Latest / Dumb Defenses / 14. Sitting, Climbing, and Dying for Disability Rights

Transcript

14. Sitting, Climbing, and Dying for Disability Rights · Dumb Defenses

• Frankie: Hello and welcome back to the Dumb Defenses podcast, where we go around the world and through time to bring you the weirdest legal theories. I'm Frankie. Judah: I'm Judah. Frankie: And for fresh hell this week, I had so many options. Judah: See, y at first you jeered you jeered at adding the fresh hell segment and now it is just how we start the show. What Frankie: Yep. Judah: in the fresh hell is happening out there? Frankie: I could have talked about the nineteen year old sailor who jumped off the Lincoln, who is now charged for that conduct. I could talk about the chicanery about the artwork around the Kennedy Center. But I have decided to bring to you, our dear listeners, the SCOTUS Shadow Docket from this week. Judah: And next week if you're looking forward to it, I'm gonna be talking about poop in our food. Frankie: Yep. So SCOTUS has as of late had this shadow docket. Wh Judah: What is a shadow docket, Frank? Frankie: so it is a shadow docket. It is largely based on pleadings. There is limited, if not any, argument, so there's no publicity about it. They just give these decisions, largely favoring the government. And they do a lot of decisions based on standing or jurisdiction or things like that that are saying like we're not putting our thumb on the scale, but we're putting our thumb on the scale. Judah: So the thing that makes it shadowy that I'm hearing is that they're not publicized and there's no argument. So they're basically making these rulings without having a lot of people talk about it. Frankie: Correct. I there is some briefing, but that's about it. So within the last week, there have been two rulings on this shadow docket about the executive order on the election and about the ballroom construction. So the executive order was issued about five months ago and orders a whole bunch of things regarding air quotes election integrity. It orders the Department of Homeland Security to create and send citizenship lists to the states. It orders the DOJ to prosecute state or local election officials and directs the Postal Service to initiate rulemaking, including specific proposed provisions, such as specific barcodes on ballot envelopes, to facilitate tracking. the DOJ prosecutions would be in relation to like if they don't follow the rules that the feds put in place regarding these citizenship lists. Which arguably are going to be less accurate than the lists that the state the Secretary of States hold themselves, because the Secretary of States actually pay attention to like everybody who's in their state. That's their job. Anyways, a group of states sued, stating that that executive order infringed on states' rights to facilitate elections, because in the constitution, the elections are a state thing, not a federal thing. and they requested an injunction against the executive order. The district court, and this was in Massachusetts, so the district court of Massachusetts issued a final injunction against the order, the government appealed to the first circuit requesting a stay pending the appeal, and the first circuit declined that stay. So the injunction is still in place. So the government then appealed to SCOTUS, claiming that the states lacked standing. meaning there's no injury to them, and that the issue is not yet ripe, meaning that the contingencies that they're talking about haven't happened yet. So two very procedural things that they use to try to get rid of this. SCOTUS said that the order didn't affect the states, and so there's no injury. Even though states have already printed all the envelopes for this election that's in two months, and that to reprint them to conform with this executive order. Would cost millions upon millions of dollars. SCOTUS also said that any injury, might, be from downstream effects, i.e., having to follow the order. States argued current injury because they had to start planning for the contingencies like the DHS order to deal with the citizenship lists, and they were being threatened with prosecution under the DOJ order, and that they would need to overhaul their current election processes under the Postal Service order. But, Scotus says, the states quote cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not currently impending. The government, SCOTUS ruled, is being harmed by not being able to do what the order says, and they say that it quote "meddles" with the executive branch. They then go on Judah: Okay. Frankie: they then go on to say that just because they're granting the stay doesn't mean that that determines the outcome and quote, time will tell. So the injunction is currently stayed until the appellate process can work its way up through the first circuit and then possible certiorari to SCOTUS. Again, we're not putting our thumb on the scale. Judah: Yeah. Well, I mean we we've seen other stuff come out of the shadow docket where it was things that you didn't even know that they were gonna be making a ruling on because ordinarily they telegraph, they'll just tell you Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: this is the expected timeline for the ruling on this and Frankie: Right. Judah: this and this and this and this and they th they don't even show up. Frankie: Yeah, yeah. So the other ruling, which is just from a couple days ago on the ballroom, the first thing I wanna point out in this is the difference in the language between it was a per curium, so we don't technically know who wrote it, but you know, there's of the court. Judah: Procurium means like basically yeah well for our non legal listeners because we tend to get a little bit too nerdy and I'm trying to dial it back to make a little bit more conversational. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: Right? So let's try and talk to real people. Think about it as being grupo judges. Frankie: Yeah, it's like the it's like the whole court is talking together, right? It's the entirety of all the nine justices. But there's a dissent, so it's clearly not all of them. The first line of the per curium opinion says in October twenty twenty five, the federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House. federal government. Apparently the president is just the federal government now. The dissent says the president ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new privately funded state ballroom in its place. That's more accurate. Judah: Who wrote the dissent? Frankie: Roberts actually. Roberts Judah: Really, Roberts wrote the dissent. Frankie: and the and the three liberals joined him. Judah: Wow, I didn't know that that we got that we got Roberts spearheading the defense on a six three. Frankie: Mm. Yeah. So yeah, it Roberts has been largely with the majority on almost everything. the surprise in this setup of the court has really been Amy Coney Barrett in terms of the more independent thinker. So the fact that John Roberts moved over to the dissent in this kinda says a lot about the actual merits of the case, in my opinion. But for those who are unaware, for any federal property to be altered in any significant way, it actually takes an act of Congress. So all of the additions that led up to the West Wing and the East Wing that made the White House as we knew it prior to the demolition were all individual laws that were passed allocating money and making sure that it's in the benefit of the federal government in it's not a waste of taxpayer money. And all this stuff, there's a lot of thought that gets put into it. So without that congressional permission, in October the Trump administration began to work on demolishing the historic East Wing in order to build his ballroom with a bunker underneath it. There was already a kind of bunker like thing under the East Wing, so I'm not sure why they felt the need to make a new one. Judah: I don't know, that bunker was probably full of like eight track tapes and beta max and laser disc. Frankie: Yeah, I mean it was old, but it was still there, I mean they hadn't felt the need to renovate it. so the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, which is like the agency that's in charge of making sure that all of these federal properties are upkept and like historically appropriate and all that. They sued for an injunction to halt the project. on March thirty first of twenty twenty six, the district court in the District of Columbia granted the injunction, later clarifying that they would continue the military installation, but nothing above ground unless, quote, strictly necessary for the safety of the White House, the President, and its staff. So they could finish the bunker, but they had to not do anything above ground. On April 17th, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed that injunction. So the injunction stopped the construction. So staying the injunction allowed it to restart as the appellate process proceeded, but only until August 7th of 2026. in that order saying you can continue. the pause is