Harris juvenile system on feds’ radar
Justice’s quiet probe of county agency set sights on civil rights, records show
For more than a year, the U.S. Department of Justice has been quietly probing Harris County’s troubled juvenile justice system, according to interviews and emails reviewed by the Houston Chronicle.
The federal scrutiny coming from the Civil Rights Division appears through questions and emails to be zeroing in on long-standing problems in local justice, including racial disparities in sentencing and allegations of a “pay-to-play” system that favors certain court-appointed attorneys.
It’s not clear where the probe could lead, but the prosecutors involved work with the department’s Special Litigation Section, which does not handle criminal prosecutions and instead focuses on using measures such as lawsuits and long-term monitoring to protect civil rights within the criminal justice system.
Two sources told the Chronicle that federal lawyers had begun asking questions as early as 2016, near the end of the tenure of President Barack Obama, while two others revealed that they’d been questioned about local justice practices beginning sometime last year, after President Donald Trump had taken office.
The sources recounted phone conversations and shared emails received as recently as last month. It’s not clear what the status of the probe is, and the Department of Justice declined to comment.
“Juvenile justice still has major issues in Harris County and across the state,” said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who said he had no knowledge of the review. “I have no problem with the Justice Department or other agencies holding people accountable.”
The Harris County Jail is under voluntary monitoring as the result of a 2008 investigation overseen by the same section of the Justice Department, which, at the time, cited the county for sub-par medical care, lack of attention to mental
health treatment, and problems with the use of excessive force.
Some advocates were heartened by the civil rights scrutiny.
“We welcome any inquiries that would illuminate more about the system so that we can make sure that Harris County is properly treating its kids,” said Elizabeth Henneke of the Lone Star Justice Alliance.
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett and the County Attorney’s Office were not aware of the probe, officials said.
A decade of allegations
News of the Justice Department’s interest comes on the heels of media reports over the past decade on systemic problems in the juvenile justice system.
In October, a Chronicle investigation found that two of the county’s three juvenile judges were responsible for more than one-fifth of the children sent to the state’s juvenile prisons last year, driving up the county’s incarceration numbers even as they fall in the rest of the state. In the three juvenile courts combined, about 96 percent of the kids handed over to state lockups were children of color.
But the “pay-to-play” allegations date back much further than that. In 2008, a Chronicle investigation found that a small group of attorneys were receiving nearly half of all court-assigned appointments. Some of them were old friends and had given campaign contributions or other gifts to the elected judges then overseeing juvenile courts.
Those same allegations resurfaced in a judicial grievance filed in June against one of the three juvenile court jurists, Judge John Phillips, the Chronicle reported last month. State Commission on Judicial Conduct officials said they could not publicly comment on complaints until they’re adjudicated, which could take months.
Earlier this month, the Texas Tribune investigated the issue again and found that, still, an “extraordinary” number of cases in the juvenile courts get assigned to the same cadre of private lawyers. One attorney made more than $500,000 in a year on hundreds of juvenile, family court and probate cases.
“Pay-to-play has been an open secret among the family courts and the juvenile courts,” said state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, who also practices juvenile law. “I don’t think that is pervasive in all the courts, but in the gossip grapevine of the courts, attorneys who practice here regularly know which courts are pay-to-play.”
It’s not clear whether the Justice Department probe extended to concerns about the county’s family courts.
Specific lines of questioning
The federal review of Harris County juvenile courts dates back at least to sometime after the 2016 election, when the Justice Department began asking questions, sources told the Chronicle.
Specific lines of inquiry focused on detention rates based on race, conditions and overcrowding in the county’s juvenile lock-ups, high caseloads for appointed attorneys and allegations of cronyism.
Some of the questions centered on specific judges, one source said.
Most of the sources reported just a handful of contacts with the DOJ over the course of many months, while others reported repeated email exchanges and phone calls.
Some of the problems — such as overcrowding in juvenile detention — have improved over time without federal intervention. At one point, the DOJ attorney handling the matter left the department, but another assistant attorney general resumed the questioning.
It’s not clear which area of inquiry has held the most interest for federal investigators, but a Special Litigation Section case could tackle a broad array of concerns.
Under the umbrella of the Civil Rights Division, the Special Litigation Section focuses on prisons and jails, interactions with police, youth in the juvenile justice system, prisoners’ religious freedom, certain disability rights matters and ensuring the rights of those accessing reproductive health care clinics.
Range of authority
It’s the same section of the DOJ that began investigating the Baltimore Police Department on the heels of Freddie Gray’s death in the back of a police van in 2015. The case didn’t result in any criminal convictions for the officers involved, but special litigation filed a complaint and negotiated a consent decree with the city, requiring the police department to remedy conduct the Justice Department deemed unconstitutional.
Special Litigation has also investigated, monitored, sued or obtained consent decrees in a range of cases involving police departments in Michigan, county jails in New York, family courts in Missouri and juvenile facilities in Ohio.
Outgoing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, in one of his final acts in the office, signed a memorandum limiting the use of consent decrees by the Justice Department, but it’s not known what impact that could have on the department under now-Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker.
Typically, cases from the Special Litigation Section start with an inquiry that can last for years, according to Julie Abbate, a former Civil Rights Division deputy chief who is now the national advocacy director of the Just Detention International.
The starting probe typically relies on asking questions and viewing public materials, such as data sets and media reports, she said.
“Then, they’ll try to poke a little further and see — if anything is going on there — if it’s a one-off type of thing or a pattern and practice of constitutional violations,” Abbate said.
At that stage, it’s not a public investigation. But if a systemic problem is found, Special Litigation officials make a request to open a formal investigation and provide a notification letter to the jurisdiction under review.
‘Not run-of-the-mill’
The formal investigation can also take months or years, and typically involves site visits, interviews with employees or inmates and requests for information. Afterward, the DOJ releases findings and, if it’s determined there are constitutional violations, they have the option to file a complaint and begin negotiating an outcome.
A years-long probe into a county’s juvenile justice system is “not run-of-the-mill,” she said.
It’s not clear whether the probe into Harris County has risen to the level of a formal investigation. Two sources told the Chronicle that a DOJ lawyer reported getting approval to launch a formal investigation in recent months, but there’s no indication that’s come to pass.