HomeMy WebLinkAboutFulton_v_Philadelphia_Amicus_Brief
No. 19-123
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States _________
SHARONELL FULTON, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL.,
Respondents. _________
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit _________
BRIEF OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, MAYORS,
AND U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AS
AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONDENTS _________
JAMES E. JOHNSON
Corporation Counsel
RICHARD DEARING
Counsel of Record
CLAUDE S. PLATTON
LORENZO DI SILVIO
New York City Law
Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 356-2500
rdearing@law.nyc.gov
(Additional counsel listed in Appendix)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ ii
INTEREST OF AMICI AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3
I. Amici rely on contracts to deliver a wide
range of public services in their diverse
communities. ......................................................... 3
II. Granting contractors exemptions from
nondiscrimination requirements would
implicate amici in conveying a message
of exclusion. ........................................................... 6
III. Granting contractors exemptions from
nondiscrimination requirements would
impair the delivery of services offered
through public–private partnerships. ................. 8
IV. Petitioners’ position could affect nearly
every aspect of public services offered
through public–private partnerships. ............... 17
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 20
APPENDIX ................................................................ 21
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
FEDERAL CASES:
Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open
Soc’y Int’l,
133 S. Ct. 2321 (2013) ............................................ 6
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States,
461 U.S. 574 (1983) .............................................. 17
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
573 U.S. 682 (2014) .............................................. 17
Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith,
494 U.S. 872 (1990) ........................................ 17, 19
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United
States,
379 U.S. 241 (1964) ................................................ 7
Maddonna v. U.S. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs.,
No. 6:19-cv-03551-TMC, ECF No. 43
(D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2020) ......................................... 17
Marouf v. Azar,
391 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2019) ........................ 16
Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.,
390 U.S. 400 (1968) .............................................. 17
Obergefell v. Hodges,
576 U.S. 644 (2015) ................................................ 7
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees,
468 U.S. 609 (1984) ................................................ 6
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Rogers v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human
Servs.,
No. 6:19-cv-01567-TMC, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 148885 (D.S.C. May 8, 2020) ................... 16
Rust v. Sullivan,
500 U.S. 173 (1991) ............................................ 6, 8
Teen Ranch, Inc. v. Udow,
479 F.3d 403 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 552
U.S. 1039 (2007) ................................................... 19
STATE CASES:
Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights
Comm’n,
874 P.2d 274 (Alaska 1994) ................................. 18
FEDERAL STATUTES:
1 Stat. 54 ................................................................... 3
STATE STATUTES, CODES & REGULATIONS:
Albany N.Y., City Code § 48-26(E) ........................... 5
Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(a) ....................................... 5
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34070 et seq. .............. 4
Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 16013 .............................. 10
Cook Cty., Ill., Code of Ordinances
§ 42-40(a) ................................................................ 5
Cty. of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Cty. Bd.
of Supervisors Policy Manual
§ 5.5.5.4 (2020) ....................................................... 5
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 6-123(b) ................................ 5
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
David M. Brodzinsky, Expanding Re-
sources for Children III: Research-Based
Best Practices in Adoption by Gays and
Lesbians (Oct. 2011) ............................................ 10
Bianca D. M. Wilson et al., Williams Inst.,
Sexual & Gender Minority Youth in
Foster Care: Assessing
Disproportionality and Disparities in
Los Angeles (2014), archived at
https://perma.cc/LPR6-S298 ................................ 10
Chi. Dep’t of Family & Support Servs.,
Homeless Services, archived at
https://perma.cc/VLT7-ZZ86 ................................ 11
Chi. Dep’t of Family & Support Servs.,
Shelter, archived at
https://perma.cc/MSD6-BDXF ............................. 11
City of Madison, Wis., Cmty. Dev. Div.,
2020 Contracts, archived at
https://perma.cc/S6FR-DU42 ................................. 7
Cty. of Santa Clara, Office of Gender
Based Violence, Resources for Survivors
During the Covid-19 Crisis, archived at
https://perma.cc/EBS7-HLSX ................................ 7
Cty. of Santa Clara, Soc. Servs. Agency,
archived at https://perma.cc/EC9E-CE42 ............. 9
Food and Beverage Mgmt. Contract with
City of Houston, archived at
https://perma.cc/JLL5-UZPK ................................ 4
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Harris County Extends Contract with
Houston Food Bank To Provide Meals to
Families Struggling Due to COVID-19,
Houston Style Magazine, July 28, 2020,
archived at https://perma.cc/DB3F-F7JA ............. 4
U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., The
AFCARS Report (2017), archived at
https://perma.cc/E3EN-3TB2 .............................. 11
Jeffrey R. Henig, Privatization in the
United States: Theory and Practice, 104
Pol. Sci. Q. 649 (Winter 1989–90) ......................... 3
Jon Michaels, Privatization’s Progeny, 101
Geo. L.J. 1023 (2013) ............................................. 5
K.W. Rhodes, et al., Foster Family Re-
sources, Psychosocial Functioning, and Re-
tention, 27 Soc. Work Research 135 (2003) .............. 9
Kevin Kosar, Congressional Research
Serv., Privatization and the Federal
Government: An Introduction
(Dec. 28, 2016), archived at
https://perma.cc/T3AR-3DM4 ................................ 3
L.A. Cty., Before and After School Pro-
grams, archived at
https://perma.cc/2D7R-H2TJ ................................. 4
L.A. Cty. Dep’t of Children & Family
Servs., Foster Family Agencies, archived
at https://perma.cc/KL6V-E9ZU ............................ 7
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
L.A. Hunter et al., Soc. Justice Sexuality
Project, CUNY, Intersecting Injustice:
Addressing LGBTQ Poverty and Eco-
nomic Justice for All (2018), archived at
https://perma.cc/TAJ9-KD8R .............................. 12
Lane Cty., Or., Emergency Services Pro-
vider List, archived at
https://perma.cc/ZSH7-C934.................................. 7
Martha Minow, Public and Private
Partnerships: Accounting for the New
Religion, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1229 (2003) ............... 5
Megan Martin et al., Ctr. for the Study of
Soc. Pol’y, Out of the Shadows: Supporting
LGBTQ Youth in Child Welfare Through
Cross-System Collaboration (2016), ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/TFF6-VJAU ................. 11
Mich. Adoption Res. Exch., Mich. Adop-
tion & Foster Care Agencies by Cty., ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/QDB9-GK29 .............. 16
Michael Gilman, Legal Accountability in
an Era of Privatized Welfare, 89 Cal. L.
