American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
ACLU of Minnesota Selects Recently Retired Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson To Receive Its 17th Earl Larson Award
June 14, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN, 651.645.4097 x121; csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
ST. PAUL, Minn. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is pleased to announce that it will be honoring Justice Paul Anderson with its 17th Annual Earl Larson Award. For the past sixteen years, the ACLU-MN has honored the work of members of the Minnesota legal profession who have excelled in their commitment to preserving civil liberties. The first award winner was Judge Earl Larson, who founded the Minnesota affiliate of the ACLU. Previous recipients include Walter Mondale, the Honorable Rosalie Wahl, and the Honorable Jonathan Lebedoff.
Justice Anderson retired in May 2013 after serving on the Minnesota Supreme Court since 1994. Justice Anderson has spent a large part of his life in public service, beginning with his time spent as a VISTA volunteer attorney straight out of law school, and continuing with his work at the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, and then later on his appointment to the bench. During his tenure at the Supreme Court, the court handled two statewide ballot recounts and a series of constitutional and civil cases that are nationally recognized. He is also known for his international human rights work, including his work in helping Tunisia draft a constitution and in advising Libya on conducting constituent assemblies.
“Honoring Justice Anderson with the Earl Larson Award is a clear choice because it was evident during his tenure on the bench that he strove to protect the civil liberties of Minnesotans,” said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU – MN.
The event will be held on Thursday, November 21 at the Minneapolis Club. More information about the award ceremony will be released in early fall.
Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Against Landlords and Tenants in Home Inspections Case (McCaughtry et. al. v. City of Red Wing)
June 05, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Chuck Samuelson, 651.645.4097 x121, csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
ST. PAUL, Minn. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota expressed grave disappointment when the Minnesota Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a challenge to a Red Wing city ordinance allowing city officials to enter a home to conduct an inspection without a tenant’s or landlord’s consent.
The City of Red Wing ordinance requires landlords and tenants to submit their private property to an inspection before a landlord can receive a rental license, even if there is no evidence of a housing code violation. The ordinance essentially allows the city to conduct searches of renters’ homes without individualized probable cause. Although searches of this nature have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawsuit, filed by Institute for Justice, urged the Court to hold that they violate the Minnesota Constitution’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Red Wing ordinance, city inspectors may enter the home under the guise of searching for housing code violations and may conduct an intrusive search of people’s dwellings and report suspicion of criminal activity relating to several specific crimes enumerated in the ordinance to the police.
In a unanimous decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that a city ordinance capable of being applied constitutionally in some cases may not be struck down on a facial challenge, even if there is a very real danger that it could be applied unconstitutionally in some cases. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs here failed to meet their burden for a facial challenge to the ordinance because a district court may require individualized suspicion before issuing an administrative warrant. The ruling leaves open the possibility for a future “as-applied” challenge to the ordinance by an individual for whom the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied. Although concurring in the decision, retiring Justice Paul Anderson noted that the Minnesota Constitution should be read to require individualized probable cause for the type of rental housing searches at issue in this case.
The petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court on July 11, 2012 on behalf of landlord-appellants Robert and Rebecca McCaughtry, Timothy and Ronda McKim, Ryan R. Peterson, Douglas and Kim Sjostrom, and Bradley and Adriana Sonnentag; and tenant-appellants John W. Monroe and Jesse Stewart.
The ACLU of Minnesota filed amicus curiae briefs at the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Appellants’ attorneys were Lee U. McGrath, Institute for Justice, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Dana Berliner, Institute for Justice, Arlington, Virginia. Respondent’s attorneys were John M. Baker, Kathryn M.N. Hibbard from Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In Minnesota, Black People Found To Be 7.81 Times More Likely To Be Arrested For Marijuana Possession Than White People, Despite Equal Usage Rates.
June 04, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 651.645.4097 x121; csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
New Report Features Original Data Analysis on Marijuana Arrest Rates by Race and Details High Costs of Enforcement
ST. PAUL, Minn. – According to a new report by the ACLU, Blacks were arrested for marijuana possession at 7.81 times the rate of whites in 2010, despite comparable marijuana usage rates. The report,Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests, released today, is the first ever to examine state and county marijuana arrest rates nationally by race. The findings show that while there were pronounced racial disparities in marijuana arrests 10 years ago, they have grown significantly worse.
“The War on Marijuana has disproportionately been a war on people of color,” says Ezekiel Edwards, Director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU and one of the primary authors of the report. “State and local governments have aggressively enforced marijuana laws selectively against Black people and communities, needlessly ensnaring hundreds of thousands of people in the criminal justice system at tremendous human and financial cost.”
In Minnesota, the counties with the largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests were Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota. Statewide, police officers made 7,494 arrests for marijuana possession in 2010, and marijuana possession rates accounted for 42.8 percent of all drug arrests in 2010. From 2001-2010, overall marijuana possession arrest rates fell -0.5% and the racial disparities among such arrests increased 231%.
Despite the fact that a majority of Americans now support marijuana legalization, Minnesota spent as much as 69 million dollars enforcing marijuana laws in 2010. Nationally, states spent a combined $3.61 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010 alone.
“The aggressive policing of marijuana is time-consuming, costly, racially biased, and doesn’t work,” says Mr. Edwards. “These arrests have a significant detrimental impact on people’s lives, as well as on the communities in which they live. When people are arrested for possessing even tiny amounts of marijuana, they can be disqualified from public housing and student financial aid, lose or find it more difficult to obtain employment, lose custody of their child, and be deported. In addition, the targeted enforcement of marijuana possession laws against people of color creates a community of mistrust and reduced cooperation with the police, which damages public safety. Furthermore, despite being a priority for many police departments across the states for the past decade, the aggressive enforcement of marijuana laws has not even accomplished one of law enforcement’s purported goals: to eradicate or even diminish the use of marijuana.”
Key national findings from the report include:
Arrests Rates
- Nationwide, between 2001 and 2010, there were 8.2 million marijuana arrests. Over 7 million, or 88 percent, of these arrests were for possession (versus for sale or distribution). In 2010, there were over 889,000 marijuana arrests – 300,000 more than arrests for all violent crimes combined that year. This means one marijuana arrest every 37 seconds in 2010. Over 780,000 of those arrests were for possession only.
Race Disparities
- Nationwide, Blacks were over 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, despite comparable usage rates.
- In Minnesota, Blacks were on average nearly 8 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as whites. In Ramsey County alone, Blacks were 9.1 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites.
- The racial disparities exist in all regions of the U.S., as well as in both large and small counties, cities and rural areas, and in both high- and low-income communities. Disparities are also consistently high whether Blacks make up a small or a large percentage of a county’s overall population.
The ACLU of Minnesota supports Senate File 1641 and House File 1818 introduced in the Minnesota Legislature this past session. The ACLU vows to work hard to ensure that the bills continue to receive widespread support in the next legislative session in 2014. The ACLU is also calling for all states to decriminalize marijuana by licensing and regulating marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons 21 or older, taxing marijuana sales, and removing state law criminal and civil penalties for such activities.
Decriminalization would eliminate the unfair racially- and community-targeted selective enforcement of marijuana laws. At a time when states are facing budget shortfalls, taxing and regulating marijuana would save state and local governments millions of dollars currently spent on enforcement and help raise millions more in revenue. This is money that can be invested in public schools and community and public health programs, including drug treatment.
In the report, the organization also urges lawmakers and law enforcement to reform policing practices, including ending racial profiling as well as unconstitutional stops, frisks, and searches, and also to reform state and federal funding streams that incentivize police to make low-level drug arrests. The full report can be accessed at www.aclu.org/marijuana.
ACLU asks court to protect the First Amendment, and dismiss charges for lawful behavior
May 21, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 2012
CONTACT:
Jana Kooren, 651.645.4097 x123; jkooren@aclu-mn.org
ACLU asks court to protect the First Amendment, and dismiss charges for lawful behavior
St. Paul, Minn. – American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is asking the Court to dismiss the charges against Andrew Henderson, who was cited for peaceably filming paramedics and sheriff's deputies in the parking lot of his apartment building. Henderson was charged in fall 2012 with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct after he passively filmed an interaction between a resident of his apartment building and Ramsey County Sheriff's deputies.
"It is well-established that the First Amendment protects an individual's right to film police and public officials carrying out their public duty," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN. "It is unfortunate that the Sheriff's office does not believe in protecting this right, and instead are preventing law abiding citizens from exercising their rights."
A hearing on the motion to dismiss will be held on: Wednesday May 22, at 2:00 p.m. in the Honorable Edward Wilson's Courtroom at the Ramsey County District Court located at 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102.
ACLU-MN cooperating attorneys are: John Lundquist and Kevin Riach of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
The ACLU has created a helpful guide for people who wish to photograph or film police activity. To learn about what is permissible you can visit the ACLU's website.
Minnesota Lawmakers Inch Forward on Voting Rights But More Work Needs to be Done, say Voting Rights Groups
May 21, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 20, 2013
Contact: Jana Kooren, ACLU-MN,
651-645-4097 x123, jkooren@aclu-mn.org
Minnesota Lawmakers Inch Forward on Voting Rights But More Work Needs to be Done, say Voting Rights Groups
(ST. PAUL, Minn) –The Minnesota House passed modest reforms to Minnesota’s election systems, but the ACLU-MN and many members of the Voting Rights Coalition—a nonpartisan partnership of civil and voting rights advocates—caution that more work is necessary to make Minnesota’s election systems more convenient and accessible. The groups call on all Minnesota legislators to support true election reform in the next session. The Minnesota Senate is expected to pass the same reforms before the close of the session today.
This year, the legislature approved no-excuse absentee voting; a move that promises to alleviate some long voting lines and allows more citizens to participate. “No excuse absentee voting is a step forward, but it needs to be accompanied by early voting to give working Minnesotans more voting options and to reduce costs,” said Laura Fredrick Wang of the League of Women Voters Minnesota.
The Voting Rights Coalition warns that implementing no-excuse absentee balloting, without the option to vote early in-person, has the potential to increase the cost of Minnesota’s elections, since absentee ballots are much more expensive to process than standard in-person ballots.
Legislators also failed to address the systemic confusion and unfairness regarding the eligibility of citizens on parole or probation to vote. “Current law is confusing because some people convicted of a crime can vote again, while others can’t if they are still completing probation or parole,” said Chuck Samuelson of the ACLU-MN. “If someone has already served their time, it is only fair to restore their voting rights upon release so they have the opportunity to make a positive contribution and participate in our democracy.”
Next session, the Voting Rights Coalition will focus on passing two important measures that would ensure greater access to voting for Minnesotans:
- Early In-person Voting: This is a commonsense measure that would allow voters the flexibility of voting in the 15 days prior to Election Day, providing greater access to all. Absentee balloting is more cumbersome for voters than early voting and cost the state more than twice the amount to process than a regular ballot. Thirty-two other states now offer early in-person voting, which has proven very popular with voters. (Only one other state offers no-excuse absentee voting without early in-person voting.) Early voting would modernize Minnesota’s election system, prevent a spike in election costs, and provide more options to voters.
- Voting Rights Restoration:Allowing individuals who have a felony on their record to vote as soon as they are released from prison—as opposed to waiting until they are “off paper” or off parole—would affect roughly 60,000 Minnesotans. The vast majority of these citizens live in the community, hold jobs, and pay taxes. This reform would simplify the voting process, make it easier to understand, and help re-integrate these citizens into their communities.
“These simple, commonsense reforms can help ensure that the voices of all Minnesotans can be heard on Election Day,” said Vina Kay of the Organizing Apprenticeship Project. “Our democracy works best when everyone participates.”
Voting Rights Coalition members include, among others: ACLU-MN, League of Women Voters Minnesota, Organizing Apprenticeship Project, Project Vote, Common Cause Minnesota, People for the American Way, Open Access Connections, Jewish Community Action and the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits.
The Voting Rights Coalition is comprised of a broad spectrum of organizations that have come together with a common goal of protecting voting rights and fighting to ensure that every U.S. citizen can access the ballot box without facing unnecessary restrictions. The United States is one of the leading democracies in the world, and Minnesota leads the United States in voter participation. One of the main goals of the coalition is to make voting easier and more accessible to more Minnesota citizens.
Minnesota Governor Signs Law Legalizing Marriage for Same-Sex Couples
May 14, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 14, 2013
CONTACT:
Jana Kooren, ACLU of Minnesota, (651) 485-5925; jkooren@aclu-mn.org
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU national, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Minnesota governor Mark Dayton signed a law legalizing marriage for same-sex couples today. Dayton signed the bill shortly after its passage by the state legislature.
Minnesota is now the twelfth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, to recognize marriage for same-sex couples. It joins Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Washington, New York, Iowa, Rhode Island, and as of last week, Delaware.
"It has been 40 years since the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed Baker v Nelson, the first marriage equality case in the country," said Charles Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "We are pleased that after 40 years of fighting for the freedom to marry, equality has finally been realized for all Minnesotans. We are glad to join the 11 other states and the District of Columbia in recognizing marriage for all loving committed couples."
"We congratulate the people of Minnesota and all those who worked so hard to allow loving and committed couples the freedom to marry," said James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "It is thrilling to see Minnesota become the third state in just two weeks to grant same-sex couples the recognition and protection that only marriage can provide."
ACLU Statement on Capture of Boston Bombing Suspect
April 22, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2013
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union reacted to the apprehension of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing and statements from federal officials that he would be questioned without being read his Miranda rights.
"The ACLU shares the public's relief that the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has been apprehended," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights. The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule. Additionally, every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions."
ACLU-MN Opposes Efforts To Replace Police Officers With Cameras
February 20, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The following is a statement from Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN, on today’s hearing regarding proposed photo-cop legislation.
“This proposed legislation brings with it so much baggage, the members of the Minnesota Legislature would be wise to abandon it with great haste. The ACLU opposes photo-cop legislation on the very simple premise that the constitution guarantees anyone accused of a criminal offense the right to face their accuser in open court. Replacing police officers with cameras also removes this very basic constitutional right. And despite the selective reporting put forth by the proponents, there is no actual compelling data to suggest that accidents are reduced with the use of these cameras. And then there is the question of the trustworthiness of the company pushing the legislation. A simple Google search of the manufacturers of these devices will show that they bring a great deal of controversy and even corruption nearly everywhere they go. In the past, the legislature would ask if we should make a change like this before asking if we can make the change. The current legislature would be wise to ask if they should do this, as the answer is quite clear.”
For More Information or to set up an interview with Chuck Samuelson, please contact Nate Dybvig at 651.230.3018 or nate@spinfirm.com.
ACLU-MN files discrimination lawsuit against Gaylord Police and others
February 19, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Nelson, Legal Director for the ACLU-MN, 651.645.4097 x122
St. Paul, Minn. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against police and the City of Gaylord, the Sibley County Sheriff’s office and others for violating the constitutional rights of Jesus Mendoza Sierra. Ms. Mendoza Sierra’s Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the defendant officers and deputies arrested, detained and interrogated her in March of 2012, after the driver of the car she was in was arrested.
Police had no reason to suspect Ms. Mendoza Sierra had committed any criminal activity. Rather, the officers assumed that, because she was Hispanic, she was illegally in the United States. Despite being informed that she had valid Minnesota identification and had no warrants, these officers brought her to the police department where they detained and interrogated her. She was only released after officers took her to her home and entered her bedroom to look at her private immigration documents. Audio from the day of the incident includes a segment in which defendant Gaylord Police Officer Jeff Milette can be heard saying “look at the monkeys, look at the monkeys” in reference to some Latinos in the jail lockup.
The lawsuit seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief for the violations of Ms. Mendoza Sierra’s rights.
“In over twenty years of handling §1983 civil rights cases, this is the most blatant disregard of an individual based on ethnicity and national origin by police that I have seen,” stated cooperating attorney Albert Goins.
“The ACLU is greatly concerned about the attitude of law enforcement toward minorities in Gaylord and throughout the state,” stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN. “Ms. Mendoza Sierra should not have suffered the indignities that she did at the hands of licensed peace officers whose mission is to ‘Protect and Serve.’”
Attorneys working on the case are: cooperating attorney Albert Goins, Goins Law Offices, Ltd. in Minneapolis, Ian Bratlie, Staff Attorney for the Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project of the ACLU-MN in Mankato, and Teresa Nelson, ACLU-MN Legal Director.
ACLU-MN's Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project Announces Art From Within 2013
December 05, 2012
The Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project North, of the American Civil Liberties Union-Minnesota is now accepting applications for the fourth annual "Art from Within" exhibit, slated for April 2013. The Art from Within show features artwork that gives a personal and compelling view into the lives of real people whose civil liberties, protected under the Bill of Rights, have been challenged. Artists relate to the art show both literally (art produced within the prison) or metaphorically. Past exhibits highlighted the works by Ojibwe artists as well as individuals impacted by incarceration.
Now in its fourth year, Art from Within provides an important venue for American Indians as well as non-Natives who have been impacted by the criminal justice system, to express their lived experiences through the medium of art. This year's theme focuses on artists' feelings and understandings about what the Bill of Rights means to them. First Amendment freedom of expression is guaranteed for all who reside in the United States, regardless of their civil status. Art is another way that those whose voices are often suppressed can find an audience.
The call for entries is open to emerging or established artists. American Indians from Minnesotan tribes are strongly encouraged to submit entries, as well as youth from northern Minnesota. Applications are due by March 5th, 2013. The opening reception will take place on April 5th, 2013 at the Headwaters School of Music, Bemidji. The exhibit will run from April 5th through April 27th. This activity is made possible by the voters of Minnesota through a grant from the Region 2 Arts Council, thanks to a legislative appropriation from the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and expanding individual rights and personal freedom. The ACLU is the nation's foremost guardian of liberty. The ACLU-MN fights to protect civil liberties of Minnesotans through litigation, public education, and lobbying. The Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project North provides public education regarding racial justice issues through community outreach, court-monitoring, and intake services.
Fill out an application to be a part of the show today! Applications are due March 5.
ACLU Honors Jonathan Lebedoff with Earl Larson Award
December 03, 2012
A group of legal luminaries, attorneys and judges alike, gathered early in November to honor retired Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff as he received the 16th annual Earl Larson Award, which annually honors a member of the Minnesota legal profession who has excelled in commitment to preserving civil liberties. Judge Lebedoff's work as a young attorney, his rulings from the bench and his service on the ACLU-MN board of directors were all shaped by his belief in the importance of civil liberties.
As always true to his modest nature, Judge Lebedoff deflected credit for his achievements from himself when he said, "I was lucky enough to have parents who were sensitive and caring, wise in all meaningful ways, who set a standard for decency that I've tried to follow and demonstrated a commitment to community service that I can't match."
When speaking of his feelings for the organization, Judge Lebedoff said, "The Civil Liberties Union...also, on occasion, took positions that they knew were consistent with civil liberties, but which offended some of their core constituency. They've never wavered in doing what they believed to be the right thing, even if in the short term it might cost them financially or otherwise."
In choosing Judge Lebedoff for the Earl Larson Award, the ACLU honors him for never wavering from doing what he believed to be the right thing.
Double Victory in Minnesota - both amendments defeated!
November 07, 2012
Contact: Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN 651.645.4097 x121,csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is ecstatic that Minnesota has become the first state to defeat both a freedom-limiting marriage amendment and a voter restriction amendment. The ACLU-MN is proud of the work they did through their Vote No 2012 campaign that helped to make a difference. The ACLU-MN was a member of both campaigns working to defeat the amendments, Minnesotans United for All Families, and was a founding member of Our Vote Our Future. Both campaigns worked tirelessly to achieve these defeats. Finally the ACLU would like to congratulate the people of Minnesota for standing up and doing what is right by voting down these two freedom restricting amendments.
Moving forward we will continue to fight for marriage equality and to ensure that voting rights are protected for all Minnesotans.
Minnesota Supreme Court Allows Misleading Voter Restriction Amendment to stay on November Ballot
August 27, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2012
CONTACT:
Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN, 651.645.4097 x121; csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
William Pentelovitch, Partner at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, 612-672-8338, bill.pentelovitch@maslon.com
Minnesota Supreme Court allows misleading voting amendment to stay on the
November Ballot
St. Paul, Minn. – The American Civil Liberties Union expressed extreme disappointment today in Minnesota's Supreme Court for allowing the voter restriction amendment to stay on November's ballot. In a 4 – 2 decision the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the ACLU's argument that the ballot question was misleading and unclear, and upheld the amendment and ballot question as written by the Minnesota Legislature.
"The ACLU is disappointed in that the Court allowed a false and misleading amendment to stay on the ballot," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN.
"The Minnesota State Legislature wasn't telling voters the truth about its proposed photo ID requirement for voting, and they have a right to know," said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Not only is this part of a wave of laws that have already had a severe impact on the right to vote nationwide, but this particular amendment effectively spells the end of Election Day registration, which significantly increases turnout."
The petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court in June on behalf of the League of Women Voters Minnesota, Jewish Community Action and Common Cause Minnesota, as well as five individual plaintiffs: Gabriel Herbers, Shannon Doty, Gretchen Nickence, John Harper Ritten, and Kathryn Ibur.
In its decision the Court did provide clarification to photo ID requirements noting that absentee voters will also have to present photographic identification.
"A grave miscarriage of justice was done to Minnesota voters today when the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed this amendment to stay on the ballot as is," stated Bill Pentelovitch, of Mason Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP. "Minnesotans will walk into their polling place and cast a vote on a misleading and confusing amendment that could be permanently enshrined in the Minnesota Constitution."
The court also ruled today that the Secretary of State must use the title designated by the legislature. The ACLU-MN filed an amicus brief in this case arguing that the Secretary of State did have the authority to designate a title.
In the coming months the ACLU-MN will continue its efforts along with other advocacy groups to defeat the voter restriction amendment by talking to voters and educating them on how this will effectively end Election Day Registration, place hurdles in front of seniors and active duty military, and negatively impact citizens ability to absentee vote.
Attorneys in the case are: William Pentelovitch, Richard Wilson, Justin Perl, Wayne Moskowitz, Alain Baudry and Catherine Ahlin-Halverson of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and Teresa Nelson of the ACLU of Minnesota.
Settlements with TiZA leadership approved
August 03, 2012
Settlement agreements with the leadership of Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy were approved. The case was originally filed in 2009 after the ACLU-MN discovered that TiZA had been promoting religion at their public charter school. Settlements had previously been reached with other plaintiffs in the case including Minnesota Department of Education and TiZA's sponsor Islamic Relief.
Terms of the settlement included:
- Asad Zaman (Executive Director) agrred to pay back the State of Minnesota $17,500.
- Asad Zaman agreed to drop $360,000 + of claims he filed in bankruptcy court.
- Asad Zaman, Mahrous Kandil and Asif Rahman, collectively agreed to not serve in a leadership position of a Minnesota public charter school for a period of three years.
Documents for the case include:
This settles the majority of the ACLU-MN's case against TiZA, however claims are still being settled in bankruptcy court.
ACLU Seeks Details on Automatic License Plate Readers in Massive Nationwide Request
July 30, 2012
Information Sought on How Cameras are Used by Police Agencies and How Data is Stored
CONTACT: Charles Samuelson, 651.645.4097 x121, csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
St. Paul, Minn –American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in 36 states including Minnesota sent requests today to local police departments and state agencies that demand information on how they use automatic license plate readers (ALPR) to track and record Americans' movements.
The ACLU-MN requests seek records from: the Minneapolis, Bloomington and Moorhead Police Departments; Mille Lacs and Olmsted County Sheriffs; the Minnesota State Patrol, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the Minnesota Department of Commerce.
In addition, the ACLU and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed federal Freedom of Information Act requests with the departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Transportation to learn how the federal government funds ALPR expansion nationwide and uses the technology itself.
ALPRs are cameras mounted on patrol cars or on stationary objects along roads – such as telephone poles or the underside of bridges –that snap a photograph of every license plate that enters their fields of view. Typically, each photo is time, date, and GPS-stamped, stored, and sent to a database, which provides an alert to a patrol officer whenever a match or "hit" appears.
"Automatic license plate readers make it possible for the police to track our location whenever we drive our cars and to store that information forever," said Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. "The American people have a right to know whether our police departments are using these tools in a limited and responsible manner, or whether they are keeping records of our movements for months or years for no good reason."
ALPRs are spreading rapidly around the country, but the public has little information about how they are used to track motorists' movements, including how long data collected by ALPRs is stored, and whether local police departments pool this information in state, regional or national databases. If ALPRs are being used as a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance and to collect and store information not just on people suspected of crimes, but on every single motorist, the American people should know that so that they can voice their concerns.
ALPRs have already proven controversial. Just last month the Drug Enforcement Administration withdrew its request to install ALPRs along certain portions of Interstate 15 in Utah after they were met with resistance by local lawmakers.
"Tracking and recording people's movements raises serious privacy concerns, because where we go can reveal a great deal about us, including visits to doctor's offices, political affiliations, and friends." said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "We need legal protections to limit the collection, retention and sharing of our travel information, and we need these rules right away."
More information about the requests is available at: aclu.org/plates
Gay and Lesbian Couples Seek Freedom to Marry in Illinois
May 30, 2012
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666 ; media@aclu.org
CHICAGO – Seeking recognition for their shared love and commitment and protection for their families and loved ones, nine couples filed a lawsuit today to challenge the constitutionality of an Illinois law that denies gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
Illinois' current law excludes these couples from the recognition and protections that come with the universally recognized relationship status of marriage, and limits them instead to civil union status. Six states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples to marry.
Today’s lawsuit comes one year after Illinois implemented civil unions for same-sex couples and just two weeks after President Barack Obama from Illinois endorsed the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. The couples are represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Illinois. In a separate case filed today, Lambda Legal is representing 16 same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry. The coordinated cases signal the organizations' shared commitment to ensure that the government treats all families fairly.
The lead plaintiffs in the ACLU case are Tanya Lazaro and Elizabeth “Liz” Matos of Chicago’s Northwest Side. Lazaro is a Chicago Police Department detective and Matos works as a system analyst for a trading firm in Chicago. Tanya and Liz have a two-year-old girl Jaiden and, just recently, had a second girl Sophia. The parents of two girls, they rejected getting a civil union.
“Our relationship is not about some legal benefits and protections, but about love for one another,” said Lazaro. “We love each other; we are committed to one another. Anything short of marriage does not recognize that love and commitment.”
“It is remarkable that Tanya risks her life each day to go out into the City of Chicago and keep people safe, but the law does not recognize fully the family that we have built together,” said Matos.
A number of the plaintiffs sought a civil union after they became available in 2011 although some chose to wait for marriage. In the complaint, these couples describe how it feels to be relegated to a legal status that sends the message that the state regards their relationships as inferior. Couples also report multiple ways in which they are reminded that many people do not understand civil unions, nor do they afford civil unions the same respect as marriage.
The other plaintiffs in the case include:
- Lynn Sprout and Katherine “Kathie” Spegal, of Champaign, have grandchildren ages to 22-years-old to 6-years-old, with another on the way;
- Ross “Randy” Walden and Robert “Bob” Carey, from Springfield, have been together for seven years, meeting after Randy lost his previous partner to cancer and was denied access to his partner’s hospital room and almost missed the chance to be with him at his death;
- Michelle Mascaro and Corynne Romine, of suburban Oak Park, who have been together more than 20 years and adopted three children;
- Tim Kee and Rick Wade, a couple from downstate Marion, who have spent their entire lives in the Marion area and been together as a committed couple for more than 15 years, live in the home passed on to Rick by his grandmother and attend the church where Tim was baptized;
- Carlos Briones and Richard Rykhus, of Evanston, are the fathers of seven-year-old Ty and share a passion for education, with Richard serving on the board of education for the local elementary school board;
- Suzanna “Suzie” Hutton and Danielle Cook, of Bloomington, are both educators who, when they told their colleagues about their civil unions, had to make a joke about their relationship being “civilized” to address their colleagues’ discomfort with an announcement that highlighted the inadequacy of their civil union;
- Kirsten and Tanya Lyonsford of Aurora met at work 13 years ago when they played a game of “Diversity Bingo” and found that they both identified as gay/lesbian. They are parenting two young children; and
- Edwin “Ed” Hamilton and Gary Magruder, of Plainfield, who have been together as a couple for more than 48 years and are both retired educators.
“What defines a marriage is love and commitment, our hopes and dreams for a life with the person we most love in all the world,” said John Knight, director of the ACLU of Illinois’ LGBT Project. “Creating civil unions – a separate, novel and poorly understood status for gay and lesbian couples – does not honor the devotion of our families, nor fully protect them, but instead sends a powerful message that our families are inadequate and undeserving. It is time for Illinois to join the growing list of states that provide same-sex couples with the dignity and respect that can only come through marriage.”
The ACLU and the ACLU of Illinois are assisted in the lawsuit by the Chicago office of Mayer Brown.
More information, including videos and photographs of the couples, is available at www.aclu.org/illinoisfreedomtomarry.
ACLU files petition in State Supreme Court to challenge misleading voting amendment ballot proposal
May 30, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 30, 2012
CONTACT:
Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN, 651.645.4097 x121; csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
ACLU files petition in State Supreme Court to challenge misleading voting amendment ballot proposal
St. Paul, Minn. – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a petition seeking to strike a constitutional voting amendment from November's ballot because it is misleading and fails to inform voters of changes in election laws that could compromise people's fundamental right to vote.
"This ballot proposal is incredibly troubling because it asks voters to put an amendment in the constitution in a manner that is misleading, confusing and unclear," said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN. "Voting is one of the most important rights we have, and this amendment aims to take away that right from the most vulnerable, under the guise of a seemingly innocuous photo ID requirement."
"The Minnesota State Legislature isn't telling voters the truth about its proposed photo ID requirement for voting, and they have a right to know," said Jon Sherman, staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Not only is this part of a wave of laws that have already had a severe impact on the right to vote nationwide, but this particular amendment effectively spells the end of Election Day registration, which significantly increases turnout."
The petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of the League of Women Voters Minnesota, Jewish Community Action and Common Cause Minnesota, as well as five individual plaintiffs: Gabriel Herbers, Shannon Doty, Gretchen Nickence, John Harper Ritten, and Kathryn Ibur.
In April, the Minnesota legislature put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would change the state's election laws in several ways, including requiring individuals to present certain government-issued photo ID before receiving an in-person ballot. The ballot question is unreasonable and misleading because it erroneously describes some of the changes, while failing to even mention other fundamental changes:
- It only mentions "valid ID," but the amendment requires a "government-issued ID," which means voters could be misled into thinking some IDs are valid.
- It fails to disclose that there will be a verification process that could essentially end Election Day registration, and that there will be a new and costly provisional ballot system.
- It incorrectly describes who has to present an ID.
"The League of Women Voters Minnesota joined this petition because a fundamental part of our mission is to educate voters," said Stacy Doepner-Hove, President of the League of Women Voters. "When you have a ballot question that is unclear on what it means or how it will be enacted, it makes it impossible for any voter to fully understand the consequences."
Attorneys in the case are: William Pentelovitch, Richard Wilson, Justin Perl, Wayne Moskowitz, Alain Baudry and Catherine Ahlin-Halverson of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP and Jon Sherman and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and Teresa Nelson of the ACLU of Minnesota.
ACLU-MN finds fraud with election integrity group
May 09, 2012
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a complaint against Minnesota Voters Alliance with the Minnesota Attorney General for violations of state disclosure laws. The complaint asks the Attorney General to investigate Minnesota Voters Alliance for violating Minnesota Statutes by raising over $25,000 without registering as a charitable organization with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.
“It is ironic that Minnesota Voters Alliance portrays itself as an advocacy organization for voter integrity, yet it appears to lack integrity in its fundraising efforts by failing to follow the law and register as a charitable organization,” said Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN.
