in New Jersey, over the course of her 45-year career.
Since 1982, Carolyn has spearheaded the firm’s citizen suit practice, litigating over 100 citizen suits under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including the landmark standing case Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw.
The award is especially fitting since our founder, Bruce Terris, received the same award 20 years earlier.
[Pictured: Carolyn with Riverkeeper Captain Bill Sheehan]
TPM Files Amicus Brief for the ACLU Challenging President Trump’s Executive Order Stripping Federal Workers of Collective Bargaining Rights
On August 29, 2025, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (TPM) filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Northern California in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 25-4014 (9th Cir.). The amicus brief was filed in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees, which are six federal workers’ unions challenging President Trump’s action to strip collective bargaining rights from nearly two-thirds of the federal workforce.
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after President Trump issued a March 27, 2025 Executive Order (Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, Exec. Order No. 14,251, 90 Fed. Reg. 14553 (Mar. 27, 2025)) that revoked collective bargaining rights for the vast majority of their members, amounting to nearly two-thirds of the federal workforce. A Fact Sheet explained that the President took the action because he considered the unions “hostile,” claiming that the unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” including by filing grievances “to block Trump policies.” All of the unions’ activities on behalf of the workers they represent are permitted by law and contract and protected by the First Amendment.
The Executive Order relied on the President’s authority to exempt federal workers from labor protections under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq., upon determining that they have “national security work” as a “primary function.” 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). On June 24, 2025, Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order, finding that it was likely that the Executive Order was issued to retaliate against Plaintiffs for public and legal opposition to President Trump’s agenda. The government appealed that injunction, and it is now under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit panel has stayed the injunction pending resolution of the appeal.
The amicus brief filed by TPM argues that the district court was correct to conclude that it is likely that the government’s actions pursuant to the Executive Order violate the First Amendment.
First, the amicus brief demonstrates that Plaintiffs make out a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. Most tellingly, official statements from the government—including a White House Fact Sheet accompanying the Executive Order—explain that the President is taking action against what it calls “hostile” federal unions, asserting that these unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” including by filing grievances “to block Trump policies,” an activity permitted by law and contract and protected by the First Amendment.
Second, the amicus brief explains that the courts must engage in meaningful judicial scrutiny of the government’s claim that its actions further “national security.” The failure to provide such judicial scrutiny would seriously threaten all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly where the government has defined “national security” broadly, as it does here, to encompass virtually all aspects of government, including healthcare, energy production, environmental protection, trade policy, the collection of taxes, and the protection of “America’s economic and productive strength.”
For more information, please contact Nicholas Soares at nsoares@tpmlaw.com.
Federal Court Denies the District of Columbia’s Request to Limit the Injunction Requiring It to Assist D.C. Citizens with Disabilities to Transition from Nursing Facilities to the Community
On December 31, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a resounding judgment for the Plaintiff class in Brown v. District of Columbia, finding that the District of Columbia has violated the rights of D.C. residents with disabilities under the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Court’s decision followed a trial in 2021, in which the Plaintiffs proved that D.C. failed to inform D.C. nursing facility residents who receive Medicaid that they could leave nursing facilities and receive home health services in their communities and failed to assist them to do so. The D.C. government also failed to help them access community-based services and housing options needed to transition back to the community.
The Court recognized that individuals living in nursing facilities often need help learning about and applying for available community services to help them transition out of the institution and into their own homes. Even when residents learn about services, navigating the complicated Medicaid-funded long-term care program can cause confusion and anxiety that sometimes causes facility residents to lose hope that they can live in their own homes again.
On January 28, 2025, the District of Columbia asked the Court to substantially limit the injunction, claiming that it was based on various errors. On August 15, 2025, the Court denied that request. As Kathleen L. Millian of TPM stated after the injunction issued, “Judge Friedman has let the District of Columbia know in clear terms that it cannot rely on nursing facilities, but rather, the District itself must provide effective transition assistance to help residents of nursing facilities move out of the institutions and receive their Medicaid services in the community.” The District of Columbia must now comply promptly with the injunction.
