Powers v. McDonough

Following a similar lawsuit in 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) 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 (“VJRA”)—a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefit determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. On behalf of a group of eminent legal scholars, the ACLU and ACLU of Southern California filed an amicus brief taking apart this jurisdictional defense. The brief argues that: (1) neither the VJRA’s text nor its history deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims; and (2) accepting the government’s 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 ACLU’s amicus brief, the district court held that the VJRA did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ 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 ACLU again filed an amicus brief to refute the government’s argument that the VJRA precludes review.