paused. it said that stay is only until August 7th. The government then requested SCOTUS to stay the injunction pending a certiorari petition, which is asking the Supreme Court to take the case, so they wouldn't have to stop the work on August 7th. On August thirty first, SCOTUS granted that stay, shocker. Saying that the government is likely to prevail because the trust lacks standing based on no injury. So one thing that has to happen in order for a stay, like a pause on whatever the lower court's decision was to take effect, is that there has to be a showing that whoever is asking for that stay, asking for that pause, is gonna win or is very likely to win in the appellate process. So that's their sort of we're not putting our thumb on the scope, but we're putting the our thumb on the scale. So the injury alleged was based on the affidavit of one of the members of this trust who also happens to be a historical architect and so like really knows all of the buildings and everything. It's kind of part of her job to know and understand and keep things going. And so she stated that quote, having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer injuries to her aesthetic, cultural and historical interests, because she finds the scale, height, and massing of the government's design to be distasteful. Judah: It's gonna be ugly as shit. Is g is like Frankie: It's gonna be ugly as shit. And she's upset about it because she's a historical architect and her job as part of this trust is to make sure that all of the historical buildings that this country was founded upon stay historical. Judah: It's gonna be like just before the French Revolution, when was it Louis the Fourteenth, just was like amassing all of this stuff, all Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: the countries burning around him and it's just garish and gilted in gold and just awful. Frankie: Yeah. So SCOTUS says that this is not standing because objection or distaste is not sufficient. I'm sorry, I happen to remember this Supreme Court saying that somebody who might possibly maybe at some point in the future be asked to make a website for a gay couple getting married was sufficient for standing. Judah: Yeah, it it's the the standing argument and Frankie: So if that's sufficient, why is this not? Judah: determining not standing is just a way to not hear the merits of the case because the case i is so grossly outweighed by the petitioner in the matter. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: I'm drinking my second cup of calming herbal tea today 'cause it's as strong as we can get. The first one I did pound through finishing up my outline. Frankie: Ha ha ha. there's more to this, which is SCOTUS also ruled that the government will suffer irreparable harm and that the district court overstepped by trying to control another branch's activities. The government introduced affidavits from the DNI, the directors of the CIA, FBI, and the Secret Service, and the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and the Army about the national security issues with halting the construction, stating that completing At least something the size and shape of the ballroom is quote crucial. But they are specifically not passing judgment on the legality of the project. They are just saying that the government is likely to prevail on the standing issue. And then they go on to say that if certiorari is not granted, the stay will terminate automatically, but if cert is granted, it will terminate upon judgment of SCOTUS. Judah: So that is that is truly fresh hell. There I mean we could do a a segment every week, basically Frankie: On the shadow docket. Judah: on the Shadow Docket. or Supreme Court shenanigans, except for when they're in recess, when we could just go through all the things that we missed in the months. We're Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: not always going to do that. Frankie: this week was just particularly bad. Judah: Yeah, it's very bad. this episode doesn't get more cheerful starting right now. Starting right now, you get the cheerful bit. I got the Frankie: Happier? No. Well, there are parts I do. Judah: painfully painfully depressing bit. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: so a couple of things. I'm gonna be talking about the history of institutionalization of people with disabilities in the United Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: States. Frankie: Yep. Judah: And this is also a relevant topic because of statements and moves that the executive branch of the federal government has been talking about with regards to people with disabilities. So the fear of a reinstitutionalization is very current. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: But not a lot of people know what it was. outside of the disability justice community or disability rights community Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: and why people are so afraid of it. Frankie: It's almost like when vaccines are so good that you forget what they're for. Judah: Yeah, and then kids are dying of measles. I have Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: measles cases less than ten miles from me. If you'd have told me ten years ago that there was gonna be a measles outbreak, a disease formerly eradicated in the United Frankie: Eradicated. Judah: States that has come back to life. But that's why we're talking. So what I'm not gonna be talking about today, because there just wasn't enough time. Is the history of sterilization in the United States. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: There are more legal cases for that. I think it's a very important topic, and we will talk about it in the future. Frankie: We will circle back to it. Judah: But sterilization and the sterilization of individuals with disabilities is something that went hand in hand with this institutionalization process. I want to call that out because I'm not really addressing it. Okay? So let me pull open my notes. I won't really be able to see you while I'm doing that, Frank. Frankie: Yeah, that's why I can't see you making faces at me when I'm reading my notes. Judah: my main source, well my main it's a really great article, is the rise of institutions 1800 to 1950 by the Minnesota Governors Council on Disability, A History of Institutions for People with Disabilities, Neglect, Abuse, and Death by James Delano, an article from The Obi Rag by Dr. Divya Kayaka, PhD, titled How Reagan's Decision to Close Mental Institutions Led to the Homelessness Crisis and the firsthand reporting of Geraldo Rivera on The Willowbrook State School in New York. Frankie: He did some remarkable reporting on that. Judah: Yes. I watched that reporting just directly. It's available on YouTube if you look up Geraldo Rivera and Willowbrook, you can find his reporting on that. it's a tough watch. So this is a quote from that article that I referenced they started with the road to hell is paved with good intentions by the American writer Samuel Johnson. And that is really what happened. So we're gonna talk about first pre-institutionalization. Globally, and especially in the United States, individuals with disabilities predominantly lived at home with their families in their communities and they received care that way. And it's not until the rise of industrialization, this widening wealth gap, and the cities becoming very crowded as a part of this process that we see the starts of What would become institutionalization. And because of the wealth gap, the very wealthy would care for disabled family members, usually at home with private doctors, and a lot of them were hidden away. I didn't get into that because those people aren't that interesting. The rich people, not the people with disabilities. But the average individual, or especially the poor individual, If there's any upset, they were already living so close to the edge that they couldn't care for individuals with disabilities. So they wound up in what we know today as poor houses, work houses, or alms houses. this is a very early and brutal form of welfare. And if you would like to know more about what that's like, I would refer you. To the wide work of Charles Dickens, who wrote about it in England. That's also happening in the United States. the conditions were frequently horribly unsanitary. There was beatings, forced labor, humiliation, all kinds of things. And if you're wondering how people survived that, mostly they didn't. There are huge mass graves and group burials. Of these unknown people subject to that system. And it wasn't just individuals with disabilities, but this is where we can point to where people wound up if they couldn't stay at home. In 1773, the first asylum/slash hospital, I'm doing big air quotes here, opened in Virginia. And it was called the Public Hospital for Persons of Insane and Disordered Minds. As I'm going through this, I'm gonna warn you, I'm using the historical terms that are now known as like slurs. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: But Frankie: That was the technical term at the time. Judah: That was the technical term at the time. this facility was essentially a prison, but without the possibility of getting out. The treatments, another big air quotes, included shackling, that's tying somebody to something, highly unsanitary conditions, forced ice baths. Seclusion and purposely rotting food and then feeding it to the patients. Frankie: They still use seclusion today and actually somebody the state hospital passed away recently because they were in seclusion for far too long, but that's a different story. Judah: That is a different story. And I was in a public work group about the seclusion of young people earlier. if we're talking about what an institution is at the time, they pretty much all look like this public hospital for persons of insane and disordered minds. So you're not actually seeing any kind of meaningful treatment. Hopes to get out, attempts to reintegrate people into society. They're just called medical institutions, but they're giant storage torture cells. Alright, so that's in the United States. In the early 1800s, in France, there's a doctor named Jean Etienne Dominique Esquil. And he's really like the first person that we're seeing trying to understand what intellectual disability is. It's important to keep in mind that his writing didn't really understand or differentiate intellectual disabilities of what we know today and mental illness. But he's trying to do this clarification and categorization and understanding of what disability is. And that writing influenced the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, well, I bet you've heard of. And Rousseau wrote about it. And in his writings he talks about how humans are inherently good and advocated for some forms of treatment. And that influenced writers and thinkers of the day in Europe, including Byron. And one of the things that Rousseau advocated for was clean and simple living in the countryside and lots of fresh air. I want you to put a pin in that. Because like that doesn't sound like the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Very shortly after that starts happening, there is another French physician named Edouard Seguin. And he's doing work with children with intellectual disabilities in France. He writes what is considered the earliest textbook on working with children with special needs. And he advocates for for things that were revolutionary at the time, like meeting their needs and not trying to beat people to death and different ways of effectively educating children. Frankie: Like actually giving them treatment. Judah: Yes, some kinds of treatment. It's not what we think of as treatment today, but like anything that isn't just like cruelty or like trying to beat it out of you, Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: is good. we're talking like eighteen forties and after. He gets invited to the United States and he comes to stay by an individual named Samuel Gridley Howe. Samuel Gridley Howe established what we now consider to be like the first modern school for the blind or for people with disabilities. The school was closed in the 70s due to allegations of child abuse, but back in the 1800s, he's doing things like, hey, why don't we teach blind children Braille? Why don't we provide them teaching materials in Braille? Why don't we modify teaching techniques? to match the fact that these individuals are visually impaired. And Frankie: Mm. Judah: he had great success with that. Now we think like, duh, but it wasn't in this larger institutional mind to be scaling teaching methods to meet the needs of people who have disabilities. Frankie: Yep. And I mean that didn't really happen whole scale until within, you know, our lifetime. Yeah. Judah: Yeah, it's still happening. Not not even done yet. That Samuel Gridley Howe is gonna come again later, but he also later in his life founded the Massachusetts School for Idiot and Feeble-minded youth. That's what it was called. Now we would never use those terms. Frankie: Idiot was a technical term. Judah: That was the technical term at the time. And he was able to demonstrate success educating children with mental illnesses and and intellectual disabilities. And I just put in here because by this time I'm just really mad at everybody. by This is my own quote, by not beating the shit out of them all the time and mostly treating them like people. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yep. Judah: So he was able to demonstrate in the United States this first school based situation where he's able to educate and improve the lives and functioning of children with especially intellectual disabilities through specialized educational programs. This is not very widespread. Think about the big players as Samuel Gridley Howe and Edward Seguin the Frankie: Well, Judah: Edward. Aha. but the big overarching picture for individuals with disabilities if they're not at home are these horrifying institutions. Then we get somebody that I wish everybody had heard of, Dorothea Dix. Frankie: Mm, yeah. Judah: Dorothea Dix was teaching Sunday school at a women's institution and was horrified by the conditions. And this is a very regular lady who had already had to overcome in her personal life a lot of obstacles. And she was inspired, and when I say inspired, I mean she's so horrified, she springs into action that she on her own, as a woman in the 1800s. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Spends two years doing independent investigation of asylums, hospitals, prisons, and almshouses, particularly around Massachusetts. This is a quote from her More than nine thousand idiots epileptics and insane in these United States, destitute of appropriate care and protection, bound with galling chains, bowed beneath fetters and heavy iron balls, attached to dog chains, lacerated with ropes, scourged with rods, and terrified beneath storms of profane execrations. And cruel blows, now subject to jibes and scorn and torturing tricks, now abandoned to the most loathsome necessities, or subject to the vilest and most outrageous violations. So she's coming in and she is advocating for better treatment, particularly of the mentally ill. She's not allowed to talk to Congress. So she partners up with Samuel Gridley Howe and He addresses Congress for her. And they're advocating for change at a systemic level and better treatment for individuals with disabilities. And what they're kind of jointly advocating for, still, they're not talking to people with disabilities to ask what they want, but they have these ideas about these training schools and about preparing people for life or for housing them appropriately in institutions that are safe and clean and appropriate to their needs. And they go on a campaign and their intentions are very good. And at first we see a little bit of like some hope where training schools are established But within three decades, The idea of what an institution is really switches from like a school back to an asylum. so we see like different labels, but not a meaningful difference between the asylums prior to Dix even though she's a complete badass and like just went out there and was like, you know what? I am going to expose the cruelties and the inhumanities that people with disabilities are subjected to. And there's quickly overcrowding and funding issues. And a big difference is that because they're going along with Rousseau's theories about like fresh air in the countryside, A lot of these institutions which were built with good intentions as training schools and like humane centers are placed out in the middle of BF nowhere. So they're just further from the populace, and the rise of inhumanity and cruelty exists. So we have a lot of these institutions that are built mid to late 1800s. And they're built for a certain amount of people. And at first they have that amount of people. And the people are just shoved into them more and more and more and more. And there's not updates. And there is also a push for those institutions to be fully self-sufficient. patients who are actually called inmates, Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Are categorized by like level of ability to function. And God help you if you're a level one, because it's just slave labor all the time. So they have huge farms, they have their own cemeteries, and they become isolated worlds out in the middle of nowhere. Coming back to post-World War II America. And we've talked before about eugenics, and we're gonna talk more about eugenics. The concept of who could be sent to these institutions and why really expands. and so there's more of an overcrowding, more of a thought of like we're separating people from society, and it's like these people go out to institutions and are disappeared, and it's easier than ever to get sent to them. You have no due process rights, you cannot argue, there is no large oversight. We're just warehousing people. And now it's now it's in the middle of nowhere. And the problem grows with time. It doesn't lessen with time. Now let's talk about ending institutionalization. It's still present, but ending what we had thought