Woman Fights 4-Year Prison
Sentence for Black Lives Matter Protest
ACLU of South Carolina Has Represented Martin Since 2023
COLUMBIA, S.C. (ACLU) — 7/15/2025 — A South Carolina woman who received a 4-year prison sentence for participating in a Black Lives Matter protest during the summer of 2020 is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case.
Brittany Martin is a Black woman, mother, chef, and activist who joined protests in Sumter following the May 2020 police murder of George Floyd. Local police arrested her after five days of nonviolent protest, and she was convicted of the South Carolina state crime of “breach of peace of a high and aggravated nature.” She was sentenced to four years in state prison. She was pregnant at the time of her conviction and gave birth to her daughter, Blessing, while incarcerated, prompting nationwide outrage and shows of solidarity. On Friday, July 11, Ms. Martin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
“I am praying that this case be overturned. This is a battle to exercise and uphold our constitutional rights,” said Brittany Martin. “They’ve got to give us some justice and let us know that we still have our First Amendment right to freedom of speech in this country. My case would be the perfect example of that.”
The ACLU of South Carolina has represented Ms. Martin since April 2023, arguing that Ms. Martin’s conviction for engaging in non-violent protest violated the First Amendment and that her four-year prison sentence for that illegal conviction was an outrage. The South Carolina Department of Corrections released Ms. Martin on November 27, 2024. She remains committed to fighting for justice in the courts and in her community.
“South Carolina’s conviction of Brittany Martin is yet another moment in a long and shameful history of the State using criminal enforcement to silence dissent. In multiple 1960s Civil Rights-Era cases, the Supreme Court had to intervene to correct South Carolina’s unconstitutional actions, and we have asked that it do so again here,” said Meredith McPhail, staff attorney for the ACLU of South Carolina.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals refused to consider Ms. Martin’s First Amendment arguments on appeal, ruling that they were not properly raised at trial. The petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of Ms. Martin’s case and to clarify that procedural rules—like the one invoked by the SC Court of Appeals—cannot excuse state appellate courts from conducting the careful, independent review that the Supreme Court has long required in First Amendment cases. The court will now decide whether to take up the case.
“Courts play a critical constitutional role in protecting individuals who express viewpoints that are unpopular with government officials and majority sentiment,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “In 1963, the Supreme Court stepped in to protect the First Amendment rights of Black civil rights protesters who were prosecuted and convicted in South Carolina for the same offense, for doing what Brittany Martin did in 2020. It’s time for the Supreme Court to reinforce the courts’ role in protecting freedom of speech.”
The petition highlights a lack of consistency in how different state courts decide whether to review constitutional facts in First Amendment cases like Ms. Martin’s. Because juries tend to reflect local majority opinions, courts have long held that independent appellate review is necessary to protect unpopular speech.
The arguments in this petition rely on a long record of court cases upholding the right to protest, including the landmark 1963 case Edwards v. South Carolina, which overturned the criminal conviction of Black students who were arrested on a breach of peace charge after refusing to disperse from a protest.
For more information and previous filings in Brittany Martin’s case, see the ACLU-SC case page for The State v. Brittany Martin.
Tarifflation Fallout: 39% of Global
Consumers Rethink Travel
BELLEVUE, Wash. -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- 7/8/2025 -- Rising costs driven by tariffs are reshaping how global consumers live, shop, and engage with brands, according to a new study released recently by UserTesting. Conducted in partnership with Talker Research, the study surveyed 4,000 consumers across the U.S., U.K., and Australia and revealed that a growing number of people are scaling back spending, switching brands, and rethinking long-standing habits—from summer travel to everyday purchases.
Tariffs are no longer background noise, they’re triggering real lifestyle changes. Consumers across the globe are actively cutting back:- 42% are buying fewer products overall
- 27% are switching to generic or store-brand alternatives
- 18% are shopping second-hand more often
- 20% are traveling less
- And notably, 39% say tariffs caused them to reconsider their summer travel plans entirely
Price hikes are especially visible: 72% of U.S. consumers, 55% of Australians, and 68% of Brits report noticing tariff-related increases. Many are voting with their wallets—nearly half of U.S. and U.K. consumers who noticed these hikes say they’ve already switched away from their favorite brands to find better value.
As tariffs push prices upward, many consumers are reassessing where their products come from—bringing new awareness, and in some cases, a preference for domestically made goods. 54% of U.S. respondents, 61% of U.K. respondents and 64% of Australians reported they would be more likely to buy domestically manufactured products due to tariffs. Day-to-day, a majority of global respondents (53% across all three regions) show a preference for domestic brands, with only a small fraction preferring international alternatives. This suggests that tariffs aren’t just shaping wallets, but may be actively transforming how consumers think about product origin and brand loyalty.
The impact of tariffs goes far beyond bank accounts. Across all three regions surveyed, consumers report a growing sense of emotional strain—from stress and anger to sadness and feeling overwhelmed—as rising costs disrupt not just their budgets, but their sense of control.
In the U.S., the emotional weight appears to be hitting hardest. Over one-third of Americans say tariffs leave them feeling stressed (37%), with nearly a quarter feeling overwhelmed (23%) when hearing about economic changes tied to trade policy. Emotions are just as raw in other regions, with anger and frustration rising sharply in both Australia and the U.K.
Notably: - 31% of Australians and Brits alike say tariffs make them feel angry
- 26% of U.K. consumers report feeling sad about the current economic outlook, the highest across regions
As economic uncertainty stretches on, brands are now navigating an increasingly emotionally charged marketplace, where trust, tone, and transparency matter as much as price.
While many brands have raised prices, most consumers aren’t automatically assigning blame, yet. In fact, 54% (U.S.), 65% (Australia), and 55% (U.K.) say their perception of brands hasn’t changed.
The deciding factor? Honesty.- 72% of Americans,
- 82% of Australians, and
- 80% of Brits say that transparent communication about pricing changes is essential to maintaining their trust.
“Whether tariffs remain or not, it’s clear they’ve already reshaped consumer habits,” said Bobby Meixner, VP of Solution Marketing at UserTesting. “Consumers understand that price hikes may be out of a company’s control. What they’re looking for is honest, upfront communication—and they’re making purchase decisions based on it.”
A Global Shift in Sentiment- 78% of Australians and 62% of Brits believe U.S. tariff policy has negatively impacted their national economies.
- More than 25% of global respondents believe their country’s economy will never return to pre-tariff conditions.
- In the U.S. and U.K., a majority of consumers expect at least 19 months before they’ll see economic recovery.
- And 19% of consumers in the U.S. and U.K. say they’re considering a second job, side hustle, or longer hours just to keep up.
About the Study
The study was commissioned by UserTesting and conducted by Talker Research. A total of 4,000 consumers were surveyed between June 4 and June 12, 2025, including a nationally representative sample of adults (18+) across the United States (2,000), Australia (1,000), and the United Kingdom (1,000).
For more insights and the full report, click here.
Missouri's Abortion Bans Blocked
By Preliminary Injunction
Kansas City, Mo. (ACLU) – 7/6/2025 – A Jackson County circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Missouri’s abortion bans and several targeted regulations of abortion providers. The new preliminary injunction clears the way for Missouri’s Planned Parenthood members to again provide procedural abortion care.
In May, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the state’s legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, forcing the circuit court to temporarily vacate its original orders, and effectively implement a de facto abortion ban.
"While the clarification on the standard is welcome, its immediate consequence temporarily pulled back implementation of Missourians’ constitutional right to access abortion care and providers’ right to offer that care,” said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. “This critical win begins to restore abortion access in our state, but Missourians must be vigilant and defeat the attacks on the constitutional rights that we secured at the ballot box last November.”
The order did not address the pending request to enjoin other targeted restrictions that are preventing medication abortion access from being restored in Missouri. Previously, both Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri submitted complication plans to satisfy the existing requirements to allow them to offer medication abortions. The Department of Health and Senior Services failed to respond to either affiliates’ submissions or follow-up inquiries for several weeks. Instead, the department manufactured an “emergency rule” that resembled many of the court-blocked regulations and cited it as the reason for refusing the submitted plans.
“Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it. Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We’re not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.” said Emily Wales, president and CEO, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains said. “
“We are grateful that procedural abortion can resume in the state of Missouri, just as voters demanded last November. However, the whiplash has created immense confusion for patients in Missouri,” said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. “This decision is a step forward toward fully realizing Missourians' right to reproductive freedom, and the staff at our Central West End health center in St. Louis will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union, Crowell & Moring, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The full case is currently slated for trial in January 2026. (press release date: 7/3/2025)
Christian Nationalism
and the Rationalization
of Discrimination and Violence
Four Perspectives on the Dangers
6/19/2025
Center for American Progress
Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom - Center for American Progress
Religious liberty is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, yet the meaning of this core American value has been debated throughout the nation’s history. Today, conflicts most often arise from Christian nationalism, the anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone. At its core, this idea threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also leads to discrimination, and at times violence, against religious minorities and the nonreligious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubter's Parish
How the Religious Right Gets It Wrong and What to Do About It
By Martin Thielen
See: Doubter's Parish
Today, many (although not all) religious right Christians believe Jesus dislikes LGBTQ persons, immigrants, liberals, elites, science, welfare, MSNBC, wokeness, critical race theory, Joe Biden, non-Christians, and Democrats. On the other side of the ledger, they believe Jesus loves America, churchgoers, capitalism, the military, conservatives, Fox News, guns, MAGA Republicans, aggressive masculinity, and Donald Trump. The fact that the life, teachings, and example of Jesus challenge these assumptions doesn’t deter religious right Christianity one iota.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lutheran Confessions
Why Conservative Christians Hate CompassionBy Clint Schnekloth
See: Lutheran Confessions
In recent years, conservative Christian voices have been on a tear, decrying compassion as a threat to traditional Christian values. The argument is that compassion—especially when it extends to marginalized groups—gives progressive Christians leverage to dismantle conservative moral teachings. . . . At the root of this backlash lies something far simpler than theological analysis: homophobia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians Against Christian Nationalism
Statement from Christians Against Christian Nationalism
See: Statement
As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our fellow Christians to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.
ABOVE: Frank Schaeffer, activist and son of well known writer Francis Schaeffer, warns about the extreme Christian reconstructionist ideology of the current speaker of the house, Mike Johnson, who is third away from the presidency. Published in 2023 but relevent.
