Mobilization for Justice has its roots in Mobilization for Youth (MFY), a community-based social service initiative funded in 1962 by the Kennedy Administration, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Ford Foundation, and the City of New York, with the goal of “enlisting the actionist and researcher in a joint program of social engineering organized to improve opportunities for youth and guide young people into pursuing them.”[1] MFY Legal Services, the legal unit of Mobilization for Youth was launched the following year in 1963 by Edward Sparer who advocated a new approach: “Instead of piecemeal direct legal services in the Legal Aid tradition, most of MFY Legal Unit’s resources should be channeled into targeted study and direct litigation designed to change the institutional structure that created and sustained poverty.” He advocated the use of test cases as an early form of cause lawyering or impact litigation that would “create new legal rights for the poor.” Sparer identified specific issues in the welfare rights arena that were ripe for legal challenges —including residency laws, violations of privacy, inadequate benefits and arbitrary welfare terminations — linking a litigation strategy to a social movement.
[2] MFY Legal Services became the prototype for storefront poverty law offices which opened in virtually every major American city.
A series of decisions that followed erected a constitutional shield for the ordinary citizen against the arbitrary or standardless use of governmental power in many contexts.”[7] In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act imposed restrictions and reduced funding to the Legal Services Corporation that provided MFY Legal Services funding leading to the closing of several neighborhood offices.
[8] These federal restrictions such as preventing representation of undocumented New Yorkers or prohibition on class actions lawsuits led to MFY splitting from Legal Services NYC.
[13] These reports brought public attention to the “shadow docket” issue, where foreclosure firms failed to move cases to a judge’s docket, allowed them to remain in “limbo,” while the banks rejected mortgage payments and charged homeowners fees and interest.