As the only national legal organization focused on advancing equity and protecting the rights of low-income older adults, we are uniquely positioned to drive change through the courts. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the intricacies of the complex health care and economic security programs that low-income older adults rely on and know when barriers to services violate their rights.
When developing litigation, we partner with advocates on the ground who help us identify and monitor serious systemic issues that impact groups of low-income older adults. We then partner with those on-the-ground advocates and our pro-bono partners from top law firms across the country to file and win cases that bring justice to large groups of plaintiffs.
Throughout our more than 50 year history we have litigated landmark cases that provide sweeping relief to low-income older adults across the country, leading to the return of billions of dollars worth of vital benefits.
Through an aggressive dismantling of the agency, the Social Security Administration and DOGE are preventing older adults and people with disabilities from accessing their benefits.
Maryland has not provided sufficient oversight of nursing facilities, leading to violations of the rights and care of residents, particularly those with mobility-related disabilities.
Massachusetts has failed to provide community residential services and supports for thousands of people with disabilities, focing them to instead live in segregated nursing facilities.
In November 2020, the Trump Administration issued a rule requiring states to trim their Medicaid rolls, causing hundreds of thousands of people to lose access to critical Medicaid benefits.
The Social Security Administration wrongfully reduced and discontinued SSI benefits for thousands of people during the pandemic while the agency’s offices were closed, leaving the plaintiffs with no way to engage with the agency to get their benefits reinstated.
On March 6, 2026, Justice in Aging, in partnership with Gibson Dunn and Whelan Corrente & Flanders LLM filed an amicus curiae brief in State of New York vs. U.S. Department of Justice before the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island. The brief was joined by the National Immigration Law Center, National Health Law Program, Centers for Public Representation, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and Grantmakers in Health. In the underlying lawsuit, twenty-two states challenged efforts by five federal agencies to expand the scope of public benefits considered under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), thereby posting a sweeping new policy that would limit immigrants’ access to essential services such as federally qualified health centers, shelters, and poverty relief programs and implement onerous administrative burdens for anyone seeking these services. The amicus focused on the direct impact of this policy change to low-income older adults, people with disabilities, individuals experiencing homelessness, and individuals who face barriers to employment.
On January 28, 2026, Justice in Aging, in partnership with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, filed an amicus curiae brief in Vazquez Rodriguez v. Bostock before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief was joined by Northwest Health Law Advocates, and the National Immigration Law Center. In the underlying lawsuit, an older adult detained immigrant challenged their indefinite detention under harsh conditions. JIA’s brief highlighted for the court the uniquely harmful impact that harsh conditions of confinement have on the health and well-being on older people held in immigration detention.
On October 24, 2025, Justice in Aging, in partnership with the AARP Foundation, Dignity Alliance Massachusetts, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and National Consumer Law Center filed an amicus brief in Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp., a case before the Supreme Judicial Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The lawsuit pertains to “junk fees” charged by assisted living residences. The amicus focused on how the fees charged by the assisted living residence in this case are junk fees, which are prohibited by the Massachusetts Security Deposit Statute. These fees require older adults to pay more upon admission without receiving anything in return, and are collected at a time when residents are in a vulnerable position and at a significant bargaining disadvantage.