Rev. 569 (2001) .................................................. 3, 5
N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs., Become
a Foster or Adoptive Parent, archived at
https://perma.cc/X4L4-6UHV .................................. 9
N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs., Foster
Care Statistics for FY19, archived at
https://perma.cc/RCC5-37HJ .................................. 9
N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs.,
Guidance #2008/05, archived at
https://perma.cc/935R-LXSJ ................................ 10
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs.,
Preventive Services, archived at
https://perma.cc/SC7C-LZYJ ................................. 4
N.Y.C. Dep’t of Citywide Administrative
Servs., The City Record Online,
Solicitation for In-Home Therapy
Program, available at https://a856-
cityrecord.nyc.gov/RequestDetail/201904
22023 (last visited Aug. 16, 2020) ....................... 13
N.Y.C. Dep’t of Citywide Administrative
Servs., The City Record Online,
Solicitation for Jail to Jobs Re-entry
Program, available at https://a856-
cityrecord.nyc.gov/RequestDetail/201710
02003 (last visited Aug. 16, 2020) ....................... 13
N.Y.C. Dep’t of Homeless Servs. Daily
Report, archived at
https://perma.cc/STH6-8SKW ............................. 11
N.Y.C. Dep’t of Homeless Servs., Providers,
archived at https://perma.cc/MJ94-WHJ5 ........ 7, 11
N.Y.C. Dep’t of Hous. Preservation &
Dev., Emergency Repair Program, ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/WJ2D-QVAS ............. 18
Nat’l Alliance To End Homelessness, Many
Western and Southern States Lack Suffi-
cient Shelter Capacity for Individual
Homeless Adults (Apr. 24, 2019), archived
at https://perma.cc/2NHZ-BA2Y ........................... 15
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Nestor M. Davidson, Relational Contracts
in the Privatization of Social Welfare:
The Case of Housing, 24 Yale L. & Pol’y
Rev. 263 (2006) .................................................. 3, 5
Office of the N.Y.C. Comptroller, Annual
Summary Contracts Report for the City
of New York, Fiscal Year 2019, archived
at https://perma.cc/A882-VBQB ............................ 4
Richard Bränström & John E. Pachankis,
Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Uti-
lization Among Transgender Individuals
After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total
Population Study, 177 Am. J. Psych. 727,
727 (2020) .............................................................. 12
S.E. James, et al., Nat’l Ctr. for
Transgender Equality, The Report of the
2015 Transgender Survey (2015), ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/AE4A-QQ9Z .............. 13
S.F. Adult Probation Dep’t, Catalog of
Reentry Services Funded by SFAPD, ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/LN4E-KDBU .............. 13
S. Frazer & E.E. Howe, The LGBT Cmty.
Ctr., LGBT Health and Human Services
Needs in New York State (2016), ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/M6TWPAMB ............ 12
Shoshana K. Goldberg & Kerith J.
Conron, Williams Inst., How Many
Same-Sex Couples in the U.S. Are Rais-
ing Children? (July 2018), archived at
https://perma.cc/DRN3-QAHK ............................ 10
ix
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Stephen L. Reich & Janet L. Davis, Nat’l
Ctr. for Transit Research, Univ. of S.
Fla., Analysis of Contracting for Fixed
Route Bus Service (June 2011), archived
at https://perma.cc/P9KK-V363 ....................... 4, 18
Tex. Dep’t of Family & Prot. Servs.,
Search for Child Placing Agencies for
Foster Care, archived at
https://perma.cc/DB83-GAJE ................................ 7
INTEREST OF AMICI AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT1
Amici curiae are 166 cities, towns, counties, and
mayors representing more than 53 million Americans
across the country.2 Amici comprise both metropolis-
es like New York, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles
and smaller cities like Champaign, Illinois; Iowa City,
Iowa; and Carrboro, North Carolina. Amici represent
the level of government most closely connected to our
Nation’s communities, providing a wide range of
essential services to enable the members of those
communities to live healthy and stable lives and
contribute to society.
The amici governments have long chosen to partner
with private entities to provide publicly funded
services touching many aspects of our residents’
lives. These include important social services for the
most vulnerable members of our communities—
foster care being just one example. And many amici
bar contractors from discriminating on the basis of race,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected
characteristics when they deliver government services.
1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, the parties to this
matter have consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for
a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or
counsel for a party made a monetary contribution intended to
fund its preparation or submission. No person other than the
amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the
preparation or submission of this brief.
2 Amici also include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonprofit,
non-partisan organization of cities with a population of 30,000
or more. A complete list of amici is set forth in the appendix.
2
Amici have a strong interest in whether the First
Amendment permits private providers under con-
tract with local governments to opt out of such
nondiscrimination requirements, designed, as they
are, to ensure the fair, equitable, and neutral deliv-
ery of public services. Requiring amici to facilitate
and fund the provision of services by private entities
that refuse to work with certain members of our
communities would implicate amici in conveying a
message of exclusion that we find it of paramount
importance to avoid.
Religious exemptions would also impair amici’s
ability to deliver essential government services
effectively. Government-funded services are often the
last resort for members of our communities most in
need of assistance. Reaching those individuals and
families—building their trust and fostering their
connections to the community—can be a tremendous
challenge. Adding barriers to access unrelated to
eligibility for public services—such as provider-based
exclusions of certain groups—would make it only
more difficult to reach those in need of support. And
it is by no means clear that in every community,
particularly smaller communities, there will be
alternative contractors to meet the needs of groups
excluded because of a contractor’s religious objections.
A ruling in petitioners’ favor would open the door to
a variety of claims for religious exemption from
innumerable generally applicable provisions of public
contracts. Petitioners’ challenge, if successful, could
therefore lead amici to curtail the use of contracting
for public services, and thus to forgo the many bene-
fits to local governments and their residents that
come from partnering with private entities.
3
ARGUMENT
I. Amici rely on contracts to deliver a wide range
of public services in their diverse communities.
Partnerships between government and private
entities play a vital role in the delivery of public
services. Governments have partnered with private
parties for this purpose since the Founding—the
First Congress authorized Treasury Secretary Alexander
Hamilton to contract for the construction and
maintenance of a lighthouse for the Chesapeake Bay.
See 1 Stat. 54; see, e.g., Kevin Kosar, Congressional
Research Serv., Privatization and the Federal Gov-
ernment: An Introduction 2 (Dec. 28, 2016), archived
at https://perma.cc/T3AR-3DM4; Michael Gilman,
Legal Accountability in an Era of Privatized Welfare,
89 Cal. L. Rev. 569, 581, 591 (2001). Beginning in the
late nineteenth century, governments began turning
to private entities to provide social services, in par-
ticular poverty relief. Nestor M. Davidson, Relational
Contracts in the Privatization of Social Welfare: The Case
of Housing, 24 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 263, 268 (2006).
In the modern era, the use of contracting for the
delivery of public services has expanded, with “[a]ll
levels of government … increasingly employing
private entities to undertake functions traditionally
performed by the public sector.” Id. at 267. At the
local level, by 1990, 80,000 governments had estab-
lished public–private partnerships by contract or
other means. Jeffrey R. Henig, Privatization in the
United States: Theory and Practice, 104 Pol. Sci. Q.
649, 656–57 (Winter 1989–90).
Today, local governments use contracts with pri-
vate parties to provide a host of essential services,
touching on nearly every aspect of local governments’
4
relationships with their residents. For instance,
some local governments contract with private parties
to run public transportation or shuttle services;3 to
prepare meals for students, the elderly, incarcerated
individuals, or those in need;4 to run shelters for
people displaced by natural disasters;5 to operate
concessions in public parks or convention centers;6 to
provide support services to parents to prevent their
children from being placed in foster care;7 and to
offer before- or after-school programs for schoolchil-
dren.8 Recently, New York City alone entered into
contracts for services totaling in excess of $22 billion,
at least $8 billion of which was for social services.9
These public–private partnerships can confer sig-
nificant benefits. They may reduce costs, ensure that
3 See, e.g., Stephen L. Reich & Janet L. Davis, Nat’l Ctr. for
Transit Research, Univ. of S. Fla., Analysis of Contracting for
Fixed Route Bus Service vi (June 2011), archived at
https://perma.cc/P9KK-V363.