Minnesota Voters Alliance, a voter suppression proponent and alleged 501 (c4) charitable organization began fundraising in 2011. On November 10, 2011, MVA told supporters in an emailed solicitation that it had raised $27,000 and asked for additional donor help to reach $45,000 for an elections lawsuit. Over a year later, MVA again solicited potential donors on January 19, 2012. On February 28, 2012, MVA’s attorneys filed a case against the State to end Election Day Registration. There is no record of MVA’s registration with the Minnesota Attorney’s General Office during this period of revenue solicitation.
Minnesota’s charitable organization laws contain safeguards to ensure clean, honest charitable fundraising activity. Central to these protections is the requirement that charities which raise $25,000 or more must file with the Minnesota Attorney General to protect against fundraising scams. If the organization does not file prior to raising money, they must file within 30 days after $25,000 has been raised. To date, MVA has still not filed any paperwork with the Minnesota Attorney General.
Because they have not filed, very little information is publicly available about the Minnesota Voter Alliance, including if they have a formal board of directors, who sits on the board of directors and how MVA uses its fundraising donations. To properly follow Minnesota statutes, every group that files with the Attorney General’s Office must include information on its Board, group or individuals having final discretion as to the distribution and use of contributions received.
“The secrecy around Minnesota Voters Alliance is troubling and our hope is that the Attorney General’s Office will fast track this complaint,” said Samuelson.
No eligible evidence submitted: ACLU will not pay $1000 bounty
April 02, 2012
In February the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota issued this challenge: "If you can bring us evidence of a voter impersonation conviction that would have been prevented by this new law...we will give you $1,000". The ACLU-MN announced today that it did not receive any evidence that met these criteria so they will be keeping their $1,000 and spending it to defeat the voter ID amendment.
We received several responses, but only one had the information necessary to determine if it was a valid case. Minnesota Majority held a press conference in March where they submitted a case involving a woman who filled out an absentee ballot on behalf of her daughter, submitted it and then her daughter ended up voting in person as well. This case, while an example of an adjudicated case, would not have been impeded in any way by the proposed amendment.
Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, the former Secretary of State and current author of the voter ID bill, unwittingly nullified this claim when she testified in the House Local Government and Elections Committee that, "You can see already, that this absentee ballot in its current form is already complaint with this constitutional amendment."
Since the voter ID amendment would not change how absentee balloting is done, this case would still have occurred even if the voter ID amendment were to pass. Furthermore, the daughter used a photo ID to register on Election Day. Ironically, the alternative to voter ID, electronic pollbooks, would have prevented this case.
"The very fact that the proponents of the bill are unclear on how it will affect voting, should be enough to give us all pause as the debate continues," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN. "We have said all along that this proposed amendment will not prevent any problems, and, indeed, it will serve to aggravate the only real problem in Minnesota elections: the almost three quarters of a million people that will be ineligible to vote if this amendment passes."
The ACLU-MN will continue its work to defeat voter ID, working with a broad coalition of groups to defeat this ballot initiative.
ACLU-MN files First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of activist
March 26, 2012
St. Paul, Minn. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota today announced the filing of a lawsuit against the Federal Protective Services, unknown and unnamed agents of the Federal Protective Services, the State of Minnesota and the City of Minneapolis on behalf of anti-war activist Melissa Hill for violating her First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. After writing on a public sidewalk with erasable sidewalk chalk, Hill was detained by agents and had a tresspass order issued against her by the Federal Protective Services and law enforcement officials.
On the morning of June 9, 2011, Hill was walking in Minneapolis when she observed that a message that had been previously written in chalk on the public sidewalk in front of the Federal Building Building located at 212 S. Third Ave., reading "Don't Enlist Resist," had been erased so that it now read simply "Enlist". Hill was in the process of re-chalking "Don't Enlist, Resist" when she was handcuffed, detained, searched and questioned by security guards, FPS Agents and a Minneapolis Police Department officer. The MPD issued Hill a trespass notice that prohibits her from entering the property of the Federal Building for a period of one year. If Hill decides to exercise her First Amendment rights in public in the vicinity of the Federal Building she would be arrested and face a fine and/or imprisonment.
The complaint states that the Defendants acted unlawfully by detaining Hill without probable cause and by issuing a trespass notice against her without legal justification. In the complaint Hill asks for damages and a declaration that the trespass ordinances under which the trespass notice was issued are unconstitutional on their face and as applied.
"This is a classic example of overreach of law enforcement, Ms. Hill was simply exercising her freedom of speech when she was subject to harassment and punishment by the law enforcement agencies involved in this matter," stated ACLU Executive Director Charles Samuelson. "We hope for a speedy resolution to this matter and that Ms. Hill's rights are fully restored."
Cooperating attorneys in the case include William Pentelovitch, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand LLP
ACLU-MN asks St. Anthony Village to lift illegal, discriminatory moratorium
March 22, 2012
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota sent a letter to St. Anthony Village on Wednesday asking them to lift the moratorium on the consideration of issuing conditional use permits. St. Anthony Village had adopted this moratorium after a group applied for a permit to establish an Islamic Center in the basement of the former Medtronic headquarters.
This moratorium effectively violates the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act which strictly limits the ability of local governments to burden religious exercise by imposing land use regulation. Courts have ruled in a number of cases similar to this one that the impact and delay caused by the moratorium would likely be considered a substantial burden on the group's free exercise of religion. Because the moratorium will impose a substantial burden, the city must justify it as being the least restrictive means of serving a compelling interest. It is unclear what the city's interest is in imposing the moratorium other than to appease members of the public who have vocally opposed the Islamic Center; however taking time to "study the impact on the community" as reported in the Star Tribune, is likely not a compelling interest.
In their letter the ACLU-MN requests that they immediately lift the moratorium and allow that religious uses be placed on equal footing or grant the Abu-Huraira Islamic Center's application for a conditional use permit.
"Religious freedom is not granted to only one class of people, it is a fundamental American right", stated Charles Samuelson. "We hope that St. Anthony Village does the right thing and allow Abu-Huraira to establish an Islamic Center."
ACLU-MN files lawsuit against Minnewaska Area Schools
March 06, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN, 651.645.4097 x121 or
Teresa Nelson, Legal Counsel for the ACLU-MN, 651-645-4097 x122
ACLU-MN files lawsuit against Minnewaska Area Schools
St. Paul, Minn. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against Minnewaska Area Schools and the Pope County Sheriff's office for violating the constitutional rights of a minor student. R.S's free speech and privacy rights were violated by the school district in two separate instances involving Facebook. (To protect the privacy of the minor defendant, she will be referred to as R.S.)
In early 2011 R.S. posted a comment, while at home, on her Facebook page about her dislike of a school staff member. The school learned about the comment, and R.S. received a detention and was forced to write an apology to the staff member. She was disciplined again when she cursed on her Facebook page, complaining that someone reported her to the school. This time she was given an in-school suspension and was prohibited from attending a school field trip. The ACLU-MN contends that these sanctions violate her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In a second incident R.S. was brought into a school administrator's office where she was coerced to turn over (against her will) login information to her Facebook and email accounts because of allegations that she had online conversations about sex with another student off-campus. Present at the search was a local deputy along with two school officials. During this process, R.S. was called a liar and told she would be given detentions if she did not give the adults access to her accounts. R.S.'s mother was not informed about the search until after it happened. The Deputy and school officials did not have a warrant to search R.S.'s private accounts. The ACLU-MN alleges in their suit that this violated R.S.'s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
The lawsuit seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief for the violations of R.S.'s constitutional rights.
"The trauma that these incidents have put R.S. through is completely uncalled for: She was intimidated, frightened, humiliated and sobbing while school administrators were scouring her private communications," stated cooperating attorney Wally Hilke. "These adults traumatized this minor without any regard for her rights."
"Students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the school house gate," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN. "The Supreme Court ruled on that in the 1970s, yet schools like Minnewaska seem to have no regard for the standard."
Cooperating attorneys working on the case are: Wallace Hilke and Bryan Freeman of Lindquist & Vennum PLLP and Professor Raleigh Hannah Levine, William Mitchell College of Law.
To coincide with the lawsuit the ACLU-MN produced a handout for students outlining their privacy rights when using social netoworking sites.
Free speech is not necessarily pretty
February 21, 2012
Contributed by Charles Samuelson, ED of the ACLU-MN
Recently, We Want Voter ID, an organization that is a collection of groups supporting voter id (including Minnesota Majority), published a cartoon illustrating their position on voter ID by depicting a line of people waiting to vote. The people standing in line included: 2 characters in Halloween Costumes, an African American prison inmate, and 1 Hispanic (demarcated by a sombrero). The alleged purpose of the cartoon is to show how easy it is committ voter fraud in Minnesota. The group We want Voter ID's real goal is to make it more difficult for Minnesotans to vote and to immediately reduce the number of registered voters by 200,000+.
The cartoon clearly reveals that their rationale for voter id as racially motivated. Other groups, who are our allies in the Voter ID fight, have condemned this cartoon as clearly racist and have demanded it be taken down. This morning they changed the cartoon by taking out the Latino & African American, but added the caption "politically correct version for the hypersensitive," despite earlier statements that they did not believe it to be racist and that this was merely "race baiting".
The American Civil Liberties Union believes in the marketplace of ideas and we believe that the antidote to bad speech is more speech. For more than 90 years we have backed up this principle by defending the rights of people to promote ideas we find despicable (Nazi's, KKK, etc). So it is with this group.
They should be allowed to keep this drivel in the public eye because everyone should be able to see their ideas for what they are. And everyone should keep talking about it because that is the only way that the truth will ever be made clear.
Read more about what we are doing to oppose voter ID.
(Taken from the opening screen of We Want Voter ID's webpage before they changed it)
ACLU-MN issues $1,000 bounty on election fraud
February 13, 2012
St. Paul, Minn. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota launched its new Vote No 2012 political fund with a challenge: prove a case of voter fraud that would have been prevented by this new law, and collect $1,000 from the Vote No 2012 Fund.
Allegedly in the name of fraud, the Minnesota Legislature is considering a constitutional amendment that would limit the right to vote by requiring registered voter to show a valid photo ID with a current address in order to vote. As written, the only fraud this requirement would prevent is voter impersonation.
"There is no voter impersonation fraud in Minnesota," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Charles Samuelson, "and we are willing to bet on it."
The ACLU of Minnesota's Vote No 2012 political fund is offering a challenge to all Minnesotans. The first person to provide documented evidence of a case of voter impersonation that would have been prevented by this new law will collect a $1,000 bounty.
"This bill is just an attempt to stop common ordinary people from voting, plain and simple!" said Representative Tom Rukavina. "We need to find a way to create more jobs, not waste time on solutions in search of a problem."
One of the ACLU's fundamental missions is protecting the right to vote for all people. This includes protecting against voter fraud, which the ACLU has been fighting against in all fifty states for over fifty years. Among the cases the ACLU has fought are: illegally purged voter files in Michigan (2008) and failure to count minority votes in Florida (2000).
"We don't want hearsay, we want facts," continued Samuelson. "If you can bring evidence of a voter impersonation conviction that would have been prevented by this new law in the past ten years, we will give you $1,000. We believe this amendment push is being fueled by rumor and fear, but not facts."
People interested in taking the ACLU of Minnesota up on their bet can mail a copy of their evidence along with their contact information to the office of the ACLU at 2300 Myrtle Avenue, Suite 180, St. Paul, MN 55114.
Rules: Must have proof of legal charge, indictment or conviction for voter impersonation in the State of Minnesota issued not before January 1, 2002. Anecdotes, hearsay and unsubstantiated claims will not be accepted. Evidence must be presented at the offices of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota at 2300 Myrtle Avenue, Suite 180, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 by 5:00 p.m. March 30, 2012. $1,000 will be split among all legitimate claims, if any. Questions: call Carolyn Jackson at 651.645.4097 x125. Results will be announced April 2, 2012.
ACLU-MN launches Vote No 2012
February 13, 2012
St. Paul, Minn. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota launched its new Vote No 2012 political fund. The purpose of the ballot question political fund is to defend the Minnesota Constitution from amendments that limit civil rights and individual freedoms.
Vote No 2012 is made up of members & staff of the ACLU of Minnesota. The purpose of the campaign is to mobilize ACLU-MN supporters, inform Minnesotans and work with coalitions to deliver "NO" votes in November 2012.
With over 8,500 members, and 25,000 supporters statewide the ACLU-MN will work to mobilize these individuals within their community to be rights activists. The ACLU-MN will be doing a tour of the state in 2012 to educate and mobilize Minnesotans to vote no.
"We couldn't stand idly by when we see the Legislature using the Constitution to limit the rights of Minnesotan's citizens," stated Charles Samuelson. "So the Vote No 2012 campaign will work with anyone committed to supporting the individual rights of Minnesota's citizens."
"Minnesota's Constitution should never be amended to serve the political agenda of any one group," said Leslie Sandberg, Chair of the Vote No 2012 Committee. "Vote No 2012 was created fight against any amendment that would place prejudice and discrimination over rights and freedoms in our Constitution."
ACLU-MN study finds Minnesota lacks legal standard on Taser use
December 14, 2011
St. Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota released a report today documenting Taser use policies in Minnesota. In 2006 the ACLU-MN began collecting and analyzing law enforcement Taser policies. This report compiles scholarly research conducted on Tasers and the impact of Taser use on the human body. After thoroughly analyzing the data, the ACLU-MN is also releasing recommendations to law enforcement agencies on best practices regarding Taser use.
The ACLU-MN report raises a number of concerns including:
- The seven deaths that have occurred in Minnesota related to Taser use, despite the fact that Tasers are considered non-lethal force.
- There is no standard policy for Taser use in Minnesota.
- Record keeping on Taser use varies considerably across the State.
- Law enforcement agencies rely overwhelmingly on Taser International, the manufacturer of Tasers, for their training which raises concerns about a conflict of interest.
- There is no standard policy regarding use of Tasers on people suffering mental health crises.
The ACLU-MN issues the following recommendations:
- The ACLU-MN recommends a uniform, statewide use of force continuum which places Tasers higher than hard, empty hands and at least at the same level as a baton.
- Each agency which owns a Taser should have a separate Taser Use Policy which accounts for the risks unique to Taser use such as risk of falling, risks to vulnerable populations, and risk of fire.
- Agencies should have strong restrictions on the use of force on people suffering mental health crises.
- Training for Taser use should address the risks of Tasers more explicitly than the materials provided by Taser International.
- The State of Minnesota should mandate reporting use of Tasers.
"The recommendations we make pose a minimal cost to law enforcement agencies, would be fairly easy to implement, and would provide an important management tool;" stated Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN. "These are common sense recommendations that make good public policy that we hope starts a state-wide conversation about this newer weapon."
"By not having a reasonable standard law enforcement agencies risk exposure to legal challenges;" added Carolyn Jackson, lobbyist for the ACLU-MN.
ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Unconstitutional Voter ID Law
December 13, 2011
ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Unconstitutional Voter ID Law
Restrictive Photo Identification Requirement is Part of a Nationwide Effort to Suppress the Fundamental Right to Vote
MILWAUKEE, Wis. - The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Wisconsin and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty today filed a federal lawsuit charging that Wisconsin's voter ID law is unconstitutional and will deprive citizens of their basic right to vote. The lawsuit is the only active federal challenge against a voter ID law, the most common type of legislation that is part of a nationwide attack on the right to vote.
"This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures," said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Across the nation, legislators are robbing countless American citizens of their fundamental right to vote, and in the process, undermining the very legitimacy of our democracy. We intend to redirect their attention to the Constitution."
The complaint says that allowing only certain types of photo ID imposes a severe burden on the right to vote in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It also states that the law violates the 24th and 14th amendments because it effectively imposes an unconstitutional poll tax. The lawsuit was filed the same day that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was scheduled to speak about the importance of ensuring equal access to the ballot box.
"The state of Wisconsin has created a voter ID system that is making it very hard or impossible for residents to exercise their cherished right to vote," said Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. "Countless Wisconsin residents, including veterans, minority voters and seniors who have been voting for decades, will be turned away from the polls under this law's restrictive photo ID requirements. Our lawsuit aims to block this unconstitutional law so that Wisconsin can continue its proud tradition of high participation in elections."
The law will also have a severe impact on homeless voters, many of whom do not have photo identification.
"Protecting homeless persons' right to vote is crucial, since voting is one of the few ways that homeless individuals can impact the political process and make their voices heard," said Heather Johnson, civil rights attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. "By limiting participation to Wisconsin residents with photo identification, this law effectively silences homeless persons' voices. With homelessness rising by 12 percent in Wisconsin since the recession began, we cannot allow the state to set this dangerous and unconscionable precedent."
The ACLU and the Law Center filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of 17 eligible Wisconsin voters who may not be able to vote under the law. They include:
- Ruthelle Frank, 84, of Brokaw, who does not have a birth certificate. When she was born at home in 1927, her mother recorded her birth in the family Bible. Under Wisconsin's law, she is unable to obtain an ID needed to vote. She herself is an elected official, having served on her village board since 1996.
"I have exercised my right to vote in every election since 1948," Frank said. "I should not suddenly be barred from voting just because I don't believe in paying for identification in order to vote. That's like a poll tax and sends this country back decades ago when it comes to civil rights."
- Carl Ellis, 52, is a U.S. Army veteran living in a homeless shelter in Milwaukee. His only photo ID is a veteran ID card, which is not accepted under the law.
"If I can serve my country, I should be able to vote for who runs it," Ellis said. "Veterans and others who do not have a certain type of photo ID should not be kept from voting. These laws are undemocratic and un-American."
- Anthony Sharp, 19, is an African-American Milwaukee resident who does not have any of the accepted forms of photo ID under the law. Sharp, who lives with his family, does not have income needed to purchase a $20 certified copy of his birth certificate in order to vote.
"You shouldn't have to pay all this money to be able to vote," he said. "I'm a citizen and was excited about voting, but I don't have the money to pay for all these documents. Every American must be able to vote, not just those who can afford to get an ID."
The 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 was signed into law May 25 and is effective starting with the state's primary in February. Under the law, Wisconsin voters will need to present a certain type of photo ID, which many eligible voters do not have. Many photo ID alternatives are excluded. For example, the law does not allow technical college and veteran ID cards. More than 380,000 students are in Wisconsin's technical college system, and over 15 percent of them are minorities.
Voter suppression laws disproportionately affect minorities, the elderly, students, people with disabilities, and low-income and homeless voters. In addition to Wisconsin, six other states recently passed voter ID laws: Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Other voter suppression measures that have been enacted nationwide include limiting the early voting period, eliminating same-day or Election Day registration, and restrictions on those who help register people to vote.
The ACLU has also submitted comment letters to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding discriminatory voting laws in South Carolina and Texas and has intervened in court cases in which North Carolina and Alabama are challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. The ACLU also filed motions to intervene in similar cases filed by Arizona and Georgia.
Attorneys on the case include Jon Sherman, Laughlin McDonald and Nancy Abudu of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Larry Dupuis and Karyn Rotker of the ACLU of Wisconsin and Heather Johnson and Karen Cunningham of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
To read a copy of the complaint, go to: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/frank-v-walker-complaint
For more information about voter suppression, including a video of Frank, go to:
www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america
ACLU-MN files lawsuit against Hennepin County on behalf of OccupyMinneapolis protesters
November 22, 2011
St. Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a lawsuit against Hennepin County today on behalf of OccupyMinneapolis. The lawsuit argues that County's new restrictions on the OccupyMPLS unconstitutionally restrict the demonstrators' free speech rights. OccupyMPLS has been continuously "occupying" the Hennepin County Government Center Plaza since October 7, 2011 to express their frustration with the growing economic and political inequities in this country. Cooperating attorneys in the case are from the law firms of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand and Leonard, Street and Deinard.
The complaint argues that the new "Procedures for Public Use of the Hennepin County Government Center" issued by Hennepin County and certain unwritten procedures enforced by the County violate the demonstrators' First Amendment rights because:
- The rules were expressly created in response to OccupyMPLS, which is a content-based limitation on speech.
- The rules put forth impermissible time, place and manner restrictions.
- The rules are unconstitutionally overbroad.
- The rules are a result of arbitrary and unconstitutional decision-making.
- The unwritten procedures were designed to suppress Plaintiff's speech and are inconsistent with how the County has treated other groups.
The complaint, which provides details of the County's restrictions on signage, chalking and access to electricity, as well as the demonstrators' ability to stay warm during the winter months, asks the Court to declare that the "Procedures for Public Use of the Hennepin County Government Center" and certain unwritten procedures relating to chalk, electricity and use of structures are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"The rules put forth by Hennepin County are particularly troubling because they were created as a direct response to OccupyMPLS," stated Justin Perl, partner at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand. "They were not based on any previous ordinances. The Constitution does not allow the government to just make up new rules as you go along in order to target a particular group."
"In the United States, we have celebrated protestors occupying spaces around the globe during the Arab Spring, yet we are quick to criticize the Occupy Movement for utilizing some of the same methods of expression." stated Charles Samuelson, executive Director of the ACLU-MN.
Plaintiffs include: Occupy Minneapolis and individuals Benjamin Egerman, Benjamin Painter, Samuel Richards, and Melissa Rowan. Plaintiffs are elected delegates of OccupyMPLS to represent their interest as an unincorporated political association.
Cooperating attorneys include: Tim Griffin and Brian Thomson of Leonard, Street and Deinard and Alain Baudry, Justin Perl and Leora Maccabee Itman of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand LLP.
ACLU-MN asks Hennepin County to rescind new restrictions on OccupyMN
November 03, 2011
St. Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota sent a letter to Hennepin County today asking them to rescind the new restrictions they placed on the OccupyMN protests that are currently occurring on the Hennepin County Government Center Plaza. The ACLU-MN believes the new restrictions violate the First Amendment.
The new restrictions include:
- Barring protestors from sleeping overnight on the plaza with the first prediction of snowfall or temperatures below 25 degrees
- Consolidation of their possessions
- Prohibition of unattended items on the plaza
- Placement and affixation of signs
In their letter, the ACLU-MN explains that the First Amendment presumptively protects all forms of expression against governmental interference and restraint. These new rules appear to be ad-hoc that have not been previously applied and were adopted specifically in response to the OccupyMN protest. Any restrictions placed on the exercise of the First Amendment must be narrow, objective and definite. Otherwise, the restrictions amount to suppression of speech and censorship. Furthermore, because these rules are not based on any existing laws or ordinances, the ACLU-MN believes that they would be held unconstitutional because they have been applied only to OccupyMN without any pre-existing standards to guide county officials.
"We are troubled by the new restrictions that Hennepin County is imposing," stated Charles Samuelson, "Hennepin County is placing unfair restrictions on OccupyMN in an effort to silence their voice."
The ACLU-MN does not currently represent OccupyMN. Founded in 1952, the ACLU-MN fights to protect the civil liberties of Minnesotans through litigation, public education, and lobbying related to legislation that impacts civil liberties and civil rights.
Letter to Hennepin County regarding OccupyMN
Memo to OccupyMN from Hennepin County
The ACLU-MN also created a know your rights cards for protestors: Protest Rights
Trauma Compounded: The Plight of LGBT Immigration Detainees
November 03, 2011
Taken from the ACLU Blog of Rights
Contributed by: Ian Thompson, Washington Legislative Office
The Department of Homeland Security assumes that mass detention is the key to immigration enforcement. But in fact, our detention system locks up thousands of immigrants unnecessarily every year, exposing detainees to brutal and inhumane conditions of confinement at massive costs to American taxpayers. Throughout the next two weeks, check back daily for posts about the costs of immigration detention, both human and fiscal, and what needs to be done to ensure fair and humane policy.
The ACLU recently unveiled government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act which show the widespread, systemic nature of sexual abuse of detainees in immigration detention facilities. While the problem of sexual abuse of immigration detainees reaches far and wide, there are particularly vulnerable populations in detention including those with mental disabilities, asylum-seekers, torture survivors, women, children and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ("LGBT") immigrants.
While it is true that physical and sexual abuse is one of the most serious problems for LGBT detainees, it is by no means the only concern facing them. Additional concerns, which often compound the trauma of a sexual assault, include placement in long-term segregation or "protective custody"; inadequate medical care; and, in the case of transgender detainees, being housed with detainees of a gender with which they do not identify.
Earlier this year, the ACLU of Arizona released "In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers," which includes a section highlighting the array of problems confronting LGBT detainees. The ACLU of Arizona documented five cases involving transgender or gay detainees who were sexually assaulted or treated in an abusive manner while in detention in Arizona facilities.
The report quotes a local Arizona immigration attorney discussing his client's placement in isolation after he was raped by another detainee in a bathroom:
He couldn't eat, couldn't sleep; just kept reliving the trauma. He is completely alone, not even a television. We can only visit him on certain days because he is in protective custody. Everything has to be put on lock-down for him to be moved to visitation. When he is brought to visitation (or anywhere else), he is shackled hands, feet, and waist. They refuse to take off the shackles even to speak with me, and this is despite the fact that we are in a non-contact booth through a glass window. And the guards stand right outside. He is also in stripes. It is so degrading, after having been a victim, that I am truly outraged.
Subjecting individuals who have experienced sexual abuse to prolonged isolation and what are essentially harsh punitive measures is beyond the pale. Yet it is a reality facing far too many LGBT immigration detainees. No one should have their dignity assaulted in such a fashion.
Earlier this year, the Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center filed 13 complaints with the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties detailing serious civil and human rights violations committed against LGBT immigration detainees. This month, the organization filed four more such complaints with DHS.
It is absolutely critical that the Obama administration act to address this devastating problem by ensuring that all immigration detainees, including those who are LGBT, are covered under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The proposed PREA standards issued by the Department of Justice already include LGBT individuals, but they don't incorporate protections for anyone in immigration detention, whether LGBT or not. Finalizing those standards and ensuring their application to immigration detention facilities is essential.
Court releases documents that shed light on TiZA lawsuit
October 03, 2011
United States District Court Judge Donovan Frank approved a partial settlement of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota's lawsuit against the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, the Minnesota Department of Education, the School's former sponsor, Islamic Relief, and various school officials.
The ACLU-MN commenced this landmark lawsuit in 2009 to end the use of public funds to promote religion at TiZA. TiZA is now closed because it could not secure an authorizer to replace its original sponsor, Islamic Relief. An authorizer is required in Minnesota for all public charter schools.
The settlement includes a requirement that every charter school in Minnesota must file a report annually confirming and disclosing any religious entanglement at these state-supported institutions. False reporting on these disclosure forms can be prosecuted under Minnesota criminal statutes.
Additionally, Judge Frank authorized the release of a fact statement compiled by the ACLU-MN, the Commissioner, and Islamic Relief. These facts are backed by evidence and the three parties believe that they should not be in dispute. The fact statement outlines a number of the violations perpetrated by TiZA.
Here are a few highlights from the fact statement:
- TiZA illegally transferred money to its religious landlords (stipulated fact # 68)
- TiZA was marketed to the Muslim community as a school that would follow Islamic law (stipulated facts #: 8, 9, 18, 20, 22, 27, 45, 48, 66, 70, 135)
- TiZA and its religious landlords are effectively controlled by the same small group of people (stipulated facts # 1 - 7, 11, 33, 52, 53, 56, 63, 166 - 172)
- TiZA promoted Islam through its Arabic curriculum and its connection to the after school religious program (stipulated facts #84, 107, 108, 122 - 124, 126, 127, 163, 164)
- TiZA used taxpayer funds in excess of a million dollars to renovate buildings to the benefit of their religious landlords (stipulated facts # 28, 67, 91 - 95)
"The Court's decision and our settlement with the Department of Education are bittersweet. We remain sad that TiZA's administrators and supporters hunkered down for years rather than changing their practices to conform to the Constitution and Minnesota law," stated Charles Samuelson Executive Director of the ACLU-MN. "Sadly, this case highlights the problems that can arise from the lack of transparency in public charter school laws."
"We are pleased with the court order because we have long believed that TiZA misused the court's protective order to maintain the secrecy of documents that the public has a right to see, because they show how TIZA was using public funds;" added cooperating attorney Peter Lancaster.
Cooperating attorneys for the case include: Peter Lancaster, Katie C. Pfeifer, Christopher Amundsen, Ivan Ludmer, Mark Wagner, Dustin Adams, Shari Aberle, and Monica Clark all of Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
Documents
Sectarian agreement - The document that contains the report that all charter schools much file in the future confirming and disclosing any religious entaglement
Settlement agreement with Commissioner
I am Troy Davis
September 22, 2011
written by: Tanya Greene
Posted on 9.22.11 on the ACLU's Blog of Rights
The state of Georgia has blood on its hands.
Last night, Georgia strapped down an innocent human being and forced lethal poison into his veins until he died. In your name; in my name, unashamed and unhesitating.
This case had most of the worst of what we have come to fear from our criminal justice system — racism, lying witnesses, shoddy police work and innocence ignored.
The case of Troy Davis was corrupted by implications of racism from the very beginning — a black man accused of killing a white police officer, prosecuted by a district attorney in the Georgia county that has produced one-third of the state's exonerations and 40 percent of its death row exonerations.
No physical evidence links Davis to the crime (the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's ballistics "evidence" was unreliable, and supposed "bloody shorts" were not linked to the case and probably were not bloody at all); the conviction was based solely on eyewitness testimony. But all but two of the state's non-police prosecution witnesses have recanted and admitted they were pressured by police to claim falsely that Davis was the killer. One of the remaining two state witnesses is Sylvester Coles, the man who may be the actual killer. A witness testified in 2010 that he saw Sylvester Coles shoot Officer Mark MacPhail; another witness who also heard a confession by Coles was not permitted to testify at that hearing.
Given this information, one of the original trial jurors told the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole, "I feel, emphatically, that Mr. Davis cannot be executed under these circumstances." But her plea, and that of a couple other jurors from the case, fell on death ears.
Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Bendict XVI, former FBI Director William Sessions, former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher, Larry Thompson, former deputy US Attorney and Bob Barr, former US Attorney and Congressman, most of them staunch supporters of capital punishment, all called for state's parole board to grant clemency in this case. But their pleas fell on deaf ears.
More than one million petition signatures, including 40,000 from Georgians (many from readers of this blog), plus letters from 1,500 attorneys and 3,000 religious leaders, and 300 demonstrations worldwide with crowds in the thousands also called for the parole board to grant clemency. But our pleas — the pleas of the people — fell on deaf ears, too.
In the names of the documented 138 wrongfully convicted people sentenced to die previously in this country and the many more to come — because we have every proof the system is fatally flawed — we OBJECT! Already, Georgia haswrongfully sentenced five innocent men to die. Last night it killed one.
Georgia executed a man who is innocent the same week Pennsylvania issued a 300+ page report on preventing wrongful convictions.
The procedural technicalities which courts have cited to prevent this injustice have been offered up to the altar of finality. Finality is supposed to be a benefit for the victims. There is nothing more final than last night's execution. But it left me wondering — is the certainty of Troy Davis' death more important for the victim's family than the certainty of his guilt? Based on my own loss of two cousins to murder, I fear that this may not be the end of suffering for MacPhail's family, especially because the real killer may still be on the streets of Savannah. And now Davis' family also knows the unbearable pain of losing a family member unjustly killed.
The relief sought for Davis was life in prison without parole, with no hope of release. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole was only asked to grant Davis the opportunity to live — so that all the errors in his case would not result in an irreversible error. So that once he is finally exonerated, he would be alive to experience it.
How was this not a "legal" lynching? Who are we as a society to allow it? What lessons has this experience taught our children? We must continue to fight a system that disrespects people so viciously and so finally, all the while claiming fair proceedings in the name of justice.
Troy Davis' execution must compel even more people to object — not in our name!
The thousands of people who took peacefully to the streets to protest this barbarous execution chanted I am Troy Davis.
Until we win, I, too, am Troy Davis.
Everyday Shoppers Reported as Suspicious in Counterterrorism Databases
September 09, 2011
Written by: Jay Stanley of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, ACLU
Posted on 9/9/11 at the ACLU's Blog of Rights
Yesterday NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting released the results of an investigation into "suspicious activity" reports (SAR) at the Mall of America in Minnesota. What they found was that the private "counterterrorism" guards at the mall had stopped and questioned on average up to 1,200 people each year, and that at least 125 people were the subject of SAR, many of which were forwarded to the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or the Minnesota fusion center.
