Latham Secures Landmark Victory for People With Disabilities on Parole and Supervised Release

Along with co-counsel from the ACLU, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and D.C. Public Defender Service, Latham achieved a landmark victory for a class of individuals on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C. In Mathis et al. v. United States Parole Commission et al., the court ruled that the US Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, the federal agencies responsible for parole and supervised release in D.C., violated federal disability law by systematically failing to accommodate people with disabilities. The victory is a significant step toward securing lasting institutional reform of D.C.’s supervision system and sends a strong signal that similar practices in other supervision programs across the United States may be unlawful.

In Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, led and argued by Latham associate Christine Smith, Plaintiffs argued that the agencies violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate disabilities in the supervision process. For D.C. residents, a criminal sentence can extend for years beyond their time behind bars through parole or supervised release, which requires people to comply with myriad conditions. Failing to follow conditions, like missing a single appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. One plaintiff, for example, is on lifetime parole and lives with chronic pain from severe burns, along with depression, anxiety, and PTSD. His disabilities contributed to him missing a check-in with his supervision officer, after which he spent two months in jail and missed a scheduled burn surgery. Other class members have had similar experiences, including being required to wear an ankle monitor that doctors advised against for medical reasons and being incarcerated for failing to adhere to the conditions of their parole despite government officials noting that medical issues resulted in their inability to report.

In a September 25, 2026 opinion, Judge Trevor N. McFadden held that both agencies subject supervisees to discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act because they provide “no consistent means of accommodating disabilities.” The court also noted that supervision is similar to the prison context, where the government’s accommodation obligations are at an “apex” due to the “uneven power dynamic between prison officials and inmates.” After granting summary judgment on liability, the court directed the parties to propose an appropriate remedy.

Washington, D.C. associate Christine Smith led the Latham team and argued the motion, along with associates Ward Penfold, Chanelle Jones, Danayit Musse, Jordan Hughes, Lia Barrett, Elizabeth McElvein, Dominique Luongo, Emma McLaughlin, Margaret Hynds, Maia McFarlin, and Allayne Thomas. New York and London partner Samir Deger-Sen provided supervision. The Latham team could not have achieved this tremendous result without the ongoing outstanding partnership with co-counsel at the ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and D.C. Public Defender Service.