Federal Court Certifies Class of Medicaid Applicants and Beneficiaries
After fifteen years, including three trips to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on August 8, 2025, the federal district court certified the Plaintiff class in the case Morgan v. DC (formerly known as NB v. DC and Maldonado v. DC).
Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries go to the pharmacy to fill prescriptions covered by Medicaid. If they are denied coverage, they often do not know why they were denied, their right to appeal, and the process for appealing. In 2015, the D.C. Circuit held that Plaintiffs have a property interest in their Medicaid prescription benefits under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which entitles them to the protections of due process. This case is to ensure that Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries receive their due process notice if they are denied coverage of a prescription medication.
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP is proud to represent the certified class along with Jane Perkins of the National Health Law Program. Plaintiffs are filing a motion for summary judgment and look forward to a trial in the coming months.
For more information, please contact Michael Huang at mhuang@tpmlaw.com or 202-204-8479.
TPM and CLASI Secure a Win on Standing for Protection and Advocacy Organizations, Preliminary Injunction Denied, and the Case Proceeds
In 2024, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (TPM) and Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI), Delaware’s Protection and Advocacy (P&A) system, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the long-standing and systemic failures of the Delaware Department of Education (DDOE), and its Adult and Prison Education Resources Workgroup (APER), to provide special education services to incarcerated students with disabilities in violation of federal and Delaware law. We sought a preliminary injunction ordering provision of the required services, and Defendants moved to dismiss.
On June 23, 2025, the Court denied both motions. That decision will be a useful resource for P&As asserting associational standing to defend the rights of those with disabilities:
The Court found that CLASI satisfied the requirements for associational standing under Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977).
The Court explained that the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (the PAIMI Act) provides a statutory basis for P&As to bring litigation addressing systemic issues.
The Court concluded that the third Hunt requirement—that the lawsuit’s claims not require the participation of individual members—was abrogated by PAIMI.
The Court further explained that, even if the Hunt requirement was not abrogated, “CLASI satisfies the requirement because it seeks systemic declaratory and injunctive relief, as opposed to individualized relief requiring the participation of individual students,” and, “[t]o the extent that compliance with the requested relief would require monitoring of individualized cases, ‘some limited participation by the individual members of the organization does not bar associational or representational standing under this third element.’”
The Court did not require individual exhaustion by constituents of CLASI under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) due to the systemic nature of the violations.
The court’s analysis marks a critical strengthening of the foundations of P&A standing—an important step at a time when P&As nationally are facing significant challenges.
For more information, please contact Todd Gluckman at tgluckman@tpmlaw.com or 202-204-8482.
Notice to Plaintiff Class in DL v. District of Columbia
On June 20, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a request for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in DL v. District of Columbia, a class action related to special education services for preschool-aged children in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia (the defendant) agreed to pay those fees and expenses and the matter has been submitted to the Court for its approval. Class members may file objections with the Court to the fee request on or before August 14, 2025. For additional detail, click here for a copy of the notice related to this motion. Click here for additional information regarding this case.
TPM Prevails in the DC Court of Appeals and the Mayor Must Now Provide Public Access to Budget Documents
In 2020, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (TPM) brought a DC Freedom of Information Act (DC FOIA) case against the District of Columbia. TPM asked the DC Superior Court to order the District to turn over budget materials that reflect determinations by DC agencies about how much money they need to do their work. DC law requires that information be made public and posted on a District website.
TPM won in the Superior Court, which rejected the Mayor’s argument that she was entitled to withhold the documents and ordered them to be placed online. The Mayor appealed, arguing that the transparency imposed by statute would violate the DC Charter. TPM was supported on appeal by the Council of the District of Columbia, the DC Open Government Coalition, the ACLU of DC, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, Public Citizen, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Washington, DC Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, all of which appeared as amici curiae.