There are several elements that make this story noteworthy:
- Suspicious activity reporting. This Mall of America incident is part of a much larger program of federal-to-local suspicious activity reporting of recent years that encourages law enforcement officers, intelligence and homeland security officials, emergency responders, and even the general public to report the "suspicious activities" of their neighbors to the government. And, these programs often list as "suspicious" a broad array of innocuous and commonplace activities, such as using a camera or binoculars, taking notes, taking measurements, asking questions, orhaving three young persons in a boat.
- Racial profiling. With such broad criteria for "suspicion" being pushed, the result is predictable: racial profiling. NPR's analysis of the suspicious activity reports found that 65% of the subjects were non-white – Middle Eastern, Black, Hispanic, Indian or Asian. Yet, whites make up more than 70 percent of the U.S. population.
- The war against photographers. In 47 of the 125 cases, the subjects of these reports were stopped because they were taking photographs or video – a dramatic illustration of the fact that American police and security personnel continue to think that taking photographs is a precursor to terrorist activity. This despite the fact that it's nonsense – neither the 9/11 terrorists nor any other terrorists in recent memory seem to have utilized photography as part of their plots. Because we've been seeing this problem across the country, yesterday we published a set of resources on the rights of photographers.
We at the ACLU have been warning against overzealous "suspicious activity" reporting for many years, from our 2004 Surveillance Industrial Complexreport, to our 2007 and 2008 Fusion Center reports and elsewhere. We successfully worked to push the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to improve its "suspicious activity" reporting guidelines. Recently, we filed a lawsuit seeking information about the FBI's eGuardian "suspicious activity" reporting program because of our concern that it permits improper surveillance.
While new, concrete evidence that abuses are continuing to take place is troubling, it is gratifying to see that these abuses are being made public through solid investigative reporting such as the NPR and Center for Investigative Reporting investigation.
District Court lifts unconstitutional restraining order
September 02, 2011
St. Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is pleased to announce that on Sept 1 in Park Rapids, cooperating attorneys Tim Griffin and Liz Kramer obtained the dismissal of an unjust restraining order at a hearing to challenge it. The ACLU-MN represented Gordan Van Wert and Mary Kotowski arguing that the restraining order issued on behalf of Tim Pearson was used improperly to suppress their freedom of speech rights.
After numerous attempts to resolve a personal matter with Pearson, Van Wet & Kotowski exercised their first amendment right by protesting on the public sidewalk in front of Tim Pearson's funeral home business. Pearson then sought an ex parte harassment restraining order against Kotowski and Van Wert. Pearson was granted a restraining order without notice that stipulated that Kotowski and Van Wert could not come within 3000 feet of Pearson's business. The area within the restraining order included their medical doctors, the post office and event the court house.
The ACLU-MN argued in their brief that the restraining order was used improperly to suppress its clients first amendment rights, and that the complained of speech did not meet the threshold required to obtain a restraining order.
At the hearing on Sept 1, the court granted the ACLU-MN's request, vacated the restraining order against Van Wert and Kotowski and dismissed the case with prejudice.
"The ACLU-MN is pleased the court responded quickly and justly to our complaint, and we are happy that our clients' rights have been restored," stated ACLU-MN attorney Teresa Nelson. We hope that this will set an example to others who attempt to use Minnesota's harassment restraining order laws to silence constitutionally protected speech.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and expanding individual rights and personal freedom. The ACLU is the nation's foremost guardian of liberty. The ACLU-MN fights to protect civil liberties of Minnesotans through litigation, public education, and lobbying.
Cooperating attorneys in the case are Tim Griffin and Liz Kramer of Leonard Street and Deinard.
ACLU asks State Fair to protect First Amendment Rights
September 01, 2011
At the 2011 Minnesota State Fair, Colin Wilkinson dressed in patriot garb and played a snare drum to show support for presidential candidate Ron Paul. Despite the lack of any State Fair rules regulating such conduct, officials ordered Mr. Wilkinson to stop, telling him that he could only play the drum under the confines of an officially licensed booth.
While officials cited a State Fair rule prohibiting the unlicensed handing out or promotion of materials, this rule does not apply to Mr. Wilkinson's show of support for Ron Paul, as he merely sought to express himself rather than promote any material.
The State Fair does have a constitutional right to set reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech when it has a legitimate government interest. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled that public forums may restrict the distribution of literature only when individuals are allowed to express themselves vocally and mingle with the crowd (Grayned v. Rockford 1972). The Supreme Court has thus recognized that public propagation of views, like that of Mr. Wilkerson, constitutes protected speech. By ordering Mr. Wilkinson to confine his expression to a licensed booth, State Fair officials violated Mr. Wilkinson's right to freedom of expression.
The ACLU has informed the State Fair of this violation of Wilkinson's rights and has requested that the State Fair allow Wilkinson's demonstration and rethink its policies on public expression.
ACLU Report Highlights Ways to Reduce State Budgets and Prison Populations
August 09, 2011
ACLU National - August 9, 2011
NEW YORK - Bipartisan reforms in historically "tough on crime" states have significantly reduced incarceration rates, saved taxpayers billions of dollars, lowered crime rates and should be emulated nationwide, according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The report, "Smart Reform is Possible: States Reducing Incarceration Rates and Costs While Protecting Communities," underscores the need for states to enact cost-effective and evidence-based policies that save states money and combat the nation's addiction to incarceration. The nation's pre-trial, sentencing and parole systems have made the U.S. the largest incarcerator in the world, hitting communities of color the hardest. One in 99 adults is living behind bars in the U.S., and though whites commit crimes at comparable rates and make up a majority of the country's population, 60 percent of prison inmates are people of color.
"The ACLU has been joined in recent years by legislators and advocates from acorss the political spectrum in recognizing that mass incarceration is not necessary to protect public safety," says Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the ACLU. "These recent reforms in traditionally 'tough on crime' states demonstrate that there are ways to create more rational and effective criminal justice systems that better protect our communities."
The ACLU's report highlights six states - Texas, Mississppi, Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Ohio - that have passed significant bipartisan reforms that promote alternatives to incarceration. It documents ongoing reform efforts in four more states - Californica, Louisiana, Maryland, and Indiana. The report also identifies national criminal justice trends and offers selected recommended reforms that lawmakers can enact to reduce states' incarceration rates and corrections budgets while keeping communities safe, including a reduced reliance on pre-trial detention, lower penalties for drug offenses and eliminating mandatory minimum sentences.
"These reforms have always made economic sense. The costs of using incarceration as an option of first - rather than last - resort far outweighs any benefit to public safety," said Inimai Chettiar, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU. "In the face of mounting budget shortfalls, some of our lawmakers are creating more cost-effective criminal justice regimes that still protect public safety. The rest of the country should follow suit."
In Texas, legislation over the last decade has mandated probation rather than prison time for low-level possession of many drugs, invested in drug treatment programs for people on parole or probation and created non-prison sanctions for individuals committing technical parole violationg that are not new crimes. The result has been a drop in the state's crime rate to a level not seen since 1973, and incarceration rate that has stabilized since 2007 and a savings of more than $2 billion.
Similarly, Kansas passed laws in recent years mandating drug treatment rather than prison for some non-violent drug offenses, rewarding counties for reducing parole and probation revocations and expanding earned credits for education and treatment programs. Crime rates in the state dropped 18 percent between 2003 and 2009, the state's incarcerated population declined 15 percent during the same period and the state is projected to save well over $100 million by the end of 2012.
In Mississippi, state legislators voted in 2008 to partially repeal its truth-in-sentencing law - one of the harshest in the nation - and expand parole eligibility for non-violent offenses. The state legislature also expanded earned time credits for prisoners. The result: a 22 percent reduction in the state's incarcerated population and a projected savings of nearly half a billion dollars. Meanwhile, crime rates in Mississippi have dropped and now stand at their lowest levels since 1984.
A copy of the report HERE
Your Cell Phone Knows Where You Were Last Night...Who Else Does?
August 03, 2011
In a massive coordinated information-seeking campaign, 34 ACLU affiliates are filing over 375 requests in 31 states across the country with local law enforcement agencies large and small that seek to uncover when, why, and how they are using cell phone location data to track Americans.
ACLU National - August 3, 2011
Today, most people walk around with a tracking device in their purses or pockets - a cell phone. Location data from your cell phone can make it easy to get directions or locate the closest coffee shop. But it also makes it easy for your cell phone company to find you - whether through your phone's built-in GPS or by noting your proximity to nearby cell towers. And that location data also says a lot about you -- where you go, what you do, and who you know.
All too often, the government is taking advantage of outdated privacy laws to get its hands on this valuable private information by demanding it without a warrant. The public has a right to know how and under what circumstances their location information is being accessed by the government -- and that it exactly what we hope our information requests will uncover.
The requests seek information from local law enforcement agencies, including:
- whether law enforcement agents demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant to access cell phone location data;
- statistics on how frequently law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone location data;
- how much money law enforcement agencies spend tracking cell phones and
- other policies and procedures used for acquiring location data.
The information requests are part of the ACLU's Demand Your dotRights Campaign, an effort to make sure that, as technology advances, privacy rights are not left behind.
Below is a complete list of the information the ACLU requested:
- Policies, procedures and practices law enforcement agents follow to obtain cell phone location records
- Data retention policies, detailing how long cell phone location records are kept, databases in which they are placed, and agencies (federal, state and local) with which they are shared
- The used of cell phone location records to identify "communities of interest (detailing those persons who have called or been called by a target)" in investigations
- The use of cell phone location records to identify all of the cell phones at a particular location
- Law enforcement agencies' use of "digital fences" (systems whereby law enforcement agents are notified whenever a cell phone comes within a specific geographic area)
- The legal standard (e.g. probable cause, relevance) law enforcement agents proffer to obtain cell phone location records
- Judicial decisions and orders ruling on law enforcement agencies' applications to obtain cell phone location records
- Statistics regarding law enforcement agents' use of cell phone location records, including the number of emergency requests for which no court order was obtained
- The form in which cell phone location records are provided (hard copy, through specific online databases)
- Communications with cell phone companies and providers of location-based services regarding cell phone location records, including
- company manuals, pricing, and data access policis
- invoices reflecting payments for obtaining cell phone location records
- instances in which cell phone companies have refused to comply with a request or order
ACLU-MN Applauds Governor Dayton for Strong Budget Stance Against Extreme Policy Demands
July 01, 2011
The following statement from Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, is in response to today's revelation that the Republican Legislative Leadership demanded unconstitutional policy pieces to reach a budget deal.
"The ACLU of Minnesota applauds Governor Dayton's refusal to trade constitutional rights for money in the final hours of the state's budget impasse. Although the result is a government shutdown, which will adversely impact many Minnesotans, we believe there is no price tag for preserving constitutional rights and thank Governor Dayton for standing strong. At the same time, our hearts go out to the thousands of Minnesotans who will be negatively impacted by the shutdown.
News began to leak soon after the government shutdown that the legislative leadership had included demands for changes in abortion rights, election registration requirements and even a demand to use the legislatively-drawn redistricting maps in exchange for new revenue.
While Minnesotans were led to believe that the crux of the debate was a fundamental disagreement over the amount the state should spend on government, it is now clear that the republican negotiators added extreme policy changes to their list of demands. The policies had varying levels of support during the recently completed legislative session, but none were signed into law.
To try negotiating away the constitutional rights of Minnesotans in exchange for a balance budget deal is a troubling abuse of power. At the ALCU of Minnesota we continue to have grave concerns about the constitutionality of several of the proposed provisions and will keep monitoring the legislature."
ACLU PLAINTIFFS RECEIVE $27,000 FOR POLICE RAIDS DURING 2008 RNC
June 02, 2011
Saint Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is pleased to announce that a settlement has been reached in a longstanding free speech case against the Ramsey County Sheriff's office and others stemming from actions taken during the 2008 St.Paul Republican National Convention.
In September 2008, the ACLU-MN filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of six individuals against Ramsey County. The case argued that Sheriff Robert Fletcher and others under his direction conducted unlawful seizure of vast amounts of constitutionally protected literature during the execution of search warrants in the days leading up to the 2008 RNC. In raids on three homes in Minneapolis and the central political meeting space in St. Paul, police seized hundreds of different First Amendment protected publications, including boxes of books, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, stickers and buttons that were intended to be distributed as part of the protests against the RNC. ACLU's lawsuit alleged that the seizure of First Amendment materials violated our clients' free speech and due process rights guaranteed under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In March, U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that significant fact issues should be decided by a federal jury. On Tuesday, the parties reached a settlement before U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois resolving the lawsuit without a jury trial.
Ramsey County agreed to pay the plaintiffs $27,000 in lieu of fees, costs and damages to settle the case. As part of the settlement the plaintiffs arranged a one hour meeting with Sheriff Matt Bostrom. In addition, Ramsey County has agreed to return all of the seized literature and property belonging to the plaintiffs. "We are pleased with the outcome of the settlement and believe that justice has been accomplished," stated attorney Albert Goins. Goins stated that "these six people have had the courage to uphold the Constitution."
One of the six plaintiffs, Celia Kutz, stated "we took on this case because we knew that the police raids, mass arrests and indiscriminate collecting of information was a violation of our rights. In this case Ramsey County used fear, by the way of raids and false accusations, as a tactic to intimidate people speaking up for justice. We chose to not be intimidated and want this to serve as a reminder to Ramsey County Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement agencies that there is a cost to illegally suppressing political organizing." This is the second settlement won by RNC activists stemming from law enforcement raids during the RNC. Last week three plaintiffs won $50,000 for politically motivated raids on their home. The six plaintiffs in this case, Nathan Clough, Vincent Collora, Scott Demuth, Celia Kutz and Alexander Lundberg intend to donate their litigation proceeds to local organizations that support infrastructure and capacity for social justice movement building.
Volunteer attorneys in the case are Albert Goins of Goins Law Office, Minneapolis and Geneva Finn, Minneapolis.
ACLU-MN condemns sectarian prayer let by anti-gay activist on the floor of the MN House
May 20, 2011
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota urged the Minnesota Legislature to end its practice of opening sessions with prayer.
In a Letter to House & Senate Leaders, the ACLU-MN said abolishing the invocations would be respectful of the state's religious diversity and more in keeping with constitutional principles. At a minimum, the ACLU-MN asked that the legislative body should ensure that opening prayers are non-sectarian.
The ACLU-MN letter comes in the wake of the recent controversial prayer by Bradlee Dean and the prayer earlier this session led by Pastor Campbell in the Minnesota Senate.
On May 20, 2011, in his invocation, Dean stated, " I know this is a non-denominational prayer in this Chamber and it's not about the Baptists .... or the Presbyterians the evangelicals or any other denomination but rather the head of the denomination and his name is Jesus. As every President up until 2008 has acknowledged. And we pray it. In Jesus' name."
The ACLU-MN believes that this is especially disrespectful because he was invited to speak on a day when the House was believed to be voting on the marriage amendment, because Dean is well known as an outspoken anti-gay activist.
"The Minnesota Legislature is designed to represent all Minnesota residents, regardless of faith," said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director, "While we applaud Representative Zellers for his apology, we urge you to refrain from opening future sessions with any type of prayer, so as to ensure that religious freedom is protected for all."
In the letter that the ACLU-MN sent to the Minnesota House, they noted that the Supreme Court has allowed prayers to open legislative sessions if they are non-sectarian and non-proselytizing. But Dean's invocation, the group said, violated both conditions.
"Any reasonable observer," the ACLU letter said, "would have understood that Bradlee Dean's prayer - featuring multiple references to ‘Jesus' - promoted Christianity."
The ACLU-MN is a non-partisan organization committed to protecting the United States and Minnesota Constitution. Operating since 1952, the ACLU-MN has over 8,500 members committed to protecting liberty, and religious freedom for all.
Why we oppose Voter ID
May 20, 2011
Why is the ACLU-MN so strongly against voter ID?
At first glance, a voter ID requirement makes sense. But details matter. And the details give us many reasons to oppose this voter suppression effort.
The bill currently working its way to the Governor creates barriers to voting for seniors, young people and Indians. The bill does not fix felons voting nor manipulation of mentally handicapped voters nor questionable voter registration drives.
In the details, the bill creates all kinds of costs and burdens to local election officials. In the details, the bill creates confusion around absentee voting and whether people who register on election day can actually vote that day. In the details, the bill will create delays in voting on election day.
Rumor and fear are not legitimate reasons to change our election system. But they are powerful drivers to suppress voting. In the end, voter ID solves no problems, but it will suppress voter turnout over the nation and over time.
This is a nationwide effort to limit voting. The ACLU-MN has always stood for expansion of individual rights, including the right to vote. Remember, the right to vote supports all other rights.
IN THE DETAILS, THIS BILL SOLVES NO PROBLEMS BUT DOES LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE. Because we oppose voter suppression, we oppose voter ID.
Northfield Public Schools agrees to stop unconstitutional censorship of LGBT websites
May 19, 2011
Software manufacturer announces it will remove category designed to censor websites based on LGBT content
After receiving a complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Minnesota, the Northfield Public Schools confirmed yesterday that it has reconfigured its filtering software to stop viewpoint-based censorship of web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities. The ACLU contacted Northfield after discovering that the school district was blocking access to websites such as GSA Network, GLSEN, and the official website for the annual Day of Silence to protest anti-LGBT bullying. The ACLU has sent demand letters to school districts across the country as part of the organization's national "Don't Filter Me" initiative, which seeks to combat illegal censorship of pro-LGBT information on public school computer systems.
According to documents supplied by Northfield in response to a public records request, a staff member in July 2010 requested that the websites for PFLAG and GLSEN be unblocked "to help support LGBT people and to create safe school environments for LGBT youth." The school district unblocked the websites for staff but did not make student access available at that time.
"Northfield Public Schools did the right thing by restoring students' access to valuable online resources," said Teresa Nelson, Legal Counsel for the ACLU of Minnesota. "We are glad that the school district recognizes that all students should have viewpoint-neutral access to the Internet."
In a related development, Lightspeed Systems - the software company used by Northfield and several other school districts contacted by the ACLU - announced Wednesday that it will update its software to eliminate a filter called "education.lifestyles" that blocked access to LGBT-related websites that would not otherwise be blocked as inappropriate or sexually explicit. The ACLU discovered that public schools across the country had improperly activated the "education.lifestyles" filter and blocked access to educational LGBT websites. Many schools activated the filter in the mistaken belief that it blocked sexually explicit content.
"We are happy that the software company has stepped in to fix this problem and help schools like Northfield ensure that they are not engaging in viewpoint-based censorship," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. "Schools buy web-filtering software in order to protect their students and comply with the law, but when filtering companies sell anti-LGBT filters to a public school, they are exposing the school to legal liability. We hope that other filtering companies follow Lightspeed's lead and remove anti-LGBT filters, which are designed to discriminate against LGBT content."
As part of its "Don't Filter Me" campaign, the ACLU has identified five other companies with filters that are designed to target LGBT-related content:
- Blue Coat, which has a filter called "LGBT."
- M86, which has a filter called "Lifestyle."
- Fortiguard, which has a filter called "Homosexuality."
- Websense, which has a filter called "Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual Interest."
- URL Blacklist, which has a filter called "sexuality."
The ACLU and the ACLU of Minnesota encourages schools that use these filtering programs to check their software to ensure that these anti-LGBT filters have not been activated.
When used by a public school, programs that block all LGBT content violate First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as the Equal Access Act, which requires equal access to school resources for all extracurricular clubs. This means that gay-straight alliances and LGBT support groups must have the same access to national organizational websites that help them to function, just as other groups such as the Key Club and the chess club are able to access their national websites. By blocking access to LGBT websites, schools deny helpful information to gay-straight alliances and other support groups that could be vital for troubled LGBT youth who either don't have access to the Internet at home or do not feel safe accessing such information on their home computers.
A video showing students how to test whether or not their school is illegally filtering content, and providing instructions for reporting censorship can be seen here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me
Students who want to report unconstitutional web filtering at their schools can fill out a form at: action.aclu.org/dontfilterme
More information on the ACLU's work on LGBT school issues can be found here: www.aclu.org/safeschools
ACLU demands that Northfield School District stop unconstitutional web filtering of LGBT content
May 02, 2011
St. Paul, Minn - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Minnesota demanded that school officials at Northfield School District stop viewpoint-based censorship of web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities. The ACLU has sent similar letters to schools across the country as part of the organization's national "Don't Filter Me" initiative, which seeks to combat illegal censorship of pro-LGBT information on public school computer systems.
The campaign asks students to check to see if web content geared toward LGBT communities - a frequent target of censorship in schools - is blocked by their schools' web browsers, and then report instances of censorship to the ACLU LGBT Project.
"LGBT youth face a lot of challenges growing up in today's society. The websites that are being filtered by Northfield are important resources for LGBT teens to go to for support and help, it is unfortunate that they would block these sites," said ACLU-MN attorney Teresa Nelson.
Earlier this year, the North Kansas City School District unblocked websites identified by the ACLU and removed the filter that screened the sites out in the first place after a student reported illegal filtering. Another school in New Jersey voluntarily removed its anti-LGBT filter after receiving student complaints and an open records request from the ACLU.
"There is no legitimate reason why any public school should be using an anti-LGBT filter," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. "This is not a case where overbroad filters are accidentally filtering out LGBT websites. These filters are designed to discriminate and are programmed specifically to target LGBT-related content that would not otherwise be blocked as sexually explicit or inappropriate. Public schools have a duty to provide students with viewpoint-neutral access to the Internet."
When used by a public school, programs that block all LGBT content violate First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as the Equal Access Act, which requires equal access to school resources for all extracurricular clubs. This means that gay-straight alliances and LGBT support groups must the same access to national organizational websites that help them to function, just as other groups such as the Key Club and the chess club are able to access their national websites. By blocking access to LGBT websites, schools deny helpful information to gay-straight alliances and other support groups that could be vital for troubled LGBT youth who either don't have access to the Internet at home or do not feel safe accessing such information on their home computers.
Since launching the "Don't Filter Me" initiative, the ACLU has identified several web-filter companies whose products are designed to filter out LGBT websites. Some of these include:
- The Bluecoat software used by the Vineland School District in New Jersey and the Prince William County Schools in Virginia has a specialized filter called "LGBT."
- The Websense software used by Columbus City Schools in Ohio, Wayne-Westland Community Schools in Michigan and the Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District in Texas has a filter called "Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual Issues."
- The Lightspeed software used by the Northfield School District in Minnesota, the North Kansas City School District in Missouri and the Downingtown School District in PA include LGBT sites in a filter called "education.lifestyles," which is defined as "Education about lifestyles -- gay, lesbian, alternate."
A video showing students how to test whether or not their school is illegally filtering content, and providing instructions for reporting censorship can be seen here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/dont-filter-me
Students who want to report unconstitutional web filtering at their schools can fill out a form at: action.aclu.org/dontfilterme
More information on the ACLU's work on LGBT school issues can be found here: www.aclu.org/safeschools
www.aclu-mn.org
Read the Letter to Northfield Public Schools
Read the Data Practices Request to Northfield Public Schools
Judge orders ACLU literature seizure case to trial
March 31, 2011
Saint Paul, Minn- Federal District Court Judge Tunheim issued a ruling today in the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota's literature seizure case Demuth v Fletcher. In his ruling Judge Tunheim denied cross motions for summary judgment, but agreed to dismiss some of the plaintiff's claims. The core constitutional issues of the case still remain, and will be decided at trial later this year.
In September, 2008, the ACLU-MN sued Ramsey County Sheriff Fletcher and others under his direction for conducting the unlawful seizure of vast amounts of constitutionally protected literature while executing several search warrants in the days leading up to the 2008 Republican National Convention. Police seized multiple copies of hundreds of different First Amendment protected publications, including books, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, stickers and buttons, despite the fact that they were intended to be distributed peacefully. The lawsuit argues that the seizure of First Amendment materials their clients' free speech and due process rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In his order Judge Tunheim noted:
Plaintiffs highlight a number of documents and things seized that are well beyond
the scope of the warrant, including boxes of children's books and school papers from
Demuth's residence, business cards from Lundberg's residence, and documents at the
Convergence Center relating to first aid and sexual assault prevention. The most cursory
review of the materials would have revealed the inappropriateness of seizing them. A
reasonable fact-finder could conclude that when executing the warrants, defendants went
beyond their scope and seized materials that had not been enumerated, which a
reasonable officer would not have seized.
"We are pleased that this decision will give us the opportunity to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of protestors are protected by proving the seizures were unlawful and securing the return of the materials they seized," said Albert Goins, volunteer attorney for the ACLU -MN.
Attorneys in the case include ACLU-MN volunteer attorney Albert Goins, Goins Law office and National Lawyers Guild volunteer attorney Geneva Finn, University of Minnesota and ACLU-MN Legal Counsel Teresa Nelson.
New executive order institutionalizes indefinite detention at Guantanamo
March 08, 2011
Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order that institutionalizes the ongoing indefinite detention of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantánamo Bay. As ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero told the Washington Post, "It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantánamo in light of this executive order."
Furthermore, the Obama Administration reversed its January 2009 decision to stop bringing new military commission charges against Guantánamo detainees and announced that new trials will resume shortly. According to media reports, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is suspected of planning the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, is likely to be among the first detainees charged in new commission proceedings. The ACLU's Denny LeBoeuf blogged recently of al-Nashiri's treatment:
The usual problems of the military commissions will arise in al-Nashiri's case. The admission of coerced testimony will be an issue. Since Attorney General Holder announced in 2009 that al-Nashiri would not be tried in federal court, there has been speculation that the government was afraid of the weakness of its evidence. And looming over it all will be the question of al-Nashiri's well-documented torture, and the extraordinary efforts by the government to hide the details of that torture.
U.S. officials waterboarded al-Nashiri. They bent him over backwards in a stress position until one of his interrogators worried that his arms would become dislocated. He was naked, hooded, shackled, and deprived of sleep. His "debriefers" blew smoke in his face, stood on his ankle shackles, and scrubbed his naked body with a stiff wire brush. His torturers hung him from the ceiling by his arms, while they were tied behind his back. And if these medieval torments were not enough to render a subsequent capital trial problematic, his torturers also revved a power drill next to his naked, hooded body. And racked a handgun near his head. "Once or twice".
In a statement in response to the Obama administration's announcements yesterday, Anthony said:
"The best way to get America out of the Guantánamo morass is to use the most effective and reliable tool we have: our criminal justice system. Instead, the Obama administration has done just the opposite and chosen to institutionalize unlawful indefinite detention - creating a troubling 'new normal' - and to revive the illegitimate Guantánamo military commissions."
ACLU-MN applauds Minnesota Court of Appeals decision
September 29, 2010
Saint Paul, Minn-The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is pleased with the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in State v. Crawley to invalidate Minn. Stat. § 609.505, subd. 2 (2006), which criminalizes knowingly making false statements that allege police misconduct, but not knowingly making false statements to absolve police. The decision states that this violates the First Amendment's prohibition against viewpoint discrimination.
The ACLU-MN filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Crawley who was convicted of falsely reporting police misconduct. The ACLU-MN argued in its brief that the law is unconstitutional because it singles out false reports of police misconduct (both criminal and non-criminal) and subjects them to harsher punishment than a general false report of a crime. By singling out speech critical of police officers, this statute engages in viewpoint discrimination because it punishes only anti-government speech. Furthermore, by criminalizing statements, the ACLU-MN believes this law has a chilling effect on genuine victims of police misconduct who may wish to report that misconduct, but are afraid of being prosecuted.
"The Minnesota Court of Appeals did a great service to the people of Minnesota when it found the statute to be unconstitutional," stated ACLU-MN Executive Director Charles Samuelson.
Abigail Richey-Allen, an attorney at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP added, "One of the promises of democracy is that we can speak freely-and even critically-about our government. The Court of Appeals decision helps ensure that Minnesotans are not deprived of this important right."
The ACLU-MN filed the brief in the case of State v. Crawley in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in March. The volunteer attorneys who wrote the brief are Mary Vasaly, Abigail Richey-Allen and Sarah Riskin of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP.
ACLU calls for grand jury investigation of the Metro Gang Strike Force
September 13, 2010
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota urges the Hennepin County Attorney to reconsider his decision to dismiss the scandal of the Metro Gang Strike Force. "We call upon Mr. Freeman to let the voters of Hennepin County decide the case of the Metro Gang Strike Force," said Charles Samuelson, ACLU-MN executive director. "The County Attorney can call a grand jury, and give the decision to bring criminal charges to the voters affected by the MGSF abuses."
The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the power of law enforcement to seize and forfeit property without criminal charges. This power, known as administrative forfeiture, gives police the power to decide guilt and punishment. Under administrative forfeiture, the property owner must pay to sue to have their property returned, and the police do not need to charge or even arrest someone to punish them with forfeiture.
"The County Attorney has shown there is no punishment for abuse of forfeiture power," continued Mr. Samuelson. "We are shocked that he would make this decision without input from the public. Again, we urge him to call for a grand jury investigation, and let the community decide whether any crimes were committed."
A Minnesota grand jury consists of citizens in the county or counties where the alleged crime occurred and has 16 to 23 members. The work of the grand jury is done in secrecy. Once all the evidence has been submitted, the grand jury votes, finding first whether there is sufficient evidence to show that a crime has been committed and, second, whether there is enough evidence to show that the accused person committed the crime. At least 12 jurors must vote to issue an indictment. The deliberations of the grand jury remain secret, and the prosecutor alone has the power to make public any of the evidence submitted. A prosecutor can compel a witness to testify before a grand jury by offering the witness either immunity from prosecution or from having any of the witness's testimony (or anything learned as a result of that testimony) used against that witness in a subsequent prosecution.
The ACLU-MN is a non-partisan organization committed to protecting the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Operating since 1952, the ACLU-MN has over 8,500 members all committed to protecting liberty, including the rights of Americans to be safe from unwarranted police searches and seizures.
ACLU of Minnesota Seeks Records About FBI Collection Of Racial And Ethnic Dat
July 27, 2010
FBI's Power To Track And Map "Behaviors" And "Lifestyle Characteristics" Of American Communities Raises Alarm
CONTACT: Charles Samuelson, ACLU of Minnesota, (651) 645-4097 x121 csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
Rachel Myers, ACLU national, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota today asked the FBI to turn over records related to the agency's collection and use of race and ethnicity data in local communities in both Minnesota and North Dakota. According to a 2008 FBI operations guide, FBI agents have the authority to collect information about and map so-called "ethnic-oriented" businesses, behaviors, lifestyle characteristics and cultural traditions in communities with concentrated ethnic populations. While some racial and ethnic data collection by some agencies might be helpful in lessening discrimination, the FBI's attempt to collect and map demographic data using race-based criteria for targeting purposes invites unconstitutional racial profiling by law enforcement, says the ACLU.
"In light of police abuses that have been exposed over the last year and a half here in Minnesota the ACLU is especially concerned about the growing government surveillance" said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "Minnesota has joined in the national effort to collect data from the FBI because we want to ensure that ACLU has the most comprehensive picture possible."
The FBI's power to collect, use, and map racial and ethnic data in order to assist the FBI's "domain awareness" and "intelligence analysis" activities is described in the 2008 FBI Domestic Intelligence and Operations Guide (DIOG). The FBI released the DIOG in heavily redacted form in September 2009, but a less-censored version was not made public until January of this year, in response to a lawsuit filed by Muslim Advocates. Although the DIOG has been in effect for more than a year and a half, very little information is available to the public about how the FBI has implemented this authority.
"The FBI's mapping of local communities and businesses based on race and ethnicity, as well as its ability to target communities for investigation based on supposed racial and ethnic behaviors, raises serious civil liberties concerns," said Michael German, ACLU policy counsel and former FBI agent. "Creating a profile of a neighborhood for criminal law enforcement or domestic intelligence purposes based on the ethnic makeup of the people who live there or the types of businesses they run is unfair, un-American and will certainly not help stop crime."
