News & Commentary

Citing concerns about the impact on veterans participating in Rhode Island’s medical marijuana program, three advocacy organizations have submitted testimony expressing strong opposition to a Department of Human Services proposal that would ban the use of “narcotics prohibited by federal law” at the Veterans’ Home in Bristol.  The organizations are the ACLU of RI, the RI Patient Advocacy Coalition and Protect Families First. The group testimony notes that, as currently worded, DHS’ proposal would prevent resident veterans from using medical marijuana that state law explicitly allows them to use for their medical condition.

In his latest update on the state’s compliance with a court order designed to ensure the timely provision of food stamp assistance to needy families, Special Master Deming Sherman indicated that the Department of Human Services’ timeliness in processing requests for food stamp benefits went slightly down, not up, in February. ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown called it “frustrating” that, rather than improving, the state’s compliance rate had gone down.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the R.I. Disability Law Center (RIDLC) have asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Rhode Island to address local law enforcement agencies’ lack of compliance with federal laws requiring them to provide effective communication with people who are deaf and hard of hearing.

Following a closed-chambers conference with U.S. District Judge William Smith today, the State has acknowledged that a new law which caps the occupancy of registered sex offenders at Harrington Hall homeless shelter in Cranston at 10%, will be on hold until the court reaches a final decision in the pending ACLU challenge to the law. In a letter that was sent today to Crossroads Rhode Island, the organization which oversees the Harrington Hall shelter, and submitted to the court, Michael Tondra, Chief of the state’s Office of Housing and Community Development, wrote that: “during the pendency of the lawsuit that there will be no adverse consequences to Crossroads Rhode Island by the State regarding the operation of Harrington Hall should the nightly occupancy exceed that set forth in [the statute] while the State, Crossroads and other stakeholders continue the ongoing work toward reaching the goals set for sex offenders in the statute.” As a result of the letter, it was agreed that the ACLU’s request for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the law was no longer necessary.  ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger said: “Our goal in seeking a restraining order was to ensure that anyone needing shelter at Harrington Hall would not be turned away. We are quite pleased that this goal has been voluntarily achieved by agreement of all the parties while the case proceeds.” A briefing schedule is expected to be set in the near future. The letter from the State can be found here. More information on the lawsuit can be found here.  

Below is a summary - prepared by ACLU volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger - of today’s court conference before Judge William Smith in the ACLU’s challenge to the State law which caps the number of registered sex offenders (RSOs) that can stay at Harrington Hall at 10% of the shelter’s population. “Counsel for the parties met with Judge Smith today.  After a lengthy discussion, the Court acknowledged that there are significant legal and factual issues which the State has not yet had an opportunity to address.  It was also acknowledged that Crossroads has not been turning anyone away since the law took effect and the parties agreed that while they are developing the legal issues, no one would be turned away and that we could publicly communicate that understanding.  We are next scheduled to meet with the court on January 16, in order to give the State time to prepare its legal arguments, and in the meantime the State understands that Crossroads will not turn anyone away on the basis of the 10% cap and that there will be no repercussions for doing so.” For more information on the lawsuit, click here.

The ACLU of Rhode Island today filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that participants in a Medicaid program run by the state are not being given proper notice before being kicked off the program, leading to a loss of income that the suit says puts low-income residents “at risk of losing their homes and their utilities and deprives them of funds needed for their daily living expenses, including food.” The suit, against the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), ties the improper notice to the state’s infamous UHIP computer system, the subject of another pending ACLU suit regarding food stamp benefit delays.

Here’s a look at the top issues – including some big victories and losses – of 2017:

In an important victory for the rights of medical marijuana patients in the state, R.I. Superior Court Judge Richard Licht today issued a preliminary injunction against a Smithfield ordinance that the ACLU argued was an attempt to undermine the state’s medical marijuana law by imposing significant burdens on patients’ access to treatment in conflict with state law. The decision establishes an important precedent because a number of other municipalities have adopted, or are considering adopting, similar troubling restrictions on the rights of medical marijuana patients, although Smithfield’s appeared to be the most egregious.

In its first legal effort to counter efforts across the state to undermine the state’s medical marijuana law, the ACLU of Rhode Island today filed a lawsuit against the Town of Smithfield over a recently enacted ordinance that imposes significant burdens on medical marijuana patients’ access to treatment.  The lawsuit, filed in R.I. Superior Court, is on behalf of two licensed medical marijuana patients – listed as Jane Does to protect their confidentiality – and the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition (RIPAC), a medical marijuana public education organization. The suit was filed as other municipalities consider adopting similar troubling restrictions on the rights of medical marijuana patients, although Smithfield’s appears to be the most egregious.