Yesterday, the DC Court of Appeals, like the Superior Court, rejected the Mayor’s argument that she was entitled to withhold the documents and remanded the case for the Superior Court to clarify exactly what information must be publicly posted and when. The determinations by DC agencies about how much money they need to do their work will be of value in TPM’s work monitoring an injunction related to special education on behalf of preschoolers with disabilities (in DL v. District of Columbia) and to many others in the District, including the DC Council.
The Court of Appeals underscored the importance of this issue at the beginning of its decision. It states:
“The generation that made the nation . . . committed itself to the principle that a democracy cannot function unless the people are permitted to know what their government is up to.” U.S. Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772-73 (1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting)); see also Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 683 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Democracies die behind closed doors.”). That principle has informed decades of case law under the Federal Freedom of Information Act and informs our case law under the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act (D.C. FOIA).
On October 14, 2022, the Washington City Paper reported on this matter and the related dispute between the DC Council and the Mayor in an article titled, “Bowser Fights Budget Transparency. No One Is Surprised.” Click here for that article.
For more information, please contact Todd Gluckman at tgluckman@tpmlaw.com or 202-204-8482.
TPM Files Second FOIA Action on Behalf of Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights and Immigrant Defenders Law Center
Over seven months ago, Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights (Young Center) and Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) requested records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pertaining to the termination of the Young Adult Case Management Program (YACMP).
YACMP was designated by ICE as an “Alternative to Detention” program. It subjected some youth and families to monitoring during the pendency of their immigration proceedings. Young Center and ImmDef work closely with youth who entered the United States unaccompanied and were automatically enrolled in YACMP. DHS terminated YACMP on July 31, 2024. Details related to the termination, including the reasons why it was terminated, are unknown to the public and attorneys and other advocates for these youth.
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), federal agencies must notify requestors within 20 days of the request which records will be produced and then must promptly produce the records. Neither ICE nor DHS have produced any of the requested records since the FOIA request, nor have they indicated whether or when they will produce any records.
On February 10, 2025, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (TPM) filed a lawsuit to enforce FOIA against DHS and ICE, asking the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to order the agencies to produce the documents promptly. A copy of the complaint is here.
This is the second FOIA lawsuit that TPM has filed against DHS and ICE on behalf of Young Center and ImmDef. The first lawsuit can be read about here.
If you have any questions about the case, please call Jaclyn Deitch at 202-204-8473.
TPM Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Perkins Coie in its Case to Vindicate the Rule of Law
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP is proud to join the amicus brief filed today in support of Perkins Coie in its challenge to the Executive Order targeting it. The brief, authored by Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Nathan P. Eimer of Eimer Stahl LLP, unites more than 500 law firms from across the country in taking a stand against executive actions that punish law firms for their representation of clients and undermine the rule of law.
TPM Statement on Executive Orders Related to the Practice of Law
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP, was founded on the principle that high-quality legal representation should be available to people who cannot afford it. We believe to our core that lawyers should be able to represent clients—no matter who they are—without interference or fear of retribution.
Recently, the President issued a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders designed to punish specific lawyers and law firms for advocating on behalf of clients with positions disfavored by the Administration. Firms such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale are fighting these Orders in court.
On March 22, 2025, the President directed the Attorney General to seek sanctions against lawyers and law firms that are deemed to be engaged in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” litigation against the United States or its agencies, which, based on the orders targeting specific firms, will likely be used as a pretext to punish other lawyers or firms that dare to challenge the federal government in court.
These executive actions chill protected speech, dissuade lawyers and firms from representing clients who need them, and impinge on the independence of the legal profession.
Our firm has a long history of holding the government accountable when it violates the law. Because we believe the intent of these orders is antithetical to that purpose and to the rule of law, we join those in the legal community speaking out in defense of our legal system and in support of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale in their legal challenges to the Executive Orders targeting them.
We encourage all firms to stand against these unconstitutional actions before the protection of the law is diminished for all.