4 See, e.g., Harris County Extends Contract with Houston Food
Bank To Provide Meals to Families Struggling Due to COVID-
19, Houston Style Magazine, July 28, 2020, archived at
https://perma.cc/DB3F-F7JA.
5 See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34070 et seq.
6 See, e.g., Food and Beverage Mgmt. Contract with City of
Houston, archived at https://perma.cc/JLL5-UZPK (2007 contract
to operate concessions at George R. Brown Convention Center).
7 See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs., Preventive
Services, archived at https://perma.cc/SC7C-LZYJ.
8 See, e.g., L.A. Cty., Before and After School Programs, ar-
chived at https://perma.cc/2D7R-H2TJ.
9 See Office of the N.Y.C. Comptroller, Annual Summary
Contracts Report for the City of New York, Fiscal Year 2019, at
App’x 7, archived at https://perma.cc/A882-VBQB.
5
service delivery is responsive to community condi-
tions, and increase the quality of services by stimu-
lating competition and innovation or by operating on
a smaller scale. See, e.g., Davidson, supra, at 270;
Jon Michaels, Privatization’s Progeny, 101 Geo. L.J.
1023, 1030–36 (2013); Martha Minow, Public and
Private Partnerships: Accounting for the New Reli-
gion, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1229, 1242–43 (2003). They
may also help bring to bear a diversity of perspec-
tives and increase participation by ethnic, religious,
and cultural groups within communities by drawing
new people into operations previously handled by the
government. Davidson, supra, at 270; Gilman, supra,
at 596; Minow, supra, at 1245. Indeed, community-
based groups, by virtue of their location in amici’s
diverse communities, are often intimately familiar
with and thus well situated to address a community’s needs.
Amici require that private entities providing public
services under contract refrain from discriminating
on the basis of protected characteristics. Some amici
impose these requirements by contract, while others
have enacted laws prohibiting government contrac-
tors from discriminating in the performance of the
contracts they receive.10 The purpose of these re-
quirements is not to force conformity of belief—amici
value the religious diversity of our communities, and
reject discrimination on the basis of religion—but to
ensure that all our residents receive publicly funded
10 See, e.g., Albany, N.Y., City Code § 48-26(E)(3); Cook Cty., Ill.,
Code of Ordinances § 42-40(a); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 6-123(b);
Cty. of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Cty. Bd. of Supervisors Policy
Manual § 5.5.5.4 (2020), archived at https://perma.cc/35GR-
KJP2; see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(a) (barring discrimination
under state-funded programs).
6
services with dignity and respect and without expe-
riencing exclusion. Nondiscrimination requirements
are critical, both because of the message of inclusion
they send to amici’s diverse residents, and because
they are directly tied to the effective delivery of
essential services.
II. Granting contractors exemptions from
nondiscrimination requirements would implicate
amici in conveying a message of exclusion.
Petitioners contend that they have a constitutional
right to continue providing public services under a
government contract, and to receive government
funds, while refusing to abide by the requirement
that all contractors deliver services without regard to
personal characteristics such as race, religion, gen-
der, or sexual orientation. Requiring local govern-
ments to contract with religious providers that
engage in status-based discrimination would frus-
trate amici’s commitment to nondiscrimination and
dilute the message of inclusion that amici have
worked to convey through their programs.
Government has an interest “of the highest order”
in eliminating all forms of discrimination. Roberts v.
U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 624 (1984). Prohibiting
discrimination by contractors conveys the govern-
ment’s message that all members of the community
are valued and are entitled to services and support.
The Court has long recognized that the conduct of
publicly funded service providers can send a message
about the government’s own judgments and values.
See Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y
Int’l, 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2328 (2013); Rust v. Sullivan,
500 U.S. 173, 194 (1991). When a private entity
receiving public funds under a government contract
7
tells amici’s residents to seek public services else-
where, whether because of the color of their skin, the
substance of their beliefs, or whom they love, it sends
the message that the government does not view
those individuals as full members of our communi-
ties entitled to equal respect. That message consti-
tutes a dignitary harm of the first order. See, e.g.,
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 670–71 (2015);
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S.
241, 250 (1964).
It makes little difference to the individuals receiv-
ing this message whether the messenger is a gov-
ernment agency or a private contractor acting in the
government’s place. It also makes little difference
whether there are other providers willing to offer the
same services, since dignitary harms occur whenever
members of amici’s communities are turned away by
an entity that receives and spends government funds.
A thought experiment helps illustrate this point for
foster care. Some amici, such as Los Angeles County,
publish guidance listing the private entities it con-
tracts with to deliver services.11 Under petitioners’
11 See L.A. Cty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., Foster Family
Agencies, archived at https://perma.cc/KL6V-E9ZU; see also N.Y.C.
Dep’t of Homeless Servs., Providers, archived at
https://perma.cc/MJ94-WHJ5 (listing shelter providers in New York
City); Cty. of Santa Clara, Office of Gender Based Violence, Re-
sources for Survivors During the Covid-19 Crisis, archived at
https://perma.cc/EBS7-HLSX (listing private gender-based violence
service providers); City of Madison, Wis., Cmty. Dev. Div., 2020
Contracts, archived at https://perma.cc/S6FR-DU42 (listing private
community-support service providers); Lane Cty., Or., Emergency
Services Provider List, archived at https://perma.cc/ZSH7-C934;
Tex. Dep’t of Family & Prot. Servs., Search for Child Placing
Agencies for Foster Care, archived at https://perma.cc/DB83-GAJE.
8
position, these local governments would face an
untenable choice. One option would be to specify, in
the government’s own guidance, which of the listed
organizations would not entertain applications from
members of which groups. The other would be to
withhold that important information and leave
people to discover it for themselves, wasting their
time and exposing them to arguably more pointed
acts of exclusion. Neither choice is acceptable. The
solution is clear: local governments should be al-
lowed to “define the limits” of their programs and
require nondiscrimination in the performance of
government contracts. Rust, 500 U.S. at 194.
III. Granting contractors exemptions from
nondiscrimination requirements would
impair the delivery of services offered
through public–private partnerships.
Exemptions from nondiscrimination requirements
would also impair the delivery of important public
services. Nondiscrimination requirements remove
barriers to access to services—often services of last
resort—for the most vulnerable members of amici’s
communities. These services benefit both the indi-
viduals who receive them and the community at
large. Exemptions would only add to existing barri-
ers to access faced by vulnerable members of our
communities. They would also exacerbate the challeng-
es that local governments already face in delivering
many of those services. We discuss three examples here.
1. Nondiscrimination helps local governments pro-
vide the best possible foster care for children who
might otherwise have little or no family support.
Some of the amici responsible for foster care award
contracts, as Philadelphia does, to private providers
9
to place abused or neglected children with prospec-
tive foster parents, or to provide those parents with
support services.12 Last year, for example, the City of
New York entered into contracts valued at more than
$550 million for foster-care services for the nearly
8,000 children in the city’s care.13
As we all know, having a stable and supportive
home environment is crucial for a child to achieve a
productive and fulfilling life. Thus, in making foster-
care placements, amici strive to ensure that children
are placed in the most stable, supportive, and loving
homes available, not just minimally suitable ones, so
they can thrive and ultimately contribute to society.