of as this mass institutionalization. Ronald Reagan in the sixties, he's California's governor. And he signs a proclamation to basically end institutionalization in California. Now this still isn't like the best news because he was doing that for cost cutting reasons and big government. It wasn't for the welfare of the people in institutions and there was no significant aftercare plan. And we have that going on over here. So he's doing that in California. We know he's later going to become president of the United States. In the middle of that We have our second kind of unexpected whistleblowing hero. Geraldo Rivera. I think if you know about Heraldo Rivera in public consciousness today, it's most likely because of that kerfuffle with Al Capone's empty vault. But this guy did some groundbreaking, hugely important journalism. Frankie: He's he started out in investigative journalism and he was fantastic at it. Judah: I would say as far as social changes go, some of his reporting resulted in some of the biggest changes that we've seen. And I think it's sad that we're undercutting him as a public figure and as an investigator. Frankie: Absolutely. Judah: So he goes in nineteen seventy two, he puts out an expose on the Willowbrook State School in New York. And he's in the state. school and there's footage of children trapped in cribs, bones poking out, covered in feces, how they're being fed, like the lack of education, even demonstrating that some of these like very small children, very, very small children are getting essentially no human contact over the course of a day. Yeah. Frankie: Which is so necessary to their healthy development. Judah: And I mean, I don't know, have you seen some of this reporting where there's just like lines of cribs and tiny beds and there's just kids just spending their entire day next to each other, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. No treatment, no care, no love. Frankie: Just languishing. Judah: languishing, very unsanitary conditions. So he puts that out in 1972. And that shocks American public consciousness because Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: we had as a culture forgotten that these people exist. And he is going in and these are sometimes infants that are subjected to these horrible conditions and all an America in a little bit of a way, kind of wakes up and is shocked and horrified by these conditions. There is a lawsuit against another facility in 1977, known as the Halderman v. Penhurst case. I don't know if you've read it, but it challenged the legality of abusive segregated state facilities and that started to force closures, that lawsuit. We have some good work going on. So we have activists from the disability community coming out and saying, like, we like people we want to determine our own fate. And there's big name activists like Ed Roberts who is championing community integration and self-determination. And if you think about it like structurally, we're going back to what was already occurring with people with disabilities before industrialization, which is People should be home, they should be careful, they should be in their community, and they should have the supports that they need to be in their own community. And and so that's happening in a way, and then in 1981, Ronald Reagan is in the White House. and he puts out a like a a bunch of stuff from the federal government just to close down facilities. There's not like a transition plan. There's not enough infrastructure in communities. There's not places for people to live. There's not supports in the communities. There's not medical care. And so they go from okay, you you've been fully institutionalized as like a psychological profile. you do have significant needs and there's not a place for you and those people become Frankie: Yeah, and I I Judah: unhoused. They become unhoused. Frankie: And I'm just kind of giggling because now we're going through that again, modern day in Oregon, with the limiting the amount of people who can go to the state hospital because they're kicking people out And this is required by federal litigation that these timelines get shortened, but there was nothing on the back end to support all these people coming out who are far sicker than had they stayed in the original timelines. Judah: their community. The Yeah. Because they haven't received proper care. So the equivalent to the Oregon State Hospital for human children in Oregon, actual children, is the children's farm home. and it's very close to me. And I get a lot of Frankie: And it's terrible. Judah: it is terrible. if you leave the farm home and you are a human child, an actual child, powerless child person, there is functionally absolutely no aftercare whatsoever. That's offered to you. Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: But the children's farm home is not subject to the same regulations as adults. So they just turn kids away. So like you could be an extremely high needs child. there's not the same requirements and there's not an institutionalization process, there's not a civil commitment process for for children. They're supposed to be like the last chance hope and they just turn you away or children are languishing in detention centers. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: I have personally been on too many cases. And I have cases right now where I have kids waiting for spots at the farm home and they are in jail that has absolutely no mental health treatment available functionally for them at all. Except for like medication management. Frankie: Yep. And that's what sparked the federal litigation for the adults is that, if you're found to not be able to assist your attorney because of a mental illness or you're found to be guilty except for insanity, which means that because of a mental illness you couldn't form the intent for the crime, that's very reduced, but anyways, you're supposed to be transported from the jail to the hospital within seven days. I had clients waiting like six weeks before this litigation Judah: I I've had Frankie: started. Judah: yeah, when I did adult criminal, I had a client waiting in jail for three months to get transported up. on this note, and I've just decided, and you can't say no, because of this crisis of mental health care, there is a side industry that's very profitable and really, really cruel, horrible and ineffective, that we call the troubled teen industry. To to Frankie: Yep. I was actually thinking about bringing that up as well. Judah: It actually makes kids worse. It makes kids worse. Frankie: It does. a lot of these kids are chemically restrained, which means they're not necessarily in like arm and leg restraints, but they are drugged to the point of essentially being vegetable. or they are so abused. there was a fantastic documentary about people who had air quotes graduated from one of these facilities going back and talking about their experiences and I forget for the life of me what it's called. But Judah: There's some really good documentaries. Let's let's put a pin in Frankie: Yeah. Judah: this for now because I would like to invite Annette Smith to come on the podcast to to talk about that. Frankie: That would be fantastic. One of our dear friends, who is a champion in this realm has worked with Paris Hilton on this very issue in front of Congress. So we will hopefully be able to get her on the pod at some point in the future. Judah: Yes, and she was the attorney for a nine year old little girl who Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: was sent to another state by our Department of Human Services for quote her own good, who was found to be unlawfully chemically restrained. She was nine years old. She didn't even have to take her shoes off to show you how old she was. Horrible conditions. Our state was sending kids out of state to these basically unlicensed, unregistered fake treatment facilities. And it was because of mostly because of this lawyer's oversight and State Senator Gelser Bluen, who I was in a Senate committee hearing with twice today, that those kids were pulled back from out of state. And just this last year, because we have such a crisis in the foster care system and such a lack Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: of homes, Governor Kotek, who I do not think I will be voting for again. but I'm also not voting for Drazan. Hopefully there's a third party candidate. was proposing like to solve this crisis that we should be able to send kids back out of state again I mean, there was a facility that I had a client pulled from. because a boy died because of abuse at the same facility. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Judah: So yeah, troubleteen industry that's still going on. So these are asylum institutions with Frankie: Continued issues, yeah. Judah: absolutely no parameters. And many of them are are private and people pay tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their children to what they think will be helping them because there's no other place to send them, but it winds up perpetrating far, far, far more abuse. Frankie: Yeah, and if if you're at all interested in learning more about this, Paris Hilton's self titled memoir is a fascinating and just deeply Judah: Well she's got a great documentary. Frankie: fantastic read. Judah: so she's got a documentary called This Is Paris because Paris Hilton herself was subject to the troubled teen industry. And then I would also recommend Hell Camp, colon Teen Nightmare. It's on Netflix that talks that further exposes brutal conditions and systematic abuses inside what are called youth treatment facilities or wilderness programs. And That school that Paris Helmet was sent to, the Provo Canyon School, I believe is the is the place where that boy died. Frankie: And it has been shut down since. The they'll rename and yeah. Judah: Yeah, but they they keep popping up under new names, same management, they reform LLCs. Now because of the we're talking about Paris something like this, but like, yeah, like this early two thousands reality TV star who was really seen as like vapid and like the worst part of culture. She put so much of her money, time, and energy into advocating against institutionalized child abuse and was A key driver behind the Stop Institutionalized Child Abuse Act that passed through, I want to say two years ago, that at least provides some regulation federally. It's not perfect. There was a lot of compromises, but before we had nothing, and now we have something. And in the area of stopping institutionalized child abuse, this is a figure to us that went from like kind of a joke 2000s figure to a national hero. Frankie: Yep, absolutely. Judah: So Frankie: So we'll definitely have a future episode about that, absolutely. So Judah left off in the timeline in the eighties. I will pick up Judah: Yep, so I I'm leaving you off in nineteen eighty one when we've just dumped people into the streets and there's just the whisper of a start. And Frank, I think you have some good news for us from there. Frankie: I do. I have some fun stories coming up. So the National Council on the Handicapped, which is now called the National Council on Disability or NCD, started authoring some papers that we'll link in the show notes. In February 1986, they wrote a paper called Toward Independence. And in nineteen eighty-eight, they wrote on the threshold of independence. and that's when the on the threshold of independence task force was Brought together to introduce the ADA in the 100th Congress in 1988. So this Congressional Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities was created by Representative Owens and co-chaired by Justin Dart Jr. and Elizabeth Boggs. The first version of the ADA was introduced by Senator Weiker and Representative Coehlo In 1989, it was revised and introduced to the 101st Congress and passed the Senate. The revised version was introducted by Senator Harkin and Senator Durenberger, Rep Coehlo and Rep Fish, and it passed the Senate seventy-six to eight. Judah: but then what happened, Frankie? Frankie: Well, so then it the Judah: Ha ha ha. Frankie: House was was not wanting to pass this thing. And so there was a series of demonstrations in March of nineteen ninety, and on March twelfth of nineteen ninety, one thousand people marched on the Capitol to encourage the House to pass the ADA. The problem with this was the only way to get up to the Capitol building was a giant set of stairs. Sixty of the thousand people in attendance did not have the mobility to climb the stairs. So rather than just sit at the bottom and yell, they abandoned their mobility devices and crawled, dragged, and scooted themselves up the stairs to the Capitol. It was the personification of the problem of not having the ADA. The youngest person to crawl was an eight year old named Jennifer Keenan-Chaffins. She led the pack crawling up the stairs wearing a bandana from ADAPT which was the group that organized the march. The adults almost didn't let her climb because they were concerned about the optics and that it would be a trigger for pity rather than empowerment. But the founder of ADAPT Reverend Wade Blank, told her that if she wanted to she could go, and she got out of her wheelchair and started ascending the stairs. Jennifer told people, quote, even though I was quite young, I realized that as one of the very few kids that got to be involved in this movement, it wasn't just about myself, but it was about them as well. To have that insight as an eight-year-old. Holy cow. The following day, protesters signed up to tour the Capitol, pretending that they were interested in attending the entire tour. But when they got to the Capitol Rotunda, they all stopped. And some stood and some just sat on the floor demanding to meet with the Speaker of the House. A hundred and four people were arrested that day, including Jennifer's mother. But despite being this dramatic event, it got limited news coverage, even though it became the seminal event in disability rights history. We see some echoing here of what happened with Stonewall, with it being the seminal event Of queer history and the beginning of pride, but nobody's covering it because it's embarrassing for the people who don't want it to happen. Judah: And tell me again what year this was. nineteen ninety Frankie: Nineteen ninety. I was five. Judah: I was two. Frankie: This is within recent memory that this was going on. But it worked. And on July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law. Now, the ADA was broken down into titles. And in 1991, the regulations regarding those titles were issued. Title I was about employment with the EEOC issuing regulations. Title II was state and local government. So the regulations were designed by the DOJ and the DOT. Public accommodations, Title III, also the DOJ and the DOT. And Title IV Telecommunications was the FCC running those regulations. In 1992, Title I took effect for employers with twenty-five or fewer employees. and titles two and three took effect in their entirety. In nineteen ninety-three, Title IV took effect. In nineteen ninety-four, title one took effect for employers with fifteen or fewer employees. And throughout this the Supreme Court had some things to say. So there was this what they called the Sutton trilogy of cases. Sutton versus United Airlines, Murphy v. United States Postal Service, and Albersons v. Kirkingburg. It was the first few cases that were coming through that was kind of defining the act. And as SCOTUS does, it decided to limit things. So in Sutton V, United States, a pair of twins with severely myopic vision, which is 20/200 or worse, people who are nearsighted and need corrective lenses to see far. applied to be pilots with United Airlines and were denied because they didn't meet the airlines requirement for being 20/100 or better. Their vision was correctable to 20/20, and so they sued under the ADA for being discriminated against due to a disability. The trial court dismissed their case for failure to state a claim because the twins weren't, quote, regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working and the 10th Circuit Upheld that dismissal on those same grounds. Judah: I mean I do understand that dismissal 'cause the ADA classifies disability very specifically. Frankie: It it does. It does classify very specifically as somebody as having or being regarded as having a disability. So, when the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal, they said, quote, we hold that the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individual's impairment, including in this instance eyeglasses and contact lenses. In addition, we hold that petitioners failed to allege properly that respondent quote regarded them as having disability within the meaning of ADA. They further went on to say, quote, looking at the act as a whole, it's apparent that if a person is taking measures to correct for or mitigate a physical or mental impairment, the effects of those measures, both positive and negative, must be taken into account when judging whether the person is substantially limited in major life activity and thus disabled under the act. Judah: Think it would be a completely different scenario so an accommodation, let's talk about what an accommodation is. It's a Frankie: Yeah. And some of the later ones will talk about that too. Judah: yeah. So an accommodation basically means that in order to engage in a necessary function of life, that you require something that somebody without a disability wouldn't need. So for example, yeah. Frankie: Like a ramp for somebody who's a wheelchair user. Judah: So to get into a building, if you're in a wheelchair, we're not gonna expect you to climb up the stairs, because you cannot, so you have to have a ramp. Or if somebody is an example like to use that's kind of a flip around the scenario, if somebody has glasses and with those glasses they can see and do their work, but their workplace is not allowing them to wear their glasses. You can say, well, those glasses are an accommodation for a vision impairment without which they could not perform that function. Frankie: what the Supreme Court is saying