IMPACT FUND MAKES GRANTS OF $43,000 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL JUSTICE

New Grants to Support Litigation on Behalf of Low-Income People, BIPOC Communities, and Black Lives Matter Protesters

Berkeley, CA 06.15.21 – The Impact Fund, the nation’s only charity providing broad support to advance the use of impact litigation as a tool to achieve economic, environmental, racial, and social justice, has just made recoverable grants totaling $43,000 in its summer cycle to fund four lawsuits protecting the rights of marginalized communities threatened by uncaring corporate interests and small-minded government.

Since its founding in December 1992, the Impact Fund has made 719 grants totaling $8,075,656.

“Climate change, systemic racism, the wealth gap, and a renewed assault on civil rights means that the need for economic, environmental, racial, and social justice is as crucial today as it has ever been,” said Impact Fund Executive Director, Jocelyn Larkin, adding: “That’s why we remain at the forefront of championing impact litigation as one of the most effective tools to make real social change.”

In its most recent round of grantmaking, the Impact Fund made grants to support four cases, which reflect the broad scope of the issues and communities within the organization’s mission.

The first case, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Grant Township of Indiana, is brought by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. At play in the low-income Grant Township was whether a corporation had the right to inject fracking waste in a resistant community, or whether the community — and its streams, soils, and species — had the right to block the corporation from depositing its waste. In the course of the fight, Grant Township adopted an ordinance that established its right to local self-government, and later a home-rule charter, made possible by a 1972 state act that sought to give more power to municipal governments. According to their charter, injection wells are illegal — and nature has rights. The issue is whether fracking in Pennsylvania violates the community’s right to a clean environment and if communities have the authority to adopt laws that protect their environment.

The second case, Jefferson County Foundation, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, is another environmental justice battle. Here, the Jefferson County Foundation is suing the WVDEP for approving a stormwater permit for a heavy industrial plant. The company failed to engage the public adequately and presented its process dishonestly as “clean” and “environmentally friendly” to leaders. It went out of its way to limit public notice and prevent the public from participating in the environmental permitting process. Once the public discovered the true nature of the mineral wool manufacturing process planned at the plant, state officials claimed it was too late for anything to be done. The plant site has developed 22 reported sinkholes during construction alone. Several groundwater studies show contamination at the location, many surface streams, and the Potomac River, which has led to contamination of the water source for a majority of the county and the six million people east of West Virginia that rely on the Potomac for drinking water. The plant is sited in the most economically disadvantaged community in the county, directly across from a Title 1 elementary school. Those most impacted by the plant include people of color, people lacking a high school education, and children under the age of five.

The third case, Miami Beach Community Development Corp. v. AmRisc LLC, is brought by Legal Services of Greater Miami on behalf of the low-income Section 8 tenants. Many of MBCDC’s tenants rely on Section 8 rental assistance to subsidize the rent. Last year, MBCDC’s property insurance carrier informed the organization that it would no longer provide coverage for its properties because it had Section 8 tenants living in its properties. Because of this discriminatory practice, MBCDC was forced to obtain more expensive insurance from another company which also charges higher rates because MBCDC rents to Section 8 tenants. These policies discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex, familial status, and source of income and they have a disproportionate impact on Black and Brown families, female-headed households, families with children, and disabled tenants. Ending this discrimination by insurance companies will ultimately benefit those tenants with Section 8 rental assistance. Many landlords will choose to stop renting to these families when notified that their insurance policy will no longer provide coverage for properties with Section 8 rental assistance. This ultimately decreases housing opportunity for those families and undermines fair housing.

The fourth case, Detroit Will Breathe et al. v. City of Detroit et al., is brought by the Detroit and Michigan Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild on behalf of those who took to the streets after Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd to speak out against police killings of Black people. This case is addressing the use of excessive force and arrests without probable cause against protesters advocating for an end to racially discriminatory police brutality. While the case focuses on the protesters it also indirectly affects people who face police misconduct in their day-to-day lives, because if the police are allowed to use excessive force and make arrests without probable cause when the whole world is watching, then the police will be empowered to engage in misconduct during more routine interactions with civilians when no one is watching.

Helen Kang, Chair of the Impact Fund’s Grant Advisory Committee said: ““Government and corporate accountability is ever more important as they wield control and influence over the public good. The litigation the Impact Fund is assisting seeks our governments and corporations to follow the laws intended to protect the public.”

Letters of inquiry for the Impact Fund’s fall grantmaking cycle are due July 13.