Pro Bono Innovators 2025 Honoree Davis Wright Tremaine

Davis Wright Tremaine’s key pro bono matters included challenging Oregon’s alleged failure to provide proper care and placement for foster children. The firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in partnership with the nonprofits A Better Childhood and Disability Rights Oregon. In September 2024, the judge approved a settlement imposing significant new child welfare requirements on the state. The firm also successfully represented nine international journalists at Voice of America who alleged they were unlawfully targeted by the US government in 2020, reaching a final settlement in Dec. 2024. How did your firm strategize on how to approach these matters?

Oregon foster care matter: Our goal throughout was to position the litigation for a comprehensive settlement that would offer substantial and measurable improvements to a foster care system plagued by years of underfunding and administrative inertia. The State of Oregon argued repeatedly that it had already instituted reforms to the system and that the litigation would derail those efforts. To counter this argument, we focused discovery efforts on proving, through the state’s own statistics and the testimony of child welfare officials and employees, that any purported improvements were illusory and that the system was still failing the vulnerable children it served. Equally important was to set up our expert witnesses—social workers, psychologists, and others with deep experience in foster care systems—as more credible than the defense experts, who echoed the state’s rosy claims.

As trial neared, we knew that ‘big picture’ statistics and assessments would not be enough. We also needed to center the lived experience of those most impacted by the failing system. We made clear to the state that these witnesses would tell their stories in court. The fact that a lengthy trial would have involved intense and moving testimony from brave foster kids and other advocates no doubt helped push settlement discussions over the finish line.

Voice of America matter: Our firm has a long and storied history of standing up for the rights of the news media. We know that free and open reporting is critical for the health of our own country and can serve as a model to help spread democracy around the world. So, when we saw an attempt to undermine and demoralize a prized US media institution, we knew we had to take action.

That was the situation in the summer of 2020, when then-President Trump appointed Michael Pack, as CEO of the US Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America and other networks.

Mr. Pack immediately began sacking a raft of senior officials and made it known that he would not be extending visas for foreign journalists who had contracts with VOA and its sister news services. He claimed these respected media professionals were potential spies who presented a security risk to America. Many were terminated, and some were forced to leave the US at the height of the Covid epidemic.

These unjustified terminations were not only a violation of the journalists’ individual rights; they were a violation of the statutory firewall that has long protected VOA from executive branch interference in its journalistic operations. And they recklessly undermined the decades-long VOA mission of providing objective information and promoting democratic values in countries around the world that have a dire shortage of both.

To fight back on behalf of these journalists, I assembled a Davis Wright team that included Diane Butler, an immigration partner, Jonathan DeMella, a government contracts partner, and Lindsay Samuel, a member of our employment law team who was the lead associate on the case.

What were the most innovative aspects of two of your client matters in your view? And who took the lead on driving innovation with the work?

Oregon foster care: At the time our case was instituted, Oregon’s foster care system was largely unresponsive to the needs of children in its care—and had been for many years. For example, Oregon youths were being removed from their birth parents at roughly twice the national average. That caused a chronic lack of homes and resulted in children being placed based on availability, not suitability. Even the youngest children were subject to frequent moves and separation from siblings, making healthy bonding and attachments next to impossible. Increasing numbers were also being sent to out-of-state, for-profit facilities, far from their homes and communities. Those many failures created even more instability and trauma in the lives of children who had experienced far too much already.

Our lawsuit sought to address those deficiencies globally — seeking wholesale change on behalf of the entire foster care population. At the same time, one of the most important aspects of the litigation was that it put a unique focus on the state’s deficient handling of sub-populations in its care. Specifically, the suit called out Oregon’s failure to acknowledge and address the needs of children with disabilities, those who identify as sexual or gender minorities, and those who are on the cusp of aging out of the foster care system (and who, due to an absence of support, were too often ending up in homeless shelters or on the streets). This action was the first attempt to enforce the rights of these subgroups in the context of a single lawsuit, and each of them was certified as a sub-class by the judge. The lawsuit sought to enforce their due process rights as well as their rights under the ADA.

VOA: At the outset of our engagement, our team evaluated a number of potential causes of action and litigation strategies. Our clients had been employed under federal “personal services” contracts, which Mr. Pack and USAGM had breached in a number of ways. We concluded that two of those potential claims presented the most promising avenues for redress. One was to file suit in the US Court of Federal Claims, alleging bad faith breach of contract. The second was to file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination based on national origin.

For maximum leverage, we decided to pursue both but focused more on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims because they presented a broader range of potential remedies. Once in the EEOC case pipeline, we steered our claims into the agency’s mediation process and were ultimately able to deliver settlements that left our clients feeling their interests had been fully vindicated.

We brought a unique combination of skills to bear on these cases. Butler and DeMella are top-notch experts in immigration law and federal contracts disputes, respectively, while Samuel brought significant expertise in employment law. Given my longtime work representing clients in the world of media and communications litigation and addressing cross-border issues with multiple government agencies, we had all the bases covered for effective advocacy here.

