November-December 2009 Clearinghouse Review

This year's federal court access article, the seventeeth in a series dating back to 1993, asserts that the Court's decisions this term demonstrate its now well-established tendency to favor the government and business over the individual and the environment. Other articles in this issue explain how the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act can be a helpful guide for advocates of domestic-violence survivors, discuss the pros and cons of foreclosure mediations, and show how government-sponsored Universal Voluntary Retirement Accounts can provide retirement security for workers who otherwise would have none.

Copies of the articles published in this issue are available for individual sale online for $15 apiece. For more information, visit our online store.

Did you find the articles in this issue helpful? Please take our brief online survey.

About This Issue
The Olmstead Decision at Ten: Directions for Future Advocacy
June 2009 marked the tenth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. Yet millions of people with disabilities remain institutionalized even though, with new service approaches, people with even the most challenging needs can now be served in integrated community settings. Future Olmstead implementation efforts should incorporate several fundamental principles to give people with disabilities a real chance to live, as much as possible, “like everyone else”—the fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Copies of this article are available for individual purchase online for $15 apiece.

Related Articles:
- Jennifer Mathis, Where Are We Five Years After Olmstead? (Jan.–Feb. 2005)
- Jennifer Mathis, Community Integration of Individuals with Disabilities: An Update on Olmstead Implementation (Nov.–Dec. 2001)
- Ira Burnim & Jennifer Mathis, After Olmstead v. L.C.: Enforcing the Integration Mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (March–April 2000)
By Ira A. Burnim and Jennifer Mathis
Case Note: Denied Water Service Because of Race, African Americans Win $10.85 Million Jury Verdict

By Reed Colfax
Case Note: Seventh Circuit Decision Jeopardizes Federally Assisted Housing Preservation Programs

By Katherine E. Walz
Approaching Ethical Issues Involving Unrepresented Litigants
Traditional “ethics” training often has limited relevance for the real-world ethics challenges to legal aid lawyers, among the challenges being cases where the adverse party is unrepresented and the array of issues when an attorney provides less than full representation. Court personnel also must consider how to interact with unrepresented litigants. A new framework geared to legal aid practice can help advocates resolve ethical issues better.

Copies of this article are available for individual purchase online for $15 apiece.

Related Articles
- Richard P. Weishaupt, Ethics and Legal Aid: The Beginning of a Discussion (July-Aug. 2008)
By Russell Engler
Look Both Ways Before You Cross State Lines: Using the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to Assist Domestic-Violence Survivors
A court’s proper assertion of jurisdiction in child custody cases is critical to ensuring the safety of domestic-violence victims. When fleeing abuse, particularly across state lines, victims do not know when and how a court in the old and new forums can protect them. Using the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, attorneys can guide victims through the jurisdictional maze to secure maximum protection for victims and their children.

Copies of this article are available for individual purchase online for $15 apiece.

Related Articles
- Wendy R. Weiser and Deborah A. Widiss, Employment Protection for Domestic Violence Victims (May-June 2004)
- Caitlin Glass, Tamara Kuennen, and Sharon Lopez, Custody and Visitation: Considerations for Every Attorney Retained by a Survivor of Domestic Violence (March-April 2003)
- Roberta M. Ikemi, You Can Run But Can You Hide? Relocation Rights and Domestic Violence (Special Issue 1996)
By Deborah Goelman and Darren Mitchell
Universal Voluntary Retirement Accounts: A Financially Secure Retirement
Universal Voluntary Retirement Accounts (UVRAs) have been proposed as a way to provide retirement security for workers who would otherwise have no retirement security whatsoever. UVRAs are government-sponsored, defined contribution plans in which employees contribute to their own retirement through the workplace with or without employer contribution. Advocates must be ready to discuss the pros and cons of UVRAs, engage the skeptical, and form alliances in pushing for and implementing UVRA legislation.
The Shriver Center hosted a webinar on UVRAs on December 14, 2009. To download a recording of the webinar, along with other relevant resources, please visit the webinar archive.

Copies of this article are available free of charge.

Related Articles
- Mary Ellen Signorille, A Primer on Private Pension Plans (September-October 2000)
By Karen Harris and Michael Lezaja
News and Notes
The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Decisions on Court Access: The March to the Right Continues
The Roberts Court continued on its conservative course, restricting plaintiffs’ access to federal court in several cases, involving pleading requirements, deference, standards for preliminary injunctions, stare decisis, and postjudgment relief. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal the Court again restricted Rule 8 notice pleading. Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, a case pitting environmentalists against the Navy, changed the standard that some appellate courts use to grant a preliminary injunction. Horne v. Flores made it easier to overturn remedial injunctions in “institutional reform” cases. In another case the Court found it easy to reject stare decisis when most justices disagreed with the precedent. However, the Court found that Title IX did not preclude a Section 1983 action and where politics, money, the judiciary, and corporate litigation mixed, recusal was required.

Copies of this article are free of charge. See all of the related articles from our annual federal court access series.

By Gary F. Smith, Matthew Diller, Jane Perkins, and Gill Deford
Foreclosure Mediations--Can They Make a Difference?
With the foreclosure crisis showing few signs of abating, loan modification would seem to offer benefits both to homeowners, by helping them stay in their homes, and to mortgage holders, by minimizing the losses they incur. Moreover, federal guidelines under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) require loan servicers to modify the loans of homeowners who qualify under an objective test. However, servicers continue to resist workable loan modifications. Some state and local governments are turning to mandatory mediation to compel servicers’ compliance with HAMP requirements.

Copies of this article are available for individual purchase online for $15 apiece.

Related Articles
- Maeve Elise Brown and Lisa Sitkin, Defending Post-Foreclosure Evictions (July-Aug. 2009)
- David Super, Defending Mortgage Foreclosures: Seeking a Role for Equity (July-Aug. 2009)
- Mark Ireland, Foreclosure Defense: Understanding TILA Basics Is Essential (May-June 2009)
- Antonio Hicks, Strength in Numbers: Legal Advocates and Community Organizers Partner to Fight Foreclosures (May-June 2009)
- Lawrence R. McDonough, Minnesota Tenants Gain More Rights in Foreclosure Through Legislative Task Force Collaboration (March-April 2009)
By Geoff Walsh

Search the Shriver Center