ACLU affiliate offices across the nation today filed coordinated Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover records about the FBI's collection and use of racial and ethnicity data from their local FBI field offices. The requests were filed by the ACLU affiliates in Alabama, Arkansas, California (Northern, Southern and San Diego), Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.
The DIOG provisions in question are available online at: www.muslimadvocates.org/DIOGs_Chapter4.pdf
The entire DIOG is at: www.muslimadvocates.org/latest/profiling_update/community_alert_seek_legal_adv.html
ACLU of MN urges Bemidji to reverse its censorship
July 06, 2010
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota sent a letter on July 6, to the City of Bemidji today urging them to end their censorship of public works of art.
Currently there are multiple beaver statues on display on public sidewalks around the City of Bemidji for the public to view (similar to Peanuts on Parade in St. Paul). One statue has been removed from public display because the City Manager subjectively deemed the work to be pornographic.
You can see a photograph of the statue here.
You can also read the Letter to City of Bemidji.
ACLU of Minnesota Issues Alert To State Residents Travelling To Arizona
June 30, 2010
St. Paul, Minn - In response to civil liberties threats caused by the recent passage of Arizona's racial profiling law, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota issued a travel alert today informing Minnesota residents of their rights when stopped by law enforcement when traveling in Arizona. The unconstitutional law, known as SB 1070, requires law enforcement agents to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. If individuals are unable to prove to officers that they are permitted to be in the U.S., they may be subject to warrantless arrest without any probable cause that they have committed a crime.
Although the law is not scheduled to go into effect until July 29, the ACLU of Minnesota is concerned that some law enforcement officers are already beginning to act on provisions of the law. Moreover, there has been a history of rampant racial profiling by law enforcement in Arizona, especially in Maricopa County, as well as a stated anti-immigrant policy of "attrition through enforcement" by Arizona lawmakers meant to create a hostile enough environment for Latinos and other people of color that they voluntarily leave the state.
"If Minnesotans are planning to travel to Arizona for the holiday weekend, they need to know their rights," said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "In Arizona, officials are not waiting for the new law to take effect to start questioning people about their immigration status. People who look or sound ‘foreign' are more likely to be stopped for minor infractions like having a broken taillight or jaywalking and then asked for their ‘papers' if police think that they could be in the country unlawfully."
In addition to the travel alert, the ACLU has made available in English and Spanish materials on individuals' rights if stopped by law enforcement in Arizona or other states as a result of SB 1070 or for any other reason. The materials include a Know Your Rights card that can be downloaded. This card has instructions - applicable in any state - on coping with vehicle stops and questioning by police, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or the FBI. We also have a Frequently Asked Questions document about SB 1070.
"The new Arizona law invites racial profiling, even of travelers," said Charles Samuelson. "This can mean searches and detention. If you go to Arizona, you need to know your rights, especially your right to remain silent about where you were born or your immigration status."
The ACLU and other leading civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law in May, but until the law is struck down, the ACLU warns that individuals traveling in Arizona must be aware of their rights if stopped there.
The ACLU has created a card for individuals travelling to Arizona so they can be aware of their rights. Know Your Rights in Spanish, and in English Know your Rights Card.
Save these links on your phone to access the mobile version of the cards while on the go:
More information about the lawsuit, including information on co-counsel and plaintiffs, can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-and-civil-rights-groups-file-legal-challenge-arizona-racial-pr
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Passes
May 20, 2010
This year at the Minnesota State Capitol the ACLU-MN was hard at work pressuring legislators to pass Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform. While the ACLU-MN is pleased that a reform bill did pass; unfortunately it did not contain two of the key changes for which the ACLU-MN were advocating. The bill does not require law enforcement officers to get a conviction if they intend to keep property that they confiscate from suspected criminals nor does it require that all seized assets be given to the state for redistribution to the local officials.
However, many important changes to the law were included in the reform.
Reporting Requirement Expanded: Now DNR forfeitures and DUI forfeitures will need to be reported to the State Auditor for the annual forfeiture report. All appropriate agencies must report more information about forfeitures including whether the forfeiture was contested and whether the forfeiture was automatic or decided in court.
Conciliation Court Jurisdiction Expanded: Now forfeiture cases up to $15,000 can be heard in conciliation court, reducing the need to hire an attorney to challenge a forfeiture.
Forfeiture Notice Improved: Now forfeiture notices may be left at the scene of the seizure if no one is there to receive the notice, increasing the use of forfeiture notice. Also, notice must be given within 60 days. Previously, there was no time limit. Most importantly, the bill asks for new, plain language for the forfeiture notice so people understand they may lose their property.
Improved Forfeiture Procedures: Law enforcement agencies will have to adopt a uniform best practices policy for conducting forfeiture. Furthermore, prosecutors must review forfeiture proceedings for proper notice and probable cause.
The limits for when a motor vehicle or real property can be lost automatically under administrative forfeiture are higher.
Forfeiture proceedings cannot be conducted while a related criminal proceeding is pending, protecting Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination.
Sale of forfeited items must be done in a commercially reasonable manner, and items cannot be sold to employees or families of the seizing agency.
Learn more about forfeiture, Civil Asset Forfeiture Facts.
Settlement reached in ACLU-MN's wrongful death case
May 12, 2010
St. Paul, Minn - This week a settlement agreement was approved by Duluth City Council in the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota's case against the Duluth Police Department for the wrongful death of David Croud. In the settlement the city agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve the case.
"The Croud family is satisfied with the settlement because it represents an acknowledgement by the City that David Croud should not have died in police custody and because the settlement proceeds will be used for the education of David's four young children." stated John Goetz, one of the attorneys representing the Croud estate.
On October 12, 2005, Croud was violently taken into police custody by officers of the Duluth Police Department. One witness who reported the police conduct stated that Croud was passive and that he could not "over-emphasize the amount of violence..." used by police. After handcuffing Croud and getting him partially into their squad car, police attempted to taser him in order to get him into the vehicle the rest of the way. Handcuffed, bleeding, and with a "spit hood" over his head, Croud was brought to St. Mary's hospital where he was tranquilized and restrained on his stomach by the police, and then kept in that position over the objections of hospital security staff. Croud suffered a respiratory arrest, then cardiac arrest and was placed on life support. He died a few days later in St. Mary's hospital.
The case against St. Mary's hospital was resolved previously in a confidential settlement.
"While the ACLU-MN is satisfied with the settlement agreement we hope the community will remember the death of David Croud and will work to hold the police accountable for their actions to ensure that an incident like this will never happen again" stated Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the ACLU-MN.
The ACLU-MN filed the wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of James Croud, brother of David Croud and trustee of Croud's estate.
Volunteer attorneys for the case are Al Goins of Goins Law Office, and John Goetz of Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben.
ACLU Supports Native Fishing Rights
May 12, 2010
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota strongly supports Indian tribal treaty rights and we are recruiting volunteer attorneys to represent a reasonable number of individual tribe members who receive citations during "The Great Anishinabe Fish Off (Reservation)". The ACLU-MN is willing to provide as much assistance as capacity will allow. Acceptance of individual cases will be subject to a review of the facts of those individual cases. Our focus will be solely on individual tribe members who are cited for illegal fishing. We will be unable to provide representation of individuals who face other charges. Because our resources are limited, we encourage individuals to submit formal requests for legal representation as soon after receiving a citation as possible. In addition, individuals who qualify for public defenders may wish to also seek assistance from the Regional Native Defense Corporation to ensure that they receive legal representation.
If you would like to request legal assistance please file a complaint using our online Intake Form or through the Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project in Bemidji.
ACLU and Freedom of Speech Prevail in Burnsville
May 10, 2010
ACLU and Freedom of Speech Prevail in Burnsville
Saint Paul, Minn- The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota achieved victory in their Honk for Peace case against the City of Burnsville on behalf of their client Robert Palmer. Palmer was charged with a misdemeanor violation of Minnesota's illegal honking statute in 2009, when he was cited after honking his horn 52 times in support of an anti-war protest at a busy intersection during rush hour in front of Congressman John Kline's office in downtown Burnsville. Following a lengthy evidentiary hearing conducted on April 28, 2010, Dakota County District Court Judge Rex D. Stacey issued an order filed on May 7, 2010, dismissing the charges against Palmer as violating a Consent Decree filed last year in another illegal honking case.
In 2009 the ACLU-MN settled a similar case against the City of Burnsville when it issued a ticket to Barbara Gilliand for honking in support of the anti-war protestors. As part of the settlement agreement the City of Burnsville agreed to dismiss the citation against Gilliand and issue no further citations to motorists who honk their horns to express their constitutionally protected free speech rights, except when necessary to preserve public safety.
In his decision dismissing Palmer's charges as a violation of that Consent Decree, Judge Stacey concluded that there was no evidence that Palmer's honking compromised public safety.
ACLU-MN volunteer attorney Howard Bass is pleased with the decision and says "Judge Stacey's ruling confirms that the First Amendment is alive and well in Burnsville." Palmer and Gilliand were both represented by volunteer attorney Howard Bass of the Bass Law Firm in Burnsville.
Read more at Honk for Peace.
ACLU-MN reaches tentative settlement on Croud Case
May 05, 2010
The City of Duluth and the attorneys representing the family of Mr. David Croud have reached a tentative settlement agreement resolving the matter between Mr. Croud's family and the City of Duluth. The agreement will require ratification by the Duluth City Council. In deference to the Council, terms of the agreement will not be disclosed until the Council has the opportunity to review the settlement. Ratification is expected at Monday's City Council meeting.
"Both parties spent several hours Tuesday negotiating in an atmosphere of good faith in seeking mutual agreement" said Duluth Chief Administrative Officer David Montgomery. "This has been a trying situation for the Croud family, the police officers involved and the Duluth community."
This statement has been jointly issued by the City of Duluth and by the Minnesota branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and attorneys Teresa Nelson, Albert Goins and John Goetz on behalf of the Croud family.
What happens in Arizona stops in Arizona
May 03, 2010
Immigrants' rights have been an important issue for the ACLU since its inception in the 1920s. Those rights took a step backwards when Arizona enacted SB1070, a law which infringes federal authority over immigration enforcement by creating a separate, criminal offense at the state level for persons who do not have appropriate immigration registration papers.
Furthermore, SB1070 gives all local Arizona peace officers broad discretion to stop, interrogate and arrest people they reasonably suspect have violated immigration laws, even if the officers have not been properly trained in immigration enforcement. This law permits officers to take race into account when stopping people, inviting racial profiling and heightening distrust of police in the communities they serve.
The ACLU-MN is committed to keeping immigration a civil, federal law, and protecting the fundamental due process and equal protection rights of everyone in Minnesota, regardless of race or national origin.
There are numerous reports that state lawmakers elsewhere are already considering bills similar to that of Arizona's. Even if you think your elected representatives and governor are sympathetic on this issue, they need to hear from you that you will not tolerate a dangerous racial profiling law in your state. Please write your state representatives and governor now.
ACLU sues TSA for detaining student over flashcards
February 11, 2010
Incident At Philadelphia Airport Highlights Misdirected Security Efforts, Says ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
PHILADELPHIA - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Pennsylvania today filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pomona College student Nicholas George, who was abusively interrogated, handcuffed and detained for nearly five hours at the Philadelphia International Airport because of a set of English-Arabic flashcards he was carrying in connection with his college language studies.
"Arresting and restraining passengers who pose no threat to flight safety and are not breaking any law not only violates people's rights, but it won't make us any safer. It may actually make us less safe, by diverting vital resources and attention away from true security threats," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "Nick George was handcuffed, locked in a cell for hours and questioned about 9/11 simply because he has chosen to study Arabic, a language that is spoken by hundreds of millions of people around the world. This sort of harassment of innocent travelers is a waste of time and a violation of the Constitution."
George was on his way back to school in California in August 2009 when he was prompted by Transportation Security Authority (TSA) agents to empty his pockets at an airport security screening point. After producing a set of English-Arabic flashcards, which each had an English word on one side and the corresponding Arabic word on the other, George was detained by the TSA agents in the screening area for 30 minutes. A TSA supervisor then arrived and aggressively questioned George, asking him questions such as how he felt about 9/11, whether he knew "who did 9/11" and whether he knew what language Osama bin Laden spoke.
A Philadelphia police officer then arrived, handcuffed George and led him through a terminal to the airport police station where he was left in a locked cell for two hours in the handcuffs, and for two more hours with the handcuffs removed. George was then interrogated for half an hour by two FBI agents. He was never informed of why he was handcuffed, detained or arrested, and he was not informed of his rights. By the time he was released, George had long since missed his flight and was told by airline officials that he would have to wait until the next day to travel.
"As someone who travels by plane, I want TSA agents to do their job to keep flights safe. But I don't understand how locking me up and harassing me just because I was carrying the flashcards made anybody safer," said George. "No one should be treated like a criminal for simply learning one of the most widely-spoken languages in the world."
The lawsuit charges that the TSA officials, the Philadelphia police and the FBI violated George's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and his First Amendment right to free speech. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on George's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the three TSA officers, two FBI agents and two members of the Philadelphia Police Department who were involved in his detainment and interrogation.
"It should not have taken four hours to determine that Nick George was not a security threat. In fact, it should not have taken four minutes," said Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "He was handcuffed and held behind bars for no reason. These agents need to be held accountable for that."
Lawyers on the case are Wizner and Jonathan Manes of the ACLU, Roper of the ACLU of Pennsylvania and David Rudovsky of the law firm Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg, LLP.
The ACLU's complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/george-v-tsa-complaint-damages
A video featuring Nick George and Ben Wizner talking about the case is at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTgegDIUocw
ACLU-MN caucus resolution on forfeiture
January 28, 2010
If you are interested in presenting an issue at your caucus on February 2, this is a very important issue to the ACLU-MN. We will be working on it during the legislative session this year. If you do decide to introduce this resolution please let us know how it goes!
A RESOLUTION REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FORFEITURE
WHEREAS, Minnesota law currently gives law enforcement the power, known as administrative forfeiture, to take and keep cash, jewelry, cars and guns without review by a court; and
WHEREAS, the process for challenging law enforcement's use of this forfeiture power is complicated and expensive for the person who has had their property taken; and
WHEREAS, a law enforcement agency that uses its power of forfeiture gets to keep 70% of the proceeds it raises through forfeiture; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Gang Strike Force and its members are the subjects of an FBI investigation for the misuse of forfeiture powers; and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution creates a government where power is controlled through a system of checks and balances; and
WHEREAS, one of the checks against the power of law enforcement is the power of elected officials to control the level of funding; and
WHEREAS, giving law enforcement the power to self-fund diminishes the power to supervise law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the United States system of checks and balances gives law enforcement the power to catch suspected criminals but reserves the power to determine guilt and punishment to the judicial branch; and
WHEREAS, the existing system for challenging forfeiture in court is too costly and complicated to serve as an effective check of the forfeiture power; and
WHEREAS, unchecked law enforcement power lead to abuses like those of the Metro Gang Strike Force occur;
NOW, THEREFORE, Checks and balances of law enforcement power should be the policy of the State of Minnesota, so that the forfeiture laws:
- Require a link between property which law enforcement can take and keep (forfeit) and the actual commission of a crime,
- Do not allow direct funding of the agency which seized the property, and
- Require timely, affordable and accessible judicial review of all law enforcement forfeitures.
ACLU Issues Report On Obama Administration's Civil Liberties Record
January 20, 2010
First Year Saw Civil Rights Advances And End Of Torture But Continuation Of Overbroad Domestic Surveillance Practices
NEW YORK - The Obama administration's record on restoring civil liberties during its first year in office is mixed, according to a new report analyzing the administration's performance released today by the American Civil Liberties Union. Of a set of 145 detailed recommendations the ACLU made to the new president upon his election, the administration has acted on just over one-third of them.
"Starting with bold executive orders to end torture and close the prison at Guantánamo, and continuing with positive actions in areas like open government and civil rights, the Obama administration has made some significant strides toward restoring civil liberties and the rule of law," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "But in other areas, the administration has fallen short by allowing some of the Bush administration's most troublesome practices to continue and by failing to take steps that would restore some very fundamental rights and values to American life."
The administration's record on the ACLU's highest priority recommendations - those it asked President Obama to take on his first day in office - is uneven. Despite the president's executive order to close the notorious prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, it remains open, detainees remain there without charge or trial and the flawed military commission system is still being used. And while the president ordered an end to torture and the Justice Department has initiated a very limited inquiry into detainee abuse, the president has shown little appetite for encouraging a comprehensive torture investigation that would include high level officials from the Bush administration. The Obama administration has also retained its authority to engage in extraordinary renditions.
On the ACLU's other top priorities - those it asked President Obama to act on within his first 100 days - the administration's record is weak. On issues like spying on Americans, monitoring of activists, terrorism watchlists, the Real ID Act and DNA databases, the administration has carried out none of the ACLU's recommendations.
"Our hope a year ago was that the Obama administration would restore our nation's long tradition of respect for privacy and the rule of law by rolling back the privacy-invading domestic security policies enacted by the Bush administration," Romero said. "Unfortunately, many of those policies have not been reversed, and we now run the risk of seeing them become a permanent part of American life."
On the issues of civil rights, open government, freedom of speech and reproductive freedom, the administration has fared much better, as it has acted on about half of the ACLU's recommendations.
"In the face of enormous domestic and international challenges that naturally occupied much of President Obama's attention, the administration has managed to initiate a lot of positive actions that deserve commendation and which can help put America on a path toward regaining its standing as a global leader in freedom and equality," said Romero. "But it is clear after one year that the administration has a lot more work to do, and the ACLU will continue to vigorously fight for and support such action."
A copy of the ACLU's analysis of the Obama administration's record on restoring civil liberties, including a chart showing which of the ACLU's recommendations the administration acted upon, is available online at: www.aclu.org/america-unrestored
Library of Congress Wrongly Fires Former Gitmo Lawyer
December 10, 2009
ACLU Says Congressional Research Service Violated First Amendment When It Fired Col. Morris Davis
NEW YORK -The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on behalf of Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the Guantánamo military commissions, who was terminated from his job at CRS because of opinion pieces he wrote about the Guantánamo military commissions system that ran in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post on November 11, 2009. The ACLU's letter argues that CRS violated the First Amendment when it fired Davis for speaking as a private citizen about matters having nothing to do with his job there, and that CRS must reinstate Davis to his position in order to avoid litigation.
"The First Amendment protects Col. Davis's right to speak and write as a private citizen about issues on which he has personal knowledge," said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "Col. Davis didn't give up his right to express his opinions and first-hand knowledge about a matter of such public importance when he left the military commissions system and went to work at CRS."
In October 2007, Davis resigned from his position in the military commissions because of his belief that the system was fundamentally flawed. He became a vocal critic of the commissions, writing articles, giving speeches and testifying before Congress. In December 2008, Davis began working as the Assistant Director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division at CRS, a department within the Library of Congress that provides experts to assist members of Congress and committee staff in the legislative process. Davis's work at CRS is not related to, and his division has no responsibilities for, anything having to do with the military commissions.
"CRS does very important work and I'm proud of what I contribute to that," said Davis. "But my service there does not preclude me from speaking about matters of great public importance about which I have personal expertise that is extremely valuable to the ongoing debate over how to prosecute terrorism suspects."
On November 11, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece written by Davis expressing views abut the military commissions similar to those he had expressed publicly prior to working at CRS. The Washington Post also published a letter to the editor that day written by Davis on the same subject. Both pieces were written by Davis in his personal capacity, made clear that he was writing as a private individual and former chief prosecutor of the military commissions and made no mention of CRS. He wrote the pieces on his home computer during non-work hours.
Immediately after the op-ed and the letter were published, Davis received a threatening email from his supervisor regarding the pieces and questioning Davis's ability to continue serving as Assistant Director, despite previous positive feedback about his work from the same supervisor. In meetings that followed, Davis's supervisor informed him that as a result of the pieces his employment would be terminated.
According to the ACLU's letter, the "decision to terminate Col. Davis for writing the op-ed and letter to the editor is a clear violation of Col. Davis's First Amendment and due process rights. The Supreme Court has long made clear that public employees such as Col. Davis are protected by the First Amendment when they engage in speech about matters of public concern...There can be no dispute that the subject matter of Col. Davis's speech - the military commissions and the prosecution of suspected terrorists - is a matter of immense public concern. These issues are the subject of a nationwide, highly contentious, and very public debate that has been dominating the news and our government's attention."
"The public has a great interest in hearing from Col. Davis about Guantánamo and the military commissions because of his unique expertise as the former chief prosecutor there," said Fine. "There is no reason his employment at CRS should prevent the public from hearing those views."
The full text of the ACLU's letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/letter-library-congress-asking-reinstatement-colonel-morris-davis
Ordained Pentecostal Minister Can Preach In Prison After ACLU Lawsuit
December 03, 2009
TRENTON, NJ - Prompted by an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, state prison officials in New Jersey have agreed to restore the right of a devout Christian prisoner to preach at weekly worship services and teach Bible study classes.
Under the terms of a settlement agreement, Howard Thompson, Jr., an ordained Pentecostal minister, will once again be allowed to preach in prison, a practice banned two years ago without any warning or justification.
"The decision by prison officials in New Jersey to allow Mr. Thompson to resume practicing his faith is a welcome acknowledgement that religious freedom in this country extends to all," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The ban on prisoner preaching was clearly at odds with the law and the American value of religious liberty, and this decision was long overdue."
Thompson had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when, in 2007, prison officials issued a blanket ban on such preaching by prisoners, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff. In response, the ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Thompson's behalf last December, arguing that the ban unconstitutionally infringed upon Thompson's right to freely practice his religion. The lawsuit named NJSP Administrator Michelle R. Ricci and New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner George W. Hayman as defendants.
Since entering NJSP in 1986, Thompson has been an active member of the prison's Christian community, preaching at Sunday services, teaching Bible study classes and founding the choir. His preaching never caused any security problems. Indeed, the prison's chaplaincy staff had actively supported and encouraged Thompson, believing that he was a positive influence on his fellow inmates.
"The ban prevented me from responding to my religious calling to minister to my fellow inmates, something I had done honestly, effectively and without any incident for years," said Thompson. "All I have ever wanted was to have my religious rights restored so that I could continue working with men who want to renew their lives through the study and practice of their faith."
Ordained in October 2000 during a service at NJSP overseen by the prison's chaplain, Thompson sincerely believes it is his religious calling and obligation to preach his Pentecostal faith and has always been willing to do so under the full supervision of NJSP staff.
"The right to freely express religious viewpoints without the fear of repercussions is one of Americans' most fundamental constitutional rights," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "It is gratifying to see prison officials in our state take that constitutional obligation seriously."
The legal team for Thompson included Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and Barocas and Nadia Seeratan of the ACLU of New Jersey.
The lawsuit was just the latest in a long line of ACLU cases defending the fundamental right to religious exercise, a more expansive list of which is available online at: www.aclu.org/defendingreligion
A copy of the settlement agreement is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/thompson-v-ricci-et-al-settlement-agreement
A copy of the ACLU's complaint on behalf of Thompson is available online at: www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/37953lgl20081120.html
Additional information about the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion
Additional information about the ACLU of New Jersey is available online at: www.aclu-nj.org
A Victory for the Rule of Law. Kind of.
November 16, 2009
Taken from the ACLU's Blog of Rights
Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder officially announced that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court, rather than in the unconstitutional Guantánamo military commissions. This is a clear victory for the rule of law, and we thank all of you who have supported the ACLU in our efforts to shed light on the injustices of the military commission proceedings at Guantánamo Bay. Though our John Adams Project, a collaboration with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the ACLU has assisted under-resourced military defense counsel representing Guantánamo detainees accused in connection with the 9/11 attacks and other cases, in order to bring some modicum of fairness to the unconstitutional and unjust military commissions proceedings. We believe this effort succeeded in shining a light on just how unfair those proceedings are, and the need to move them to federal court. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement today: But this victory is bittersweet, because Holder indicated that some detainees would be tried in the unlawful military commission system. As Glenn Glennwald pointed out this morning: The ACLU will continue to push for the complete closure of Guantánamo, and an end to the military commissions and any system of indefinite detention. In the meantime, take the time to celebrate this victory for the rule of law.Over $4 million of private money has been spent on what should have been the government's legal responsibility, but we are gratified that we averted a miscarriage of justice in sham proceedings. We launched the John Adams Project because of our grave concerns that the military commissions process does not reflect our country's commitment to justice and due process. Through our representation of these defendants as part of the Project, the ACLU has seen first-hand the legal debacle of the military commissions and has repeatedly called for their abolition. Moving these cases to federal courts will finally deliver the justice that Americans deserve and can trust. We call on the administration to reconsider the continued use of military commissions and to rely on our federal courts that can finally deliver the justice that Americans deserve and can trust.
So what we have here is not an announcement that all terrorism suspects are entitled to real trials in a real American court. Instead, what we have is a multi-tiered justice system, where only certain individuals are entitled to real trials: namely, those whom the Government is convinced ahead of time it can convict.
[…]A system of justice which accords you varying levels of due process based on the certainty that you'll get just enough to be convicted isn't a justice system at all. It's a rigged game of show trials.
Court rules for ACLU-MN taxpayer standing in charter school case
July 21, 2009
Decision allows ACLU-MN to protect public money
St. Paul, MN -- Today, U.S District Court Judge Donovan Frank ruled that the ACLU-MN has taxpayer standing to protect public funds in a lawsuit filed on behalf of its members against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), its sponsor, Islamic Relief, and the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education. The lawsuit argues that TIZA's policies and operations improperly promote religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The ruling came down in response to the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, arguing, among other things, that the ACLU-MN did not have standing to sue. The Court rejected the argument and found that the ACLU-MN had demonstrated that it has standing to sue on behalf of its taxpaying members.
The Court noted that its decision "underscores the importance of taxpayer standing, particularly when there is no other party to sue." The Court opined that, while TIZA students or their parents could raise an Establishment Clause challenge against TIZA, "[i]t seems unlikely that a parent or student of TIZA, who presumably attends the school because of its particularized program, would challenge the program of choice."
"We are grateful that the judge held that we have standing in this case," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. "We believe that it is important to ensure that taxpayer funds are used appropriately. TIZA has received millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and we have the right to question how these public funds are being used," Samuelson said.
In its ruling, the Court also rejected the Defendant's arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed as moot, that the ACLU-MN should have exhausted administrative remedies and that the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in the case. The Court granted the dismissal of claims raising statutory violations and claims against the Minnesota Department of Education as an entity. The ACLU-MN did not contest the dismissal of those claims. "We look forward to the next stages of this litigation and the opportunity to prove our claims," said ACLU-MN Legal Counsel Teresa Nelson.
The ACLU-MN is represented by ACLU-MN cooperating attorneys Peter Lancaster, Christopher Amundsen and Ivan Ludmer from the law firm of Dorsey and Whitney.
The Judge's opinon: TIZA Order on Motion to Dismiss
Constitutional rights denied to patients at Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center
July 21, 2009
The ACLU-MN, along with cooperating attorneys, agreed to represent patients who are challenging the conditions of their confinement in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) "Annex". The Annex is located in a wing of the state prison in Moose Lake. While it is located within a state prison, it is technically a part of the Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center. It houses individuals who have served their prison time but have been civilly committed indefinitely for mental health treatment as Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities. The patients being held in the Annex have exercised their right to refuse to participate in sex offender treatment. Conditions at the Annex are significantly more punitive than in the general MSOP facility located at the Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center.
The Plaintiffs (who originally represented themselves pro se) challenge numerous unconstitutional conditions including
- Detainees are subjected to strip searches and are handcuffed and shackled as part of standard operating procedure whenever detainees are transported (for example, to attend patient advisory committee meetings at the MSOP facility) and after contact visits in violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Detainees' incoming legal mail has, on numerous occasions, been opened outside the presence of the detainee in violation of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- Detainees allege that they are not allowed incoming calls and that their calls are monitored in violation of their First Amendment right to telephone access.
- Detainees are denied their right to Procedural Due Process by being deprived of their access to freely move around the Annex without escorts, and, consequently, access to the privileges afforded to all other civilly committed detainees including daily access to the gym, access to library services, the ability to communicate with other Annex detainees, and free access to outside activities. The conditions imposed on Detainees are similar to what the Minnesota Department of Corrections imposes on inmates who are in Administrative Segregation. Inmates in A-Seg are entitled to procedural due process before being housed in that restrictive setting.
- Detainees are subjected to potentially severe health risks due to inadequate sanitation in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights includinng:
- Communal showers and bathrooms are only cleaned once a day;
- Urine and fecal matter are frequently found on the bathroom floor or toilet seats;
- No sanitizer is readily available to disinfect the floors and toilet seats;
- Dining room tables are not adequately sanitized prior to serving each meal;
- Mops and brooms used to clean the bathrooms and showers are also used to clean cells, thereby spreading germs to their cells;
- Towels, blankets and cleaning rags are washed in one unit washer and the water does not reach a temperature needed to properly sanitize them.
- Detainees who had purchased 20 inch televisions at the Annex had their property seized and were forced to send them out of the facility at their own expense to comply with a MNDOC rule allowing only 13 inch clear televisions on the Moose Lake prison property.
- MSOP retaliated against two of the plaintiffs (Beaulieu and Yazzie) for their participation in litigation challenging their access to religious activities while civilly committed to the MSOP. The retaliation took the form of a reduction in their access to religious services, attorneys, the court and visitation by family; unreasonable restraint of Yazzie leading to injury; unreasonable searches of Beaulieu's property; and the seizure and copying of Beaulieu's legal papers.
The next step in the case will be proceeding to discovery, which will happen over the next few months.
The ACLU-MN has long been concerned about the way in which Minnesota's sex offender civil commitment program has been implemented. Although patients are not prisoners, their conditions of confinement often mirror that of prisoners. While the purpose of civil commitment is to provide treatment, few - if any - patients have been released from the program. The ACLU-MN firmly believes that the constitution grants individuals the same rights no matter your identity or background. While defending sex offenders' rights may be considered unsavory to many people, we believe that constitutional rights would be meaningless if they did not apply in situations when we are most tempted to violate them.
New Report Finds Racial Profiling Still Pervasive
June 30, 2009
Groups Submit Report To U.N. Committee
NEW YORK - Widespread racial profiling by law enforcement agents as a result of Bush-era policies remains a pervasive problem throughout the United States, according to a report out today by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rights Working Group (RWG). Government policies are a major cause of the disproportionate stopping and searching of racial minorities by law enforcement agencies, according to the report, which was submitted today to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
"Racial profiling remains a widespread and pervasive problem throughout the U.S., impacting the lives of millions of people in the African American, Asian, Latino, South Asian, Arab and Muslim communities," said Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program and the main author of the report. "The U.S. government must take urgent, direct action to rid the nation of the scourge of racial and ethnic profiling and bring this country into conformity with both the Constitution and international human rights obligations."
Today's report came in response to a last-minute Bush administration submission to CERD in January 2009 that was plagued by omissions, deficiencies and mischaracterizations. In both its initial report to CERD in April 2007 and the follow-up submission in January, the Bush administration relied on the Justice Department's 2003 "Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agents" to support claims the government was taking steps to eliminate racial profiling. However, that document doesn't cover profiling based on religion or national origin, doesn't apply to state or local law enforcement agencies and doesn't include any mechanisms for enforcement or punishment for violating the recommendations. It also contains a blanket exception to the recommendations in cases of "national security" or "border integrity."
As a result of U.S. reliance on the vague Justice Department guidance and other Bush policies, people of color have been disproportionately victimized through various government initiatives including FBI surveillance and questioning, special registration programs, border stops, immigration enforcement programs and the creation of "no fly lists," according to today's report.