Federal Court Grants Enforcement Order Ruling that DC Must Perform Its Obligations Under a Settlement Agreement and Provide Specialized Education and Related Services to Students at the DC Jail
In September 2023, the Plaintiff class of students with disabilities aged 18-22 at the D.C. Jail who did not receive their special education services during the Covid pandemic settled their lawsuit against the District of Columbia by entering a Settlement Agreement. Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP, (TPM) represented the Plaintiff class in Charles H. v. District of Columbia, along with co-counsel from School Justice Project and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. The Settlement Agreement required the District of Columbia, among other obligations, to immediately provide all required specialized instruction and related services to the students in the DC Jail. The Agreement also had several provisions related to monitoring DC’s compliance by a Third-Party Auditor that would have expired in August 2025.
However, DC has failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement, resulting in students at the DC Jail being deprived of a free appropriate public education after the Settlement Agreement was entered. In September 2024, the Plaintiff class moved the Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On March 14, 2025, federal Judge Carl Nichols ruled that because DC had not been in compliance with the Agreement, the Court would enforce the Agreement by requiring DC to perform its obligations for an additional year, until August 2026, or until January 2026 if DC immediately complies with the Agreement and maintains its compliance. During that period, the Third-Party Auditor and counsel for the Plaintiff class will continue to monitor DC’s performance.
A copy of the Order can be found here.
The Children’s National Oral Health Project, funded in part by the Salazar Penalty Escrow Account, Issues Final Report Concerning Access to Children’s Dental Care in Wards 7 and 8 in DC
In January 2021, the Salazar Penalty Escrow Account provided funding to Children’s National for the Children’s National Oral Health Project to address barriers to pediatric dental care among Medicaid eligible children in Wards 7 and 8 in the District of Columbia. The project’s goal was to improve communication between a child’s primary pediatric center and dental home by referring children at well-child visits without a dental home to an on-location person trained as a Community Dental Health Coordinator (CDHC) to coordinate care and make appointments with a dental provider in the community as part of the well-child physician visit.
The project, which began in May 2021 and concluded in July 2023, took place at the ARC and Anacostia locations of Children’s National. In January 2025, Children’s National issued a Final Report, concluding that “Despite CDHC efforts, it was not sufficient to increase access to oral health care because of the capacity of the system.” We understand the authors to be referring to the lack of capacity of the system to provide dental health services to children on DC Medicaid.
While the project did not succeed in its goal of increasing dental participation by children eligible for Medicaid in Wards 7 and 8, the project resulted in many findings and recommendations to increase dental care access to this underserved community. The Report describes lessons learned during the project, including that parents prefer to have their pediatric primary care and dental care in the same location and that they continue to struggle to be offered timely appointment times at dental offices at accessible hours, close to their neighborhood, and in a safe location.
As part of the project, a focus group involving both providers and caregivers was conducted to determine the barriers to children’s dental health care. The focus group found that parents/caregivers find the lack of local dental providers, lack of transportation, and restrictions in appointments for multiple children were barriers to accessing care. These and other findings are available in the Preventive Oral Health Care Access Report.
Federal Court Issues Important Civil Rights Decision that Will Enable Many D.C. Citizens with Disabilities to Transition out of Nursing Facilities to the Community
On December 31, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a resounding judgment for the Plaintiff class in Brown, et al. v. District of Columbia, finding that the District of Columbia has violated the rights of D.C. residents with disabilities under the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Court’s decision followed a trial in 2021, in which the Plaintiffs proved that D.C. failed to inform D.C. nursing facility residents who receive Medicaid that they could leave nursing facilities and receive home health services in their communities and failed to assist them to do so. The D.C. government also failed to help them access community-based services and housing options needed to transition back to the community. The ruling comes as a result of the 2021 trial in which attorneys Todd A. Gluckman, Patrick A. Sheldon, and Kathleen L. Millian of Terris, Pravlik and Millian, LLP, joined attorneys from AARP Foundation, and Disability Rights D.C. at University Legal Services to represent the Plaintiff class.