To achieve that goal, amici must seek out as many
well-qualified foster parents as possible. There is a
critical shortage of foster homes, with many families
discontinuing fostering within the first few months,14
and foster parents often asked to provide homes for
more youth than they deem optimal and eventually
burning out. Amici can scarcely afford the potential
loss of qualified foster parents who would be turned
away by a provider with a religious objection, based
on traits that amici have determined bear no rela-
12 See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs., Become a
Foster or Adoptive Parent, archived at https://perma.cc/X4L4-
6UHV (stating that foster-care agency will approve prospective
parent’s application to foster a child); Cty. of Santa Clara, Soc.
Servs. Agency, archived at https://perma.cc/EC9E-CE42 (listing
private therapeutic foster-care service providers).
13 See N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs., Foster Care Statistics
for FY19, archived at https://perma.cc/RCC5-37HJ.
14 K.W. Rhodes, et al., Foster Family Resources, Psychosocial
Functioning, and Retention, 27 Soc. Work Research 135, 135 (2003).
10
tionship to individuals’ suitability to be foster par-
ents. Thus, in New York City, for instance, every
private provider must ensure that “all qualified
prospective foster or adoptive parents who wish to
provide homes to children and youth in care have the
opportunity to do so without discrimination,” includ-
ing discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
gender, or sexual orientation.15
Same-sex couples represent an especially key popu-
lation to reach and welcome into amici’s foster-care
programs. Same-sex couples are seven times more
likely to raise adopted or foster children than differ-
ent-sex couples and are also more likely to adopt
older children and children with special needs, who
are statistically less likely to be adopted.16 Nondis-
crimination also protects a substantial portion of the
children in amici’s care, as around one-fifth of youth
in the Nation’s foster-care systems identify as lesbi-
an, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ).17
15 N.Y.C. Admin. for Children’s Servs., Guidance #2008/05,
archived at https://perma.cc/935R-LXSJ; see also Cal. Wel. & Inst.
Code § 16013 (barring discrimination, including on the grounds of
race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation, against “all persons
engaged in providing care and services to foster children”).
16 See Shoshana K. Goldberg & Kerith J. Conron, Williams
Inst., How Many Same-Sex Couples in the U.S. Are Raising
Children? (July 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/DRN3-
QAHK; David M. Brodzinsky, Expanding Resources for Chil-
dren III: Research-Based Best Practices in Adoption by Gays
and Lesbians 8 (Oct. 2011).
17 Bianca D. M. Wilson et al., Williams Inst., Sexual & Gender
Minority Youth in Foster Care: Assessing Disproportionality
and Disparities in Los Angeles 6 (2014), archived at
https://perma.cc/LPR6-S298; Megan Martin et al., Ctr. for the
Study of Soc. Pol’y, Out of the Shadows: Supporting LGBTQ
11
Where nearly 500,000 children are in foster care
nationwide,18 nondiscrimination helps maximize the
pool of prospective parents who can provide loving
homes, and helps ensure that amici can continue to
meet the needs of all children in their care as effec-
tively as possible.
2. Similarly, nondiscrimination helps local gov-
ernments maximize use of shelters by persons expe-
riencing homelessness. Many amici provide shelter
services by contracting with private entities. The
City of Chicago, for instance, contracts with 29
providers at 50 sites to offer 3,000 shelter beds and
requires providers operating shelters to keep families
together, regardless of whether a family includes
same-sex partners or an unmarried couple with
children.19 And the City of New York contracts with
over 20 private entities, including many faith-based
organizations, to run shelters and provide beds in
the city, where, in July of this year, over 55,000
people, including over 10,000 families with children,
were in shelters.20 Contracting with private entities
for the operation of the city’s shelters helps conserve
limited taxpayer dollars, and working with these
Youth in Child Welfare Through Cross-System Collaboration 7
(2016), archived at https://perma.cc/TFF6-VJAU.
18 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., The AFCARS Report 1
(2017), archived at https://perma.cc/E3EN-3TB2.
19 Chi. Dep’t of Family & Support Servs., Homeless Services 13,
archived at https://perma.cc/VLT7-ZZ86; Chi. Dep’t of Family &
Support Servs., Shelter, archived at https://perma.cc/MSD6-BDXF.
20 N.Y.C. Dep’t of Homeless Servs. Daily Report, archived at
https://perma.cc/STH6-8SKW; N.Y.C. Dep’t of Homeless Servs.,
Providers, archived at https://perma.cc/MJ94-WHJ5.
12
entities enables the city to more rapidly deploy
resources when individuals experience homelessness
or when changing weather conditions make it espe-
cially dangerous for people to be living on the street.
Nondiscrimination by shelter operators signals to
homeless individuals—among those most in need of
support in amici’s communities—that they are
welcome. This signal may be important to individu-
als who do not share a provider’s religious affiliation
and worry that they will not be accommodated, or
will be made to feel uncomfortable if they are taken
in. And it is especially important for shelters to
welcome LGBTQ people, who face systemic barriers
to obtaining stable housing and comprise a dispro-
portionate share of the homeless population. For
instance, in New York City alone, more than one-
sixth of LGBTQ residents have experienced home-
lessness.21 Additionally, 40% of the Nation’s home-
less youth identify as LGBTQ.22
Transgender people are particularly likely to avoid
shelters that fail to respect their gender identity;
lack safe access to basic facilities and necessary
medical care; or permit bullying or harassment.23 For
21 S. Frazer & E.E. Howe, The LGBT Cmty. Ctr., LGBT Health
and Human Services Needs in New York State 19 (2016),
archived at https://perma.cc/M6TWPAMB.
22 See L.A. Hunter et al., Soc. Justice Sexuality Project, CUNY,
Intersecting Injustice: Addressing LGBTQ Poverty and Economic
Justice for All 5 (2018), archived at https://perma.cc/TAJ9-KD8R.
23 See, e.g., Richard Bränström & John E. Pachankis, Reduction
in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender
Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Popula-
tion Study, 177 Am. J. Psych. 727, 727 (2020) (observing that
transgender individuals are at higher risk of psychological
13
transgender people experiencing homelessness, as
for anyone facing that circumstance, safe access to
clean bathrooms and working showers at a shelter
may be their only option to fulfill basic human needs.
And according to a national survey of transgender
people, 30% of respondents experienced homeless-
ness at some point in their lives, 26% who were
homeless in 2015 avoided staying in a shelter for fear
of discrimination, and 70% of those who stayed in
shelters that year reported such discrimination.24
Given these stark numbers, amici must be able to
know that any facility it contracts with will be able to
provide shelter or services to LGBTQ people in need.
3. Nondiscrimination requirements also facilitate
access to rehabilitation and reentry services for
formerly incarcerated persons—another area where
trust is fragile and effective delivery of services can
be critical. Some amici contract with community-
based organizations to provide these services, which
run the gamut from substance-abuse treatment,
anger-management training, and therapy, to educa-
tion services and job training, transportation, con-
nection to child-care options, and assistance with
enrolling in benefit programs.25 Nondiscrimination is
distress due to “stigma-related stress” and “stress associated
with a lack of gender affirmation”).
24 S.E. James, et al., Nat’l Ctr. for Transgender Equality, The
Report of the 2015 Transgender Survey 176 (2015), archived at
https://perma.cc/AE4A-QQ9Z.
25 See, e.g., S.F. Adult Probation Dep’t, Catalog of Reentry Services
Funded by SFAPD, archived at https://perma.cc/LN4E-KDBU; N.Y.C.
