Source: https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket?sort=field_publish_date&order=asc&page=10
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:24:15+00:00

Document:
Latino students in Durham, N.C., public schools were subjected to pervasive discrimination throughout the school district. The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. The SPLC eventually reached an agreement with the Durham Public Schools system to end discriminatory practices that created this hostile environment for Latino students.
Hundreds of guest workers from India, lured by false promises of permanent U.S. residency, paid tens of thousands of dollars each to obtain temporary jobs at Gulf Coast shipyards only to find themselves forced into involuntary servitude and living in overcrowded, guarded labor camps. The SPLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the workers, David v. Signal International, LLC. Three years later, a lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC v. Signal International, LLC, alleging Signal unlawfully discriminated against the Indian guest workers.
M.R., et al. v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (Ala.), et al.
The public school system of Mobile County, Ala., violated the constitutional rights of students by suspending them for months at a time over minor misbehavior without giving parents and guardians an opportunity to defend them. The SPLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of six students suspended for apparent minor misbehavior such as un-tucked shirts, tardiness or failing to carry a school ID.
J.H., et al. v. Hinds County, Miss.
Children held at the Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center in Jackson, Miss., were denied mental health services and subjected to verbal abuse and threats of physical harm by staff members. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Disability Rights Mississippi filed a class action lawsuit in June 2011 after numerous attempts to resolve the issues with county officials failed. A settlement agreement to protect youth at the facility was approved in March 2012.
A.M., et al. v. Jackson Public Schools Board of Trustees, et al.
Students at Jackson Public School District’s Capital City Alternative School have regularly been disciplined for minor infractions, such as not wearing a belt or for wearing mismatched shoelaces, by being shackled for hours at a time to a fixed object. The lawsuit was filed after Jackson Public Schools refused to respond to a demand letter requesting that the school district end these practices.
HICA, et al. v Robert Bentley, Luther Strange, et al.
Alabama passed an extreme anti-immigrant law in June 2011. The law threatened to chill children’s access to public schools by requiring school officials to verify the immigration status of children and their parents; authorized police to demand “papers” demonstrating citizenship or immigration status during traffic stops; and criminalized Alabamians for everyday interactions with undocumented individuals. The SPLC led a coalition of civil rights groups in filing a federal class action lawsuit that resulted in an agreement that effectively gutted the law.
Doe, et al. v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11, et al.
Students in the Anoka-Hennepin School District have been subjected to harassment based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation, at least in part the result of a gag policy that prevents teachers from discussing issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people.
Lowcountry Immigration Coalition, et al. v. Nikki Haley, et al.
South Carolina passed an extreme anti-immigrant law in 2011. The law required police to demand “papers” demonstrating citizenship or immigration status during traffic stops when they have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an undocumented immigrant. It also criminalized everyday interactions with undocumented immigrants. The SPLC joined a coalition of civil rights groups in filing a federal class action lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional. A settlement reached in 2014 blocked major provisions of the law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.