Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez
974 F. Supp. 2d 705
D.N.J.2013Background
- DRNJ sues the State of New Jersey and Commissioner Velez challenging A.B. 5:04B, the non-emergency involuntary medication policy for state hospital patients.
- Plaintiffs focus on CEPP status patients (no longer dangerous but awaiting placement) versus the remaining civilly committed patients.
- A.B. 5:04B permits involuntary psychotropic medication upon a panel review after an IMAR and hearing process, with a Client Services Advocate aiding the patient.
- CEPP patients argue there is no legitimate government objective to medicate them and that the policy is discriminatory under the ADA and RA; non-CEPP patients face different treatment.
- Courts previously dismissed some claims (equal protection) but preserved ADA and RA claims; Rennie/Harper framework guides due process analysis.
- As of trial, substantial data showed most hearings favored medication, with CEPP patients at issue for injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.B. 5:04B violates due process | DRNJ argues CEPP patients lack objective basis for forced meds | DHS argues Harper controls; CEPP risk justified | Yes for CEPP; no for class at large |
| Whether A.B. 5:04B violates ADA/RA | DRNJ asserts discrimination against disabled patients | State claims safety/danger justify differences | Yes as to CEPP; no for remaining class |
| Whether procedures meet procedural due process requirements | DRNJ claims lack of counsel and independent decision-makers | Policy provides CSAs and medical panels; safeguards adequate | Procedural due process satisfied for class; not for CEPP |
| Whether CEPP status constitutes unlawful discrimination based on mental illness | CEPP treats mentally ill differently after non-dangerous finding | Differential treatment based on dangerousness, not disability | Discriminatory as to CEPP; valid as to remaining class |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (due process in involuntary medication; medical decisionmakers acceptable)
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (ADA integration and reasonable accommodations; community treatment)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (reasonableness framework for institutional policies)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (impartiality in quasi-judicial decisions in confinement)
- Harper v. United States (Washington v. Harper), 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (Harper framework for involuntary medication in custody)
- Jurasek v. Utah State Hosp., 158 F.3d 506 (1998) (due process in psychiatric treatment; necessity of medical decisions)
- U.S. v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731 (2012) ( Harper framework applied to pretrial detainee)
- U.S. v. Hardy, 724 F.3d 280 (2013) (Second Circuit applying Harper standard to detainees)