Dep’t of Citywide Administrative Servs., The City Record Online,
Solicitation for Jail to Jobs Re-entry Program, available at https://a856-
cityrecord.nyc.gov/RequestDetail/20171002003 (last visited Aug. 16,
14
essential when amici contract to provide these ser-
vices. Opening the door to providers’ religious ex-
emptions would frustrate the project of getting aid to
those most in need.
For instance, it would frustrate the goal of reentry
for a private provider to refuse to assist a client in
identifying transitional or permanent housing be-
cause the client is unmarried and seeks to live with a
partner or because of the client’s sexual orientation
or gender identity. And many individuals returning
to society require therapy or counseling services,
which call for a compassionate understanding of the
person’s life, background, and circumstances.
LGBTQ clients in particular, who in many instances
have faced rejection by their families and discrimina-
tion in society, could be discouraged from seeking
vital services by a counselor who denies the validity
of their sexual orientation or gender identity or
sends them elsewhere for services.
Persons returning to society after a period of incar-
ceration already face substantial obstacles to
reentry, which would only increase if a provider
based in their community, or the one with the best
programming for their particular needs, could turn
them away. Nondiscrimination thus helps those
reentering amici’s communities following a period of
incarceration by connecting them with education,
jobs, and support. These services do not just benefit
the recipients; they help make our communities safer
2020); N.Y.C. Dep’t of Citywide Administrative Servs., The City Record
Online, Solicitation for In-Home Therapy Program, available at
https://a856-cityrecord.nyc.gov/RequestDetail/20190422023 (last visited
Aug. 16, 2020).
15
and stronger by reducing recidivism and cycles of
incarceration
4. As these examples illustrate, permitting con-
tractors to opt out of providing services to certain
members of the community would exacerbate the
challenges that local governments already confront
in delivering many of those services. To take one
example, local governments face myriad tests in
meeting the needs of individuals and families experi-
encing homelessness, including finding suitable
locations for homeless shelters near where clients
work, go to school, and have important support
structures; maintaining an adequate supply of bed
space; keeping conditions safe for residents; and
providing wrap-around services such as counseling,
life skills, job training, and help finding permanent
housing.26 In New York City, for instance, where
availability of suitable permanent homes can be
exceptionally tight, matching individuals and fami-
lies who have lost their housing with appropriate
services or temporary shelter beds is a daily exercise
in multidimensional chess. Adding religious exemp-
tions by private contractors to the mix would amplify
the level of complexity by fragmenting delivery of
services not only by contractor but also by location,
requiring local governments to figure out how to link
persons in need with other providers willing to serve
them, lest they slip through the cracks.
26 See, e.g., Nat’l Alliance To End Homelessness, Many Western
and Southern States Lack Sufficient Shelter Capacity for
Individual Homeless Adults (Apr. 24, 2019), archived at
https://perma.cc/2NHZ-BA2Y.
16
Additionally, it would not always even be possible
for a local government to fill gaps in coverage created
by exemptions for religious contractors. In certain
parts of the country or in some smaller jurisdictions,
given the sparse population, there is only one con-
tracted service provider. In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula,
for instance, some counties have only a single pro-
vider of foster-care services: Catholic Social Services
of the Upper Peninsula.27
In these communities, same-sex couples could end
up with no place to turn to become foster parents.
Claims of exclusion of this kind have already arisen.
See, e.g., Marouf v. Azar, 391 F. Supp. 3d 23, 28
(D.D.C. 2019) (same-sex couple unable to foster
unaccompanied refugee child because religious
service provider was only available agency near Fort
Worth); see also Rogers v. U.S. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., No. 6:19-cv-01567-TMC, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 148885, at *25–26 (D.S.C. May 8, 2020)
(discussing allegation that faith-based child-
placement agency’s discrimination against same-sex
couples denied plaintiffs access to “the largest and
most well-resourced [agency] in the state” with
“substantial government funding” that allowed it to
“provide comprehensive support to foster families”).
The requirement not to discriminate in the perfor-
mance of a government contract is thus directly tied
to the effective delivery of essential public services.
27 See Mich. Adoption Res. Exch., Mich. Adoption & Foster Care
Agencies by Cty., archived at https://perma.cc/QDB9-GK29.
17
IV. Petitioners’ position could affect nearly
every aspect of public services offered
through public–private partnerships.
The exemption that petitioners seek would have
widespread implications for amici’s use of contractors
because it cannot be limited to objections to same-sex
couples or to social services like foster care. Because
local governments may not evaluate “the relative
merits” of the religious beliefs of the members of
their diverse communities, Emp’t Div., Dep’t of
Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887 (1990), no
limiting principle would prevent contractors from
lodging religious objections to a broad range of
neutral, generally applicable contract requirements.
And the scope of potential objections would be even
broader if exemptions could be made not just by
religiously affiliated providers, but also by unaffiliat-
ed providers with religious convictions. Cf. Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 719 (2014)
(for-profit corporation may assert violation of religious
rights under Religious Freedom Restoration Act).
For one thing, a ruling in petitioners’ favor would
open the door to claims for exemptions from provid-
ers unwilling to serve any number of groups within
our diverse communities. Similar claims of religious
liberty have already been made regarding protected
characteristics other than LGBTQ status. See, e.g.,
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 580,
(1983) (discussing university sponsors’ religious
opposition to interracial dating and marriage);
Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400,
402 n.5 (1968) (per curiam) (addressing barbeque
vendor’s asserted religious objection to serving black
customers); Maddonna v. U.S. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., No. 6:19-cv-03551-TMC, ECF No. 43,
18
at 8–9 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2020) (discussing allegation
that foster-care agency would serve only evangelical
Protestant Christians and had turned away plaintiff
because she is Catholic); Swanner v. Anchorage
Equal Rights Comm’n, 874 P.2d 274, 276 (Alaska
1994) (enforcing state and local nondiscrimination
laws against landlord who refused to rent to unmar-
ried couple on basis of religious beliefs).
Religious objections could also reach a wide range
of services that local governments provide through
contracts with private parties. For instance, some
amici contract with private entities to provide trans-
portation.28 Those amici should not have to accom-
modate a private bus operator’s religious objection to
close physical proximity between unmarried men
and women by allowing the operator to mandate
separate seating for male and female passengers.
Some amici rely on private contractors to perform
emergency repairs 24/7 when they receive reports of
unsafe conditions in apartments.29 It would be infea-
sible to allow a contractor to refuse to do this time-
sensitive work on the Sabbath. Some amici contract
to offer after-school programs, cultural programs, or
anti-gang initiatives in schools. Those amici should
not have to accommodate the contracting instructors’
religious objections to the messages amici wish them
to convey. And where many amici fund shelters or
28 See, e.g., Stephen L. Reich & Janet L. Davis, Nat’l Ctr. for
Transit Research, Univ. of S. Fla., Analysis of Contracting for
Fixed Route Bus Service vi (June 2011), archived at
https://perma.cc/P9KK-V363.
29 See, e.g., N.Y.C. Dep’t of Hous. Preservation & Dev., Emergency
Repair Program, archived at https://perma.cc/WJ2D-QVAS.
19
group homes run by private contractors, access to
transitional housing should not be conditioned on
prayer or adherence to the provider’s religious be-
liefs. Cf. Teen Ranch, Inc. v. Udow, 479 F.3d 403,
406–07 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1039 (2007)
(state agency responsible for foster children discon-
tinued referring children to religious provider that
“coerced” participation in religious activities).
