老澳门开奖结果

Following a similar lawsuit in 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (鈥淰A鈥�) agreed to provide veterans with severe disabilities adequate housing and supportive services at its West Los Angeles Campus. But the VA has failed to keep its promise. In November 2022, a group of unhoused Los-Angeles-based veterans and a non-profit organization sued the VA for its failure to provide adequate housing and health care. The veterans allege that the VA violated a provision of the Rehabilitation Act which prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities in the provision of health care and housing benefits.

Seeking to avoid liability, the government argues that Section 511 of the Veterans Judicial Review Act (鈥淰JRA鈥�)鈥攁 federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA鈥檚 individualized benefit determinations鈥攂ars federal district courts from hearing veterans鈥� Rehabilitation Act claims. On behalf of a group of eminent legal scholars, the 老澳门开奖结果 and 老澳门开奖结果 of Southern California filed an amicus brief taking apart this jurisdictional defense. The brief argues that: (1) neither the VJRA鈥檚 text nor its history deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over veterans鈥� Rehabilitation Act claims; and (2) accepting the government鈥檚 position would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to enforce their rights, as neither the VA benefits system nor veterans courts are capable of awarding the full range of relief authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.

Relying in part on the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 amicus brief, the district court held that the VJRA did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs鈥� Rehabilitation Act claims. Following a two-day trial, the district court ordered the VA to construct thousands of new temporary supportive housing units and mandated broad facility changes to protect veterans with disabilities.

The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On behalf of legal scholars, the 老澳门开奖结果 again filed an amicus brief to refute the government鈥檚 argument that the VJRA precludes review.