The Court recognized that individuals living in nursing facilities often need help learning about and applying for available community services to help them transition out of the institution and into their own homes. Even when residents learn about services, navigating the complicated Medicaid-funded long-term care program can cause confusion and anxiety that sometimes causes facility residents to lose hope that they can live in their own homes again.
Under the “integration mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., state and local governments must provide community-based services to people with disabilities whenever possible. Unnecessarily segregating people in institutions is illegal discrimination. If people with disabilities who are institutionalized in nursing facilities are to benefit from the promise of the integration mandate, they necessarily require that governmental entities provide them with information and assistance.
The Court’s judgment is the culmination of 14 years of litigation. The suit was filed in 2010. After two appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered a remand trial in 2019. In 2019, Terris Pravlik & Millian, LLP, joined AARP Foundation and Disability Rights D.C. as co-counsel for the Plaintiff class.
“Judge Friedman has let the District of Columbia know in clear terms that it cannot rely on nursing facilities, but rather, the District itself must provide effective transition assistance to help residents of nursing facilities move out of the institutions and receive their Medicaid services in the community,” said Kathleen L. Millian of Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP. The decision can be found here.
TPM is Pleased to Welcome Four Associate Attorneys
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP is pleased to announce that four talented attorneys who share our commitment to work in the public interest have joined our law firm:
Molly Bernstein. Ms. Bernstein received her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2023. She also holds a Master’s Degree in Global Human Development from the Georgetown University Graduate School of Foreign Service. During law school, Ms. Bernstein worked on advocacy on behalf of those accused and convicted of crimes. After law school, she clerked for Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby of the DC Court of Appeals. Ms. Bernstein previously worked internationally in journalism and advocacy on humanitarian and human rights issues.
Jaclyn Deitch. Ms. Deitch received her J.D. from Fordham University in 2023, where she was a member of Moot Court, served on the Executive Board of the Fordham Chapter of Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, and was a recipient of the Archibald R. Murray Public Service Award for completing over 1,000 hours of pro bono and community service work during law school. She also holds a Master of Public Health from Columbia University. Prior to law school, Ms. Deitch worked on reproductive justice.
Allie Horwitz. Ms. Horwitz received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2019. At Michigan, she was a student attorney in the Juvenile Justice Clinic and an executive editor of the Michigan Journal of Race & Law. She received awards for Outstanding Pro Bono Project, Excellence in Pro Bono Service, and the Jane L. Mixer Award for Outstanding Commitment to Social Justice. After graduation, Ms. Horwitz clerked for Justice Richard Bernstein on the Michigan Supreme Court, worked as a public defender in New Hampshire and Maryland, and then worked at AARP Foundation, where she advocated for older adults on cases related to housing, retirement benefits, healthcare access, and voting rights.
Aasha Shaik. Ms. Shaik received her J.D. from Yale Law School and a Master in Public Affairs from Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs in 2024. At Yale, she was a Dean’s Advisor and a student attorney in the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic. She also served on the boards of the American Constitution Society, Green Haven Prison Project, and multiple affinity groups. Ms. Shaik has years of gender equity advocacy experience at the United Nations, including as the sole US representative on the UN Women’s Generation Equality Taskforce. For her work, Ms. Shaik was a featured activist in ABC’s International Women’s Day television special in 2020. Ms. Shaik is a Harry S. Truman Scholar.
Notice to Plaintiff Class in DL v. District of Columbia
On December 17, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a request for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in DL v. District of Columbia, a class action related to special education services for preschool-aged children in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia (the defendant) agreed to pay those fees and expenses and the matter has been submitted to the Court for its approval. Class members may file objections with the Court to the fee request on or before February 3, 2025. For additional detail, click here for a copy of the notice related to this motion. Click here for additional information regarding this case.