Given the diversity of faith and identity in many of
amici’s communities, the full impact of petitioners’
position is difficult to foresee. Though the obligation
not to discriminate in the performance of some of
these services would likely satisfy even strict scruti-
ny, requiring amici to justify the application of
neutral, generally applicable policies on a case-by-
case basis would be unduly burdensome and would
stymie the provision of services. See Smith, 494 U.S.
at 888 (“[W]e cannot afford the luxury of deeming
presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious
objector, every regulation of conduct that does not
protect an interest of the highest order.”).
* * *
For all these reasons, a ruling in petitioners’ favor
could prompt local governments across the country to
pull back from partnering with private parties for
the provision of government services. This change
would undermine the significant benefits of these
partnerships, raising costs to the taxpayer, removing
opportunities for innovation and competition, and
inhibiting the responsiveness, participation, and
engagement that flows from involving a variety of
community-based organizations in serving amici’s
diverse communities.
20
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the court of appeals should be
affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES E. JOHNSON
Corporation Counsel
RICHARD DEARING
Counsel of Record
CLAUDE S. PLATTON
LORENZO DI SILVIO
New York City Law
Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 356-2500
rdearing@law.nyc.gov
(Additional counsel listed in Appendix)
AUGUST 2020
APPENDIX
21
APPENDIX
EVE V. BELFANCE
Director of Law
161 S. High Street,
Suite 202
Akron, OH 44308
Attorney for City of
Akron, Ohio
YIBIN SHEN
City Attorney
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara
Avenue, Room 280
Alameda, CA 94501
Attorney for City of
Alameda, California
MARISA A. FRANCHINI
Corporation Counsel
City of Albany
24 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207
Attorney for Mayor Kathy
Sheehan and City of
Albany, New York
ESTEBAN A. AGUILAR, JR.
City Attorney
One Civic Plaza N.W.
4th Floor, Room 4072
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Attorney for City of
Albuquerque, New Mexico
JOANNA C. ANDERSON
City Attorney
301 King Street,
Suite 1300
Alexandria, VA 22304
Attorney for Mayor
Justin Wilson and City of
Alexandria, Virginia
BRAD R. BRANHAM
City Attorney
P.O. Box 7148
Asheville, NC 28802
Attorney for Mayor
Esther Manheimer, City
of Asheville, North
Carolina
22
NINA R. HICKSON
City Attorney
Department of Law
55 Trinity Avenue S.W.,
Suite 5000
Atlanta, GA 30303
Attorney for City of
Atlanta, Georgia
ANNE L. MORGAN
City Attorney
P.O. Box 1546
Austin, TX 78701
Attorney for City of
Austin, Texas
DANA P. MOORE
Acting City Solicitor
100 N. Holliday Street,
Suite 101
Baltimore, MD 21202
Attorney for Mayor and
City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland
FARIMAH FAIZ BROWN
City Attorney
2180 Milvia Street,
4th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Attorney for City of
Berkeley, California
JAYME B. SULLIVAN
City Attorney
Office of City Attorney
150 N. Capitol Boulevard
P.O. Box 500
Boise, ID 83701
Attorney for City of Boise,
Idaho
THOMAS A. CARR
City Attorney
P.O. Box 791
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
Attorney for Mayor Sam
Weaver and City of
Boulder, Colorado
23
KENNETH W. GORDON
Town Attorney
1039 Monroe Avenue
Rochester, NY 14620
Attorney for Town of
Brighton, New York
EILEEN M. BLACKWOOD
City Attorney &
Corporation Counsel
City Hall
149 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Attorney for Mayor Miro
Weinberger, City of
Burlington, Vermont
NANCY E. GLOWA
City Solicitor
795 Massachusetts
Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Attorney for City of
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
KEITH O. BRENNEMAN
Law Office of Keith O.
Brenneman, P.C.
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA
17055
Attorney for Mayor
Timothy A. Scott and
Borough of Carlisle,
Pennsylvania
G. NICHOLAS HERMAN
General Counsel
The Brough Law Firm,
PLLC
1526 E. Franklin Street,
Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attorney for Mayor Lydia
Lavelle and Town of
Carrboro, North Carolina
MATTHEW JERZYK
City Solicitor
580 Broad Street
Central Falls, RI 02863
Attorney for Mayor
James Diossa and City of
Central Falls, Rhode
Island
24
FREDERICK STAVINS
City Attorney
102 N. Neil Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Attorney for Mayor
Deborah Frank Feinen
and City of Champaign,
Illinois
RALPH D. KARPINOS
Town Attorney
405 Martin Luther
King Jr. Boulevard
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attorney for Mayor
Pamela S. Hemminger,
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina
JANIE E. BORDEN
Assistant Corporation
Counsel
50 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Attorney for Mayor John
J. Tecklenburg and City
of Charleston, South
Carolina
MARK A. FLESSNER
Corporation Counsel
BENNA RUTH SOLOMON
Deputy Corporation
Counsel
REBECCA HIRSCH
Assistant Corporation
Counsel
30 N. LaSalle Street,
Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
Attorneys for Mayor Lori
E. Lightfoot and City of
Chicago, Illinois
ANDREW W. GARTH
Interim City Solicitor
801 Plum Street,
Room 214
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Attorney for Mayor John
Cranley and City of
Cincinnati, Ohio
ALISHA PATTERSON
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
611 Anton Boulevard,
14th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attorney for City of
Claremont, California
25
BARBARA A. LANGHENRY
Law Director
City of Cleveland
601 Lakeside Avenue,
Room 106
Cleveland, OH 44114
Attorney for City of
Cleveland, Ohio
WILLIAM R. HANNA
Director of Law
40 Severance Circle
Cleveland Heights,
OH 44118
Attorney for City of
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
SUELLEN M. FERGUSON
125 West Street,
Fourth Floor
Annapolis, MD 21401
Attorney for City of
College Park, Maryland
ZACH KLEIN
City Attorney
77 North Front Street,
4th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Attorney for City of
Columbus, Ohio
JESSICA M. SCHELLER
Chief, Advice, Business
& Complex Litigation
Division
Cook County State’s
Attorney’s Office
500 Richard J. Daley
Center
Chicago, IL 60602
Attorney for Cook County,
Illinois
MIRIAM SOLER RAMOS
City Attorney
405 Biltmore Way,
2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Attorney for City of Coral
Gables, Florida
26
GREGORY G. HUTH
Law Director
2079 E. 9th Street,
Suite 7-100
Cleveland, OH 44115
Attorney for Cuyahoga
County, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER J. CASO
City Attorney
1500 Marilla Street, 7DN
Dallas, TX 75201
Attorney for Mayor Eric
Johnson and City of
Dallas, Texas
KRISTIN M. BRONSON
City Attorney
1437 Bannock Street,
Room 353
Denver, CO 80202
Attorney for City and
County of Denver,
Colorado
LAWRENCE GARCIA
Corporation Counsel
2 Woodward, Suite 500
Detroit, MI 48226
Attorney for Mayor Mike
Duggan and City of
Detroit, Michigan
STEPHEN P. ZOLLINGER
Driggs City Attorney
P.O. Box 280
Rexburg, ID 83440
Attorney for Mayor
Hyrum F. Johnson and
City of Driggs, Idaho
REBECCA ST. GEORGE
City Attorney
411 W. First Street
Duluth, MN 55804
Attorney for Mayor Emily
Larson and City of
Duluth, Minnesota
KIMBERLY M. REHBERG
City Attorney
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701
Attorney for Mayor Steve
Schewel, City of Durham,
North Carolina
THOMAS M. YEADON
City Attorney
McGinty, Hitch, Person,
Yeadon & Anderson
601 Abbot Road
East Lansing, MI 48823
Attorney for Mayor Aaron
Stephens and City of East
Lansing, Michigan
27
KELLEY A. GANDURSKI
Corporation Counsel
Law Department
Morton Civic Center
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201
Attorney for City of
Evanston, Illinois
DAVID HALL
City Attorney
2930 Wetmore Avenue,
Suite 10A
Everett, WA 98201
Attorney for Mayor
Cassie Franklin, City of
Everett, Washington
P. DANIEL CHRIST
City Attorney
2055 Orchard Lake Road
Sylvan Lake, MI 48320
Attorney for City of
Ferndale, Michigan
ANGELA WHEELER
City Attorney
1101 S. Saginaw Street
Flint, MI 48502
Attorney for City of Flint,
Michigan
DAVID S. WILLIAMSON
City Attorney
Williamson & Hayashi
1650 38th Street,
Suite 103W
Boulder, CO 80301
Attorney for City of
Golden, Colorado
TODD K. POUNDS
City Solicitor
11414 Livingston Road
Fort Washington,
MD 20744
Attorney for Mayor Colin
Byrd, City of Greenbelt,
Maryland
JENNIFER MERINO
City Attorney
400 S. Federal Highway
Hallandale Beach,
FL 33009
Attorney for Mayor Joy F.