in this case is essentially because the individuals were not disabled under the law and they weren't denied for not being able to complete the duties of the position, but rather they didn't meet the minimum qualifications, it was insufficient to say that they were discriminated against. Judah: So they could work in other basically almost Frankie: Yep. Judah: every other field. Frankie: Yep. The ADA requires that no covered employers, quote, shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to that job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Okay. So Judah: Yeah. There's some ex so what Frankie is saying is you cannot use just because somebody has a disability to Frankie: As a reason to hire, fire, promote demote, Yep. Judah: Yes. And there are things like if a reasonable accommodation could be provided that you have to provide that accommodation. A common Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: example that we see for a number of different reasons is like using speech to text software instead of typing. Frankie: Yep. If you have dexterity issues. Judah: Dexterity issues, if you have other processing issues, You know, people use it just because it's easier for them, but that is technically an accommodation Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yep. Judah: and it's simple. Or, you know, if somebody like I used it in the school example where this guy was like, Hey, I'm gonna be the first person in the United States to have an institution for the visually impaired that provides things in Braille. Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. There's all sorts of different things that could count. the next of the cases, Murphy v. United parcel service. Mr. Murphy had been diagnosed with hypertension since he was ten years old, but with medication, he does not have any limitations. He was hired to a position at UPS that required a CDL in 1994. In order to get the CDL, he had to certify to the Department of Transportation certain medical requirements, including, quote, no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with his or her abilities to operate a commercial vehicle safely. That was one of the requirements through DOT for anybody driving truck. At the time He was applying, his blood pressure was too high to qualify for the DOT health certification, but he was erroneously issued a certificate to be in work. That September, a UPS medical supervisor noticed the error and requested a retest of Murphy's blood pressure, which still measured high. So UPS fired him, believing he did not meet the DOT requirements, and Mr. Murphy sued. The trial granted UPS's summary judgment motion, finding similarly to the last case, that he needs to be evaluated for disability in his medicated state. when he's in his medicated state, aside from having trouble lifting heavy objects, he otherwise functions normally. They also determined that UPS didn't quote regard him as disabled, but rather that he simply didn't meet DOT standards. Similar thing, DOT requiring that you have at least 20/100 vision. DOT requiring that you don't have unsafe blood pressure while you're driving truck. Murphy appealed and the circuit court affirmed, explaining that he wasn't terminated on, quote, an unsubstantiated fear that he would suffer a heart attack or stroke, but rather, quote, because his blood pressure exceeded DOT's requirements for drivers of commercial vehicles. SCOTIS granted cert and affirmed with similar reasoning as to Sutton. The third of these cases, Albertsons versus Kirkingburg, began in 1990 when Kirkingburg was hired by Albertsons to drive truck for the Portland, Oregon warehouse. He had more than a decade of driving experience and did well on the road test given by the company. Before beginning work, though, he had to take the test to see if he met the DOT vision standards with corrected vision. to at least 20/40 in each eye and to be able to see binocularly, meaning both eyes have vision. Kirkingburg lives with a non-correctable condition that leaves him with 20/200 vision in his left eye and essentially monocular vision, so without vision in his right. Judah: It just yeah. Frankie: Despite this, he was erroneously passed and hired by the company. Why this keeps happening, who knows? In December of nineteen ninety one, Kirkingburg injured himself on the job and took a leave of absence. And in order to return to work, he had to go to a physical, and that revealed he did not actually meet DOT standards for vision. He was told he would need a waiver in order to return to work. Kirkingburg then applied for the waiver. There was a program through the Department of Transportation for these waivers, but Albertson's fired him as a truck driver. He received his waiver in early 1993, but Albertsons refused to hire him back as a long haul truck driver, but they did offer him a driving job on the warehouse campus, but then withdrew it. And then a mechanics job, but he turned that down because it didn't pay as much. So he sued. Judah: I'm guessing he won this one. Frankie: we'll get there. So Judah: Okay. Frankie: Albertsons filed for summary judgment and won at the trial level. And the district court ruled that waiting for the waiver was not a reasonable accommodation because the program was, quote, a flawed experiment and has not altered DOT vision requirements. Kirkingburg appealed, and a divided Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court's decision. So they agreed with him. Albertsons reiterated their arguments below, and for the first time on appeal, which you're not supposed to do, you're supposed to just bring up arguments that were made below. Brought forward the argument that Kirkingburg is not disabled as described by the ADA, just like in the other two cases. The Ninth Circuit determined that Kirkenberg's monocular vision counted as a disability, and they reversed based on Albertson's relying on the federal DOT vision standards but refusing to utilize that federal waiver program. If they decided to use a different standard, they would need to show it was to prevent, quote, a direct threat to health or safety of the individuals in the workplace. SCOTUS decided to answer the question on whether Kirkenberg's condition was a disability per se. which means that his condition is as a matter of law a disability. They chastised the Ninth Circuit for not taking into consideration whether there had been any compensatory measures developed, even if internal ones, to mitigate the disability, because those mitigating steps must be taken into consideration. They found that the Ninth Circuit was in error, means they made the wrong decision, to determine that the existence of the waiver program modifies the basic DOT requirements. They pointed out that the purposes of the waiver program was information gathering to eventually move towards a more individualized standard, not evidence that lesser standards would protect health and safety. And based on that, they reversed the Ninth Circuit. Judah: Alright, I am kind of shocked. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: because he had minocular vision for Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: qualifications for a disability, but then they got him on a technicality. Well what we're missing here is I cannot believe you did not talk about the nineteen seventy seven 504 sit-in. Frankie: I thought you were gonna talk about that. Judah: So I was just doing institutionalization. So can we talk about the 504 sit-ins right now? Frankie: Yes. Judah: I love the 504 sit-ins. without the 504 sit-in, we would not have the Americans with Disabilities Act. Period. Frankie: Mm. Judah: So section 504 was passed back in the 60s. And It provided some levels of federal protection for individuals with disabilities and preventing discrimination. Now the ADA is a lot broader, but 504 is talking about as it applies to governments. So section 504 states no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States as defined in section 705 subsection twenty. of this title shall solely by any reason of her or his disability be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, or under any program or activity conducted by any executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. So This protection just talks about applying to basically the feds or anybody who gets federal dollars. And that's a lot of people. You would be surprised. Frankie: Mm-hmm. It is. It is aside from all the federal agencies, there are a lot of state and local agencies that are funded by federal dollars. Judah: Yeah. you talk about state colleges. Frankie: Mm. Judah: Well, they receive a significant amount of federal funding so it it applies broadly. It was a fight by disability rights activists to get section five four passed. It it was signed by Richard Nixon after he vetoed it twice, because he was a dick in all sense of the word. And but the problem was that section 504 was not being enforced. So we've gotten to 1977, and I wanna say this is about fifteen years before the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And it's actually