On April 2, 2021, Pamela S. Karlan, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (DOJ), issued a public statement regarding the Division’s intent to lead a coordinated civil rights response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The statement, which attached a resource guide, is intended to assist Federal agencies, state and local governments, and recipients of Federal funds, including healthcare providers, in addressing ongoing civil rights challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement advised healthcare providers and long-term care facilities (LTCs), among other entities, that the DOJ intends to “vigorously enforce Federal civil rights,” and that civil rights obligations still apply during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. The statement addressed the need to combat disability discrimination by ensuring that all people with disabilities have equal access to healthcare. The statement cited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the need for healthcare providers to comply with these laws “when making decisions about who will receive medical care, including vaccines and hospital beds.” Furthermore, the statement discussed that providers must comply with disability laws when “crafting and implementing policies such as crisis standards of care, visitation rules, and vaccine distribution plans.”

In a December 2020 article, we highlighted in this blog the amendment of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) in the new Due Process Protections Act (“DPPA” or “the Act”). The Act requires federal courts to enter a Brady order at the outset of all criminal cases and may prompt courts to enter orders setting specific disclosure rules, making it easier to hold prosecutors in contempt for violating such orders. In the five months since the Act went into effect, Courts have varied in their implementation of Rule 5(f), suggesting that discovery orders under the new rule will vary based on the leanings of each particular judge, district, or circuit, and the requirements of each individual case. To date, some courts have decided to succinctly recite the language of Rule 5(f) in their initial orders, essentially reminding the prosecution of its pre-existing discovery obligations. Others are taking a more expansive view in implementing the revised rule, issuing specific and detailed orders addressing the timing, order, and scope of the prosecution’s discovery obligations.