Cooper and City of
Hallandale Beach,
Florida
HOWARD G. RIFKIN
Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street,
Room 210
Hartford, CT 06103
Attorney for City of
Hartford, Connecticut
28
REBECCA W. GEISER
Kilkenny Law, LLC
519 Swede Street
Norristown, PA 19401
Attorney for Hatboro
Borough, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL LAWSON
City Attorney
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
Attorney for Mayor
Barbara Halliday,
Members of the City
Council and City of
Hayward, California
ROBERT E. HORNIK, JR.
The Brough Law Firm,
PLLC
1526 E. Franklin Street,
Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attorney for Town of
Hillsborough, North
Carolina
TASHA MARSHALL
Assistant City Solicitor
Law Department
20 Korean Veterans
Plaza, Room 204
Holyoke, MA 01040
Attorney for Mayor
Alex Morse and City of
Holyoke, Massachusetts
PAUL S. AOKI
Corporation Counsel
Designate
530 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for City and
County of Honolulu,
Hawaii
RONALD C. LEWIS
City Attorney
Legal Department
900 Bagby Street,
4th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Attorney for City of
Houston, Texas
29
ELEANOR M. DILKES
City Attorney
410 E. Washington
Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Attorney for Mayor Bruce
Teague and City of Iowa
City, Iowa
MATTHEW M. HAGERTY
City Attorney
161 W. Michigan Ave
Jackson, MI 49201
Attorney for Mayor Derek
J. Dobies, City of
Jackson, Michigan
CLYDE J. ROBINSON
City Attorney
241 W. South Street
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Attorney for Mayor David
Anderson, City of
Kalamazoo, Michigan
MATT GIGLIOTTI
Acting City Attorney
414 E. 12th Street, 2300
City Hall
Kansas City, MO 64106
Attorney for Mayor
Quinton Lucas and City
of Kansas City, Missouri
SHAWN D. SMITH
City Attorney
1300 White Street
Key West, FL 33040
Attorney for City of Key
West, Florida
HOWARD PHILLIP
SCHNEIDERMAN
Senior Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney
King County Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office
516 3rd Avenue, W400
Seattle, WA 98104
Attorney for King County,
Washington & Public
Health – Seattle & King
County
30
CHARLES W. SWANSON
Law Director
P.O. Box 1631
Knoxville, TN 37901
Attorney for Mayor Indya
Kincannon, City of Knox-
ville, Tennessee
JENNIFER VEGA-BROWN
City Attorney
700 N. Main Street,
Suite 3200
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Attorney for Mayor Ken
Miyagishima, City of Las
Cruces, New Mexico
CHARLES PARKIN
City Attorney
411 W. Ocean Boulevard,
9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Attorney for City of Long
Beach, California
MICHAEL N. FEUER
City Attorney
KATHLEEN A. KENEALY
Chief Assistant City
Attorney
SCOTT MARCUS
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
BLITHE SMITH BOCK
Managing Attorney, Civil
Appellate Division
200 N. Main Street,
7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Attorneys for City of Los
Angeles, California
31
MARY C. WICKHAM
County Counsel
SCOTT KUHN
Assistant County
Counsel
CESAR DEL PERAL
Senior Deputy County
Counsel
KATHERINE G. MCKEON
Deputy County Counsel
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall
of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Attorneys for County of
Los Angeles, California
E. JEFFREY MOSLEY
General Counsel
527 W. Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Attorney for
Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro
Government, Kentucky
MICHAEL HAAS
City Attorney
210 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard, Room 401
Madison, WI 53703
Attorney for City of
Madison, Wisconsin
ROGER J. DESIDERIO
Township Attorney
574 Valley Street
Township of
Maplewood, NJ 07040
Attorney for Mayor Frank
McGehee and Township
of Maplewood, New
Jersey
BRIAN E. WASHINGTON
County Counsel
3501 Civic Center Drive,
Suite 275
San Rafael, CA 94903
Attorney for Marin
County, California
ROBERT J. VAN CAMPEN
City Solicitor
City of Melrose
562 Main Street
Melrose, MA 02176
Attorney for Mayor Paul
Brodeur, City of Melrose,
Massachusetts
32
RAUL J. AGUILA
City Attorney
1700 Convention
Center Drive
Miami Beach,
Florida 33139
Attorney for Mayor Dan
Gelber and City of Miami
Beach, Florida
ERIK A. NILSSON
Interim City Attorney
City Hall, Room 210
350 S. Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Attorney for City of
Minneapolis, Minnesota
KATHLEEN E. GILL
Chief of Staff for Policy
and Government Affairs
& Corporation Counsel
City of New Rochelle
515 North Avenue
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Attorney for City of New
Rochelle, New York
SEAN P. KILKENNY
Municipal Solicitor
519 Swede Street
Norristown, PA 19401
Attorney for Municipality
of Norristown,
Pennsylvania
BARBARA J. PARKER
City Attorney
One Frank Ogawa Plaza,
Sixth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Attorney for City of
Oakland, California
MARK EDWARD BARBER
Olympia City Attorney
601 4th Ave E.
P.O. Box 1967
Olympia, WA 98507
Attorney for Mayor
Cheryl Selby and City of
Olympia, Washington
33
JEFFREY S. BALLINGER
City Attorney
3200 E. Tahquitz
Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Attorney for City of Palm
Springs, California
YVONNE S. HILTON
City Solicitor
City-County Building
414 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Attorney for City of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
TRACY REEVE
City Attorney
1221 S.W. Fourth
Avenue, Room 430
Portland, OR 97204
Attorney for City of
Portland, Oregon
JEFFREY DANA
City Solicitor
444 Westminster Street,
Suite 220
Providence, RI 02903
Attorney for City of
Providence, Rhode Island
ANGELA LOHAN
Law Director
3382 Glenwood
Boulevard
Reminderville, OH 44202
Attorney for Mayor Sam
Alonso, Village of
Reminderville, Ohio
JASON T. LOOS
City Attorney
201 S.E. Fourth Street,
Room 247
Rochester, MN 55904
Attorney for Mayor Kim
Norton, City of Rochester,
Minnesota
NICHOLAS O. MEYER
Legal Director
425 E. State Street
Rockford, IL 61104
Attorney for Mayor
Thomas P. McNamara
and City of Rockford,
Illinois
STEVEN E. MAUER
City Attorney
Mauer Law Firm, P.C.