"Instead of curbing racial profiling, the overbroad national security and border integrity exceptions in the Justice Department guidance have actually promoted profiling and created justification for state and local law enforcement agents to racially profile those who are or appear to be Arab, Muslim, South Asian or Latino," said Margaret Huang, Executive Director of RWG. "We hope the Obama administration will fix the failed policies of the Bush administration and live up to its commitment to end racial profiling in the United States."
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder stated that ending racial profiling is a "priority" for the Obama administration and that profiling is "simply not good law enforcement." Today's report from the ACLU and RWG calls on the Obama administration to fix Bush administration policies that led to pervasive racial profiling. It also calls on Congress to pass the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which would compel all law enforcement agencies to bar racial profiling, create and apply profiling procedures and document data on stop, search and arrest activities by race.
CERD is expected to consider the U.S. government's follow up submission, the submission of the ACLU and RWG and the submissions of other civil and human rights organizations in its August session. CERD will then issue recommendations to the U.S. government regarding its human rights obligations under the treaty.
CERD is an independent group of experts that oversees compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a treaty signed and ratified by the U.S. in 1994. All levels of U.S. government are required to comply with the treaty's provisions, which require countries to review national, state and local policies and to amend or repeal laws and regulations that create or perpetuate racial discrimination.
The ACLU and RWG's report to CERD is available online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/racialjustice/40055pub20090629.html
The Bush administration's final submission to CERD is at: www.state.gov/documents/organization/113905.pdf
Terrorism Finance Laws Undermine Minnesota Muslims Religious Freedom
June 16, 2009
St. Paul - U.S. terrorism finance laws and policies unfairly prevent Muslims in Minnesota and around the nation from practicing their religion through charitable giving and undermine America's diplomatic efforts in Muslim countries, according to an American Civil Liberties Union report out today. The 164-page report, "Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity," is the first comprehensive report that documents the serious effects of Bush administration terrorism finance laws on Muslim communities.
"Without notice and through the use of secret evidence and opaque procedures, the Treasury Department has effectively closed down seven U.S.-based Muslim charities, including several of the nation's largest Muslim charities," said Jennifer Turner, a researcher with the ACLU Human Rights Program and author of the report. "While terrorism financing laws are meant to make us safer, policies that give the appearance of a war on Islam only serve to undermine America's diplomatic efforts just as President Obama reaches out to the Muslim world. These counter-productive practices alienate American Muslims who are key allies and chill legitimate humanitarian aid in parts of the world where charities' good works could be most effective in winning hearts and minds."
According to the report, for which the ACLU conducted 120 interviews with Muslim community leaders, donors and experts in several states, federal law enforcement agents are engaging in practices that intimidate Muslim American donors, such as widespread interviews about their donations and surveillance of donations at mosques. The ACLU has documented reports of law enforcement targeting of Muslim donors in Minnesota for these "voluntary" interviews. Those interviewed say the government's actions have a chilling effect on Muslim charitable giving, or Zakat, one of the five pillars of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims. Minnesota Muslims continue to face increased scrutiny by FBI regarding missing Somali men and the recent raids on three money transfer businesses that sent vital remittances from American immigrants to needy family members abroad in East Africa, including Somalia.
"The laws prohibiting material support for terrorism are so broad that in theory even organizations like the Red Cross could be prosecuted for the aid it provides," states Charles Samuelson "However, the pattern is clear that they are using this law to specifically target primarily Muslim charities. Targeting Muslim charities has caused many Muslims to fear donating to legal charities of their choice and has thus prevented them from fulfilling their faith as is their right."
In his speech from Cairo on June 4, President Obama raised the issue of terrorism finance laws that have an adverse effect on Muslim giving. The ACLU report makes comprehensive recommendations to the Obama administration and Congress that are necessary to ensure terrorism financing policies are consistent with American values of due process and religious freedom.
"Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity" is available online at: www.aclu.org/muslimcharities
ACLU Releases Report On Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor
June 10, 2009
The American Civil Liberties Union today released a report summarizing the civil liberties and civil rights record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama to replace retiring Justice David Souter as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The report was prepared in accordance with ACLU policy, and will be made available to the public and members of the Senate.
The ACLU does not endorse or oppose candidates for elective or appointive office.
The full text of the report is online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/39769pub20090608.html
Judge hears arguments on TIZA dismissal
June 09, 2009
On Thursday June 4, the ACLU-MN had its first hearing regarding the TIZA case. In February of this year the ACLU-MN filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), its sponsor Islamic Relief and the Minnesota Department of Education stating that the charter school has violated the Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution by using taxpayer money to illegally promote religion. We argue that TIZA has been shown to advance, endorse and prefer the Muslim religion over other religions or nonsectarian approaches in connection with school activities. The complaint was filed by ACLU-MN cooperating attorneys Peter Lancaster from Dorsey and Whitney. Dorsey attorneys Christopher Amundsen and Ivan Ludmer are also working on the case. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss this spring.
At the motion to dismiss hearing on June 4, the defendants' main argument was that the ACLU-MN did not have standing (on behalf of its members as taxpayers) to file the lawsuit. The ACLU-MN argued that we did in fact have standing and that if we as taxpayers paying for the school did not have standing, no other individual would challenge the school's unconstitutional practices. The judge will issue his decision within 45 days.
ACLU Challenges Patents on Breast Cancer Genes
May 20, 2009
On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation, a not-for-profit organization affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (PUBPAT), filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer are unconstitutional and invalid. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four scientific organizations representing more than 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, as well as individual researchers, breast cancer and women's health groups, genetic counselors and individual women. Individuals with certain mutations along these two genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are at a significantly higher risk for developing hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has granted thousands of patents on human genes - in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents.
As a result of the PTO granting patents on the BRCA genes to Myriad Genetics, Myriad's lab is the only place in the country where diagnostic testing can be performed. Because only Myriad can test for the BRCA gene mutations, others are prevented from testing these genes or developing alternative tests. Myriad's monopoly on the BRCA genes makes it impossible for women to access other tests or get a second opinion about their results, and allows Myriad to charge a high rate for their tests - over $3,000, which is too expensive for some women to afford.
The lawsuit, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan against the PTO, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which hold the patents on the BRCA genes.
Minnesota passes Anti-Real ID Bill
May 19, 2009
Minnesota becomes the 23rd state to prohibit implementation of the 2005 Real ID ACT
SAINT PAUL - During a legislative session where the Governor and Legislature did not agree on much, public officials from both parties overwhelmingly passed a bill prohibiting the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005, an unfunded federal mandate for the creation of a national ID card. Coming on the heels of a nearly unanimous House and Senate vote, Governor Pawlenty signed the legislation into law in the last days of the 2009 legislative session
"This is a tremendous, hard-won victory for Minnesotans and I thank the Governor and Legislature for making the privacy of our citizens a top priority," said ACLU of Minnesota Executive Director Charles Samuelson. "Our state officials sent a clear message to Washington that we will not submit to a wrongheaded federal mandate that puts our privacy at risk."
Samuelson added that the Real ID Act of 2005 mandates all states redesign their drivers' licenses to make them consistent with federal regulations - creating a de facto internal passport. All Americans' drivers' license information would then be held in a single database that is accessible to federal and state officials - the cost and security of which is unknown.
Since its enactment, Real ID has faced significant pushback in the states. To date, 22 states passed legislation denouncing the federal initiative. Minnesota is the 23rd state to refuse to participate in REAL ID. The ACLU of Minnesota spent a great deal of time over the last few years educating the legislature on the dangers of Real ID. In addition, the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures also strongly oppose the Real ID Act.
Since its enactment, Real ID has faced significant pushback in the states. During her January 2009 confirmation hearing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano called for a review of Real ID, saying the states were not consulted enough in its creation and that the initiative is a fiscal burden on the states. Before heading up Homeland Security, Napolitano was Governor of Arizona, where she signed legislation prohibiting her state from complying with the requirements of Real ID.
Honk for Peace charges dropped
May 12, 2009
The City of Burnsville has dropped charges against a woman who honked in support of protesters who were holding signs along a public road.
The ACLU of Minnesota represented Barbara Gilland, saying that the issuing of the citation violated Ms Gilland's First Amendment rights. The City of Burnsville agreed to drop the charges and to no longer issue citations for improper use of horn when using it to express freedom of speech. except when necessary to preserve public safety. The City also agreed to issue a directive to officers and update its Policies and Procedures to prevent free speech violations in the future.
Ms Gilland was represented by ACLU volutneer attorney Howard Bass of Bass Law Firm.
Anti-Real ID passes Minnesota House and Senate
May 12, 2009
The ACLU supported Anti-Real ID bill passed both the Minnesota House and Senate and is awaiting either a signature or a veto from Governor Pawlenty. If this bill is signed into law Minnesota will become the 13th state to prohibit the implementation of Real ID.
REAL ID is an unfunded federal mandate that will create America's first national identity card. Minnesota would be forced to comply with this program that will not only cost us $12 million dollars but will make us less safe. We need to act today to ensure that Minnesota does not participate in this program.
Passed in 2005, the Real ID Act creates huge administrative burdens for state driver's licenses, while providing only minimal federal funds for implementing its onerous requirements. At the same time, it does nothing to combat terrorism, and puts us at greater risk for invasions of privacy and identity theft.
You can learn more about Real ID online at www.realnightmare.org
Judge Rejects CIA Attempt To Withhold Records On Destroyed Interrogation Tapes
April 24, 2009
NEW YORK – A federal judge today rejected the CIA's attempt to withhold records relating to the agency's destruction of 92 videotapes that depicted the harsh interrogation of CIA prisoners. The ACLU is seeking disclosure of these records as part of its pending motion to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying the tapes which violated a court order requiring it to produce or identify records responsive to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records relating to the treatment of prisoners held in U.S. custody overseas. The CIA had previously said it would only turn over documents from August 2002 that relate to the content of the videotapes. But U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York today ordered the CIA to produce records from April through December 2002 that relate to the content of the tapes, as well as documents from April 2002 through June 2003 that related to the destruction of the tapes and information about the persons and reasons behind their destruction. Judge Hellerstein also ordered the government to reconsider the extent of redactions it intends to make to the documents in light of last week's release, also as part of the ACLU's FOIA litigation, of four secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture. In addition, the court ordered the government to explain whether contempt proceedings would interfere with a federal criminal investigation into the destruction of the tapes led by prosecutor John Durham. The following can be attributed to Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU: "We welcome the court's recognition that the ACLU's contempt motion against the CIA must be promptly resolved. Recent disclosures about the CIA's torture methods further confirm that there is no basis for the agency to continue to withhold records relating to the content of the destroyed videotapes or documents that shed light upon who authorized their destruction and why. The public has a right to this information and the CIA must be held accountable for its flagrant disregard for the rule of law." Judge Hellerstein's order is available online at:www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39459lgl20090420.html
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Unconstitutional Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student
April 21, 2009
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments over whether school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.
"At stake here are the fundamental privacy rights of America's students – when is a strip search of a child justified," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court today. "The Constitution must shield students like Savana from suffering potentially lifelong harm due the senseless overreaction of school officials."
Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.
After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.
In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.
"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had," said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."
The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.
"To this day, I do not understand why I was strip searched, and not a day goes by that I don't think about it," said Redding prior to today's argument. "No one should have to go through this. It should be against the law."
The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity.
"Strip searching a 13-year-old girl is not the same as looking in her backpack," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat them as the same."
The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona are joined in the proceedings by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.
In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute, and Urban Justice Center, among others.
NASW's brief documents that strip searches can have a devastating emotional impact on students, deeply and irrevocably affecting the victims' relationship with their peers and school officials.
The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160lgl20090325.html
The role of the ACLU
April 01, 2009
The job of the American Civil Liberties Union is to protect and defend the rights contained in the constitution. This week the ACLU commented on the plan by the City of St. Paul to ban 10 individuals from the West Side for a period of unknown time this spring (the so-called Cinco d Mayo banning). We felt that the ban is overbroad, vague, and violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
However, our positions are not always popular. Here is one response we received:
"I apologize if this sounds dis-jointed, but I don't even know where to start. There is a part of being liberal, and there is a part of being a responsible citizen.
How on earth could you be fighting for the rights of gang members?
Do you have any-I mean-ANY understanding, of what the police know about these non-citizens? They have no rights to go around and enforce their own justice. And if you think they do-then lets set them up in homes and apartments around YOUR home. And once they entice your children in to joining-we will see how you feel about their "rights". When is the ACLU going to get it.
When the ACLU stoops to the level of supporting gangs, you make it really hard for liberal Americans to support the ACLU. How on earth can you be so stupid to defend this. "
It is upsetting to think that the rights that all good people have are also the rights that all bad people must be allowed to have as well. Gangs are bad and nobody wants to live with gang violence and crime.
We believe that, like all crime and terrorism, we cannot abandon the notions of fairness and justice that defines us as Americans in order to achieve our goals in the way that we think is the most expedient. This is a band-aid solution and we think that the City should focus on addressing the root societal problems that lead young men to join gangs in the first place.
We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our criminal justice system. When we allow the government to secretly create a scoring system in order to send individuals to jail the rights of all of us are at risk.
Many things about this situation are troubling. In no particular order they are:
- The city collected secret information on this group of people, in many cases from rival gangs. They have refused to make any of that information public. My concern is that rival gangs could be using the government to eliminate their rivals.
- The city proposes to have a civil hearing where they do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals are members of a gang, or that this gang exists. The government defines a gang, and whether an individual is a member of the gang. The government also decides whether or not crimes committed by people the government believes are gang members can also be charged to everyone they've decided is a gang member.
- Because it is a civil trial there is no constitutional requirement that these people be represented by counsel. If they are poor or middle class they almost certainly won't be represented. The consequence of violating this banning is a misdemeanor (90 days in jail).
This is the same kind of thinking that gave us Guantanamo - we can't convict them of a crime so we create a backdoor way to put them in jail because we are "sure" they are guilty.
This is a difficult issue and for that reason we should be reluctant to reach for quick answers. Studies in other states (particularly Pennsylvania) show that using evidence based strategies to address youth crime and violence actually works, couldn't we give that a try.
If these individuals were violent criminals, let us try them in criminal court, and if they are found guilty sentence them to prison for the damage they have done to society. Let us not take the easy way out of this difficult situation.
Read the Star Tribune article for more details about the banning
Legislation Introduced To Curtail Patriot Act Abus
March 30, 2009
New Legislation Will Rein In Overbroad National Security Letter Power
WASHINGTON - Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced legislation today to narrow the overbroad subpoena power in the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act. The bipartisan bill, National Security Letters Reform Act of 2009, aims to curb rampant abuse of that power by federal law enforcement following the expansion of the Patriot Act and was introduced with 17 cosponsors. NSLs are secret subpoenas used to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval.
"To ensure that Americans' privacy and free speech rights are protected, there must be clear oversight and strict guidelines tied to the use of NSLs," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Mr. Nadler and Mr. Flake should be applauded for taking this legislative step. Their bill will realign the current NSL authority with the Constitution. Congress must take this opportunity to rein in the power of the NSL."
NSLs were originally crafted to gain information about suspected terrorists but the Patriot Act expanded the statute to allow the subpoenas, which are issued in secrecy, do not require court review, and contain a gag order, to be used to obtain personal information about people who are simply deemed "relevant" to an investigation. After the statute's expansion, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General released a series of reports over the last several years outlining systemic misuse and abuse of NSLs by FBI agents.
The ACLU is asking that Congress repeal the expanded NSL authorities that allow the FBI to demand information about innocent people who are not the targets of any investigation and reinstate prior standards limiting NSLs to information about terrorism suspects and other agents of foreign powers. In December of 2008, as a result of an ACLU lawsuit, the gag order provision was struck down as unconstitutional. The ACLU is now advocating that Congress legislate a constitutional alternative. The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2009 would make these necessary changes.
"By expanding the scope of the statute's power to collect information on innocent people, the Patriot Act failed to protect Americans' privacy," said Michelle Richardson, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "It has become painfully clear that unchecked Patriot Act power inevitably leads to abuse, and National Security Letters are no exception. Innocent Americans have been swept into investigations and recipients have been barred from speaking about it publicly. Representatives Nadler and Flake should be praised for the introduction of this bill and we urge swift action by Congress to assure its passage."
Earlier this month, the ACLU released a report entitled "Reclaiming Patriotism" that describes the widespread abuses that have occurred under the USA Patriot Act. The report, authored by policy counsel Michael German and Richardson, was delivered to congressional offices on Capitol Hill, as well as posted to the newly re-launched site www.reformthepatriotact.org in anticipation of the upcoming congressional debate surrounding three Patriot Act provisions due to expire on December 31, 2009.
ACLU Releases Comprehensive Report On Patriot Act Abuses
March 12, 2009
The American Civil Liberties Union released a comprehensive report today examining widespread abuses that have occurred under the USA Patriot Act, a law that was rushed through Congress just 45 days after September 11. In the almost eight years since the passage of the controversial national security law, the Patriot Act has led to egregious government misconduct.
"From the gagging of our nation's librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans' rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation's lawmakers hastily expanded the government's authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora's box of surveillance."
The American Civil Liberties Union's report, "Reclaiming Patriotism," authored by policy counsel Michael German and legislative counsel Michelle Richardson, was delivered to congressional offices on Capitol Hill, as well as posted to the newly re-launched site www.reformthepatriotact.org. The report is being released in anticipation of the upcoming congressional debate surrounding three Patriot Act provisions due to expire on December 31, 2009. The ACLU has been working within the halls of Congress and the courts to introduce Patriot Act reform legislation. In December of 2008, as a result of an ACLU lawsuit, the gag order contained in the Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision was struck down.
"Reclaiming Patriotism" reveals that in the years since its passage, the Patriot Act has paved the way for the expansion of government-sponsored surveillance including the gutting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and a recent revamping of the Attorney General Guidelines to allow law enforcement to conduct physical surveillance without suspicion. Indeed, over the last eight years, numerous expansions of executive authority have worked in tandem to infringe upon our rights. Only by understanding the larger picture of the combined effects of Patriot Act, the amendments to FISA, the guidelines for physical surveillance and other expansions of power can Congress make an informed, consistent and principled decision about whether and how to amend all of these very powerful surveillance tools.
"The fallout we've seen from the Patriot Act being rushed through the legislative process is a dramatic example of the dire need for proper and deliberative congressional oversight," said Fredrickson. "Congress should use this year's Patriot Act reauthorization as an opportunity to reexamine all of our surveillance laws. Our lawmakers have, over time, built a massive surveillance mechanism bit by bit. Now is the time take it apart, examine each piece and develop wiser policies."
To read the ACLU's report "Reclaiming Patriotism" and learn more about the three Patriot Act provisions up for expiration this year, go to:
www.reformthepatriotact.org
Minnesota Court Court of Appeals upholds First Amendment rights
February 18, 2009
ACLU of Minnesota applauds Minnesota Court of Appeals reversal of an earlier district court decision which restricted First Amendment rights.
In July 2008 the ACLU filed a friend of the court brief in defense of James Stengrim's First Amendment Rights. Mr. Stengrim was sued by the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District, a local government entity, for expressing an opinion critical of the District's flood control plans. Mr. Stengrim and other land owners opposing the flood control project filed suit against the District in 2002. At that time a settlement agreement was reached and one provision of it forbade the land owners from challenging the project again. Consistent with the agreement, Mr. Stengrim has not filed a legal challenge since, but remains an outspoken critic of the District's handling of the project. When he was sued for violating the settlement agreement, he tried to use Minnesota's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law which allows defendants to seek the dismissal of any civil suit that seeks to silence lawful speech or action aimed at government action, but the district courts refused to apply that law. So the ACLU filed an amicus brief in Mr. Stengrim's defense when the case was appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Earlier this week Mr. Stengrim was vindicated when the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision which said that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply in the Stengrim case. The ACLU's amicus brief argued that the anti-SLAPP law should protect Mr Stengrim, and that one cannot sign away their first amendment rights.
The court of appeals reversed the district court decision, and said that Mr. Stengrim has the right to use the anti-SLAPP law to defend his First Amendment rights. We applaud the MN Court of Appeals decision.
You can read the Minnesota Court of Appeals Stengrim Decision.
ACLU protests potential ban on recording meetings
February 17, 2009
A new suggestion by St. Louis County Commissioners would ban private citizens from recording at any board workshops. So, last week the ACLU of Minnesota sent a letter to St. Louis Count Board asking them not to pursue any recording bans. We believe that such a move would not only violate the Minnesota Open Meetings law but also the state and U.S. Constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
The board is considering the ban because recordings that had been made by an attendee at previous meetings were made public and some County Commissioners were criticized for their opposition to the sale of tax forfeited land to local Indian tribes. We hope that the St. Louis Count Commissioner listen to us and do not put the ban into place.
Read the Letter to St Louis County.
Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy In Extraordinary Rendition Case
February 09, 2009
NEW YORK - The Justice Department today repeated Bush administration claims of "state secrets" in a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in the extraordinary rendition program. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The Bush administration intervened in the case, inappropriately asserting the "state secrets" privilege and claiming the case would undermine national security. Oral arguments were presented today in the American Civil Liberties Union's appeal of the dismissal, and the Obama administration opted not to change the government position in the case, instead reasserting that the entire subject matter of the case is a state secret.
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."
The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs:
"We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration's practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government's false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court."
Charges Dropped In USS Cole Case Of ACLU John Adams Client At Guantanamo
February 09, 2009
NEW YORK - Susan Crawford, the top Pentagon official overseeing the military commission system at Guantánamo, dropped all charges late Thursday in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a suspect in the USS Cole bombing in 2000. The charges were withdrawn without prejudice, which means al-Nashiri can be charged again in a military commission or civilian court at a later date.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sponsored civilian counsel for al-Nashiri through its John Adams Project, a partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to assist under-resourced military counsel in the Guantánamo military commissions.
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
"The decision to withdraw charges in the al-Nashiri case is a heartening and critical next step in fulfilling President Obama's commitment to halt the military commissions and turn the page on the Bush administration's policies of indefinite detention, torture and sham trials. President Obama is making good on his promises so far. The same should be done in all the pending military commission cases, and no charges should be refiled in this illegitimate system. We have the best criminal justice system in the world; it's time our government trusted it and ended the military commissions once and for all."
The following can be attributed to Nancy Hollander, an attorney with the ACLU's John Adams Project who represents al-Nashiri:
"Judge Crawford's dismissal of the charges against Mr. al-Nashiri was the right thing to do. The United States government tortured Mr. al-Nashiri and then purposely destroyed the evidence of his torture; he should not be prosecuted in a system designed to accommodate that injustice. This is a positive step toward ending this Guantánamo farce and returning to the tried and true system of justice that makes us proud in this country. We are hopeful that change is finally on the way."
Crawford's withdrawal of charges is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38676lgl20090205.html
President Obama orders GITMO closed and ends Torture
January 22, 2009
President Obama issued executive orders today putting an end to some of the worst Bush administration policies of the last eight years dealing with detention of terrorism suspects. Obama ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called "enemy combatant" on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union's client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.
Read Obama's Executive Order to Close Guantanamo
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
"These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.
"There are, however, ambiguities in the orders regarding treatment of certain detainees that could either be the result of the swiftness with which these orders were issued or ambivalence within the Obama administration. We are hopeful that as the process unfolds and gets clarified, there will be no doubt that detainees must either be charged, prosecuted and convicted or they need to be released. That's the American way; our legal system, while not always perfect, is the best in the world. Adherence to American legal principles requires unconditional action; there is no room for a middle-ground. It would be an enormous mistake for the Obama administration to allow for indefinite detention in any case, or to endeavor to create any system other than our centuries-old justice system for prosecuting detainees. If President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates hold on to any part of the Bush administration's legal farce, they will soon end up in the very same legal morass that the prior president found himself in over the last eight years."
ACLU files complaint against TIZA
January 21, 2009
Lawsuit Claims Charter School Uses Taxpayer Money to Illegally Promote Religion; Department of Education Failed to Provide Proper Oversight Over
How Taxpayer Money is Spent
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a lawsuit today in Federal District Court against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) and the Minnesota Department of Education stating that the charter school has violated the Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution by using taxpayer money to illegally promote religion. The Minnesota Department of Education was named as a co-defendant because it has failed to provide proper oversight by disbursing taxpayer funds despite TIZA using such public funds for religious promotion.
TIZA is a charter school organized under Minnesota law as a non-profit corporation, sponsored by Islamic Relief USA with campuses in Inver Grove Heights and Blaine. TIZA is supported by tax funds from both the State of Minnesota and the United States Government. The Minnesota Department of Education is charged with approval and oversight of charter schools and with certification of schools' entitlement to state funding. The Commissioner has certified funds for TIZA despite its constitutional violations.
TIZA operations are problematic for a number of reasons including:
- TIZA leases both of its campuses from religious groups;
- TIZA and the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN) and TIZA's landlords are linked by a complex, interconnecting set of personal and corporate relationships. The leadership and operations of TIZA and MAS-MN have always been overlapping and MAS-MN officials function in prominent leadership positions at TIZA.
- TIZA has been shown to advance, endorse and prefer the Muslim religion over other religions or nonsectarian approaches in connection with school activities.
"The lack of government oversight is a matter of grave concern, because the Minnesota Department of Education gives over $30 million annually in rent subsidies to charter schools and due to the agency's lack of supervision, we have no way of knowing how much taxpayers are subsidizing religious organizations," said Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of ACLU-MN. "However well-run and academically challenging a religious school may be, it is unconstitutional for public funds to be used for religious education."
Also named as defendants in the case are Islamic Relief USA based in California, the Minnesota Commissioner of Education, and individual TIZA Board members. The complaint was filed by ACLU-MN cooperating attorneys Peter Lancaster and Megan McKenzie from Dorsey and Whitney.
You can read the TIZA Complaint the ACLU filed in court.
You can also read TIZA organizations and individuals to learn about TIZA's various connections.
ACLU Asks Court to Block Health Care Denial Rule
January 15, 2009
HARTFORD - The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Bush administration's Health Care Denial Rule.
"The Bush administration pushed through this rule as its parting shot against women's health," said Mary Jane Gallagher, NFPRHA President & CEO. "This rule threatens access to contraception and leaves patients with few protections, especially low-income and uninsured women who rely on federally funded health centers for care."
According to today's legal papers, the rule significantly undermines the ability of millions of women and men in the United States to access essential family planning, reproductive and other health care services and information. It expressly permits a broad range of health care workers and facilities to refuse to provide services, information, and counseling, potentially even in emergency situations. At the same time, it fails to require refusing providers to either notify their employers or their patients of their objections to providing care.
"For years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care," said Jennifer Dalven, Deputy Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "The Bush rule takes patients' health needs out of the equation. We are asking the court to restore the balance."
During a 30-day comment period, HHS received more than 200,000 comments; the overwhelming majority opposed the rule, including comments from major medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, women's health organizations, members of Congress, state governors and attorneys general, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, religious advocates, and the general public.
The final rule fails to address many of the concerns raised in these comments, including whether the rule prevents states from enforcing their own laws enacted to protect access to reproductive health care, whether the rule allows providers to refuse care even in emergency situations, and whether women seeking family planning services at federally funded health centers are still assured counseling for abortion care if they request it.
In addition to this legal challenge brought by NFPRHA, represented by the ACLU, the Connecticut Attorney General's Office and Planned Parenthood Federation of America with Planned Parenthood of Connecticut have filed separate legal challenges to the Bush rule.
The Department of Health and Human Services promulgated the rule on December 19, 2008; the rule is scheduled to go into effect on January 20, 2009.
The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association is a vital membership organization representing the nation's dedicated family planning providers-including state, county, and local health departments; family planning councils; hospital-based clinics; and other private nonprofit family planning organizations and providers.
Today's case, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, Inc. v. Leavitt, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs include NFPRHA and the Fair Haven Community Health Clinic, Inc. Lawyers on the case include Dalven, Deputy Director; Diana Kasdan and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Staff Attorneys; and Sukti Dhital, Staff Attorney Fellow with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; and David J. McGuire, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Connecticut.
Today's complaint is available at: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/38321lgl20090115.html
Revealing RNC document leaked
November 21, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union recently came across a revealing "RNC Homeland Security Document". This official document was uncovered by the website Wikileaks, which according to its website "We help you safely get the truth out". This document outlines the planning leading up to the Republican National Convention and how security forces would be working together during the RNC. Many federal, state and local organizations were mentioned in this document, a number of which the ACLU did not know were involved. A number of these agencies are military based, which may directly conflict with Federal law that prohibits the military from engaging in domestic intelligence gathering.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), is one of the organizations that is mentioned in the report that is particular cause for concern. NGA provides mapping tools and imagery intelligence that are obtained from the United State's military spy satellites which are controlled by the National Reconnaissance Office. In other words during the RNC, these top spying tools could have been utilized to gather intelligence on the homes of activists and media workers who were a part of the demonstrations. That information could have then been relayed to local officials.
A second agency that was involved in the planning is the Pentagon's Northern Command, NORTHCOM. Having NORTHCOMM at the table, assisting in the planning is troubling because it could mean that the military was involved in the crowd control strategies and dealing with potential civil unrest. According to a report in Army Times, it said that an active military unit has been deployed by NORTHCOM in the United States. This deployment marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment within U.S. Borders.
Furthermore it appears that the FBI may have been using a station faking technology that would allow them to locate an individual through their cell phone. The ACLU is concerned with how this technology is used and if there was proper judicial oversight. In the USA Patriot ACT, this process for obtaining a track was made easier, and could allow for little to no judicial oversight. This tracking via cell phones could have been used during the RNC without the knowledge of even the phone companies.
"These behaviors are a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law," said Teresa Nelson, ACLU of Minnesota. The ACLU-MN will continue to investigate and will use their findings in future lawsuits against law enforcement officials.
ACLU Joins Lawsuit Challenging Trafficking Of Indian Guestworkers
November 17, 2008
NEW ORLEANS - The American Civil Liberties Union today charged that workers brought to the United States from India to work in shipyards after Hurricane Katrina were misleadingly recruited, exploited and mistreated. The ACLU and the law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP joined a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of over 500 guestworkers charging the workers were trafficked into the U.S. through the federal government's H-2B guestworker program with dishonest assurances of becoming lawful permanent U.S. residents and subjected to squalid living conditions, fraudulent payment practices and threats of serious harm upon their arrival.
"Immigrant guestworkers are among the most vulnerable groups of workers in the United States," said Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program and co-counsel in the case. "Often paying exorbitant sums of money to deceitful and abusive recruiters in their home countries, these guestworkers are subject to the control of a single 'employer-sponsor' once they've arrived in the U.S., with no safeguards in place to protect even the limited rights guaranteed by law."
The complaint charges that recruiting agents hired by the marine industry company Signal International held the guestworkers' passports and visas, coerced them into paying extraordinary fees for recruitment, immigration processing and travel, and threatened the workers with serious legal and physical harm if they did not work under the Signal-restricted guestworker visa. The complaint also charges that once in the U.S., the men were required to live in Signal's guarded, overcrowded labor camps, subjected to psychological abuse and defrauded out of adequate payment for their work.
"Trafficking immigrants to perform forced labor for little to no pay under the guise of a guestworker program amounts to involuntary servitude," said Bhatnagar. "The government must take immediate action to stop sanctioning worker abuse and fix this dangerous system."
The ACLU charges that the federal government has fallen short of its responsibility to protect the rights of guestworkers in this country. According to the lawsuit, the workers are victims of human trafficking and their treatment violates the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA), which is meant to protect and defend the human rights of victims of contemporary slavery and trafficking. The TVPA is currently up for reauthorization.
The ACLU and Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP join the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Louisiana Justice Institute and the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice in the lawsuit against Signal, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in March 2008. The litigation arose out of a broader organizing campaign spearheaded by the Alliance of Guestworkers for Dignity, a project of the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice.
The amended complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/immigrants'rights/36237lgl20080429.html
Actions for Restoring America
November 07, 2008
How to begin reparing the damage to freedom after President Bush
Barack Obama will become chief executive of a nation that has been greatly weakened - in particular, our freedoms, our values, and our international reputation have been greatly undermined by the policies of the past eight years.
Presidents have enormous power not only to set the legislative agenda, but also to establish policy by executive order, federal regulation, or simply by refocusing the efforts and emphases of the executive agencies. The new president must use all of these tools to restore our freedoms and move the country forward.
Doing so will require determined action in the face of inevitable opposition. It will require conveying to the American people why grants of unchecked power do not actually make us safer, and why Americans must stand firm in protecting the values that at our best we have always represented and defended at home and around the world.
It will not be easy to undo eight years of sustained damage to our fundamental rights. But it can be done.
This paper lists many of the actions that the new president should take in order to decisively signal a restoration of American values and a rejection of the shameful policies of the past eight years.
The first year of any new administration is crucial and sets the stage for what will follow. The new President needs to hit the ground running and to make full use of that first crucial year.
We have grouped needed actions into those that the new president should take on day one, in the 100 days and then the first year. Those actions include executive orders as well as mandates or directives from the president to his cabinet secretaries and agency heads.
Military And Civilian Lawyers Petition Guantanamo Military Commission To Address Fundamental Flaw
November 03, 2008
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba - A coalition of military and civilian lawyers, assembled as part of the American Civil Liberties Union's John Adams Project, filed pretrial motions in a Guantánamo military commission today requesting legal relief for some of the worst of the constitutional flaws plaguing the commission system. The ACLU's John Adams Project is a partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers sponsoring expert civilian counsel to assist the under-resourced military defense counsel for several Guantánamo detainees.
Motions filed today in the case of several 9/11 detainees charged that the government should treat the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as governing law in commissions proceedings; bar CIA agents from the courtroom during the proceedings; and ultimately dismiss the case against several detainees because the military commissions lack jurisdiction to hear it.
"Military commission proceedings that ignore the Constitution fly in the face of over 200 years of law establishing the right to a fair and public trial," said Denny LeBoeuf, Director of the ACLU's John Adams Project. "The flawed military commission proceedings cannot possibly deliver real justice, and any outcome of this process will immediately be suspect."
Among other challenges in the case of the United States v. Mohammed, a consolidation of cases against five 9/11 detainees, the ACLU today called on the government to:
- treat the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as governing law in the military commission proceedings. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution applies to the government's detention policies at Guantánamo when it concluded that detainees have a right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus. The ACLU's motion charges that it is inconsistent for the government to assert that the accused have no constitutional protections in a legal proceeding that is created by congressional statute and that is held on de facto American territory.
- dismiss the charges because they are being retroactively applied and deny the accused a fair trial. Two of the oldest protections in the U.S. Constitution - against "ex post facto" charges and "bills of attainder" - prohibit making special laws for an individual or group, criminalizing conduct and associations after the fact, and levying special punishments based on past conduct. The motions filed today assert that the Military Commissions Act passed by Congress in 2006 violates these important protections.
- bar CIA agents from the courtroom. The ACLU charges, and government officials have admitted, that the five 9/11 defendants have been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" - including beatings, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture - at the hands of the CIA. One of the motions filed today protests the presence of individuals at every proceeding in Guantánamo who are never identified, but who are widely accepted to be CIA agents. The motion asserts that the presence of the CIA agents interferes with the defendants' rights to a fair trial and their right to be free of intimidation and coercion.
- dismiss the case. The coalition lawyers argue that military commissions have no jurisdiction over cases that do not include "armed conflict," a term defined under the laws of war that does not include isolated alleged terrorist acts by a loosely-affiliated group from outside the U.S.
"These and all cases facing military commissions at Guantánamo should be tried in U.S. or military courts that adhere to the rule of law," said LeBoeuf. "This process completely disregards the rule of law and due process. The next president must close Guantánamo and put an end to these sham proceedings immediately upon taking office."
The motions were filed on behalf of detainees Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ali Abdul Azziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi and Ramzi bin al Shibh. A fifth defendant in the consolidated case, Walid bin Attash, was unable to join the motions because they were not translated into Arabic by the government-provided translator in time for bin Attash to review them. Poor translation has been an ongoing problem in the 9/11 cases, with the government claiming that one interpreter per defendant is sufficient, and that they are not required to provide written materials in Arabic.
More information on the John Adams Project is available online at: www.aclu.org/johnadams
ACLU-MN files complaint in wrongful death lawsuit
October 06, 2008
Saint Paul, Minn- The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a lawsuit today against St. Mary's Medical Center and the City of Duluth in Federal District Court over the wrongful death of David Croud.
On October 12, 2005, a Duluth police officer saw David Croud in downtown Duluth demonstrating "odd behavior." She called for backup. According to witnesses, when backup arrived, the officers slammed David Croud against a brick wall then threw him to the ground, pushing his face into the cement. The witnesses said that they did not see Croud being aggressive in anyway. Then, the police pushed and hit Croud into the squad car and used a taser on him.
They put handcuffs and facial restraints on Croud and took him to St. Mary's Medical Center for his injuries. He continued to struggle, and hospital staff administered 10 mg haldol to calm him. When that failed to work, they administered a subsequent dose which, according to a review by the Minnesota Department of Health, resulted in him receiving three times the recommended maximum allowance of the sedative.
The hospital staff left Croud in restraints and on his stomach. When they returned, he was unconscious. He subsequently fell into a coma and died on October 18, 2005.
"David's life was tragically cut short on that October day," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Charles Samuelson. "He did not have to die, and now his family will suffer the consequences. They will never get him back; his children will never again get to see their dad."
Today, the ACLU of Minnesota filed the wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of James Croud, brother of David Croud, against St. Mary's Medical Center and the City of Duluth Police officers for depriving his brother of his life.
Read the Croud Complaint that the ACLU filed in court.
Attorneys in this case are Albert Goins of the Goins Law Firm and John Goetz of Schwebel, Goetz and Seiben.
Federal Judge denies release of 1st Amendment Protected Materials
September 04, 2008
Federal Judge John Tunheim denied the ACLU-MN request to release the literature and educational materials that were illegally seized by police during mass raids on private homes and a gather place the weekend before the RNC. The raids were part of what appears to be a massive government crackdown on free speech during the Republican National Convention.
"Pamphlets and buttons are constitutionally-protected forms of free speech and the police have no business going around confiscating them from innocent people," said Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "It is greatly disturbing if and when the materials are released, it will be too late for their owners to distribute them at the convention."
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of six individuals who own the confiscated material, which includes First Amendment-protected literature, buttons, pamphlets, leaflets and books. None of those individuals have been arrested or charged with any crime. The complaint charges that the materials were seized in an effort to "chill First Amendment rights to distribute literature, to disseminate ideas, to peaceably assemble, and to redress grievances - all protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments" of the Constitution.
"Seizing boxes and boxes of literature is another example of the wide-reaching government assault on free speech throughout the convention," said Samuelson. "This kind of law enforcement abuse of power has no place in a democracy."
The complaint was filed against the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota's Ramsey County, Ramsey County Sheriff Robert Fletcher, three deputies of the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, and unnamed St. Paul and Minneapolis police officers.
Attorneys on the case are Terri Nelson, legal counsel with the ACLU of MN; ACLU volunteer lawyers Al Goins and Rick Petry; and Geneva Finn of the National Lawyers Guild.
ACLU Sues St. Paul and Minneapolis For Release Of Educational Materials Seized During Raids
September 04, 2008
ST. PAUL - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a lawsuit in federal court late last night calling for the release of literature and educational materials that were illegally seized by police during mass raids on private homes and a gather place earlier this week. The raids were part of what appears to be a massive government crackdown on free speech during the Republican National Convention.
"Pamphlets and buttons are constitutionally-protected forms of free speech and the police have no business going around confiscating them from innocent people," said Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "It is greatly disturbing if and when the materials are released, it will be too late for their owners to distribute them at the convention."
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of six individuals who own the confiscated material, which includes First Amendment-protected literature, buttons, pamphlets, leaflets and books. None of those individuals have been arrested or charged with any crime. The complaint charges that the materials were seized in an effort to "chill First Amendment rights to distribute literature, to disseminate ideas, to peaceably assemble, and to redress grievances - all protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments" of the Constitution.
"Seizing boxes and boxes of literature is another example of the wide-reaching government assault on free speech throughout the convention," said Samuelson. "This kind of law enforcement abuse of power has no place in a democracy."
The complaint was filed against the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota's Ramsey County, Ramsey County Sheriff Robert Fletcher, three deputies of the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, and unnamed St. Paul and Minneapolis police officers.
Attorneys on the case are Terri Nelson, legal counsel with the ACLU of MN; ACLU volunteer lawyers Al Goins and Rick Petry; and Geneva Finn of the National Lawyers Guild.
At RNC, Arraignments Begin And Arrests Continue
September 04, 2008
RNC Security Worker Among Those Arrested
ST. PAUL - Hundreds of people arrested during a crackdown on free speech in the first days of the Republican National Convention (RNC) were arraigned yesterday. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota assembled teams of attorneys to offer legal services at the proceedings.
"There have been hundreds of arrests, and we expect hundreds more, but the number of arrested is not nearly matched by the number of crimes committed. Most of these people are being picked up for doing nothing other than exercising their right to be out in public," said Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota.
Most of the people arraigned yesterday were charged with misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor and felony charges even though they were swept up in mass arrests while exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. Among those arrested were a RNC security worker on his way to work and several journalists attempting to cover the protests outside the convention. Dozens more were arrested yesterday while watching a Rage Against The Machine concert.
Attorneys have objected that bail for those arrested at the RNC is being set unreasonably high- in some cases as much as $2,000. They have also expressed concern about the atmosphere at the law enforcement center where those arrested are being detained. The building is surrounded by eight foot high chain link fence and patrolled by National Guard troops. There are also several teams of police officers in riot gear. Nobody is allowed to enter the complex without ID, and only attorneys are allowed to carry any bags into the building.
"The police presence is scary. The Law Enforcement Center - the jail - looks like something you would find in Baghdad, not in St. Paul," said Samuelson.
The national ACLU has called for an investigation into any civil liberties violations at the RNC. That statement is available online at: www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/36636prs20080904.html
Photo journalists released from jail without charges after 36 hours
September 03, 2008
Saint Paul, Minn- Two photo journalism students were released September 3rd after being held without charge for 36 hours following their arrest during the Republican National Convention. The advisor was also arrested, but released earlier without charges.
Two students, Britney McIntosh and Edward Matthews, and their advisor, James Winn, of the University of Kentucky newspaper the Kentucky Kernel were arrested on Labor Day while photographing demonstrations and law enforcement response outside the RNC. The Kernel has a circulation of 30,000, one of the largest rates of student newspapers in the country, and the students and their advisor had journalist credentials and registration when they were arrested.
Despite their peaceful, lawful behavior the photo journalists were swept up and arrested with no concern by the police officers as to whether they committed any crimes.
"The arrest of a journalist while documenting political activity violates our country's freedom of the press," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota. "There are no justifications to arrest any journalists peaceably assembled at demonstrations."
The three Kentucky Kernel journalists are only a few of the many journalists taken into prolonged custody during the sweeping arrests by law enforcement this week. The ACLU of Minnesota has identified other journalists, bloggers and photographers from Rhode Island, California, Florida, Illinois and other parts of the country who have also been arrested. The photojournalist from Illinois was arrested with the Kernel photo journalists; he however was not released, and is being charged with a Gross Misdemeanor Riot.
"The freedom of all journalists, whether they report as freelancers or work for the NY Times should be respected and protected," stated Samuelson.
McIntosh, Matthews and Winn were released just prior to the end of the 36 hour hold period allowed by law. Though their physical freedom has been restored, McIntosh and Matthews have so far been denied the opportunity to continue reporting as their camera equipment has not been returned to them.
Even though they have been released, they were informed they could still be charged with a crime at a later time. The ACLU-MN is reviewing their legal options regarding their arrests.
The students and their advisor were represented by Matthew Lute of the Matthew Lute Law Office.
ACLU To Represent Reporter And Others Arrested At RNC
September 03, 2008
Group Continues To Defend Constitutional Rights, While Denouncing Protesters Who Employed Criminal Acts
SAINT PAUL –The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota has coordinated legal counsel for Amy Goodman, host of the popular television and radio program DemocracyNow!, and two of that show’s producers who were detained during mass arrests surrounding the Republican National Convention (RNC). Goodman was released on misdemeanor charges three hours after her arrest, while the producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, were arrested for probable cause riot and later released pending further investigation.The St. Paul Police Department has stated those cases will not be presented to the County Attorney's Office for consideration of possible felony charges. Instead, the Police Department will submit the cases to the St. Paul City Attorney's Office for consideration of possible non-felony charges. The ACLU of MN is calling for all charges against Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar to be dropped.
"Arresting journalists to keep them from doing their jobs is a blatant violation of their constitutional rights and the right of the American public to be kept informed,” said Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. “The arrest of several journalists during the Republican National Convention is a disturbing practice and a violation of their First Amendment right to gather the news.”
The ACLU is also taking on clients from the group of nearly 300 who were arrested on the first day of the RNC.
John Lundquist, an ACLU volunteer attorney with Fredrikson and Byron P.A., is counsel for Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar.
The national ACLU is calling for an investigation into the raids and mass arrests that have occurred during the RNC.
ACLU-MN sues city of St Paul for revoking Hamm's Plaza permits
August 27, 2008
Saint Paul, Minn - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed suit in State Court today to get a court order preventing the city of St. Paul from revoking the park permits awarded five months ago to the Welfare Rights Committee and to Ben Plunkett. Both the Welfare Rights Committee and Ben Plunkett entered a lottery created five months ago by the St. Paul Parks department, and received permits for Hamm's Plaza. The purpose of the lottery was to allocate scarce space in the St. Paul City Parks during the RNC Convention.
On Aug. 5, 2008, the Parks Department sent WRC and Mr. Plunkett letters revoking their permits for Hamm's Plaza in downtown St. Paul. They were told by the city that Hamm's plaza would not be accessible to the public during the convention. Then the police were quoted in the Star Tribune saying that the WRC permit for Sept. 1 was revoked specifically because at the time it was issued they did not know the President and Vice President would be in town. The President will not be in town on Sept. 3 & 4, the dates of Mr. Plunkett's permits.
The ACLU-MN is arguing in their case that the city revoked permits without proper justification and that they are sending out inconsistent messages about the security zones. In an earlier RNC related lawsuit the city told the judge that the credentials only perimeter would not encompass Hamm's Plaza, and that areas outside that security perimeter would be accessible to the public.
"This is another example of the creeping release of information regarding this convention," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. "Both the Welfare Rights Committee and Mr. Plunkett have spent five months preparing for this week and the city changed their mind at the 11th hour. The city needs to let people know what restrictions it wants to impose in a timely manner."
The ACLU-MN, WRC and Mr. Plunkett are represented by Daniel Brown from the law firm of Dorsey and Whitney.
District Court Denies motion for temporary injunction in demonstration zone lawsuit
August 26, 2008
Today the District Court ruled in the Impeach for Peace et al v City of St. Paul lawsuit. In her ruling Judge Gearin stated that there are "ample alternatives for communication of the Plaintiffs' messages." and that the demonstration zone does not need to be expanded.
The ACLU-MN is disappointed by the decision and think that they city is putting logistics over the First Amendment.
In the lawsuit the ACLU-MN represented Impeach for Peace, a non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to holding elected officials accountable to the rule of law. It also represents Coleen Rowley, Ross Rowley and Ron DeHarpporte, individuals who are interested in exercising their right to freedom of speech.
The ACLU-MN stated in their complaint that the designated demonstration zone is inadequate and that it does not guarantee sight and sound access to Xcel Center. The City of St. Paul has failed to provide details about whether and to what extent that view will be obstructed by fencing, delegate buses and media tents; and whether the area will be a three-sided pen that will severely limit egress and ingress. In addition, the City has adopted guidelines regulating speech that are subject to last-minute changes as the City deems fit. Finally, the guidelines do not explain what rights groups and individuals have to demonstrate, hold signs, or distribute literature in other areas in proximity to Xcel Center. The lawsuit seeks additional space in proximity to Xcel Center and other relief to protect the right to freedom of speech.
U.S.: End Beating of Children in Public Schools
August 22, 2008
Abusive, Discriminatory Punishment Undermines Education
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: hrwpress@hrw.org or media@aclu.org
DALLAS - More than 200,000 US public school students were punished by beatings during the 2006-2007 school year, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a joint report released today. In the 13 states that corporally punished more than 1,000 students per year, African-American girls were twice as likely to be beaten as their white counterparts.
In the 125-page report, "A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools," the ACLU and Human Rights Watch found that in Texas and Mississippi children ranging in age from 3 to 19 years old are routinely physically punished for minor infractions such as chewing gum, talking back to a teacher, or violating the dress code, as well as for more serious transgressions such as fighting. Corporal punishment, legal in 21 states, typically takes the form of "paddling," during which an administrator or teacher hits a child repeatedly on the buttocks with a long wooden board. The report shows that, as a result of paddling, many children are left injured, degraded, and disengaged from school.
"Every public school needs effective methods of discipline, but beating kids teaches violence and it doesn't stop bad behavior," said Alice Farmer, Aryeh Neier Fellow at Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, and author of the report. "Corporal punishment discourages learning, fails to deter future misbehavior and at times even provokes it."
The report found that in the 13 southern states where corporal punishment is most prevalent, African-American students are punished at 1.4 times the rate that would be expected given their numbers in the student population, and African-American girls are 2.1 times more likely to be paddled than might be expected. There is no evidence that these students commit disciplinary infractions at disproportionate rates.
"Minority students in public schools already face barriers to success," said Farmer. "By exposing these children to disproportionate rates of corporal punishment, schools create a hostile environment in which these students may struggle even more."
Students with mental and physical disabilities are also punished at disproportionate rates, with potentially serious consequences for their development. In Texas, for instance, 18.4 percent of the total number of students who were physically punished were special education students, even though they make up only 10.7 percent of the student population.
"A Violent Education" is based on four weeks of on-the-ground research in Mississippi and Texas in late 2007 and early 2008, including more than 175 interviews with children, teachers, parents, administrators, superintendents, and school board members.
The report documents several cases in which children were beaten to the point of serious injury. Since educators who beat children have immunity under law from assault proceedings, parents who try to pursue justice for injured children encounter resistance from police, district attorneys, and courts. Parents also face enormous, sometimes insurmountable, obstacles in trying to prevent physical punishment of their children. While some school districts permit parents to sign forms opting out of corporal punishment for their children, the forms are often ignored.
In the report, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch cite experts on best practices in school discipline, who emphasize traditional approaches such as detention, and modern approaches such as positive behavior support systems. Positive behavior support systems, which are school-wide discipline systems that stress a clear structure of rewards and consequences for student behavior, have been effectively implemented in major U.S. school systems. States and school boards that fail to implement best practices allow the status quo, or school beatings, to remain in place.
Human Rights Watch and the ACLU call upon the U.S. government to prohibit corporal punishment in all public schools and urge state governments, school boards, superintendents, and administrators to eliminate physical punishment in their schools.
Selected Witness Accounts:
"He took me into the office and gave me three licks. ... He made me hold onto the wall and he paddled me. ... It hurt for about two hours, it felt like fire under my butt."
- Matthew S., who was paddled in second grade for throwing food in a school cafeteria in the Mississippi Delta.
"The other kids were watching and laughing. It made me want to fight them... When you get a paddling and you see everyone laugh at you, it make you mad and you want to do something about it."
- Peter S., a middle school student in the Mississippi Delta.
"What made me so angry: he's three years old, he was petrified. He didn't want to go back to school, and he didn't want to start his new school. I was so worried that this was going to constantly be with him, equating going to school with being paddled."
- Rose T., mother of a 3-year-old boy in Texas who was bruised from physical punishment after he refused to stop playing with his shoes in class.
"I went into the principal's office. ... He gave me a chair and said hold onto the chair. The paddle had holes in it. Then he just did three swats. ... I was hit on my buttocks. ... There were holes in the paddle to make it go faster. ... It hurt very much. There were definitely red marks and then swelling... almost welt-like markings. It didn't last for more than a couple days. ... It left me feeling very humiliated. I think there were several levels of emotion. Physical pain, mental humiliation. ... And being a female at that age, it was like there was this older man hitting me on the butt. That's weird... even at that age I knew it was inappropriate."
- Allison G., a recent graduate punished as a teenager in Texas for being late to class multiple times.
"I've heard this said at my school and at other schools: ‘This child should get less whips, it'll leave marks.' Students that are dark-skinned, it takes more to let their skin be bruised. Even with all black students, there is an imbalance: darker-skinned students get worse punishment."
- Account of Abrea T., former teacher in rural Mississippi.
"I see corporal punishment as a form of slavery. Beating on the slaves was how the headman got them to do something... we're focused so much on making kids do what we want. Think about the mental capacity that this kind of treatment leaves our children with. We are telling them we don't respect them. They leave that principal's office and they think, ‘they don't consider me a human being.' That young person loses self-respect."
- Account from Doreen W., school board member in a Mississippi Delta town.
To read the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch report, "A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools," please visit: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/36476res20080819.html
Hearing set for ACLU-MN's demonstration zone lawsuit
August 22, 2008
St. Paul, Minn - Monday, Aug. 25, at the Ramsey County District Court at 9 a.m., Chief Judge Gearin of St. Paul will hear the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota attorneys argue on behalf of their clients' rights to demonstrate during the 2008 Republican National Convention. The complaint is against the City of St. Paul, and the St. Paul Police Department.
The ACLU-MN represents Impeach for Peace, a non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to holding elected officials accountable to the rule of law. It also represents Coleen Rowley, Ross Rowley and Ron DeHarpporte, individuals who are interested in exercising their right to freedom of speech.
The ACLU-MN stated in their complaint that the designated demonstration zone is inadequate and that it does not guarantee sight and sound access to Xcel Center. The City of St. Paul has failed to provide details about whether and to what extent that view will be obstructed by fencing, delegate buses and media tents; and whether the area will be a three-sided pen that will severely limit egress and ingress. In addition, the City has adopted guidelines regulating speech that are subject to last-minute changes as the City deems fit. Finally, the guidelines do not explain what rights groups and individuals have to demonstrate, hold signs, or distribute literature in other areas in proximity to Xcel Center. The lawsuit seeks additional space in proximity to Xcel Center and other relief to protect the right to freedom of speech.
"The city has been unwilling to state the rules of the game. The rules seem to change whenever it suits them for some reason or another," said Executive Director Charles Samuelson. "We hope that this hearing resolves the uncertainty."
ACLU and Impeach for Peace File Complaint in District Court Regarding Public Viewing Area
August 11, 2008
St. Paul - ALCU attorneys representing Impeach for Peace and a group of individuals including Coleen and Ross Rowley have filed a complaint against the city of St. Paul in District Court regarding infringement of their clients' rights to demonstrate during the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Impeach for Peace, a non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to holding elected officials accountable to the rule of law, state in their complaint that The City of St. Paul, Mayor Chris Coleman, St. Paul Police Chief John M. Harrington, and Assistant St. Paul Police Chief Matthew D. Bostrom have designated an inadequate and unacceptably small area with sight and sound access to Xcel Center as a designated protest zone. The City has failed to provide details about whether and to what extent that view will be obstructed by fencing, delegate buses and media tents; and whether the area will be a three-sided pen that will severely limit egress and ingress. In addition, the City has adopted Guidelines regulating speech that are subject to last-minute changes as the City deems fit. The Guidelines also do not explain what rights groups and individuals have to demonstrate, hold signs, or distribute literature in other areas in proximity to XCel Center. The lawsuit seeks additional space in proximity to Xcel Center and other relief to protect the right to free speech.
"The City hasn't even amended the Guidelines, as promised, to explain what the "Primary Event Area" is in which most speech activities will be relegated to their ‘Freedom Cage'," Chuck Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN stated. "Although the City may pat itself on the back for its forthright willingness to provide such a venue during the entire run of the Convention, we remain concerned about the complete lack of specific information which would allow our clients to plan their peaceful events in a manner that is not unduly restricted by the logistics of the orderly staging of the Convention."
The complaint focuses on the narrow public use area near the Xcel Center, which has been designated for ordinary citizens and groups to exercise their rights to free speech, assembly and petition during the Convention. Given the expected numbers of people wishing to exercise their rights, the likelihood that there may be a divergence of views, beliefs and messages, and the vagueness, arbitrariness, and uncertainty surrounding the details about speech activities in the "Primary Event Area" raises cause for concern. Those details have been a moving target. On December 10, 2007, Defendant Bostrom, appearing before the "Preparedness for Terrorism and Disasters Work Group" of the Minnesota Legislature, stated that he did not want to put protesters into a penned-in area, and testified that he did not intend to put protesters into a specific "footprint." He further testified that "there's going to be a lot of areas where you're going to be able to walk in and around the Xcel Energy Center" during the Convention. On February 28, 2008, a St. Paul Pioneer Press article quoted Defendant Bostrom as stating that protestors were going to be confined to a set area, characterized in the article as a "free speech zone." Just last week, the City revoked permits granted last March for Hamm's Plaza, stating that the area would be inaccessible during the convention.
"Federal authority and local government units at this year's Conventions as well as the past half- dozen Conventions have systematically restricted the release of information in a manner that could be construed as violating First Amendment rights of citizens who wish to make political statements at these venues," Samuelson noted.
View the RNC Signed Complaint and the RNC Brief.
Fusion Centers Part of Incipient Domestic Intelligence System, ACLU Warns
July 29, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The nation’s growing network of “fusion centers” is part of an incipient de facto domestic intelligence system, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Today the ACLU released a report detailing spying on Maryland peace demonstrators, a mysterious domestic-spying scandal at a California military base and other recent incidents, confirming that its warnings about fusion centers were coming true.
“If some in this country want to build a domestic intelligence apparatus, then let’s have a debate in Congress about that, and an up-or-down vote on the idea,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Let’s not slide sideways into a fundamental change in the direction of our nation’s law enforcement system with little public awareness or debate.”
In November 2007, the ACLU released a report, “What’s Wrong With Fusion Centers,” in which the group warned about the potential dangers of these new institutions, including ambiguous lines of authority, excessive secrecy, troubling private-sector and military roles, and an apparent bent toward collection of information about innocent activities and data mining. The report released today explains how recent developments have only confirmed the urgency of these warnings.
“Since we wrote our first report, there have been numerous incidents around the country that have confirmed the substance and the seriousness of our warnings,” said ACLU National Security Policy Counsel and report co-author Michael German. “We warned that the structure of fusion centers was ripe for abuse, and that recruiting every corner beat cop to file reports on innocent everyday behavior was a bad idea. Already, we have seen criminal abuses in California, and many reports of law enforcement personnel wasting their time harassing perfectly innocent individuals.”
“Congress and state officials need to learn more about fusion centers, engage in some very pointed inquiry about the effectiveness and the precise role of these centers, and at a minimum put in place strong checks and balances,” said Fredrickson. “Too often, we’ve given our government new powers to fight terrorists, only to have them used against peace activists and other innocent Americans. This can’t be the future of law enforcement. Congress needs to end private sector participation and military involvement in law enforcement. We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.”
The report is available online at:
www.aclu.org/fusion
To read the report addendum, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf
Federal Judge Rules Against National Convention Protestors
July 16, 2008
A decision in the suit between the City of St. Paul and the Coalition to March on the
RNC and Stop the War was delivered today. At issue was the Coalition's request for a
preliminary injunction regarding the proposed march route and time duration. The ACLU-MN
argued the City's proposal violates the Coalition's right to demonstrate within ‘sight and
sound' of Republican Party delegates during the first day of the Convention.
The Court granted the City's desired route and refused to order changes to the time and duration of the march.
"We are disappointed in the final decision regarding both route and time," stated Teresa Nelson, Legal Counsel, ACLU. "We understand and appreciate the City has significant security concerns with regard to the Convention, but we continued to seek a meaningful balance between those concerns and our clients' right to effectively deliver their message of peace. The Court has simply deferred to the City's stated concerns with no real analysis of them."
The Coalition sought to carry out a safe, permitted march. They sought to do the right thing and deliver their message of peace to the delegates, which is a constitutional right. They are aware of the potential risks associated with large numbers of marchers who have not been given proper consideration by city officials to exercise their first amendment right to demonstrate and have consistently sought to work with the City to protect the citizens of St. Paul, the police, and the media from any harm due to inadequate planning.
"We hoped for a more substantial ruling," Chuck Samuelson, ACLU Executive Director noted. "Specifically, a ruling that would have bound all parties to provide assurances of safety to protect the community, the demonstrators, the police and the delegates. By affirming the City's route, the Court chose to believe the representations made by the City. The City has made many and varied representations in the 18 months we've attempted to reach a mutually-agreeable arrangement."
We acknowledge there are legitimate security issues, and regret that the City has not been able to prioritize these concerns along with our client's first amendment rights.
Read Judge Erickson's decision for more details.
ACLU protects First Amendment against retaliation
July 14, 2008
St. Paul, MN - The ACLU-MN filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of Mr. James Stengrim, in support of his First Amendment rights. Mr. Stengrim was sued by the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District, a local government entity, for expressing an opinion critical of the District’s flood control plans. Mr. Stengrim and other land owners opposing the flood control project filed suit against the District in 2002. At that time a settlement agreement was reached and one provision of it forbade the land owners from challenging the project again.
Consistent with the agreement, Mr. Stengrim has not filed a legal challenge since, but remains an outspoken critic of the District’s plans. Further, he has filed several requests for District documents related to the project. In response, the District is now attempting to silence Mr. Stengrim by suing him for breach of the settlement agreement, arguing that his outspoken criticism and data requests constitute a new challenge to the project.
Under both the United States Constitution and Minnesota state law, Mr. Stengrim and all citizens have a right to freely express their opinions without fear of punishment or reprisal. The District acts in contravention of that right, seeking to intimidate its critics through lawsuits. Under Minnesota law, Mr. Stengrim may seek the dismissal of any civil suit that seeks to silence lawful speech or action aimed at government action, but the lower courts have refused to apply that law.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has now agreed to hear the case and the ACLU-MN is urging them to protect the First Amendment. Our inalienable rights to free speech may never be signed away by contract or quashed by lawsuit. Mr. Stengrim has upheld his end of the settlement agreement, but the District seeks to ignore the laws and silence their opponents. The ACLU opposes such unconstitutional tactics and will always work to defend all people’s rights to speak freely without fear of punishment.
ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law
July 10, 2008
New York, NY - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
In today's legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in today's case are:
- The Nation and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges
- Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
- Defense attorneys Dan Arshack, David Nevin, Scott McKay and Sylvia Royce
"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world - from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the U.S. will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."
The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."
Attorneys on the lawsuit Amnesty v. McConnell are Jaffer, Melissa Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. Attorneys on the motion filed with the FISC are Jaffer, Goodman, Tully, as well as Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
More information, including today's complaint, a video discussing the ACLU's legal challenge, plaintiff statements in support of the lawsuit and the FISC motion, is available at: www.aclu.org/faa
ACLU Urges Senators to Oppose Unconstitutional Surveillance Bil
July 09, 2008
Congress should not rubberstamp executive power grab
Washington, DC - With the Senate debate continuing and a vote expected on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 this Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union once again urged senators to vote against the unconstitutional bill, which will allow the government to monitor calls and emails without a warrant and without meaningful court review.
The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
"After two and a half years of outrage over warrantless wiretapping and an ever-expanding executive branch, it's untenable that Congress would be on the verge of sanctioning the lawless behavior of the Bush administration. The ramifications of this legislation are enormous. No president should have this power.
"Congress is poised to strip the courts of their authority and, in doing so, not only frustrate citizens but eviscerate the Fourth Amendment and the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Americans have been making their voices heard by calling and emailing their senators. So our question to the Senate is: Are you listening? We do not want the government in our living rooms.
"Though there are several amendments being offered that would improve this bill, the most important vote cast will be that of final passage. There must be as many ‘no' votes as possible. Senators need to remember that not only is America watching, but history is as well. The legacy of the 110th Congress should not be that of bowing to and granting vast spying powers to the executive branch. Senators must step back and either fix this unconstitutional bill or vote it down."
To read the ACLU's letter to the Senate, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35782leg20080625.html
For more information about the ACLU's work on FISA, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa
House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation
June 20, 2008
Washington, DC – Following a vote in the House of Representatives sanctioning warrantless wiretapping and handing immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at representatives who voted for the unconstitutional legislation. The bill, H.R. 6304, or The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed the chamber by a vote of 293-129, and is expected to be voted on in the Senate next week.
The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:
"It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.
"No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.
"More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House."
For more information, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa
To read the ACLU’s letter on H.R. 6304, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35735leg20080619.html
ACLU Tells Congress to Strengthen Whistleblower Protections
May 23, 2008
Washington, DC - Testifying at a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security today, the American Civil Liberties Union urged members to extend whistleblower protections to intelligence and law enforcement employees. ACLU National Security Policy Counsel and FBI whistleblower, Mike German, was joined on the panel by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Bassem Youssef, another whistleblower who currently works in the FBI's counter-terrorism division. Both German and Youssef complained to superiors at the FBI about the handling of counter-terrorism investigations. The ACLU is calling on Congress to offer better protection for government employees who uncover wrongdoing or national security breaches.
"My experience with the FBI's treatment of whistleblowers is all too personal," German testified. "I had worked within the system for two years to try to get the deficiencies I saw addressed, with no success. My career was effectively ended while the managers responsible for the failed investigation and the cover-up that followed were promoted."
The ACLU noted there are several flaws in current law that leave national security whistleblowers unprotected. In particular, the Whistleblower Protection Act, which was passed by Congress to encourage government employees to disclose wrongdoing, does not apply to employees of most agencies involved in intelligence and national security, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. National security whistleblowers can be retaliated against even for disclosing wrongdoing to Congress.
The few national security whistleblowers covered by the law are still often left unprotected because the administrative and federal circuit courts that oversee whistleblower claims consistently interpret the Whistleblower Protection Act too narrowly, and have been hostile to whistleblower claims. Congress has already amended the act at least twice to correct narrowing interpretations of the law.
The ACLU also charges in its report, "Disavowed: The Government's Unchecked Retaliation Against National Security Whistleblowers," that the Bush administration is using secrecy as a tool to shield itself from the disclosure of embarrassing and even criminal information. In the past few years, the government has aggressively argued that its need for absolute secrecy prevents the disclosure of information pertaining to the torture and abuse of detainees, NSA warrantless wiretapping, the CIA's practice of kidnapping people and sending them to other countries for torture and interrogation, and the FBI's use of the Patriot Act's expanded surveillance powers.
"Protecting FBI whistleblowers is the first step in fighting corruption within the bureau," said German. "Misconduct in the law enforcement and intelligence communities can have dire effects on the American people. The role of whistleblowers has been historic in bringing government abuses to light. Protecting that role, especially in light of this administration's flagrant disregard for the rule of law, should be of paramount importance."
A copy of the ACLU's testimony can be seen at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35426leg20080521.html
To read the ACLU's report on whistleblowers and to learn more, go to:
www.aclu.org/whistleblower
ACLU-MN responds to Department of Education's investigation of TiZa Academy
May 23, 2008
St. Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota thanks the Minnesota Department of Education for concluding their investigation of Tarek ibn Zayad Academy charter school and reporting their findings in a timely fashion.
The Minnesota Department of Education has completed its investigation and has identified two areas where TiZA's current practices violate the Establishment Clause. Although we believe that the MDE has taken some important steps to address Establishment Clause concerns that have been raised by the school's activities, the ACLU-MN has remaining concerns about the school's practices that were not addressed in the MDE findings. For that reason, we are continuing our investigation into this matter.
In addition to our investigation of TiZA, we are also working to identify systemic issues that may be paving the way for constitutional violations at charter schools.
Live in St. Paul? Call your city council member!
May 20, 2008
On Wednesday, May 14, the Coalition to March on the RNC (whom the the ACLU represents) and Stop the War received an alternate permit for their demonstration on September 1, 2008. This alternate permit was provided because both the route and the time in their permit application were rejected by St. Paul Police.
However, the terms of the alternate permit will not accommodate the large, national demonstration our clients are planning. The space and time limitations are unworkable, and limit the impact they can have on the RNC and its media coverage.
The alternate permit grants the Coalition the small space that remains: A 2000 square foot triangle, across the street from the Xcel Center. The permit allows the use of that space for less than 2 hours, and requires that the march proceed along a 1000-foot long turn about, then turn back on itself, and return to the State Capitol Building on the same road they marched in on. This limited time and space cannot accommodate 50,000 protesters.
We ask you to call on the St. Paul City Council to stand on the side of Freedom of Speech, to issue the permit to our clients applied for, to ensure a successful demonstration. The appeal will be heard at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, on the 3rd floor of City Hall at 15 W. Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul. The meeting begins at 3:30pm, and public hearings are scheduled for 5:30pm - it is not clear when the Permit appeal will be scheduled on the agenda. Please attend the meeting if you can, and contact St. Paul City officials beforehand.
Ask them to approve the original permit application, including a later and longer time, and a route that physically accommodates more protesters and provides more space at the Xcel Center. They can also help by getting the police to answer some of these questions:
1. Why was the original permit denied? What specifically about the route and time would create the traffic and safety issues stated as the basis for denial? How does the alternate permit avoid these issues?
2. Why does the March have to clear the Xcel by 2:00 p.m.? Will all demonstrators be banned from the "soft security zone" after 2:00 p.m.? If not, why can't the March go later in the afternoon? Can the March starting time be moved back to accommodate people from out of town who will be arriving? If not, why not?
3. Why do the free speech rights of the corporate media take precedence over the rights of the people? Two parking lots adjacent to X-Cel are both being given to the media, can't one of them be given to the people? Either parking lot would not be any closer to X-Cel than the demonstration zone, but would greatly expand the ability of people to reach the Xcel and turn around without problems.
4. When will the delegates arrive on 9/1/08? Is the plan to make the March pass by X-Cel center by 2:00 p.m. just so that it will be gone by the time the delegates start arriving?
Melvin Carter (Ward 1) * 651-266-8610
Dave Thune (Ward 2) * 651-266-8620
Pat Harris (Ward 3) * 651-266-8630
Jay Benanav (Ward 4) * (651) 266-8640
Lee Helgen (Ward 5) * 651-266-8650
Dan Bostrom (Ward 6) * 651-266-8660
Kathy Lantry, President (Ward 7) * 651-266-8670
Also, please contact Chris Coleman, Mayor * 651-266-8510
Minnesota Votes to Expand Voting Rights
May 14, 2008
On Monday, May 12, Governor Pawlenty signed the fourth of four voting rights bills.
The first bill, HF1546, authorized the post office to send change of address information to city clerks to allow for automatic updates of voting lists. This bill became law on April 3, 2008.
The second bill, SF1218, specifically aims at protecting Minnesotans' voting rights abroad. It simplifies the process and takes away the repetitive re-filing for up to six years if one continues to reside outside of the state. This bill became law on April 17.
The third bill, SF1298 allows more forms of identification to be accepted at the voting booth. This bill also tries to bring college students into the electoral process by allowing school housing lists to serve as proof of residency. It also makes absentee voting facilities handicapped accessible. This bill became law on April 25.
HF3172 makes efforts to help those who are unable to leave their homes to vote. This bill allows for non-partisan election judges. It also requires closed captioning for political ads. This bill became law on May 12.
A clear champion of voting rights on all of these bills has been Representative Bill Hilty (DFL) of District 8A. He not only appeared as an author on three of the bills, but also vigorously supported the voting rights of Minnesotans during a marathon debate on the House floor.
The ACLU of Minnesota applauds enactment of laws expanding the most basic right of all, the right to vote. We encourage you to send your thanks to your legislators!
ACLU-MN objects to a High School's Pledge Policy
May 12, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota sent a letter on Friday May 9, 2008 to Dilworth - Glyndon - Felton High School advising them to change their unconstitutional pledge policy. Three students were suspended after failing to stand for the pledge of allegiance.
The ACLU of Minnesota sent a letter advising them change their policy and revoke the suspensions of the students because it violates the first amendment.
Read the Letter to DGF.
Read ACLU's Pledge Rules guide to find out what schools can and cannot do around the pledge
Racial Profiling Concerns cause the Minnesota House To Reject Seat Belt Law
May 09, 2008
A House and Senate conference committee brought the 2008 Transportation Policy bill to the House Floor yesterday with a provision that would have allowed police to pull over any car whose occupants were not wearing their seat belts.
On the floor, Representative Frank Moe of Bemidji read a letter from the ACLU's Audrey Thayer (Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project) expressing strong civil liberty concerns about this portion of the bill. Ms. Thayer stated, "I am opposed to the passing of allowing law officers to pull over vehicles if they are not wearing seat belts. This will create more profiling in your district and make it legal with the passing of that provision. . . . Profiling of Indians is still continuing by officers. The ACLU-MN has a difficult time arguing the case when the officer has just another legal reason to pull over a vehicle."
Other representatives joined with Representative Moe to oppose the seat belt language in order to protect individual liberties. On a 72 to 62 vote, the Minnesota House voted to send the bill back to conference committee because of the seat belt provision.
In a statement to the press, ACLU-MN Executive Director Charles Samuelson said, "Without clear protections against racial profiling in this bill, the ACLU is concerned that making seat belt use a primary offense would increase the number of people of color who are stopped and searched."
Date Set for Public Hearing on Lurking Ordinance
May 07, 2008
The Minneapolis City Council has set May 21 as the date for the public hearing over the city's Lurking Ordinance. Council member Cam Gordon introduced a repeal of the ordinance, which reads: "No person, in any public or private place, shall lurk, lie in wait or be concealed with intent to commit any crime or unlawful act (385.80)."
As a member of the Coalition to Repeal the Lurking Ordinance, the ACLU-MN argues that the law is unconstitutionally vague, giving police officers too much discretion in determining if a person is about to commit a crime. It has been proven that the ordinance is being used in a discriminatory manner. In an analysis of arrest data from 2003 through 2007, it has been found that African Americans are 8 times as likely to be arrested for lurking compared to Caucasians, and a homeless person is 20 times as likely to be arrested as a non-homeless person.
After the public hearing on May 21, the City Council's Public Safety Committee will decide whether to recomend or not recomend a repeal of the Lurking Ordinance to the full Council
If you would like to help put an end to this discriminatory law you can:
- Tell your Minneapolis City Council member to support the repeal of the Lurking Ordinance. Council members' contact information can be found at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/
- Come to the public hearing at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber Room 317, City Hall.
- Download a "fact sheet on lurking" to learn more
- Contact Jana Kooren to find out more ways to volunteer or to sign up to speak at the public hearing. 651.645.7 4097 x123 or jkooren@aclu-mn.org,
The John Adams Project
May 02, 2008
Standing up for justice in the Military Commissions proccedings
There are times in this country when we find ourselves at a crossroads - where the path we choose has the potential to define us as a nation for generations to come.
No doubt we've been at a critical juncture since September 11. How we respond to the atrocities thrust upon us after that terrible day says everything about who we are as Americans - what values we defend, how the world sees us, and how history will remember us.
The manner in which we seek justice against those accused of harming us will determine whether the United States will be seen at home and abroad as a nation of laws. We must decide whether we live the values of justice that make us proud to be Americans, or whether we will forsake those values and continue down a path of arbitrary rules and procedures more befitting those who are our enemies. Because we are a great nation, true to our founders' vision, we must uphold our core values even in the toughest of times. The right to a speedy trial in a court of law before an objective arbiter; the right to due process; the right to rebut the evidence against you; the right not to be tortured or waterboarded, or convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence are what truly define America and our commitment to the rule of law and our founders' aspirations.
The military commissions set up by the Bush administration for the men imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay - including those it suspects were involved in the September 11 attacks - are not true American justice. These trials should represent who we are, what America stands for, and our commitment to due process. They are not about how civilized the accused are, but how civilized we are. America does not stand for trials that rely on torture to gain confessions, or on secret evidence that a defendant cannot rebut, or on hearsay evidence.
For these reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have taken on the task of assembling defense teams to be available to assist in the representation of those Guantánamo detainees who have been charged under the Military Commissions Act, subject to the detainees' consent. More than 30 lawyers have agreed to work on this important endeavor, including such experts as:
* Joshua L. Dratel
* Thomas Anthony Durkin
* Nina Ginsberg
* Nancy Hollander
* Denise LeBoeuf
* Amanda Lee
* Edward B. MacMahon, Jr.
* Scott McKay
* David Nevin
* Jeff Robinson
* Gary D. Sowards
In addition to these leading criminal defense and death penalty lawyers with unparalleled expertise in national security issues who have been tapped by the ACLU and NACDL, there are more than 20 lawyers at the ACLU who stand ready to assist with the effort. The ACLU/NACDL cooperating lawyers have defended cases such as those involving David Hicks, Lynne Stewart, Zacarias Moussaoui, the Texas Holy Land Foundation, Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, among others. The ACLU and NACDL have assembled the "dream team" of criminal defense lawyers not only because of the seriousness of the charges - the government has stated that it intends to seek the death penalty - but because America deserves the best and brightest of advocates defending our values.
The ACLU and NACDL do not agree with how the government is conducting these commissions. Nonetheless, we believe in vigorously pressing our cases, defending fundamental American values, and challenging the government's attempts to stack the deck in its favor.
We take this step because we simply cannot stand by and allow the Bush administration's military commissions to make a mockery of our Constitution and our values. We believe in the American justice system - despite its imperfections and distortions by pundits, politicians and ideologues - and we believe we can make the system stronger by engaging it and fighting for what is right, fighting for fair trials and for America's reputation.
The prison at Guantánamo Bay, and the military commission proceedings set to occur there, were set up to evade the American justice system and the rule of law. The proceedings, as proposed under the Military Commissions Act and run by the Department of Defense, are nothing like the trials guaranteed by our Constitution or the long-established military commissions promulgated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the finest system of military justice in the world.
The Bush administration decided to scrap both time-tested systems of justice. Instead, the Administration made its own rules. The President alone has the power to determine who will be tried by the Guantánamo military commissions. These commissions ignore the fundamental tenets of due process and were set up to convict detainees based on secret evidence that they cannot rebut, hearsay evidence, and confessions that could be based on torture.
At Guantánamo, the government has been making up the rules as it goes along. This should be shocking and unacceptable to all Americans.
In America, we do not believe in having fair trials for some defendants but not for others.
The defendants in these proceedings have been charged with horrendous crimes. Any person found guilty of a crime in a legitimate proceeding before a court of law deserves to be punished appropriately; however, it is a central tenet of our system of justice that guilt must only be decided after a fair trial, not beforehand. A defendant's guilt - or lack thereof - should be determined in a manner consistent with our Constitution and proper due process protections. A guilty verdict obtained any other way would rob this country, and the world, of any true sense of justice.
While the ACLU and NACDL are preparing to provide for a vigorous legal defense in keeping with the best of American values in a military commission process we believe is deeply flawed, we also believe there are other options. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 were tried and convicted in our civilian court system, as were the perpetrators of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. The Uniform Code of Military Justice also sets forth procedures with adequate protections of due process.
These prosecutions are some of the most important criminal proceedings in our nation's history. There is no reason to make up new rules for these trials. Fairness and due process do not weaken our justice system - they are what make it strong - and Americans deserve better than to have these deeply flawed commissions carried out in our names.
To date, calls to close Guantánamo and to give legitimate, fair trials to those individuals imprisoned there by our government- most of whom have been detained for years without charge - have gone unheeded. As the government prepares to commence these proceedings, the ACLU and NACDL will prepare a robust legal defense while simultaneously working to expose how fundamentally flawed Guantánamo's military commissions are.
The ACLU and NACDL will offer our services to the so-called "high-value" detainees and we will endeavor to secure their consent to our legal representation of them. This has not yet occurred, as ACLU and NACDL lawyers have not yet had access to the Guantánamo detainees. We hope to ensure that those prosecuted in the military commission proceedings receive a fair trial and have qualified counsel. As it stands right now, the accused are provided with one military JAG lawyer, while the prosecution has well-equipped teams with the resources of the entire U.S. government behind them. We will attempt to ensure that the accused are provided with the best legal teams not only to prepare their defense, but - critically - to challenge the existence and procedures of the Guantánamo military commissions themselves.
There are those who might ask why the ACLU and NACDL would get involved in such difficult cases with controversial clients. We have chosen to become involved in these cases because Guantánamo has shown us that, as far as our government is concerned, the Constitution does not matter, human rights do not matter and due process does not matter. And when our constitutional values are most seriously threatened, we believe that we must step into the fray. That's what we're here for, what we've always done for generations before us, and what will be certainly expected from us for generations to come. Our founders did as much - like John Adams who defended the British soldiers charged with killing Americans in the Boston Massacre, and said that the case was "one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country." Our founders would expect nothing less from 21st century Americans. We are proud - and not cowed - to fulfill that dream of a democratic republic governed by the rule of law - and not the whims of leaders.
The NACDL has always believed that the rights of the criminally accused define the rights of all people. The ACLU has a proud history of standing up for civil liberties, even when it has the potential to be unpopular. During World War II, the San Francisco office of the ACLU represented Fred Korematsu, who was charged with the crime of violating curfew orders during Japanese internment. We also defended the rights of free speech and association during the decades when Communism provoked as much hatred and fear as al Qaeda does today. In 1977, the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a substantially Jewish community with as many as 1200 survivors of the Holocaust. There was public outcry, but with time our principled stand was largely understood and vindicated. These cases were clearly controversial as they - like the situation we face today - involved a public that understandably felt injured, threatened and maybe even scared.
But it is when the stakes are the highest and when tempers run the hottest that we must work doubly hard to keep a check on our government and prevent it from trading in our values for visceral and political motives - no matter what the motivation. It is during the most challenging situations that our country's values are most intensely tested, and along with them, the ACLU's commitment to its core principles. We are determined, as we have always been, to meet this challenge. We trust you will respect the work we do, why we do it, and even join us in reclaiming what America stands for.
ACLU Disappointed With Supreme Court's Voter ID Decision
May 02, 2008
WASHINGTON - In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to Indiana's most-restrictive-in-the-nation voter identification law. The American Civil Liberties Union's case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - consolidated with Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita - is an appeal of two lower court decisions that upheld the state's law requiring voters to present government-issued photo IDs in order to vote. The ACLU argued that the Indiana law creates an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.
"Today's decision minimizes the very real burden that Indiana's voter ID law places on tens of thousands of eligible voters who lack a government-issued identification while accepting at face value Indiana's unsubstantiated claim of voter fraud," said Ken Falk, Legal Director of the ACLU of Indiana and lead counsel on the case.
In January 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago upheld Indiana's voter ID law by understating the right of every individual to vote without being subject to undue burdens imposed by the state. There is no evidence that Indiana's voter ID law is justified by any actual problem of voting fraud, which is already prohibited by various criminal statutes in the state. No cases of in-person voting fraud have been prosecuted in the state in recent history.
"We are very disappointed in today's decision, but it leaves the door open to future challenges in Indiana and elsewhere by registered voters who are denied their right to vote based on onerous and unconstitutional voter ID laws," said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro. "We should be seeking ways to encourage more people to vote, not inventing excuses to deny citizens their constitutional voting rights."
The Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of voter ID laws has broad national significance with the 2008 election underway. Indiana is one of over 20 states that have passed restrictive voter ID laws, while other states are considering similar legislation. Plaintiffs in the ACLU's case include the Indianapolis branch of the NAACP as well as organizations representing the elderly, the homeless, and people with disabilities, along with two elected officials.
"As the dissent notes, Indiana's law will sadly but predictably have its greatest impact on voters who are poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities, or have disabilities," said Angela Ciccolo, Interim General Counsel with the NAACP.
Attorneys on the case, Crawford v. Marion County, are Shapiro of the national ACLU; Falk, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess and Gavin Rose of the ACLU of Indiana; Laughlin McDonald and Neil Bradley of the ACLU Voting Rights Project; Ciccolo, and Victor Goode of the national NAACP: and Pamela Karlan and Jeffrey Fisher.
For more information on this case, including legal briefs, go to www.aclu.org/ scotus/2007term/32592res20071106/ 32592res20071106.html
More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org
Former ACLU-MN Executive Director to be Grand Marshal for Pride
April 14, 2008
Dr. Matthew Stark Named 2008 Grand Marshal for Twin Cities Pride Festival
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - Twin Cities Pride is pleased to announce that it has selected former Minnesota Civil Liberties Executive Director Dr. Matthew (Matt) Stark to be the 2008 Grand Marshal for the Twin Cities Pride Festival. The Grand Marshal is someone who has made a significant, positive impact on the Twin Cities GLBT community.
Dr. Stark is a tireless defender of civil rights and equal protection for all people. He has a long history of support for the GLBT community in Minnesota and across the country.
As the Executive Director of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (1973 - 1987), and before that from 1967 - 1973 as President of MCLU, Matt Stark was an early supporter of GLBT rights in Minnesota. He was instrumental in bringing GLBT rights cases to court, including the first Gay Marriage case in the United States (Baker v. Nelson, 1971). Under Dr. Stark, the MCLU also brought the case that guaranteed the right of gay men and lesbians to hold a block party on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis (Gay Pride vs. City of Minneapolis, 1980), and for several years in the early history of Twin Cities Pride he was the first non-GLBT person to speak publicly at the Pride Festival on behalf of GLBT rights.
"The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union was certainly a leader on GLBT rights at the ACLU. The folks there recognized that GLBT rights were an important civil liberties issue well before the national ACLU, or other affiliates did," said Matt Coles, Director, ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
Other prominent GLBT cases in which Dr. Stark was involved with MCLU volunteer attorneys, include: whether a gay man could be denied the right to take the bar exam and be allowed to practice law in Minnesota; whether public utilities could refuse to hire gay men and lesbians based on their sexual orientation; whether the Minneapolis School Board could prohibit gay and lesbian speakers in public elementary schools; whether Minneapolis Public School administrators could censor a Gay Pride advertisement in a high school newspaper; challenging a probate court decision denying a lesbian guardianship of or visitation rights to her incapacitated partner; and whether custody of a minor child could be denied to a birth parent solely on account of her sexual orientation.
Matt Stark, Executive Director Emeritus, MCLU, was helpful in the founding of the Quatrefoil Library, and in lobbying at the State and National levels for the passage of equal rights laws for GLBT people. He was one of the founders and a significant Board Member of the Minnesota Gay and Lesbian Legal Assistance Center (1979 - 1989). During his retirement, he has initiated a major project of publishing documented histories about the local GLBT community.
All four of this year's Pride Award recipients, including Grand Marshal Dr. Matthew Stark, will be honored at the annual Grand Marshal's Ball, which will be held Saturday, May 17 at 6:30 p.m. at the Graves/601 Hotel in downtown Minneapolis. Tickets for the Ball are on sale on Pride's website, tcpride.org for $75. The event will feature a brief awards ceremony, silent auction, full dinner, and entertainment.
Celebrating its 36th year in 2008, Twin Cities Pride, the organizer of the Twin Cities Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender (GLBT) Pride Celebration, began in 1972 with a small group of activists meeting for a picnic in Minneapolis' Loring Park and a short march down Nicollet Mall. Over the intervening years, the Twin Cities Pride Celebration has grown to be the largest GLBT Pride Celebration in the region and 3rd largest in the United States, with hundreds of thousands of people in attendance. Twin Cities Pride is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.
It is the mission of Twin Cities Pride to commemorate and celebrate our diverse heritage, inspire the achievement of equality and challenge discrimination.
ACLU-MN applauds Governor Pawlenty for signing massage therapist bill
April 11, 2008
Governor Pawlenty signed H.F. 3708 into law today. Among the provision of this bill are changes for complementary and alternative health care practitioners. Specifically, this law deals with when alternative health care providers can engage in a sexual relationship with former clients.
The law had previously barred alternative health care practitioners from engaging in a sexual relationship with a former client for two years after the professional relationship had ended. The bill eliminates the waiting period. This change in law now has alternative health care practitioners being treated the same as other medical practitioners.
The ACLU-MN would also like to thank Representative Steve Simon for introducing the bill and ensuring its passage.
This bill arose out of an ACLU-MN lawsuit where the existing law empowered the Department of Health to conduct an invasive investigation into the private life of a massage therapist who married her former client after the end of their professional relationship. Volunteer attorneys for the case were Robin Wolpert and Mark Johnson of Green Espel, LLP.
"We are glad that the Minnesota Legislature and the Governor have remedied the law to ensure that the privacy rights of alternative health care practitioners are protected," said Executive Director Charles Samuelson.
Action Alert: Reject REAL ID!
April 11, 2008
Stand up for SAFE and FREE! The Minnesota Legislature is going to vote on HF1351 on Monday, April 14. This bill contains language rejecting Real ID. Real ID is a huge, unfunded mandate that creates a nationwide database of drivers license and personal data, one stop shopping for identity theft.
• Real ID is an unfunded federal mandate. The federal government is looking to establish a national identification card at the states' trouble and expense. This expense includes direct, upfront expenses for capital and information system design as well as ongoing costs for data sharing and document verification. There are also the costs to individuals in Minnesota in terms of longer waits and greater complexity in obtaining their licenses.
• Real ID is expensive. The Department of Homeland Security has only requested $110 million in the President's FY 2009 budget to be split between Real ID and other border security programs. So even if Congress passes the full request amount (which they have been reluctant in the past to do), each state will get less that $2 million to implement it - a pittance.
• National ID cards invite identity theft. Once all driver license databases are linked, identity thieves have one-stop-shop to anyone's data, either by hacking into the system or bribing a local official. Then, with biometric information on a false ID, the process for restoring a stolen identification becomes much more difficult.
• Real ID does not effectively fight terrorism. Many of the 911 hijackers had legal identifications, and Real ID will not have stopped them. Furthermore, Real ID will not stop home-grown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. ID cards show identity, not criminal intent.
• Rejecting Real ID will force a national debate. Real ID was passed without debate as part of a tsunami relief bill. Seventeen states have already refused to comply with Real ID, and more are considering it this year. This anti Real-ID foment will force Congress to move on one of the alternatives to Real ID that are already pending. Minnesota can make a difference!
Call the Governor at 1-800-657-3717 and e-mail your legislator at www.leg.state.mn.us and tell them to Vote YES to HF1351 to REJECT REAL ID.
For more on Real ID, see www.realnightmare.org.
Blake High School Senior wins ACLU Scholarship award
April 04, 2008
St. Paul, Minn. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is pleased to announce that Angelina Momanyi, a high school senior at The Blake School in Minneapolis was one of the recipients of 2008 ACLU Youth Activist Scholarship. She along with fourteen other high school seniors from across the country will each receive a $5,000 college scholarship in recognition of their outstanding work to protect civil liberties.
Since 2000, the ACLU has awarded scholarships annually to honor the efforts of graduating seniors who have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties and civil rights through student activism.
"It's heartening to know that in a time when our civil liberties are under constant attack, so many young people across the nation are stepping up to defend their rights as students and as Americans," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "We are pleased to award the ACLU Youth Scholarship to recognize the courage of these young men and women who are future leaders in the fight for civil liberties."
"Angelina Momanyi is a passionate thinker and leader at The Blake School, and is truly committed to effecting change through her pursuit of social justice and equality," said Dean Jim Mahoney of The Blake School. "She is an inspired and inspiring student and educator, and her efforts here and in the larger community have helped us to become a more pluralistic and forward-thinking school. We are proud of Angelina, and we congratulate her for her outstanding accomplishments."
Ms. Momanyi has been instrumental in planning the upcoming youth lobby day for responsible sex education on April 8 at the capitol. The lobby day is sponsored by Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Parenting and is expected to draw between 50 - 75 youth.
"We are very excited for Angelina, who is the first scholarship winner from Minnesota," said Executive Director Charles Samuelson. "We are confident that she will make a positive impact on civil liberties in whatever she does in the future."
Below is the highlight of the accomplishments of Ms. Momanyi and a quote from her personal essays.
Angelina Momanyi passionately gives her time to educating her fellow students about their reproductive rights. As a peer educator in the Planned Parenthood of Minneapolis, MN, Angelina trains high school students to be reproductive health educators and provides them with opportunities to teach in area schools, churches, and community centers. Angelina is deeply devoted to expanding reproductive freedoms, volunteering 230 hours during the 2006-07 school year, leading the peer educator council to honor her as "Outstanding Advocate." Angelina participated in the 2007 Minnesota Youth Lobby Day to speak with state representatives about comprehensive sexual education in the public schools. The experience was so meaningful to her that she volunteered to organize the reproductive freedom efforts for the Youth Lobby Day in 2008. Angelina also participates in "Get Out the Vote" efforts at colleges in the Minneapolis area.
"Being a civil liberties activist isn't about the big events for me anymore. It's about the harder conversations I have with someone who doesn't share my views or having the courage to put friendships on the line for my beliefs in what is right."
A complete list of all the winners nationwide can be found here.
Legislature clarifies conflict of interest rules
April 04, 2008
Prevents American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota client's removal from school board
St. Paul, Minn. - The Minnesota Legislature has amended the state's conflict of interest rules to provide an express exception for school board members whose spouses work for the district and have a collective bargaining agreement with the board. The bill now heads to the Governor.
The need for the amendment arose after voters in the Mounds View School District elected Susan Murphy to the board last November, after which the school board's attorney acted to try to prevent her for from serving as a duly elected board member. Ms. Murphy's husband is a custodian employed by the district and the school board will be negotiating and voting on the custodians' collective bargaining agreement. State law prohibits public officials from having a direct, voluntary financial interest in most contracts with their government agency.
Although Ms. Murphy had agreed to abstain from voting on the contract and not to take part in any of the confidential discussions on the contract, the school board's attorney took the unusual position that, if Ms. Murphy had a conflict of interest, the only remedy would be for her to resign or be removed from the board. The proposed remedy by the school board's attorney was contrary to the Minnesota Constitution, which specifies the criteria for school board eligibility, and contrary to the common practice of school boards throughout the state, as confirmed by the Minnesota School Boards Association. In response to the action by the school board's attorney, the ACLU-MN acted quickly to help ensure that Ms. Murphy could retain her seat as a duly elected school board member. The Legislature, the Minnesota School Boards Association and many others also acted quickly in response to the unusual position of the school board's attorney.
The school board's attorney requested an advisory opinion from Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. ACLU-MN cooperating attorneys Timothy Branson and Jay Lindgren from the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney submitted a response letter to the Attorney General arguing our position that the appropriate remedy for a conflict of interest is for the affected board member to abstain from the discussion and vote on the contract. Conflict of interest laws are an important check against corruption; however, they should not operate to undo the will of the voters. The legislature's action to clarify the law would ensure that Ms. Murphy will be able to remain on the Mounds View School Board. . "I am relieved that the Legislature made it clear that elected school board members in the state should not be removed simply because their spouse is a union member working for the district," said Ms. Murphy. "It is my hope that the Mounds View School Board can put this behind us and get on with the important work we were elected to do.," Murphy said.
"We are pleased that the Legislature has taken quick action to address this issue and hope that the Governor will quickly sign the bill into law," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. "Our client was duly elected by the people of Mounds View and that election should not be undone simply because she is married to a school district employee," Samuelson said.
Coalition Files Suit Against City for Violations of Free Speech Rights Ahead of RNC March
March 24, 2008
St. Paul, MN – Cooperating attorneys for the ACLU of Minnesota and the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild filed a complaint today in the United States District Court, against the City of St. Paul on behalf of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. The complaint challenges the City’s violation of the Coalition’s rights to free speech and due process of law, in connection with the Coalition’s plans to demonstrate at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul on September 1, 2008. The complaint seeks to require the City of St. Paul to grant the Coalition’s request for a demonstration permit in sufficient detail, and to require the City to amend its permit procedure to provide basic due process to permit applicants.