years after it's been signed. And the amazing thing about this sit-in. So a group of people with disabilities and some allies go to a federal office in San Francisco and they take over the office and they will not leave. So it's a sit in. and it lasts for days. This Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: organization and the leadership. Behind the 504 organization is women and LGBTQ plus people. They're people who later became famous, Judy Human, Kitty Cohn, Brad Lomax, Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Mary Jane Owen, Cobra O'Toole, and Hale Zucas. And there is soon to be a biopic of Judy Heumann called Being Heumann that's coming out. And it's gonna be in theaters, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing it. And if they Frankie: Mm. Judah: screw that up, I'm gonna be so mad because Judy Heumann was a total badass. And rest in peace, complete badass. So they're in this office, and we have people present. These are ordinary people, many of whom have significant medical needs. And the sit in is going Much longer than expected, but these people aren't leaving and it's gonna be super bad optics for Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: them to be forcibly removed from this office. Frankie: That didn't stop people later. We'll get to that in a little bit. Judah: Yeah, didn't stop people later. And so they're there and but they're like also running out of supplies and people on the ground, with ropes trying to get supplies up to people. But some of these people with significant medical needs have supplies that are like super necessary and they're running out and This is going on longer than expected. So who swoops into the rescue Frankie to provide supplies? Do you Frankie: Hmm. Judah: know? It's the Black Panthers. Frankie: that's right. Judah: the sit-in at the San Francisco Federal Building. So there was multiple sit-ins, but this one at the San Francisco Federal Building is really where it's centralized and it lasts the longest and it goes on for 26 days. Frankie: Mm. Judah: And so this major political activity that picks up a lot of steam that winds up going Over to Washington and makes big changes on the enforcement of the 504 Act. And there was also another participant that we talked about last week who helped with organization before, during, and after the Comptons Cafeteria riot, the Glide Memorial Church also Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: came out and sent meals and supported people during This it was very tactical. there was so much that was going on and all this different pressure and things across the country. But this is a truly grassroots movement led by people with disabilities and contingents sent to Washington DC. And that was pivotal after years of like getting no traction. In getting strong 504 regulations for actual enforcement, because there was really not a means to enforce it. So it's like that's a cute law that we don't have to follow because there's no trouble that we'll get into. And it also influenced kind of an expansion to the Department of Transportation to make public transportation accessible for people with disabilities. and that happened later, but what they were asking for in these sit-ins and through this grassroots, no money, just total badasses, later became the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. And so the act was passed. SCOTUS then a few years later made all these restrictions on the act, this line of cases essentially narrowed the act so that it did not apply to people who are taking mitigative measures. So people who have limited vision wearing eyeglasses, people who, you know, have mobility issues using a wheelchair, things like that. the idea was if you're able to compensate for your disability, it's not actually a disability in the eyes of the law. that was further restricted in two thousand two under a case named Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams. which was more strict implementation in order to make a standard of the standard, essentially. And in 2004, NDC wrote another paper called Righting the Americans with Disabilities Act because it had gotten so narrowed by SCOTUS that it was essentially ineffective. Going a little bit further into the aughts, in 2006, the transportation regulations in Title II and III were revised and reissued by USDOT, likely to conform with the the SCOTUS cases that had come around. And then in 2008, George H.W. Bush signed another piece of legislation called the ADA Amendments Act, or A D A A A. Legit, like that was the abbreviation. Judah: A da da Frankie: it was a legislative fix to the extreme narrowing that SCOTUS put in place in order to provide broader protections. So this happens, right? A law gets passed, somebody challenges the law or challenges the utilization of the law against them. It goes up through the courts, the court issues these rulings being like Yeah, this is what the law actually is. And then the legislature goes, that's not what we meant. And they go and pass a new law to Judah: Yeah. That's called that's called legislative intent. Frankie: fix air quotes fix the court interpretation of the law. So in 2009, the ADAAA took effect. A da. and then you get Additional updated regulations but to titles two and three in twenty ten, and in twenty eleven, and then in twenty thirteen, Title One gets updated by the EEOC. And then in twenty fourteen, the US Access Board, which is for electronics and information technologies, telecommunications, right of way, et cetera, and the Department of Justice, who controlled web info services, movie captioning, video equipment, and next gen nine one, updated guidelines and rules. So this has all kept getting revised and edited and revised and edited and revised and edited up through as recently as ten years ago. in twenty seventeen we had some additional activism, also run by ADAPT that same company that that Judah: Rock on. Rock on. Frankie: same nonprofit that led the Capitol crawl back in nineteen ninety. ADAPT and other disability advocacy groups protested in a die-in against proposed cuts to Medicare and the ACA. This occurred on the day that the GOP revealed their plan to repeal and replace the ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare. And protesters came and sat specifically in front of Mitch McConnell's office as he was Senate Majority Leader. And people were chanting No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty. This protest, as people may remember, because it was nine years ago. was when law enforcement pulled forty three people from their wheelchairs and carried them out of Capitol Hill. Judah: That's bad optics, man. Hang on, I'm gonna pause you. Frankie: Super bad optics. Wait, wait. Additional super bad optics. Reports from paramedics was that there was blood on the ground where these people had been removed from. It was violent. It was super violent. and you got this gaslighting going on by Eva Makecki who is the Capitol Police spokesperson. stated that some of the protesters removed themselves from their wheelchairs and laid down on the ground, leading to the doorway being blocked. People were removed and charged with crowding and obstructing. Judah: Did they also injure themselves so they had to bleed all over the ground, do you think? Frankie: Yeah, no, it this is total gaslighting. The the protesters were beat up and physically removed from their mobility devices and carried out of the Capitol. So like what are these people supposed to do once they're out of the Capitol? Their wheelchairs are inside, their walkers, whatever they're using for mobility, is inside. You've beat the shit out of them, and you're just gonna leave them on the sidewalk outside. Like this is such bad optics. And as, you know, the the Medicare cuts didn't go through at that point. They have gone through since, which has wreaked havoc on all of the everything in the medical field, because guess what? Medicare funds rural hospitals. And so there Judah: They do. Frankie: are now rural hospitals that are closing or have closed because they no longer had the funding, because they got their funding through Medicare. Judah: There's this I mean, this notion that we talked about last week that, you know, something that's really accessible and safe for a trans person is good for a cis person because that means it's safe for everybody. And things that are accessible and safe for a person with a disability means that it's accessible and safe for everyone. Frankie: Take the example of curb cuts, right? Curb cuts, that little ramp that you get from the sidewalk onto a crosswalk. those were put in place because of the ADA and public access rules, right? But they're helpful for strollers, bicycles, Judah: Skateboards. Frankie: jogging. It's so much nicer to jog up a ramp than have to make that elevation shift. Judah: Yeah, you know who can use a ramp to get into a building? Everyone. Frankie: Everybody. Judah: Everybody can. And there's gosh, I'm gonna try and remember her name. There's this great disability justice advocate who actually died pretty recently because her insurance refused to pay for a two thousand dollar antibiotic and her infection killed her. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Insurance is a whole nother thing we can get into. Judah: They Yeah, they are the devil. We can talk about that more. We got lots of episodes coming up. But cops are trying to remove her from a protest and she was in a mobilized wheelchair. So Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: like she's strapped in. So she reached down and ripped a bunch of wires out of her mobilized wheelchairs, rendering it immobile and like dropped them in front of the cops. Frankie: That's amazing. Judah: Like super badassery. Before we close, I wanna hit two things 'cause we had Something that really happened in the seventies about the same time as the 504 sit-ins, and something that happened in the nineties at the same time approximately as the ADA. In nineteen seventy-five, Gerald Ford signs the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Like before you could just keep kids out of school for having disabilities. You they just they they didn't have a right to a free and public education. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Like we're just hiding people, we're keeping them away, we don't wanna look at them. And so Gerald Ford signed that and then in nineteen ninety it was renamed and expanded through what we still have as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. So those you can see them like bookending because of this advocacy for Frankie: Mm. Judah: this very important access to free and public education Frankie: And just so people are aware, the IDEA is what allows kiddos to have individual education plans. So, you know, like kiddos who have ADHD and may need to take medication during the day, it allows them to do that or may need fidgets so that they Judah: Insulin even. Yeah. Frankie: can keep focused or, you know, sensory room breaks, things like that. that would not be possible without the IDEA and it's allowing kiddos who have the potential but lack something that would allow them to sit through normal school allows them to Judah: So Frankie: succeed. Judah: educationally, because it's also protected, free and public education is also protected under Section 504 Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And that's why still today we have things called a 504 plan. Frankie: five four plans. Yep, and and five fours and IEPs are slightly different. that's that's Judah: They're very different. I do this all the time. Frankie: fair. So you're you're better equipped to explain the differences than I am. Judah: Yeah, so a 504 plan is is talking about accommodations to the school environment, not to the manner or type of content that's taught. And an IEP is truly an individualized education plan which modifies in some way the content or manner of teaching of educational material. so you can have very reasonably one student who has a 504 and they have an IEP. They do different things. You see crossover, like you were talking about fidgets. Fidgets are one of those kind of crossover accommodations Frankie: Mm. Judah: that that you can see built in under various types of things, but 504s are also really important because if you have a 504 for accommodations to your learning environment itself, that 504 follows you automatically through your higher education and the the schools have to work with you whereas getting individualized education or IEP type planning is kind of a crapshoot in higher Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yep. Judah: education. So thinking about nineteen seventy five being the time where school couldn't say, Well, just because you have a disability, that means we don't even want kids to look at you. So you're not coming to school. Frankie: Mm, Judah: or you're having to go to a special school my mother became a special education teacher shortly after because she graduated high school at fifteen. she became a special education teacher shortly after this was passed. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Like that was the start of her professional career working with children with disabilities in public education was because of this law. Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. this is recent stuff. it's a little depressing how recent it is, but this is recent stuff and it's still growing and evolving and we still have people in government who are trying to take it down, which is beyond frustrating. Judah: And if if you think it doesn't impact you specifically, 'cause you might not have a disability now, your rough lifetime estimate of getting or acquiring a qualifying disability is between twenty five and fifty percent depending on where you live in the United States. Frankie: Yep. Disability is the one protected class that you can join at any point in your life. Judah: Yes, and so I'm an individual that because of my neurodivergence I have a qualifying disability and I'm not ashamed of that. I'm a great lawyer at just sometimes I'm a little quiet. And for for that Frankie: Different. Judah: I have noise cancelling headphones and good boundaries. Frankie: Mm. Yeah. Yeah. I've got both physical and neurodiversity and I I've meandered and fought my way through life because I didn't realize that those were a thing until I was an adult. But Judah: you wanna hear something that's gonna make you mad? Frankie: Sure. Judah: This is just something that happened locally a couple of years ago. I have an inflammatory disease. So I have psoriatic arthritis that affects multiple organ systems in my body, which is super fun. Frankie: Yeah, I got one of those too. Yay. Judah: Yay. and one of the things that helps my body run the best throughout the day is very simple. It's water. I like to have I have one right next to me, right here. Frankie: You can see me throughout all of our videos chugging from this thing and it has super powered electrolytes in it because that's what keeps me vertical. Judah: Yeah. Because you have that thing where you could just pass out. Our courthouse, you could only bring in a small plastic water bottle and you couldn't refill it. And sometimes Frankie: Eww Judah: I'd be in court all day. And so I had to get my doctor to write an accommodations letter for me to bring in a refillable water bottle. And my doctor was the most pissed I've ever seen her sitting there angrily typing this letter, And I think she put something in there like and he has to get this because he has a disability that requires super regular hydration, but it's very unhealthy for people to not drink water. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: Cause our courthouse doesn't have water cups on the table like other courthouses Frankie: wow. Judah: do. Yeah, we don't have we don't have water cups on the table. The only way to get water was in between courts take the super slow, scary elevator to the basement and sip out of the water fountain and then go back to court. And you know, that's like maybe an ounce or two every couple of hours. That's not enough water. So I had to get an accommodation letter to take a water bottle into the courthouse. Frankie: Yeah, I mean after my car accident when my head and neck was all jacked up my doctor had to write me accommodation letter to work only forty hours a week. She looked at me like I had three heads. Judah: That's like when my doctor recommended to me as strongly as she possibly could that I drink no more than one full pot of coffee a day, and then clarified, I'm talking about an eight cup pot of coffee, not one of the bigger ones, so don't cheat and I was like, She Frankie: Mm. Judah: saw exactly where I was going with her brain. Frankie: And that's why you're a lawyer. Judah: welcome to Public Defense Overworked, underpaid, nobody likes us. Frankie: Yeah, and we actually have an exciting surprise guest coming up in a couple of weeks to talk about that but in the meantime, coming up next week, we are going to do a know your rights episode. we're both public defenders and we see far too few people exercising their rights. So Judah: I haven't told you this yet, but I've written a jingle for that episode. Frankie: my. Judah: Yeah. I'll let you hear it ahead Frankie: Okay. Judah: of time. Frankie: Thank you. I appreciate that. So like, review, subscribe, and share the podcast so we can continue to grow. some of our reels are hitting 10,000 views, which is really exciting. Over 12,000. Judah: We got one at tw over twelve thousand, so Frankie: So If you have any questions, thoughts, concerns, you can reach out to us on Facebook, Instagram, Blue Sky, or via email at dumb defences podcast at gmail dot com. Judah: Send me a recipe, I've gotten no recipes. Frankie: Yeah, we haven't gotten any cookie recipes. So Judah: At this point I'll take cake, pie, I mean cheesecake, even though I'm lactose intolerant. Frankie: I use dairy free cream cheese. Judah: It's not bad actually, it really isn't. Frankie: It's it's not. so thanks for listening, and we'll see you next week. Judah: See you next week. Bye bye. Frankie: Bye.