1100 Main Street,
Suite 2100
Kansas City, MO 64105
Attorney for Mayor Mike
Kelly, City of Roeland
Park, Kansas
34
DAVID W. GILLAM
City Attorney
203 S. Troy Street
Royal Oak,
Michigan 48067
Attorney for City of Royal
Oak, Michigan
SUSANA ALCALA WOOD
City Attorney
915 I Street,
Fourth Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attorney for City of
Sacramento, California
LYNDSEY M. OLSON
City Attorney
400 City Hall &
Court House
15 West Kellogg
Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Attorney for City of Saint
Paul, Minnesota
ELIZABETH RENNARD
City Solicitor
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Attorney for Mayor
Kimberley Driscoll, City
of Salem, Massachusetts
KATHERINE N. LEWIS
City Attorney
451 South State Street,
Suite 505A
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Attorney for Salt Lake
City Corporation, Utah
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
City Hall Room 234
One Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Attorney for Mayor
London Breed and City
and County of San
Francisco, California
35
RICHARD D. PIO RODA
City Attorney
City Hall
835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Attorney for Mayor
Pauline Russo Cutter,
Members of the City
Council, and City of San
Leandro, California
JAMES R. WILLIAMS
County Counsel
70 W. Hedding Street,
East Wing, 9th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
Attorney for County of
Santa Clara, California
ANTHONY P. CONDOTTI
City Attorney
Atchison, Barisone &
Condotti, PC
P.O. Box 481
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Attorney for Mayor
Justin Cummings and
City of Santa Cruz,
California
ERIN K. MCSHERRY
City Attorney
200 Lincoln Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Attorney for City of Santa
Fe, New Mexico
GEORGE S. CARDONA
Interim City Attorney
1685 Main Street,
3rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90401
Attorney for City of Santa
Monica, California
PETER S. HOLMES
City Attorney
701 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104
Attorney for Mayor Jenny
Durkan and City of
Seattle, Washington
36
RONALD M. BOLT
Bolt Legal, LLC
8 Executive Park Court
Germantown, MD 20874
Attorney for Mayor
Jeffrey Z. Slavin, Town of
Somerset, Maryland
FRANCIS X. WRIGHT, JR.
City Solicitor
93 Highland Avenue
Somerville, MA 02143
Attorney for City of
Somerville,
Massachusetts
STEPHANIE STEELE
Corporation Counsel
227 W. Jefferson
Boulevard, Suite 1200S
South Bend, IN 46601
Attorney for City of South
Bend, Indiana
EDWARD M. PIKULA
City Solicitor
36 Court Street,
Room 210
Springfield, MA 01103
Attorney for Mayor
Domenic J. Sarno and
City of Springfield,
Massachusetts
KATHRYN EMMETT
Director of Legal Affairs
& Corporation Counsel
888 Washington
Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901
Attorney for Mayor David
R. Martin, City of
Stamford, Connecticut
KRISTEN E. SMITH
Corporation Counsel
City of Syracuse
233 E. Washington
Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
Attorney for Mayor Ben
Walsh and City of
Syracuse, New York
37
JUDI BAUMANN
City Attorney
21 E. Sixth Street,
Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85281
Attorney for Mayor Corey
D. Woods and City of
Tempe, Arizona
JOHN MORELLI
Director of Law
319 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
Attorney for Mayor W.
Reed Gusciora and City
of Trenton, New Jersey
MIKE RANKIN
City Attorney
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, AZ 85726
Attorney for City of
Tucson, Arizona
BETSY CAVENDISH
General Counsel
John A. Wilson Building,
Suite 300
1350 Pennsylvania
Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Attorney for Mayor
Muriel Bowser,
Washington, DC
MICHELLE K. BILLARD
Corporation Counsel
220 N. Main Street
P.O. Box 8645
Ann Arbor, MI 48107
Attorney for Washtenaw
County, Michigan
MICHAEL JENKINS
City Attorney
Best Best & Krieger LLP
1230 Rosecrans Avenue,
Suite 110
Manhattan Beach,
CA 90266
Attorney for Mayor
Lindsey Horvath and
City of West Hollywood,
California
38
ERIC H. BURNS
Corporation Counsel
8 N. 3rd Street, Suite 401
Lafayette, IN 47902
Attorney for City of West
Lafayette, Indiana
TIMOTHY V. RAMIS
West Linn City Attorney
Jordan Ramis PC
Two Centerpointe Drive,
6th Floor
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Attorney for Mayor
Russell B. Axelrod, City
of West Linn, Oregon
KIMBERLY ROTHENBURG
City Attorney
401 Clematis Street,
5th Floor
West Palm Beach,
FL 33401
Attorney for Mayor Keith
A. James and City of
West Palm Beach,
Florida
JEFFREY MITCHELL
City Attorney
Kronick, Moskovitz,
Tiedemann & Girard
400 Capitol Mall,
27th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attorney for City of West
Sacramento, California
ROBERT M. GOFF, JR.
City Solicitor
800 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Attorney for Mayor
Michael S. Purzycki, City
of Wilmington, Delaware
KERRY L. EZROL
Goren Cherof Doody &
Ezrol P.A.
3099 E. Commercial
Boulevard, Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale,
FL 33308
Attorney for Acting
Mayor Tom Green and
City of Wilton Manors,
Florida
39
BREANNE N. PARCELS
Village Solicitor
100 Dayton Street
Yellow Springs,
OH 45387
Attorney for Mayor Pam
Conine, Village of Yellow
Springs, Ohio
JOHN DANIEL REAVES
General Counsel
1200 New Hampshire
Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Attorney for the U.S.
Conference of Mayors
JONATHAN B. MILLER
LIJIA GONG
Public Rights Project
4096 Piedmont Avenue #149
Oakland, CA 94611
Attorneys for Mayor Tari Renner, City of
Bloomington, Illinois
Mayor Patrick L. Wojahn, City of College Park,
Maryland
Mayor Joseph Geierman, City of Doraville, Georgia
Mayor Ron Strouse, Borough of Doylestown,
Pennsylvania
Mayor Christian Patz, City of Emeryville, California
Mayor Jeremy Gordon, City of Falls City, Oregon
Mayor Pete Muldoon, Town of Jackson, Wyoming
Mayor Sean Strub, Borough of Milford,
Pennsylvania
Mayor Geoff Kors, City of Palm Springs, California
Mayor Kate Gallego, City of Phoenix, Arizona
Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin, City of Raleigh, North
Carolina
Mayor Tom Butt, City of Richmond, California
Mayor Michael Ryan, City of Sunrise, Florida
Mayor Michelle J. Gomez, City of Tamarac, Florida
Mayor Patrick J. Furey, City of Torrance, California
40
Mayor Daniel J. Corona, City of West Wendover,
Nevada
Mayor Brian Sager, City of Woodstock, Illinois