Tell us more about the impact of these matters on the local, national, and/or global level.

Oregon foster care: There can hardly be any community in more need of protection than children in foster care. But for too long, there was no effective, ongoing advocate to look out for the interests of this vulnerable population and hold the state of Oregon accountable and responsible for its handling of them. Our litigation changed that. Thanks to the settlement agreement, a neutral expert is now in place to regularly monitor, measure, and assess Oregon’s compliance with the mandates of the agreement.

In practical terms, this means that the state must improve the quality of available foster care homes, placements, and services, and ensure that children and teens are kept safe from harm after they enter foster care. Case plans must be developed and completed within 60 days, so everyone understands what resources are needed. Appropriate and timely medical, dental, and mental health treatments must be delivered. Communication with state courts, attorneys, youth, and their families must be improved—especially when a child is hurt after entering foster care. And children must be given what they need to stay healthy and safe in the event they return to their families of origin.

VOA: The unfair and unlawful treatment these journalists received at the hands of the Trump administration had a significant negative impact on their lives—disrupting their careers, forcing some to flee the US, and in some cases rendering them nearly homeless. One of our plaintiffs, for example, was unable to return to his Latin American country of origin because the borders were closed due to Covid. At the same time, he was unable to work here, and so could not pay his rent, had to sell his furniture, and became dependent on friends for shelter. This was extraordinarily stressful. In his case and the others, we sought damages for emotional distress and I’m proud to say that the settlements included a substantial such award for eight of the nine clients.

On a national and international level, these cases sent an important message about the value of VOA’s journalistic independence and how integral that is to the organization’s mission. The work of our clients is tremendously beneficial for the global community, by broadcasting objective and truthful information that is otherwise unavailable to populations of repressive regimes, improving international understanding, and forcefully displaying the benefits of free and open democratic societies in which all views, even those critical of the government, are valued and freely presented. That mission should not be subject to the changing dictates and whims of the executive branch.

Our cases helped reaffirm the importance and value of a free press and to establish the obligation we all have to fight back when these values are threatened. And we’re seeing that again now, with the current litigation concerning Trump 2.0’s efforts to shut down VOA and its sibling services, and fire all of their employees, which have been even more widespread and, unfortunately, have again impacted some of our clients.

Why do you think your team ultimately achieved successful results in these two matters?

Oregon foster care: In reviewing the outcome of this lawsuit, US District Judge Ann Aiken, who presided over the case, cited a quote from Nelson Mandela, who said: “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” Said the judge: “Measured by that metric, Plaintiffs’ case has been a resounding success.”

The settlement agreement was achieved through a true spirit of collaboration between us, our nonprofit partners, and Portland litigation boutique Rizzo Bosworth Eraut PC, who joined the team in the runup to trial. Together we kept an unwavering focus on the needs of our clients. The many listening sessions we held with individual foster youth in their homes were painful and exceedingly difficult. But they were also a source of strength and motivation as we took on a state bureaucracy that was determined to fight rather than change.

During these meetings, we not only learned about the children’s harrowing stories of abuse in the system but also about what relief they wanted to see in our case. We were not looking for monetary damages—rather, the plaintiffs wanted the state to live up to its obligation to appropriately serve children in its care. So that is what consistently guided our strategy and choices.

VOA: In a case that spanned more than four years, we had to be extremely dogged. Although the settlements we obtained were ultimately similar, each claim had to be individually presented and proved. We participated in nearly 40 mediation sessions, with additional negotiations taking place between sessions, facilitated by the senior administrative judge and the mediator that were assigned to our case.

We insisted that each of the journalists be permitted to make personal statements at the mediations concerning how the Trump administration’s abuse of power had impacted their lives and insisted that the then-serving head officers of Voice of America attend each such session to face, and respond to, our clients’ testimony. These sessions were highly emotional, very compelling, and contributed greatly to the strength of our case.

Our success also stemmed from the government’s reluctant but ultimate recognition that VOA leadership had acted with a clear discriminatory animus, based on completely unsubstantiated, pretextual and xenophobic accusations of disloyalty.
Our clients were all highly skilled and respected professional journalists who had passed full background checks prior to being hired. They had received consistently strong performance reviews and advancements and had received prior contract renewals. Yet they were never afforded any opportunity to rebut, or have a hearing concerning, the slanders being made against them. These actions were clearly contrary to the VOA’s own interests, which the agency finally acknowledged, as evidenced by the fact that, after Pack’s departure, VOA began to rehire many of the journalists who had been sacked.

At the end of the day, these cases, and the settlements we obtained served not only to provide justice to our clients but also to restore the integrity of the international journalist program on which VOA and its sibling news services so heavily depended.

Responses provided by Davis Wright Tremaine partners P. Andrew McStay Jr. and William D. Miner, both litigators, for the Oregon foster care matter.

Responses provided by Davis Wright Tremaine partner Burt Braverman, leader of DWT’s International Trade, Investment & National Security team, for the Voice of America matter.