• Education–Students for Sensible Drug Policy Foundation v. Spellings, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, 460 F.Supp.2d 1093 (D.S.D. 2006)
    • The District Court dismissed this class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU in federal court in South Dakota on behalf of three named plaintiffs who lost financial aid after misdemeanor drug convictions. The federal court decision appeal to the 8th Circuit is pending; the case was argued in November, 2007.
  • Fees–People v. Goldwire, 301 A.D.2d 677 (3d Dept. 2003)
    • The Court discussed that the mandatory surcharge of $200 and crime assistance fee of $10 constituted a violation of the ex post facto clause since defendant’s convictions arose out of offenses committed prior to the effective date of the statutory amendment.
  • Fees–People v. Kistner, 291 A.D.2d 856 (4th Dept. 2002)
    • The Court found that although the trial court erred in determining that it lacked authority pursuant to CPL 420.40(2) to defer the mandatory surcharge, the defendant had not offered credible and verifiable information that the surcharge would work on unreasonable hardship on the defendant. But see People v. Bradley, 249 A.D.2d 103 (1st Dept.), lv. denied, 92 N.Y.2d 923 (1998) in whichc the Court found that the defendant’s application for a waiver of the surcharge and crime victim fees was premature and should be made after the defendant had completed his term of imprisonment.
  • Fees–People v. Moye, 4 A.D.3d 488 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 2 N.Y.3d 803 (2004)
    • The Court found that the Supreme Court had erred in imposing a mandatory surcharge and crime assistance fee of $210 since Penal Law section 60.35 required a mandatory fee of $155 at the time the criminal acts were committed.
  • Fees–People v. Quinones, 95 N.Y.2d 349 (2000)
    • The Court found that Penal Law section 60.35(6) permits a sentencing court to order both restitution and the mandatory surcharge/ crime victim assistance fee where the defendant has not yet made restitution. Once restitution has been made, the mandatory surcharge and crime assistance fee shall not be required and Penal Law section 60.35(4) includes a mechanism where a person can seek a refund of those payments which are ultimately not required.
  • Government Benefits–Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005)
    • In this recent Second Circuit case, the Court found that the Social Security Administration must show that the individual demonstrated an intent to flee before discontinuing Social Security Title II benefits pursuant to the fugitive felon provisions in 42 U.S.C. Section 402(x)1)(A)(iv). Other District Court decisions have reached a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Blakely v. Commissioner, 330 F.Supp.2d 910 (W.D.Mich. 2004); Hull v. Barnhart, 336 F.Supp.2d 1113 (D.Or. 2004).