Fourth Circuit revisits South Carolina juvenile justice case

Civil rights groups argue they had standing to challenge conditions at South Carolina's juvenile detention centers on behalf of their members.CHARLESTON, S.C. (CN) — Civil rights groups asked the Fourth Circuit at a rehearing Monday to revive a lawsuit over the condition of South Carolina’s juvenile detention centers.The American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina asked the appellate court to reverse a panel decision earlier this year finding three civil rights groups lacked standing to sue on behalf of detained youths. The ACLU represents Disability Rights South Carolina, Justice 360 and the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, which accuse the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice of providing inadequate care and rehabilitation to youths in its detention facilities.The nonprofits sued in April 2022, but procedural issues have bogged down the case.The nonprofits argue they have standing to sue on behalf of the children since they provide resources to them in custody or represent them as members. The purported violations also hurt the organizations, forcing them to divert resources away from their main missions, they argue.A magistrate judge concluded Justice 360 had organizational standing, meaning it showed injury to the organization, and that Disability Rights South Carolina had associational standing, meaning it showed injury to its members.But the lower court dismissed the associational claims because the group’s constituents are no longer in custody and the organizational claims because Justice 360 didn’t state a claim for relief.A Fourth Circuit panel affirmed the court’s ruling in a 2-1 opinion earlier this year. U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote in the opinion that the court did not question the nonprofits’ desire to improve conditions at the facilities, but the detained youths should be the ones suing.“Article III of the Constitution requires nothing less,” the Ronald Reagan appointee wrote. “It does not countenance suits by concerned citizens, only injured parties.”The full court weighed whether to reverse that decision Monday.Jake Alderdice of the New York firm Jenner & Block represented the nonprofits at the hearing and focused his arguments on Disability Rights South Carolina’s claims — an organization that represents people with disabilities in the state under Congress’ Protection and Advocacy system.Alderdice argued Disability Rights South Carolina derived its authority to bring suits on behalf of its members, including juveniles in detention centers, from the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975.“[Disability Rights South Carolina] is not a mere issue-advocacy organization,” Alderdice said. “It is set up as a protection-advocacy system. There’s one per state, and its day-to-day job is both governed by and accountable to its constituents, which are mentally disabled individuals.”Wilkinson was among several judges who pushed back on Alderdice’s arguments.He said the members seemed largely passive in the organization’s governance and they did not fund it, which raised doubts about whether the organization could really bring suit on behalf of its members.U.S. Circuit Judge Allison Rushing read from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, which established a three-prong test for associational standing.“In one sentence, it uses the word ‘alone’ three times,” the Donald Trump appointee said. “It says the members alone elect the commission. They alone serve on the commission. They alone finance activities. These are the indicia of a membership organization. None of those three are true here, right?”Alderdice acknowledged the judge’s point, but he argued the high court did not intend to create a strict constitutional check for standing when it decided Hunt.U.S. Circuit Judge James Andrew Wynn Jr. argued Congress had the right to appoint an organization, like Disability Rights South Carolina, to protect individuals who may not be able to defend themselves.“That sounds like associational standing to me,” the Barack Obama appointee said.Beth Richardson of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte in Columbia, South Carolina, argued on behalf of the SCDJJ that the nonprofits failed to establish associational standing under Hunt’sthree-prong test.She pointed out the nonprofits could have filed a class action on behalf of the juveniles but decided against doing so in this case.U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory expressed frustration with the procedural jousting. Of course, he said, the disabled could not effectively participate in the governance of Disability Rights South Carolina — that’s why the organization exists in the first place.“You’re talking about the dispossessed and the disinherited,” the Bill Clinton appointee said. “How do they get justice?”He scoffed at the fact the judges were “behind the curtain of jurisdiction” while the merits of the case remained undiscussed.“This organization knows what they’re tasked with,” Gregory said. “And this interferes with their duty to carry out this great public work.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads