First Amendment Rights

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.

Free Speech

Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision

Called a Win for Academic Speech

    OKLAHOMA CITY (ACLU) -- 6/18/2025 -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on July 17 that the state’s 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools. The suit was originally filed in 2021 on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs in K-12 and higher education.

    “Almost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma’s universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma’s higher education classrooms,” said Adam Hines, legal fellow at the ACLU of Oklahoma. “For far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But the government is certain to appeal this victory, and parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools. We will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma’s K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.”

    Last year, a lower court also blocked the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction because they are vague, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates. These provisions remain enjoined. The state Supreme Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of any of the provisions.

    “This decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma’s higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Students in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow – not stick to government-approved talking points.”

    The lead authors of the law in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to “implicit bias,” “systemic racism,” and “intersectionality,” among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students’ and educators’ speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of students of color, LGBTQ students, and young women and girls.

    The case will now go back to federal court where a partial preliminary injunction is in place. Cross-appeals have been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which are expected to proceed shortly.

    “This ruling is another significant victory in the fight to end classroom censorship in Oklahoma” said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono cocounsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. “By confirming that HB 1775 does not apply to the higher education classroom, this decision allows Oklahoma’s college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. We look forward to working alongside the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and Lawyers’ Committee in the continued fight to invalidate this law.”

    “Today's decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country's history in full – including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,” said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.”

    The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey.

    For more information about the lawsuit, please see here.

Law and Government

Groups Say Bill Requiring Display of 

Commandments in Classrooms 

is Blatantly Unconstitutional

    AUSTIN, TEXAS (AU)  — 6/4/2025  — Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom From Religion Foundation announced on May 29 that they will sue over Texas Senate Bill No. 10, which requires Texas public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Having received final legislative approval yesterday, the bill will now be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott and is expected to be signed into law.

    Under S.B. 10, every public elementary and secondary school in Texas must display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments “in a conspicuous place in each classroom.” The bill mandates that the display be no smaller than 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall and that the Commandments be set forth “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.” The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, selected by lawmakers and associated with Protestant faiths, be used for every display.

    S.B. 10 is prohibited by longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

    Following this precedent, a federal district court recently held in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to S.B. 10 violates parents’ and students’ rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the displays will religiously coerce students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-sponsored religious messages, and will usurp families’ right to direct children’s religious education. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by Americans United, the ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the ACLU of Louisiana, is currently on appeal in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In response to the passage of S.B. 10, the groups intending to challenge the law issued the following joint statement:

    “S.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional. We will be working with Texas public school families to prepare a lawsuit to stop this violation of students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights.

    “We all have the right to decide what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. Government officials have no business intruding on these deeply personal religious matters. S.B. 10 will subject students to state-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments for nearly every hour of their public education. It is religiously coercive and interferes with families’ right to direct children’s religious education.

    “Texas communities and public schools are religiously diverse. Many public school families do not practice any religion at all, while many others practice religions that do not consider the Ten Commandments to be part of their faith traditions. Even among those who may believe in some version of the Ten Commandments, the particular text they adhere to can differ by religious denomination. The version of scripture set forth in S.B. 10, however, is associated only with Protestant faiths, and does not reflect the beliefs of most Jewish and Catholic families.

    “S.B. 10 will co-opt the faith of millions of Texans and marginalize students and families who do not subscribe to the state’s favored scripture. We will not allow Texas lawmakers to divide communities along religious lines and attempt to turn public schools into Sunday schools. If Governor Abbott signs this measure into law, we will file suit to defend the fundamental religious freedom rights of all Texas students and parents. We encourage all concerned public school parents to contact us at au.org.” (Story originally published 4/29/2025)

Surveillance

Secret Use of Real-Time

Facial Recognition by Police 

Raises Serious Concerns

Network of face recognition surveillance cameras distinguishes city as the worst abuser of this technology in the nation

    NEW ORLEANS (ACLU)  — 5/19/2025 — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Louisiana are raising urgent concerns following an investigation that shows the New Orleans Police Department has secretly used real-time face recognition technology to track and arrest residents without public oversight or City Council approval. This not only flouts local law, but endangers all of our civil liberties. This is the first known time an American police department has relied on live facial recognition technology cameras at scale, and is a radical and dangerous escalation of the power to surveil people as we go about our daily lives.

    According to The Washington Post, since 2023 the city has relied on face recognition-enabled surveillance cameras through the “Project NOLA” private camera network. These cameras scan every face that passes by and send real-time alerts directly to officers’ phones when they detect a purported match to someone on a secretive, privately maintained watchlist.
    The use of facial recognition technology by Project NOLA and New Orleans police raises serious concerns regarding misidentifications and the targeting of marginalized communities. Consider Randal Reid, for example. He was wrongfully arrested based on faulty Louisiana facial recognition technology, despite never having set foot in the state. The false match cost him his freedom, his dignity, and thousands of dollars in legal fees. That misidentification happened based on a still image run through a facial recognition search in an investigation; the Project NOLA real-time surveillance system supercharges the risks.
    “We cannot ignore the real possibility of this tool being weaponized against marginalized communities, especially immigrants, activists, and others whose only crime is speaking out or challenging government policies. These individuals could be added to Project NOLA's watchlist without the public’s knowledge, and with no accountability or transparency on the part of the police departments,” said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana. "Facial recognition technology poses a direct threat to the fundamental rights of every individual and has no place in our cities. We call on the New Orleans Police Department and the City of New Orleans to halt this program indefinitely and terminate all use of live-feed facial recognition technology. The ACLU of Louisiana will continue to fight the expansion of facial recognition systems and remain vigilant in defending the privacy rights of all Louisiana residents.”
    Key details revealed in the reporting include:

    Real-time tracking: More than 200 surveillance cameras across New Orleans, particularly around the French Quarter, are equipped with facial recognition software that automatically scans passersby and alerts police when someone on a “watch list” is detected.
    Privately run, publicly weaponized: The watch list is assembled by the head of Project NOLA and includes tens of thousands of faces scraped from police mugshot databases—without due process or any meaningful accuracy standards.
    Police use to justify stops and arrests: Alerts are sent directly to a phone app used by officers, enabling immediate stops and detentions based on unverified purported facial recognition matches.
    Searchable database: Project NOLA also has the capability to search stored video footage for a particular face or faces appearing in the past. So in other words, they could upload an image of someone’s face, and then search for all appearances of them across all the camera feeds over the last 30 days, thus retracing their movements, activities, and associations. Pervasive technological location tracking raises grave concerns under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.    

    No retention, no oversight: NOPD reportedly does not retain records about the alerts it receives and officers rarely record their reliance on the Project NOLA FRT results in investigative reports, raising serious questions about compliance with constitutional requirements to preserve and turn over evidence to people accused of crimes and to courts, thus undermining accountability in criminal prosecutions.

    Violates city law: When the New Orleans City Council lifted the city’s ban on face recognition and imposed guardrails in 2022, it maintained a ban on use of facial recognition technology as a surveillance tool. This system baldly circumvents that ban. The system also circumvents transparency and reporting requirements imposed by City Council. Officials never disclosed the program in mandated public reports.
    In 2021, the ACLU of Louisiana sued the Louisiana State Police for information about secretly deploying facial recognition technology, despite years of officials assuring the public it wasn’t in use. Time and again, officials claim these tools are only used responsibly, but history proves otherwise. After the Washington Post began investigating this time around, city officials acknowledged the program and said they had “paused” it and that they “are in discussions with the city council” to change the city’s facial recognition technology law to permit this pervasive monitoring.
    The ACLU is now urging the New Orleans City Council to launch a full investigation and reimpose a moratorium on facial recognition use until robust privacy protections, due process safeguards, and accountability measures are in place.
    “Until now, no American police department has been willing to risk the massive public blowback from using such a brazen face recognition surveillance system,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “By adopting this system–in secret, without safeguards, and at tremendous threat to our privacy and security–the City of New Orleans has crossed a thick red line. This is the stuff of authoritarian surveillance states, and has no place in American policing.”

Immigration

Lawsuit Aims to Block 

Unconstitutional, Extreme 

Anti-Immigrant Law

    MIAMI — (ACLU) — 4/6/2025 — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, and Americans for Immigrant Justice filed a federal lawsuit April 2 challenging Florida’s new extreme anti-immigrant law, Senate Bill 4C (SB 4C), which authorizes state and local law enforcement to imprison people based on their manner of entering the country — powers the Constitution reserves exclusively to the federal government.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is brought on behalf of the Farmworker Association of Florida, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, and individual plaintiffs — including longtime Florida residents with pending federal immigration applications and with U.S. citizen family members who rely on their care.

    “Florida’s SB 4C is not just unconstitutional — it’s cruel and dangerous,” said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. “This law strips power from the federal government and hands it to state officers with no immigration training or authority, threatening to tear families apart and detain people who have every legal right to be here. Our communities deserve safety, dignity, and due process — not politically motivated attacks.”

    Signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis on February 13, SB 4C immediately criminalized a new set of immigration-related offenses under state law, punishing individuals who are 18 or older with mandatory incarceration for “illegal entry” or “illegal reentry” into the state of Florida — even if they are pursuing federal immigration relief which allows them to lawfully remain in the country.

    “Florida has already started to arrest and prosecute family members, friends, neighbors, and community members,” said Hannah Steinberg, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We are asking the court to immediately stop Florida from enforcing this unconstitutional law to prevent further devastation to communities across the state.”

    The law follows statutes from other states that federal courts have unanimously blocked, and it directly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The lawsuit asks the court to immediately halt enforcement of the unconstitutional law.

“Our plaintiffs include a mother applying for a U visa as a victim of crime, a mother of four caring for a child with disabilities, and farmworkers who regularly travel between Florida and other states to harvest our food,” said Amy Godshall, legal fellow and immigrants' rights attorney at the ACLU of Florida. “This law not only violates the Constitution — it threatens the safety and well-being of people who have lived in our communities for decades.”

    The complaint details how SB 4C forces state law enforcement to make complex federal immigration determinations, authorizes the detention of people who pose no threat, and criminalizes individuals whom the federal government may later grant asylum, visas, or permanent status. The law makes no exceptions for people seeking humanitarian protection or people with pending applications for immigration relief.

    “Florida's recently passed SB 4C, is an attempt to bypass federal immigration oversight and empower state law enforcement officials to enforce immigration policies,” said Paul R. Chavez, litigation and advocacy director of Americans for Immigrant Justice. “This law could lead to the detention of individuals who pose no threat to our communities, and the denial of basic civil rights protections to immigrants. SB 4C is unconstitutional and may instill fear in the state, potentially driving many immigrants and their families into hiding. We proudly stand in solidarity with our immigrant community to advance and protect all our civil rights.”

    The legal complaint can be found here.

Immigration

Series Highlights Harms of

Immigration Policies, How

Communities Are Fighting Back

    NEW YORK – (ACLU) -- 2/22/2025 – The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a new storytelling series documenting the harms of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda and how communities are fighting back. The multimedia series uplifts the voices of people nationwide – family members of undocumented people, teachers, activists, and more – and elevates the need for balanced and humane immigration policies. The project comes just thirty days after President Trump took office and reiterated his pledge to enact the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history. 

    For weeks, the ACLU has collected stories anonymously from community members across the country to illustrate how peoples’ lives have been impacted by these policies, shaped their daily experiences, their sense of security, and the well-being of their families. “My community is being broken into two parts and we are looking [to] friends, co-workers, and more because we are all going back in time; it’s messing with people’s perceptions of humans and who we are and how far we have come to protect our rights,” one individual shared, while others have highlighted the sense of fear they feel for themselves and their families.

    The blog, photo, and video series will continue to run in the weeks and months ahead with the goal of humanizing immigration issues. The ACLU’s investment in telling human interest stories aims to counter the Trump administration’s widespread effort to amplify misleading and damaging stories painting immigrants with one dehumanizing brush.

    The project also comes on the heels of several legal actions from the ACLU and partners challenging Trump’s unlawful immigration policies. In just four weeks, the organization has filed five lawsuits against measures that would tear apart communities nationwide, from eliminating birthright citizenship, to fast-tracking deportations without due process.

    “As the ACLU and its 54 affiliates nationwide combat the Trump administration’s harmful policies in the courts, in Congress, and in our communities, we know that our fight isn’t just about policy – it's about people,” said Anu Joshi, National Campaigns Director for Immigration at the ACLU. “The individuals and stories at the center of this series are a powerful reminder of what’s at stake in the fight for immigrants’ rights.”

    The full storytelling series is available here: https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/documenting-stories-of-cruelty-fear-and-resilience

U.S. Law

 ACLU of Illinois: Winning An 

Election Does Not Give Anyone

License to Discard Our Constitution

By Steve Rensberry 

 Commentary

------------- 

    EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. -- 11/13/2024 - Following the presidential election of Nov. 5, 2024, the ACLU of Illinois released a statement making the case that the president simply is not above the Constitution, no matter what anyone says about the legality of exercising such powers or in behaving in such a way.

    "Winning an election does not give anyone license to discard our Constitution and behave as a dictator – on day one or any other day," the organization stated.

     The ACLU should be commended for bringing some sanity to the debate. What action, if any, will be taken to fine or punish or stop a fascist-oriented president who deliberately choses to ignore the Constitution, to jail people he personally considers traitors? That's the million dollar question, I suppose. Justice should be done, or justice is worthless and truth is meaningless.

   The ACLU of Illinois statement: 

    Donald Trump has been elected the 47^th President of the United States. But winning an election does not give anyone license to discard our Constitution and behave as a dictator – on day one or any other day. 

    We saw firsthand the threat that the first Trump Administration posed to basic civil liberties, from the way in which the Administration cruelly separated children from their parents at the border and enforced immigration laws in a biased fashion, to his urging police to use harsh tactics – like stop and frisk – that target Black and Brown young men, to his attacks on immigrants, LGBTQ+ folks and anyone who disagreed with him. And, of course, Trump was the architect of the Supreme Court decision that recklessly ripped away the federal constitutional right to access abortion care.

    The ACLU never shied away from challenging Trump’s reckless disregard for the Constitution during his first administration. We stand prepared to do the same this time.  And, we are committed to building and enforcing a firewall of protections in Illinois to limit the inevitable harm that will flow from the new administration’s attacks.

    In short, we will not abandon those whose rights are being violated and we will not abandon the Constitution. 

 Link to the news release: ACLU of Illinois Responds

 

The Public Sphere

Nation's First Religious Public

Charter School Blocked by Court

    OKLAHOMA CITY — (ACLU) - 6/25/2024 - Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation applaud the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision today barring the nation’s first religious charter school. The organizations, which represent faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates in a separate lawsuit to stop Oklahoma from sponsoring and funding St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, issued the following joint statement:

    “The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision safeguards public education and upholds the separation of religion and government. Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which plans to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school. We will continue our efforts to protect public education and religious freedom, including the separation of church and state.”

    The organizations, supported by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, represent faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates who object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will discriminate against students and families based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, won’t commit to adequately serving students with disabilities, and will indoctrinate students into one religion. These nine Oklahomans and OKPLAC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education, filed their lawsuit, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on July 31, 2023, in the District Court of Oklahoma County.

    The plaintiffs in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board include OKPLAC (Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition), Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Lené, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright.

    A group of the plaintiffs also filed an amicus brief in the Attorney General’s case, Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on Dec. 27. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion incorporates many of the arguments made in that amicus brief.

    The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Sarah Taitz and Jenny Samuels of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Millington of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.

Civil Rights

ACLU Warns Against Bills Attacking

Kansans’ Right to Vote

    TOPEKA, KAN. – (ACLU) - 2/20/2024 - As state lawmakers consider multiple election-related bills, the ACLU of Kansas is warning against each bill’s negative impact on Kansas voters, but also against the collective anti-democratic theme of the package of bills that all seek to make it harder for Kansans to register, cast a ballot, and have their vote count.

    “Democracy is not a partisan matter – it’s the very foundation that ensures each Kansas voter can have a voice in the laws and policies affecting their lives,” said Micah Kubic, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas. “The election process is the single most meaningful way for Kansans to hold their elected officials accountable – so it’s particularly disturbing to see some of those same elected officials leverage their power to undermine that fundamental process of accountability. Democracy is strongest when more people participate, and these bills are designed to make fewer people participate."

 

     The currently seven pending bills in the Kansas legislature seek to limit early in-person voting, place additional restrictions on mail-in ballots, and more.

    “These bills are reminiscent of the attacks on Kansans’ voting rights during the era of then-Secretary of State Kris Kobach,” Kubic said. “We somberly remind our legislators that those attacks have been rejected time after time – rejected by Kansans, rejected by courts, and rejected by common sense. When Mr. Kobach pushed through attacks on our democracy, it resulted in lengthy, costly, and significant losses for Mr. Kobach. Those unconstitutional laws were struck down on behalf of Kansas voters, and any new unconstitutional attacks on our democracy will be, too.”

    ACLU of Kansas Policy Director Rashane Hamby said: “It may be tempting for lawmakers to get lost in the details, but they shouldn’t lose sight of what the big picture is for the Kansans they serve and that Kansas still remains in the bottom of the country for voter turnout. Every last one of these bills is about creating barriers and making it even harder for Kansans to vote, especially elderly voters, those who are in rural communities, or voters with disabilities. We know that Kansans as a whole trust our election process and the officials who administer it, but many lawmakers continue to politicize our fundamental right to vote and lean on misinformation to justify it.”

Press Freedom

Court Urged to Unseal 

Documents Related 

to FBI Raid on Journalist

    TAMPA, Fla. (ACLU) - Jan. 6, 2024 - The American Civil Liberties, the ACLU of Florida, and their partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Jan. 2 in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that a search warrant authorizing a raid on Florida journalist Tim Burke’s home should be unsealed to preserve press freedoms and increase transparency. The ACLU previously joined more than 50 organizations to send a letter to the Department of Justice demanding transparency about how the government believes Burke’s newsgathering broke the law.

    “The First Amendment protects the vital role journalism plays in keeping powerful institutions accountable to the public. But it appears that the government is interpreting computer crime laws in a dangerously overbroad manner — despite Supreme Court case law warning against this kind of overreach. This is both impermissible and unwise,” said Jennifer Stisa Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

    The FBI raided Burke’s home after he obtained outtakes of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) where Ye made antisemitic and other offensive remarks. The investigation, according to court filings, involves alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, and a federal wiretapping law. The CFAA is the federal anti-hacking law that prohibits unauthorized access to a computer. But Burke says he got the outtakes from websites where Fox News uploaded unencrypted live streams to URLs anyone could access, using publicly accessible login credentials.

    The brief argues that the meager information available about the government’s investigation of Burke chills newsgathering by generating fear that journalists will be prosecuted for First Amendment-protected activity. Importantly, the brief also calls on the government to return seized materials that are not related to the case, and to allow access to materials that enable Burke to fulfill his newsgathering function. It does not appear that the government has taken Burke’s newsgathering activities into account in conducting this investigation. That failure demonstrates “callous disregard” for Burke’s First Amendment rights.

    “A key function of the press is to report news that might embarrass powerful people and companies,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation. “If Burke is being investigated for locating and publicizing publicly available interview outtakes merely because Fox News would’ve preferred the footage remain secret, that poses serious First Amendment problems. Countless other journalists who use the internet to find news need to know whether the government believes they’re breaking the law by doing their jobs.”

    The brief also takes issue with prosecutors’ suggestions that Burke is not actually a journalist, in part because he did not work for an established news outlet at the time he obtained the outtakes. Burke has a long history in journalism. Unsealing the search warrant and any additional documents related to the raid will confirm whether the court was informed that Burke was a journalist — and whether the government considered him to be one. Federal policy requires that the government provide journalists notice before any search of their newsgathering materials or work product occurs, and no such notice was given to Burke.

    The organizations submitting the brief raise concerns — and demand answers — regarding whether the government’s apparent belief that Burke was not a journalist led it to eschew procedures for searches of journalists’ newsgathering materials required under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 and the DOJ’s own policies. Those policies were revised last year to better protect journalists’ rights in light of Trump-era abuses.

Related Documents

• TIMOTHY BURKE v. UNITED STATES -- Amicus Brief

Education Politics

Students Reminded of Rights 

Under New Classroom 

Censorship Law in Georgia

    ATLANTA, Ga. - (SPLC) - 8/7/2022 - The ACLU of Georgia (ACLU-GA) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are offering support to educators, students and parents in Georgia as the school year begins under a new classroom censorship law (H.B. 1084) signed by Gov. Brian Kemp in April. The law critically limits discussions on race in Georgia public schools.

    Both organizations encourage everyone involved in Georgia public schools to share experiences related to H.B. 1084. Educators who believe the law is being used to discipline or retaliate against them or students in a way that interferes with their First Amendment rights, are asked to contact the SPLC at TeachTruth@splcenter.org. Students are also encouraged to contact the SPLC if they suspect the classroom censorship law is blocking classroom discussions, materials, or lessons from occurring. The SPLC, ACLU-GA, and ACLU Speech, Technology and Privacy Project are working together, and may be able to help.

    “Understanding constitutional protections including the right to free speech in public or private, the right to clear, understandable laws, and the right to employment protections, will help educators and Georgia public school parents and students navigate the school year under a censorship law recently passed by the Georgia legislature,” said Brock Boone, senior staff attorney for the SPLC. “If an educator or student believes that truthful and accurate teaching in their class is being withheld or censored under HB 1084, we want to hear from them.”

    The ACLU of Georgia and the SPLC are committed to proactively supporting public education that is truthful, diverse and inclusive. These organizations are also committed to supporting educators, students and parents who are negatively affected by the law.

    “Teachers, educators, and school staff play a vital role in educating the future generations of this country,” said Nneka Ewulonu, ACLU of Georgia staff attorney. “While these new classroom censorship laws are vague, public school teachers still have constitutional rights and a professional duty to teach the truth.”

Civil Rights

Arizona Prison Officials Withhold

Selected Issues of The Nation from

Incarcerated Subscribers

    PHOENIX - (ACLU) - 8/6/2022 - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona sent a letter in late July to the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) challenging its decision to withhold selected issues of The Nation magazine from incarcerated subscribers at least five times in the past 18 months on the basis that the issues promoted racial superiority or contained sexual content, in violation of the First Amendment.

    “The ban on these issues of The Nation is yet another example of prisons routinely restricting materials that incarcerated people can access, by way of unconstitutional, arbitrary rules,” said Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “ADCRR’s actions violate not only the First Amendment rights of incarcerated people, but also the First Amendment rights of the publisher and writers in the magazine. The Nation, or any other publication, may not be banned simply because it describes acts of current or historic racism — reporting on racism is not promoting racism.”

    The ACLU examined the withheld issues of The Nation and found no content promoting acts of violence, racism, degradation, or the superiority of one race over another. One prohibited issue had a cover story entitled “Black Immigrants Matter.” Another issue that was banned, because it supposedly contained sexual content, had a photo of a fully-dressed 93-year-old drag queen in the magazine and a cartoon of two fully-dressed people kissing each other. The ADCRR regulation banning sexual content recently was held to be unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another censorship case against the department.

    “True to its Orwellian name, ADCRR’s Office of Publication Review (OPR) has given vague explanations lacking any specific citation of allegedly offending material to justify withholding our magazine from incarcerated subscribers,” explains D.D. Guttenplan, editor of The Nation. “But as Malcolm X says in his Autobiography, reading in prison ‘changed forever the course of my life’ — as it has for countless other incarcerated people. So when the notices kept coming, we decided to do something about it.”

    “This is not the first time the ACLU has called ADCRR to account for its arbitrary censorship policies,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “In 2019, the ACLU successfully called on Arizona prison officials to allow Chokehold, Paul Butler’s acclaimed nonfiction book on racial disparities in the criminal justice system. In 2021, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of a Black Muslim man who sued ADCRR for denying him access to religious texts, and to popular rap and R&B music such as Kendrick Lamar and The Weeknd. In January 2022, the Ninth Circuit ruled against ADCRR in the prisoner’s favor.”

    In its letter, the ACLU asks ADCRR to review each facility’s policy and practice to ensure respect for the First Amendment rights of incarcerated Arizonans, as well as the constitutional rights of publishers. Specifically, the ACLU is asking ADCRR to provide uncensored issues of The Nation to the intended recipients, to notify mailroom staff that they cannot invoke the unconstitutional and vague “sexual content” regulation, and to refrain in the future from banning materials reporting acts of current or historic racism.

    The full ACLU letter and the banned issues are at:

• Letter
• Banned Issues

Civil Rights

Abortion Bans Temporarily 

Blocked in Five States

    WASHINGTON — (ACLU) - 7/1/2022 - This week, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) took legal action to block abortion bans in 11 states: Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

    So far, these efforts have successfully blocked abortion bans in five states – Utah, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas – through temporary restraining orders, allowing some providers there to resume abortion care for now.

Statement from Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, ACLU:

    “Millions of people in the U.S. are now being prevented from getting abortion care and are being forced into carrying pregnancies against their will. In the immediate aftermath, our focus has turned to state courts and state constitutions. Make no mistake, this is only the most recent salvo in a broader attack on our fundamental rights and liberties. Efforts to suppress the vote, and gut the electoral systems that undergird our democracy become even more important now that we must turn to the ballot box to restore abortion rights. It all hangs in the balance in 2022 and ultimately 2024.”

Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, President & CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

    “As we collectively grapple with the heartbreak and devastation of this ruling, Planned Parenthood remains committed first and foremost to our patients. We will leave no stone unturned in our battle to restore and protect abortion access for the millions who’ve had their right to bodily autonomy stripped away overnight. We know that every opportunity to defend abortion access will be critically important in a post-Roe environment, and every day that an injunction is in place is another day our patients can access care. We’re grateful to be working in coalition with groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU, our longstanding partners in the fight for reproductive rights, and hope that through our joint efforts across the country some relief can be granted. Our patients deserve nothing less, and we won’t back down.”

Statement from Nancy Northup, President & CEO, the Center for Reproductive Rights:

    “The effect of last week’s ruling has been swift and severe, with abortion services stopping immediately in many states. We are seeing the start of a public health crisis that will engulf the nation. But we knew this outcome was possible, and we have been preparing for this moment. Our immediate priority is to preserve access in every state for as long as we can. Every day and hour that a clinic can stay open is a victory for the patients in the waiting room. We have already seen abortion services restored in four states as a result of our collective legal efforts, and there will be more cases filed in the days to come. The clinics we represent are working non-stop to help as many patients as possible for as long as they can.”

    PPFA, ACLU, CRR, and local partners filed lawsuits in the following states:

• Arizona: On June 25, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU asked a federal court to block Arizona’s personhood law as applied to abortion. A hearing is scheduled for July 8.

• Florida: On June 1, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the law firm Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit bringing a state constitutional challenge to House Bill 5, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. On June 30, a state court announced that it will issue an order blocking the ban.

• Idaho: Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky and Dr. Caitlin Gustafson filed a lawsuit in the Idaho Supreme Court against the state’s “trigger” ban on abortion at any point in pregnancy, which passed in 2020 and is scheduled to take effect later this summer. The lawsuit contends that the ban violates Idahoans’ rights to privacy and equal protection under the Idaho Constitution. The lawsuit also claims that the ban’s terms are so vague that medical providers will be unable to know when they are permitted to provide care for patients experiencing miscarriage or when they may provide an abortion needed to protect a patient’s life, risking the health and lives of Idahoans.

• Kentucky: The ACLU, ACLU of Kentucky, and Planned Parenthood Northwest, Hawaiʻi, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky filed a state court challenge to block Kentucky’s two abortion bans, asserting the Kentucky Constitution protects the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. On Thursday, June 30, the court granted a restraining order to block the bans, allowing abortion services to resume in the state.

• Louisiana: The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a case challenging Louisiana’s three separate trigger bans. On June 27, a state court temporarily blocked all three bans. A hearing for more permanent relief is set for July 8.

• Mississippi: The Center for Reproductive Rights is challenging Mississippi’s trigger ban and six-week ban in state court, arguing that the state’s constitution protects the right to abortion. A hearing is scheduled for July 5.

• Ohio: The ACLU, ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm WilmerHale filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to block the state’s six-week ban on abortion and to restore and further protect Ohioans’ reproductive rights secured by the Ohio Constitution. While a request for an emergency stay of the ban was denied, the case remains pending before the Ohio Supreme Court as the court considers the merits of the abortion providers' claims. Reproductive rights organizations will continue exploring all avenues to ensure Ohioans are able to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights.

• Oklahoma: The Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm Dechert LLP, and attorney Blake Patton filed a lawsuit in the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking to block the state’s pre-Roe abortion ban, enacted in 1910, and a total abortion ban slated to take effect in August. The lawsuit asserts that the criminal abortion bans violate Oklahomans’ state constitutional rights to personal and bodily autonomy, health, and substantive due process.

• Texas: The Center for Reproductive Rights, ACLU, ACLU of Texas, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, and Hayward PLLC filed a lawsuit in Texas state court seeking to block officials from enforcing the state’s antiquated pre-Roe abortion ban, which once banned abortion entirely but has been interpreted to be repealed and unenforceable. On Tuesday, June 28, the court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking enforcement of the state’s pre-Roe abortion ban. The state has since asked the Supreme Court of Texas to block the lower court’s order.

• Utah: Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and the ACLU of Utah filed a lawsuit in Utah state court and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the state’s trigger ban, which took effect on June 24. On Monday, June 27, the court granted that TRO, and PPAU immediately resumed providing abortion care. The lawsuit explains that the Utah Constitution protects pregnant Utahns’ rights to determine when and whether to have a family, and to determine what happens with their own bodies and lives.

• West Virginia: The ACLU, ACLU of West Virginia, Mountain State Justice, and the Cooley law firm filed a lawsuit to prevent the enforcement of an archaic and cruel abortion ban in state court. The ban, passed in the 1800s, not only criminalized providing abortion care, but was also used to punish the person seeking the abortion and even their partners. Fear of prosecution under this outdated law has already forced the state’s only abortion clinic to suspend abortion services and turn away patients seeking essential care.

    Currently, at least nine states have banned or severely restricted abortion — Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas — and more are expected to do so in the coming days and weeks. Without Roe, as many as 26 states are poised to swiftly ban abortion, and the impact has already been widespread and devastating. Patients across the country with canceled appointments must now make other arrangements, and health centers in several states have already closed their doors. Hundreds of thousands of people are now forced to travel hundreds if not thousands of miles for care they should be able to get at home, seek abortion outside of the medical system, or carry pregnancies against their will.

Law and Justice

Report Finds Dozens of Sheriffs

Partnering on Federal Immigration

Enforcement Have Records of

Racism, Abuse, and Violence

 
    WASHINGTON — (ACLU) - 4/30/2022 - The American Civil Liberties Union released a new research report today on Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's 287(g) program, which delegates federal immigration enforcement authority to local and state law enforcement agencies and which expanded five fold under the Trump administration. The report, License to Abuse, is the first in-depth and comprehensive review of the character and conduct of local 287(g) partners, primarily county sheriffs, both under the Biden administration and previous administrations.

    Researchers examined the 142 state and local law enforcement agencies, including sheriff’s offices and departments of corrections, participating in the 287(g) program and highlighted 54 agencies that are among the most egregious in their violations of people’s civil rights and liberties. Key findings presented in the report include:

• 59 percent of participating sheriffs have records of anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric, contributing to a continued climate of fear for immigrants and their families and undermining the administration’s racial equity, accountability, and anti-discrimination commitments. 
  
• 55 percent of sheriffs involved in the program have made statements advocating for inhumane immigration and border enforcement policies and promoting the misinformation and false claims on which they are based. In some cases these sheriffs are actively seeking to defy federal authority in order to preserve the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant, anti-human rights legacy.
• 65 percent of 287(g) participating agencies have records of a pattern of racial profiling and other civil rights violations, including excessive use of force.
• 77 percent of participating sheriffs, local jail authorities and state department of corrections commi​​ssioners are running detention facilities with serious and extensive records of inhumane conditions, implicating the 287(g) program because when the federal government partners with these jails and prisons it tacitly sanctions these conditions.

    “Despite President Biden’s campaign pledge to eliminate 287(g) contracts initiated under the Trump administration, the Biden administration has so far only terminated one 287(g) agreement out of over 140,” said Naureen Shah, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU. “In continuing partnerships with sheriffs who have shameful and persistent records of civil rights violations, particularly against Black and Brown communities, President Biden is sending a message that he sanctions and approves of these abuses. The Biden administration is also undermining its own efforts to repair the harm inflicted by the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda as well as its promise to hold law enforcement accountable for violating the law. The Biden administration should immediately cease working with these agencies, whose conduct is antithetical to the Biden administration’s vision for the country.”

    The ACLU recommends the Biden administration end the 287 (g) program entirely. It should begin ending agreements with 54 participating state and local agencies identified by the ACLU as having particularly egregious records of racial profiling and other civil rights violations; records of poor jail or prison conditions and treatment of individuals in its custody; records of anti-immigrant, xenophobic statements; and records of advocating for inhumane immigration and border policies, with implications for whether they will seek to continue indiscriminate arrests and deportations.

    The full report is online here.

https://www.aclu.org/report/license-abuse-how-ices-287g-program-empowers-racist-sheriffs?redirect=sheriffs-report

Law and Justice

Court Blocks Montana Laws 

that Restricts Native 

American Voting Rights

    BILLINGS, Mont. — (ACLU) - 4/13/2022 - A Montana court today blocked two state laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process. 

    The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and Harvard Law School’s Election Law Clinic challenged the laws on behalf of two Native American voting rights organizations and four tribal nations. 

    The first measure, HB 176, would have ended Election Day registration, which Indigenous voters have relied upon to cast votes in Montana since 2006. The second, HB 530, would have blocked paid ballot collection. 

    Indigenous voters on rural reservations, where residential mail delivery is often limited or nonexistent, disproportionately rely on the service of ballot collectors to cast their votes. In 2020, a Montana court struck down a similar measure after listening to “cold, hard data” on its detrimental impact on the Native vote.

    The court today granted a preliminary injunction in Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen, which was filed on behalf of Western Native Voice and Montana Native Vote, Native American-led organizations focused on getting out the vote and increasing civic participation in the Native American community; and the Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Fort Belknap Indian Community, and Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Western Native Voice has been consolidated with two similar cases brought by the Montana Democratic Party and Montana Youth Action. 

    The following reactions are from:  

    Alex Rate, Legal Director, ACLU of Montana: “Today is a good day for the voters of Montana, and for the sanctity of the Montana Constitution. This order reaffirms the principle that the right to vote must be preserved for all voters, and that laws targeting Indigenous voters cannot be supported by flimsy and unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.”

    Alora Thomas-Lundborg, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Voting Rights Project: “The court correctly found that these laws likely violate many provisions of the Montana Constitution, including the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process. This is an important victory. Montana politicians have tried and failed yet again to undermine Native American voters.”

    Jacqueline De León, Staff Attorney, NARF: “HB 176 and HB 530 are designed to take advantage of the lack of residential mail delivery, poor roads, and inequitable access to election services plaguing Native communities. Such laws are unconstitutional. No matter how many times Montana politicians try to pass laws restricting Native Americans, we will fight on behalf of tribes to ensure Native people’s right to vote in Montana is free and fair.” 

    Samantha Kelty, Staff Attorney, NARF: “This injunction ensures that legislation designed to limit who can participate in this democracy will not take effect in 2022, and we will continue to fight to ensure HB 176 and HB 530 never restrict Native people’s right to vote in Montana.” 

    Theresa Lee, Litigation Director & Clinical Instructor, Election Law Clinic Harvard Law School: “We are pleased the court stopped these laws from burdening all Montana voters, and particularly Native voters who face additional barriers to accessing the vote, and ultimately look forward to seeing these laws permanently blocked.”

    The lawsuit was filed in the Montana 13th Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County.

    Ruling: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/pi-order-western-native-voice-v-jacobsen

    Case details: https://www.aclu.org/cases/western-native-voice-v-jacobsen

Law and Politics

Groups Sue After Louisana Legislature 

Overturns Governors Veto 

of Congressional Map

    LOUSIANA - (ACLU) - 3/30/2022 - The Louisiana Legislature has voted to overturn Gov. John Bel Edwards’ veto of the congressional map passed earlier this year, which failed to add a second majority-Black district.

    In response, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Louisiana, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP filed a  lawsuit on behalf of the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and individuals Press Robinson, Dorothy Nairne, E. René Soulé, Alice Washington, and Clee Ernest Lowe challenging the map as a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

    “The congressional map passed by the Louisiana Legislature in February rejected basic principles of fairness and equity,” said NAACP Louisiana State Conference President Michael McClanahan. “The Legislature knew that they could pass a map that complied with the Voting Rights Act and honored the will of community members who stood up and spoke out for fair maps during the redistricting process. When they failed to, the governor rightfully vetoed their unlawful and unfair map. We are going to federal court to demand a map that honors the rights and representation of Black Louisianans. We will be tireless in this fight.”  

    Louisiana’s voting-age population is nearly one-third Black. Under the Legislature’s map, Black Louisianans comprise the majority in only one of the state’s six congressional districts.

    With voting patterns in Louisiana breaking down starkly along racial lines, the result is that congressional candidates supported by the vast majority of Black voters never succeed in any of the five other districts. The result is underrepresentation of Black voters in Louisiana’s congressional delegation, with Black voters having an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in only one — or 16.7% — of the districts.

    Simultaneously, Louisiana’s white population is dramatically overrepresented. While only 58% of Louisiana’s population is non-Hispanic white, white voters — whose votes also break down along racial lines in most of the state—control the outcome in five out of six — or 83.3% — of the districts under the maps. That control has meant that no Black candidate has won election to any of those seats since the 19th century. Governor Edwards recognized this disparity and rightfully vetoed the legislature’s proposed map because, as he stated, it was “not fair to the people of Louisiana and does not meet the standards set forth in the federal Voting Rights Act.” 

    “People from every corner of Louisiana made their voices heard in the redistricting process in a unified call for fair and representative maps,” said Ashley Shelton, president and CEO of Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. “They demanded a second majority-Black congressional district because the math is simple, and the law is clear. One-third of Louisiana voters are Black. One-third of six is two. The Voting Rights Act requires that Black voters have an equal opportunity to participate in our political processes, and our maps must reflect this. The governor did the right thing by vetoing the map and we hope the courts will now intervene to right the wrongs of the Legislature. The people of Louisiana deserve maps that represent all of us and no longer drown out the voices of Black voters.”

Law and Justice

Alliance Opposes Proposed 

Gang Asset Forfeiture Ordinance

    ILLINOIS - (ACLU) - 1/30/2022 - An alliance of faith-based and anti-violence community leaders have joined policy organizations and government agencies to call on Mayor Lori Lightfoot to drop her plan to use new civil asset forfeiture powers in response to gun violence in Chicago. Organizations opposing the ordinance include the ACLU of Illinois, Shriver Center on Poverty Law, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts, the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender, and others.

    The mayor and Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown have suggested that civil asset forfeiture will target “street gangs” to reduce crime, but opponents believe there is no evidence to support this approach.

    Pastor Marshall Hatch, New Mt. Pilgrim MB Church in West Garfield Park, an opponent of the proposed ordinance, said, “Trust between the police department and our community is already low. This scheme to attack families and their households wholesale for the suspected criminal activities of an alleged family member will be enforced only in Black and Brown communities. This scheme will not reduce violence. It will deepen distrust and further destabilize fragile families and poor communities. It’s morally wrong.”

    Reverend Ciera Bates-Chamberlain, executive director of the anti-violence organization Live Free Chicago and its statewide affiliate, Live Free Illinois, said, “This proposal contradicts public health strategies in the mayor’s own plan, Our City, Our Safety. This is a smoke and mirrors approach that detracts from proven strategies that actually save lives.”

    Cook County Public Defender Sharone R. Mitchell, Jr. explained that the proposed Chicago asset forfeiture ordinance merely directs more punishment at communities that need resources and support. It creates a financial incentive for the city to confiscate property from people who are several steps removed from alleged members of gangs. He also said that the city’s gang database is deeply flawed and further enforcement actions using the database will only exacerbate systemic violence against Black and Brown Chicagoans.

    “Chicago has a long and troubled history of unjust arrest and imprisonment. Let’s not add another chapter to this story with unjust confiscation. There are proven violence prevention strategies that should be pursued instead of this ordinance,” Mitchell said.

    Mitchell’s statement was accompanied by the release of this letter outlining his full concerns with the ordinance. The letter was shared with City Council members this morning.

    The ACLU of Illinois said that the ordinance essentially gives the Chicago Corporation Counsel the power to take the property of an accused person even before he or she is convicted. Moreover, the ordinance shifts to the accused person the burden of proof to show that they are not involved in gang activity. Many of the people targeted will not be able to afford attorneys, and attorneys will not be provided free of charge.

    “Civil asset forfeiture is not the way to achieve safety in neighborhoods across the city. It already has proven to fail in that role. It ignores proven strategies that address the root causes of crime,” said Angela Inzano, policy and advocacy strategist at the ACLU of Illinois. The ACLU has posted on its website a summary of its concerns about the ordinance.

    The following individuals and organizations are on record opposing the proposed ordinance:  

• Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender
• ACLU of Illinois
• MAAFA Redemption Project
• Live Free Chicago/Live Free Illinois
• Chicago CRED
• Communities Partnering 4 Peace
• Illinois Justice Project (ILJP)
• Shriver Center on Poverty Law
• Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts
• Public Equity
• Pastor Autry Phillips, Hopewell M.B. Church
• The Chicago Bar Association
• Healing Hurt People
• John Howard Association
• Pastor Marshall Hatch, New Mt. Pilgrim MB Church
• READI Chicago
• Shriver Center on Poverty Law
• Chicago Council of Lawyers
• The People's Lobby
• Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation (SOUL)
• Lucy Parsons Labs
• Equity and Transformation (EAT)
• Heartland Alliance
• Liberation Library
• Loevy & Loevy Chicago Jobs Council
• Erase the Database Coalition
• SoapBox Productions & Organizing
• The #LetUsBreathe Collective
• Chicago Torture Justice Center
• Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC)
• Unitarian Universalist Advocacy Network of Illinois
• Unitarian Universalist Prison Ministry of Illinois
• National Lawyers Guild of Chicago
• Rev Veronica Johnson, Rev Sarah Lusche, Pastors, Hyde Park Union Church
• Pastor Victoria C. Brady, Restoring Hope Ministries International,
• Rev. Dr. Beth Brown, Pastor, Lincoln Park Presbyterian Church
• One Aim/GPAC
• Apostolic Pentecostal Church of Morgan Park
• Amnesty International USA
• South Shore United Methodist Church
• Pastor Phil Jackson, Firehouse Community Arts Center
• Faith in Place Chicago DSA
• Chicago Community Bond Fund
• Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights 
• United Working Families

Originally released Jan. 13, 2022