The City has violated the Coalition’s right to free speech and due process by failing to issue anything other than an ambiguous “Conditional Alternative Permit” in response to the Coalition’s demonstration application, and by failing to grant the Coalition’s appeal of the “Conditional Alternative Permit”, to seek basic clarification of the conditions under which the demonstration will occur. The current “Conditional Alternative Permit” fails to specify any time or route for the demonstration, and imposes police guidelines that conflict with City ordinance and violate the First Amendment. The City of St. Paul simultaneously maintains that the current permit provides a sufficient answer to the Coalition’s application, and that the current permit does not constitute a final permit sufficient to warrant an appeal. Such an ambiguous position restrains both the Coalition’s speech rights and its access to administrative process. In the interest of free speech and rigorous public discourse, the Coalition must be granted its permit in full, with sufficient time to continue planning for the influx of up to 50,000 demonstrators in St. Paul in September, 2008.
You can read the Permit Complaint online.
Cooperating attorneys representing the Coalition include Robert J. Hennessey, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP; Bruce Nestor, De Leon & Nestor; David B. Potter, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP; Howard Bass, Bass Law Firm; and Jordan Kushner, Kushner Law Office. Professor Raleigh Levine from William Mitchell College of Law has been consulting on the case.
ACLU-MN opens investigatio nof Tarek Academy
March 18, 2008
After receiving complaints that Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights is violating the Establishment Clause the ACLU-MN sent a letter to the academy questioning their practices. In the letter that was sent the ACLU-MN questions some of their practices, including addressing allegations that the school sponsors prayer.
Teresa Nelson, an attorney for the ACLU of Minnesota, says "We currently do not have enough facts to state whether or not the school is in violation of the establishment clause. The American Civil Liberties Union is a strong defender of separation of church and state and will take action if we find they are violating the establishment clause."
You can also read the letter that was sent to Tarek Academy.
ACLU-MN disappointed in House vote on Photo Cop
March 07, 2008
The ACLU of Minnesota expressed disappointment in the Minnesota's state House of Representatives today after they voted today to pass House File 3863 which would legalize the use of "Photo Cop" cameras to police intersections. The ACLU-MN submitted testimony against this bill, in their "Photo Cop Statement" they argued these cameras intrude on our fundamental right to privacy.
The ACLU-MN has been a long opponent of the photo cop camera systems. They won a case against the City Of Minneapolis that forced the City of Minneapolis to stop using their cameras. To read more about that case go to: State v Kuhlman (Photo Cop).
ACLU-MN Appeals to City Council
March 07, 2008
Coalition appeals City's incomplete "Conditional Alternative Permit" for RNC March
St. Paul, MN - Cooperating attorneys for the ACLU of Minnesota and the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild today filed an appeal to the St. Paul City Council on behalf of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, challenging the conditions imposed by the City of St. Paul on the "Conditional Alternative Permit" that was granted to the Coalition earlier this week. The appeal challenges the failure of the City to grant the Coalition the permit that was requested due to the imposition of conditions on the permit which are not authorized by city ordinance. "The permit that we received is substantially different from the one that was requested, so we are asking the City Council to protect our constitutional rights," said Coalition member Marie Braun. The "Conditional Alternative Permit" issued to the Coalition completely omitted any reference to important details such as a march route within sight and sound of the convention. "Tens of thousands of people will be coming from the Midwest and around the country to protest the illegal and immoral war against Iraq. We need these important details as soon as possible so we can work out the logistics of moving 50,000 people through the streets of St. Paul in a safe manner," Braun added.
In addition to failing to grant the permit requested, the permit imposes additional conditions in the form of police guidelines that conflict with the City's ordinance and violate the First Amendment. The appeal questions the validity of making the Coalition's permit subject to the guidelines. Among other things, the guidelines extend the timeline for establishing the particulars of the permit until May 31st. That date is far beyond the 21 day permit deadline in the ordinance and thereby imposes severe time constrainsts on the ability of the Coalition to initiate a legal challenge in the event that the final route or conditions are unconstitutional. After an appeal is filed, the City Council must act on it at the next scheduled meeting - in this case on March 12th at 3:30 PM.
You can also read the formal Appeal to City Council.
Cooperating attorneys representing the Coalition include Robert J. Hennessey, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP; Bruce Nestor, De Leon & Nestor; David B. Potter, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP; Howard Bass, Bass Law Firm; and Jordan Kushner, Kushner Law Office. Professor Raleigh Levine from William Mitchell College of Law has been consulting on the case
Supreme Court Refuses To Review Warrantless Wiretapping Case
February 20, 2008
Ruling Allows Executive Branch To Police Itself, Says ACLU
NEW YORK - The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review a legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients. The court's decision today lets stand an appeals court's ruling on narrow grounds that plaintiffs could not show with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.
The following quote can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project:
"Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years. It's very disturbing that the president's actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."
The following quote can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today's action says nothing about the case's merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court's decision. The court's unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security."
CLU-MN cooperating attorney wins award
January 18, 2008
ACLU-MN cooperating attorney Tim Branson of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP was honored with Minnesota Lawyer's prestigious Attorney of the Year award for 2007.
Tim Branson has been a key attorney in many of our legal cases. This particular award recognized his outstanding work in achieving a settlement against the Drug Enforcement Agency in our racial profiling lawsuit, Berg v. DEA.
Congratulations Tim!
ACLU-MN supports Senator Craig in his appeal
January 16, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union supports Senator Larry Craig’s attempt to have his guilty plea withdrawn because the Minnesota law under which he was arrested is unconstitutionally broad. The statute punishes “offensive, obscene or abusive language” which tends to arouse “alarm, anger or resentment” in others. Clearly, this law has the potential to ensnare and criminalize legal, constitutionally protected free speech, including solicitation for private sex.
The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy. The ACLU is in no way advocating sex in public bathrooms. If law enforcement is genuinely interested in stopping sex in public bathrooms rather than ensnaring people in sting operations, posting a sign prohibiting it and announcing police patrols would be much more effective and would meet constitutional requirements.
You can also read the complete Senator Craig Brief.
ACLU-MN agrees to represent embattled Mounds View School Board Member
January 15, 2008
The ACLU-MN has agreed to represent newly elected Mounds View School Board Member Susan Murphy in her conflict of interest case which threatens her position on the school board. Murphy faces removal from the board because her husband is a union custodian in the school district.
To read the complete story visit the Pioneer Press online.
ACLU-MN challenges Vadnais Heights sump pump ordinance
January 07, 2008
The ACLU-MN sent a letter to the city of Vadnais Heights last month asking for changes in their sump pump inspection policy, and city officials responded by agreeing to change the inspection program so it no longer infringes on constitutional rights. The city of Vadnais Heights' former policy reads that if the resident does not allow city inspectors into their home to inspect the pump they could face fines.
Sanitary sewer systems can only handle a certain amount of water. When it rains, sump pumps are switched on to rid excess water from basements, often into the sewer system through illegal connections (the approved method of removing excess water is to direct it back to the ground surface or into the storm sewer system, not the sanitary sewer system). The Metropolitan Council, which operates wastewater treatment plants covering most of the Twin Cities’ area, gave the city of Vadnais Heights the option of reducing the amount of water entering the system or face a $70,000 fine.
However, the city failed to protect the constitutional rights of its residents when it mandated that homes be searched by the city for illegal sump pump connections. The fourth amendment only allows searches of homes with consent or a valid search warrant. The ordinance imposed an improper fine on individuals who exercised their fourth amendment right to refuse entry without a warrant.
Vadnais Heights resident Don Jorgenson sent a letter to the ACLU-MN after hearing of the policy. After learning of the policy from Jorgenson, the ACLU-MN sent a letter to city officials requesting that the inspection practices be changed.
ACLU-MN protects free speech on the freeways
January 07, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota recently brought together the Minnesota State Patrol with freeway demonstrators to talk after numerous demonstrators were hassled or asked to leave the overpasses by the State Patrol. State Troopers claimed that the signs the protestors were holding were distracting the drivers and were dangerous.
During the meeting, ACLU-MN facilitated the discussion between the two groups and reminded them that the first amendment protects the rights of individuals to hold signs on overpasses, as long as they follow a certain set of rules.
Minnesota State Highway Patrol agreed that the law did indeed protect the demonstrators' right to be there, and said that they would remind their officers and dispatchers of their policy:
You can read their official policy here:
ACLU-MN inquires into Normandale Community College Meditation Room
December 18, 2007
St. Paul, Minn - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota announced today that it is investigating Normandale Community College's meditation room after receiving complaints of improper use. The ACLU-MN is concerned that way the prayer room is currently structured may violate the establishment clause, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The ACLU-MN sent a letter yesterday to Normandale Community College asking for more information about how exactly the prayer room is used, and explaining what the current laws say about reasonable accommodation. ACLU-MN does not oppose allowing students a space to pray but the school must allow students of all denominations equal access to space. In the letter to Normandale Community College we urge that if the allegations are indeed true that Normandale must take immediate action to remedy the problem.
"The wisdom of our founding fathers on the entanglement of religion and government is as important today as it was 200 years ago," said Charles Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU Minnesota.
"Letter to Normandale Community College"
ACLU report on fusion centers
December 12, 2007
ACLU Releases New Report on Government "Fusion Centers"
Says they must be open, carefully monitored and subject to restraints
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Charles Samuelson, Executive Director, 651-645-4097 x123
St. Paul, Minn - The American Civil Liberties Union today released a report outlining serious concerns about new institutions called "fusion centers," which have been created in over 40 states around the nation - including Minnesota. Fusion centers vary widely, but generally are centers intended to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among state, local and federal government agencies and the private sector.
"Our report reveals that fusion centers lack oversight, boundary-setting, and checks and balances, which are crucial to protecting the rights of innocent Americans," said Charles Samuelson. "There is a long history of local and federal law enforcement agencies abusing their domestic spying powers. The Minnesota legislature - as well as Congress - must lift the cloak of secrecy, examine these centers closely, and make certain that they are acting within the law - and that they aren't pursuing an ineffective, wasteful, dragnet approach that is diverting Minnesota's resources away from the basic law enforcement needs."
While the ACLU agrees that the ostensible purpose of fusion centers - improving the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different levels and arms of government - is legitimate and important, taken as a whole, fusion centers raise serious questions about privacy and effectiveness.
The ACLU report identifies five specific problems with fusion centers as they currently exist:
• Ambiguous Lines of Authority. Overlapping jurisdictions create the potential for manipulation of differing laws to evade accountability.
• Private Sector Participation. Fusion centers are incorporating private corporations into the intelligence process, further threatening privacy.
• Military Participation. Fusion centers are involving military personnel in law enforcement activities in troubling ways.
• Data Mining. Federal fusion center guidelines encourage wholesale data collection and manipulation processes that threaten privacy.
• Excessive Secrecy. Public oversight, individual redress and the very effectiveness of fusion centers are threatened by excessive secrecy.
"The Bush administration is pushing an expansive vision for fusion centers that raises serious question about the direction these centers are headed," said Charles Samuelson. "Using firefighters and other emergency personnel to spy on Americans will undoubtedly lead people to mistrust and fear them. During a fire or medical emergency, this is the last thing anybody needs."
To access the complete report: "Fusion Center Report"
New ACLU Report Details Pervasive Racial Discrimination in America
December 10, 2007
The American Civil Liberties Union today released a comprehensive analysis of the pervasive institutionalized, systemic and structural racism in America. The report, Race & Ethnicity in America: Turning a Blind Eye to Injustice, is a response to the U.S. report to the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released earlier this year. The U.S. report, which the ACLU called a "whitewash," swept under the rug the dramatic effects of widespread racial and ethnic discrimination in this country.
"Once again, the U.S. government has failed to level with the international community about its human rights record when it comes to racial injustice in America's own backyard. From police brutality and racial profiling, to voter disfranchisement and skyrocketing rates of incarceration, the effects of racial discrimination are corrosive," said Jamil Dakwar, Advocacy Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "Although there is a long way to go, we will continue to press this government to fulfill its obligations to end racial and ethnic discrimination."
The U.S. government submitted its report in April to the CERD committee, an independent group of internationally recognized human rights experts that oversees compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a treaty signed and ratified by the U.S. in 1994. All levels of the U.S. government are obligated to comply with the treaty's provisions, which require countries to review national, state and local policies and to amend or repeal laws and regulations that create or perpetuate racial discrimination.The treaty also encourages countries to take positive measures, including affirmative action, to redress racial inequalities.
In its "shadow report" to the U.N., compiled jointly by the ACLU's Human Rights and Racial Justice Programs and based on information provided by the ACLU affiliates in more than 20 states, the ACLU documents the U.S. government's failure to fully comply with CERD in numerous substantive areas affecting racial and ethnic minorities. The report examines policies and practices at the federal, state and local levels which place a disproportionate burden on vulnerable populations - including women, children, incarcerated persons, and immigrants and non-citizens.
Since the treaty's ratification, U.S. reporting on compliance has been inadequate, and this most recent report is no exception. The government's report is riddled with misrepresentations and inaccuracies and fails to honestly assess the ways in which racial and ethnic discrimination and inequality persist.
"The U.S. report failed miserably in accurately characterizing the state of race relations and intolerance in this country," said Laleh Ispahani, Senior Policy Counsel at the ACLU. "Now, in commemoration of International Human Rights Day, it is time to set the record straight."
Race & Ethnicity in America: Turning a Blind Eye to Injustice details the setbacks in the promotion of racial and ethnic equality, including the government's attack on affirmative action and the courts' curtailment of civil rights.The ACLU report finds that discrimination in America permeates education, employment, the treatment of migrants and immigrants, law enforcement, access to justice for juveniles and adults, detention and incarceration, the death penalty, and the many collateral consequences of incarceration including the loss of political rights.
The ACLU report also criticizes major shortcomings in the U.S. government's report including: its minor mention of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the omissions of the "school to prison pipeline" phenomenon (which involves the overzealous funneling of students of color out of classrooms and into the criminal justice system), the dramatic increase in hate crimes, and the escalating problem of police brutality.
"This administration seeks to portray America as a leader in the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy throughout the world, but our report concludes that this country is not protecting the basic human rights of its own people," said Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney for the ACLU's Human Rights Program. "Our message to the U.S. government is crystal clear - respect for universal human rights begins at home."
The ACLU report examines human rights violations that took place before, during and after Hurricane Katrina, a crisis that exposed to the world the persistence of racial and economic inequalities in America, It also documents the epidemic of minorities being subjected to racial profiling, a practice most often associated with African-Americans and Latinos, but one which also affects other minority communities in the post-9/11 era, including Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians.
In addition, the report highlights the government's failure to protect immigrants and non-citizens, and particularly low-wage workers, from racially discriminatory policies and acts like governmental crackdowns and workplace raids.
December 10th is celebrated worldwide as International Human Rights Day. Today the ACLU and many of its affiliates across the country will hold events as part of the ACLU's National Day of Action Against Racial Discrimination.
Today's report, Race & Ethnicity in America: Turning a Blind Eye to Injustice, can be found online at: www.aclu.org/cerd
More information on the ACLU's Human Rights Program can be found online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/30079pub20070612.html
More information on the ACLU's Racial Justice Program can be found online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/index.html
More information on the ACLU of Minnesota's Racial Justice Program can be found online:
ACLU-MN sues state of Minnesota over unconstitional law
November 15, 2007
Saint Paul, Minn - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, on behalf of LaRae Lundeen Fjellman and Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals, filed a lawsuit today against the current and former Commissioners of Health for the state of Minnesota. In their lawsuit they allege that the Minnesota statute (§146A.08, subd. 1(d)) which prohibits alternative health care providers from engaging in acts of private, consensual, noncommercial marital and non-marital sex with a former client within two years of termination of the professional relationship violates the rights of privacy and equal protection guaranteed by the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.
The lawsuit also challenges the Minnesota statute (§146A.08, subd. 1(q)) that prohibits social contact and friendship between a massage professional and a client, saying that it is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The law is so broad it might even prohibit a massage professional from accepting tips from or exchanging gifts with a client.
The lawsuit asks the court to rule that the law is unconstitutional, enjoin the state from enforcing the law in the future, and award damages to Mrs. Fjellman to compensate her for the ordeal she was put through while being investigated by the Department of Health. Mrs. Fjellman was disciplined for entering into a personal relationship and marrying a former client within two years of ending their professional relationship. The discipline was eventually rescinded, but not before Mrs. Fjellman was humiliated in her community, and forced to pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees defending her constitutional rights.
"The ACLU-MN is filing this lawsuit to prevent others from being subjected to the same fate as Mrs. Fjellman" says Executive Director Charles Samuelson.
You can read the Fjellman complaint online.
Volunteer attorneys in this case are Robin Wolpert and Mark Johnson of Greene and Espel, P.L.L.P.
ACLU Vows Vigilant Oversight of New Attorney General
November 12, 2007
Group Calls on Mukasey to Enforce Bans on Torture
Following the Senate's vote confirming Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general, the American Civil Liberties Union pledged today to remain a vigilant watchdog of the Justice Department. The ACLU will press for a firm commitment from Attorney General Mukasey to enforce existing bans on the practice of torture and other abusive interrogation methods by the U.S. government. Although Mukasey's confirmation battle is over, the fight to protect the rule of law continues.
In a clear indication of the deep misgivings about Mukasey's refusal to unequivocally state that waterboarding is torture and illegal, his 53-40 confirmation margin in the Senate represented the narrowest vote to confirm an attorney general in over 50 years. Considering the bitter debate over Mukasey's nomination, the pressure to end government-authorized torture will continue unabated.
Now that Mukasey has been confirmed by the Senate, the ACLU calls on the attorney general to investigate what appears to be an extensive, long-term pattern of misusing Justice Department authority to insulate individuals from criminal prosecution for torture and abuse. As attorney general, Mukasey must explicitly disavow the legality of any interrogation tactic not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogations - including waterboarding.
"As Judge Mukasey assumes the top job at the Department of Justice today, the ACLU fully expects our nation's top law enforcement officer to honor and enforce the statutes and treaties Congress has passed banning and outlawing torture. Congress now has the difficult task of performing oversight of Judge Mukasey's Justice Department without lawmakers or the American people knowing where he stands on waterboarding," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The Senate failed to obtain a firm commitment from the nominee that our nation will not practice waterboarding - a clear-cut example of torture. This not only endangers Americans abroad, but also endangers our nation's values and ethics. Torture is not what America is about."
In October, the ACLU sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding thorough scrutiny of Mukasey's positions on torture, the rule of law, and civil rights. That letter is available at: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32166leg20071012.html
Report Finds No Evidence to Continue Funding Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs
November 08, 2007
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota today said a new report reviewing the effectiveness of 115 sex education programs offers strong evidence that it is time for the government to support sex education programs that include information that teenagers need to make healthy life decisions and to stop funding ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programming.
"The ACLU has long held that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs which deny teens information on contraceptives are ineffective," said Charles Samuelson, Executive Director. "Today's study makes clear that these programs have no place in our classrooms and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars."
Today's report, Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, was authored by Douglas Kirby, Ph.D., a leading sexual health researcher. The report found that programs containing information on abstinence and contraception - for which there is currently no dedicated federal funding - can significantly delay the initiation of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, reduce the number of sexual partners, and increase condom or contraceptive use among teens.
"Minnesota should focus on keeping teens healthy and helping them to protect against unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," said Charles Samuelson. "This report demonstrates that programs that provide teens with information on both abstinence and contraception have a positive impact on teens' behavior."
Recognizing the myriad problems with abstinence-only-until-marriage instruction, fourteen states have stopped participating in the federal funding scheme because the programs are ineffective and leave teens without the information they need to make healthy decisions. Twelve states have done so within the past year, including Minnesota.
Since 1996, the federal government has spent more than a billion dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs despite research like today's indicating that many such programs are ineffective while programs that teach about delaying sex and using protection can significantly change sexual behaviors among teens. Yet, Congress is poised in the coming weeks to again increase funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, the ACLU said.
Besides endangering teen's health, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs raise serious civil liberties concerns. These programs create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian teens, reinforce gender stereotypes, and in some instances use taxpayer dollars to promote religion.
To view today's report visit: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/default.aspx
For a summary of key findings from today's report: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2007/11/07/Advisory_Emerging_Answers_2007.pdf
Judiciary Committee Should Not Advance Mukasey's Nomination Until He Denounces Acts of Torture
November 05, 2007
Washington, DC - The American Civil Liberties Union urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose moving forward with the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general unless Mukasey states that waterboarding and other extreme interrogations tactics are torture. Throughout the confirmation hearings and in his responses to the questions of Judiciary Committee members, Judge Mukasey remained unwilling to declare waterboarding as torture when authorized by the federal government. He also refused to say that it is illegal for foreign countries to waterboard, beat and shock American citizens. The ACLU sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee leadership asking them to oppose moving forward without such commitments.
"Judge Mukasey has failed to clear the lowest hurdle for a nominee to be attorney general - that of knowing what is and what is not the law, and therefore reaffirming the criminality of torture," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Federal law is clear that waterboarding, as well as all other forms of torture and abuse, are illegal. What is also becoming clear is that unless Judge Mukasey indicates that he will follow the rule of law, his nomination to head the Justice Department will not see the Senate floor."
The ACLU has demanded a commitment that Judge Mukasey "just say no to waterboarding." He clearly has not complied, and without that commitment, the Senate Judiciary Committee should not vote to advance the nomination to the Senate floor. The committee needs to fully engage in its role of vetting nominee.
"Our nation's top law enforcement officer needs to be able to state clearly that waterboarding, electric shocks and beatings are torture and against the law," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Not only does Judge Mukasey refuse to say that the federal government cannot use waterboarding, but he won't even say that it is illegal for foreign countries to waterboard, shock and beat American citizens. His responses undermine American values and jeopardize the safety of Americans serving overseas. America needs more from a nominee for the top law enforcement job."
The ACLU letter to Senate Judiciary leadership can be found at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/32531leg20071102.html
ACLU-MN Hails Victory Against Osseo School District
September 28, 2007
St. Paul, Minn. -The Osseo school district appealed the U.S. District Court's decision to grant a permanent injunction. No date has been set for the appeal. In September, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a permanent injunction against the Osseo School District. The injunction requires the Osseo School District to afford a student group promoting tolerance and respect for gays and lesbians the same treatment as other non-curricular student groups at Maple Grove High School. The injunction requires the school to treat Straights and Gays for Equality like any other student group when it comes to access for meetings, avenues for communication and other rights afforded to other student groups.
The ACLU-MN and cooperating attorneys Tom Kayser, Dave Pinto and Genevieve Zimmerman
of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. brought the case in September 2005 following nearly
two years of discussions with the school district over its policy toward the student group. In her
ruling, Judge Joan Ericksen determined that the school district was providing favorable treatment
to at least four non-curricular student groups: Cheerleading, Synchronized Swimming, Spirit
council and Black Achievers. The Equal Access act requires schools to treat all non-curricular
student groups equally. The Court made a preliminary injunction permanent, meaning that
SAGE will be able to continue being treated the same as other groups at the school.
"We are pleased with this decision because it reinforces the right to equal treatment for groups
like SAGE. This ruling will allow them to continue their important work to promote tolerance
and to ensure that traditionally marginalized students feel safe and valued at school," said
ACLU-MN Legal Counsel Teresa Nelson. "We hope that this decision will embolden students
around the state to stand up for their rights when they are violated by schools that try to stifle
their speech."
Founded in 1952 as the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU-MN fights to protect the
civil liberties of Minnesotans through litigation, public education, and lobbying related to
legislation that impacts civil liberties and civil rights.
ACLU Says Sting Operation Used to Arrest Senator Craig Was Likely Unconstitutional
September 24, 2007
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to a Minnesota District Court urging it to allow Senator Larry Craig to withdraw his guilty plea because the secret sting operation used to arrest him was likely unconstitutional.
"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig's arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible - arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."
In its brief, the ACLU argues that the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public. Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment. When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be "carefully crafted" so that they don't unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
The secret sting operation used by the police to arrest Senator Craig was not "carefully crafted" to avoid ensnaring innocent speech, says the ACLU. Alternatively, posting a sign that the restroom is being monitored is an effective means of deterring public sex without risking trampling on free speech rights and illegally trapping someone who might not intend to have sex in public in the first place. In fact, many law enforcement agencies, including the Minneapolis Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, recommend signs rather than secret sting operations as enforcement mechanisms.
(See: www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1460)
"Senator Craig has not always been a great friend of civil liberties, but you shouldn't have to endorse the civil liberties of others to keep your own," said Romero. "Government should make public restrooms safe for all, but it should do so in a manner that is really designed to stop inappropriate behavior, rather than destroying the lives of people who might have no intention of doing anything illegal."
A copy of the ACLU's brief is available at
www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.html
Court strikes National Security Letter provision of Patriot Act
September 07, 2007
NEW YORK - A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.
U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero wrote, "In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association - particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies - a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes.
"As this decision recognizes, courts have a constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights. A statute that allows the FBI to silence people without meaningful judicial oversight is unconstitutional," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project.
NSLs may be used to obtain access to subscriber, billing or transactional records from Internet service providers; to obtain a wide array of financial and credit documents; or even to obtain library records. In almost all cases, recipients of NSLs are forbidden, or "gagged," from disclosing that they have received the letters, even to close family and friends. This has been a severe hardship on NSL recipients, who not only have been forced to keep this major event secret, but who have been prevented from meaningfully participating in public discussions about NSLs. The court today held that because the gag provisions cannot be separated from the entire amended statute, the court was compelled to strike down the entire statute.
"As the court recognized, there must be real, meaningful judicial checks on the exercise of executive power," said Melissa Goodman, an ACLU staff attorney on this case. "Without oversight, there is nothing to stop the government from engaging in broad fishing expeditions, or targeting people for the wrong reasons, and then gagging Americans from ever speaking out against potential abuses of this intrusive surveillance power."
The case, Doe v. Gonzales, was originally filed in April 2004 on behalf of an anonymous Internet access company that had received an NSL. Although the FBI has since dropped its NSL demand, the John Doe has remained under a gag order. In September 2004, Judge Marrero initially struck down the Patriot Act NSL provision as unconstitutional, writing that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." The landmark ruling held that permanent gag orders imposed under the NSL law violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
The government appealed Judge Marrero's first ruling, but Congress amended the NSL provision before the court issued a decision. In May 2006 the appeals court asked the district court to consider the constitutionality of the amended law. In a concurring opinion, Judge Richard Cardamone strongly criticized the government for continuing to argue that a permanent ban on speech would be permissible under the First Amendment.
In his latest decision, Judge Marrero cited the segregation and internment cases Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States: "These examples, however few in number, loom large in proportions of the tragic ill-effects felt in the wake of the courts' yielding fundamental ground to other branches of government on the constitutional role the judiciary must play in protecting the fundamental freedoms of the American people. Viewed from the standpoint of the many citizens who lost essential human rights as a result of such expansive exercises of governmental power unchecked by judicial rulings appropriate to the occasion, the only thing left of the judiciary's function for those Americans in that experience was a symbolic act: to sing a requiem and lower the flag on the Bill of Rights."
In its case, the ACLU and the NYCLU said that the gag provision has had significant effects on the John Doe plaintiff. John Doe was prevented from participating in the contentious Patriot Act reauthorization debate that raged across the nation in late 2005 and early 2006. Even though Doe had firsthand knowledge of this sweeping FBI power, he could not speak about the fact that he had received an NSL, divulge the breadth of the letter, or discuss the ramifications on his business relationships.
"The courts play an important role in balancing the requirements of national security against the constitutional protections that safeguard our basic freedoms and liberties," said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the NYCLU. "We are delighted that the court fulfilled that important function in this case."
While reports previously indicated a hundred-fold increase to 30,000 NSLs issued annually, an extraordinary March 2007 report from the Justice Department's own Inspector General puts the actual number at over 143,000 NSLs issued between 2003 and 2005. The same investigation also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power and numerous potential violations of the law.
In a related case, the ACLU represented four librarians who are on the board of Library Connection, a library consortium in Connecticut. The consortium was served with an NSL and challenged both the letter and the accompanying gag. After many months of litigation in which a district court found the gag on Library Connection was unconstitutional, the government withdrew its demand for information and abandoned the gag order.
In addition, in June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to enforce its Freedom of Information Act request to force the Department of Defense and the CIA to turn over documents concerning those agencies' use of NSLs. That lawsuit is pending.
The ACLU is also working on the legislative front to fight the authorization of NSLs. In response to the March report from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General finding serious NSL abuses and making clear that the FBI cannot police itself, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced a bill to fix the problems with the NSL power. The ACLU continues to urge Congress to enact this vital legislation.
A copy of today's court order can be found on line at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/31565lgl20070906.html
More information on Doe v. Gonzales and NSLs is online at: www.aclu.org/nsl
Attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Goodman and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU, and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU.
Officials must address violations and restore justice
August 23, 2007
NEW ORLEANS - The American Civil Liberties Union today released a report revealing continuing incidents of racial injustice and human rights abuses on the Gulf Coast since Hurricane Katrina devastated the area two years ago. In its report, Broken Promises: Two Years After Katrina, the ACLU exposes numerous civil rights violations that have occurred in Louisiana and Mississippi since the storm, including reports of heightened racially motivated police activity, housing discrimination, and prisoner abuse.
"Two years ago, Americans were glued to their television sets, outraged at the images of poor people of color cast aside in the aftermath of Katrina," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Politicians made promises, but they failed to fix the problems that Katrina's fury made painfully clear. The government must be held accountable for its mistakes rather than allowed to perpetuate the systemic racism and discrimination that only added strength to the storm."
In light of its findings, the ACLU calls on Congress to pass legislation to address post-Katrina injustices, including racial profiling, voter disenfranchisement, and the dearth of health care facilities and low-income housing. The ACLU also calls on the Department of Justice to investigate severe problems at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), the New Orleans jail system where prisoners were abandoned during the storm. Today, OPP is plagued by inhumane and dangerous conditions, inadequate medical and mental health care, and lack of preparedness for possible future storms. The ACLU says that government officials must implement a thorough evacuation plan for OPP and provide funding to a severely understaffed public defender system.
Broken Promises poignantly describes personal accounts of people who were victimized in Katrina's aftermath. In one case, Steven Elloie, an African-American bar manager, was brutally beaten and tasered by New Orleans police officers after they illegally searched the premises and harassed patrons at his family-owned bar in Central City, a predominantly African-American neighborhood. Despite the fact that he suffered severe injuries, the police officers brought Elloie to the OPP where he was turned away and directed to the hospital to receive treatment for trauma to his head, body, and extremities. Charges against Elloie of resisting arrest and battery against an officer were eventually dropped, but Elloie's complaint against the police officers was "not sustained" despite numerous witness accounts that were consistent with Elloie's claims. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Elloie against the city of New Orleans in June 2007.
"Since the storm, the ACLU has seen an increase in complaints about police abuse, neglect of prisoners, and racial discrimination," said Reggie Shuford, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Racial Justice Project. "Sadly, horrific stories like Mr. Elloie's are not uncommon."
The ACLU report also describes a case where the ACLU intervened on behalf of two displaced families from New Orleans whose children were discriminated against by local schools and law enforcement in Mississippi. It also highlights the ongoing housing crisis on the Gulf Coast and the work of the ACLU of Mississippi to advocate for more transparency in the way that governmental funds are being distributed.
"As the housing crisis continues on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, hundreds of families who remain in FEMA trailer parks are being evicted," said Nsombi Lambright, Executive Director of the ACLU of Mississippi. "Citizens are being denied access to the planning process to rebuild affordable housing on the Gulf Coast, while wealthy developers have been able to build new condos and casinos with ease."
In addition to discrimination and abuse on the streets, violence and neglect run rampant behind the walls of the jails, according to the ACLU report. Some conditions in OPP have even worsened since last year when the ACLU released another report, Abandoned & Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina, about the treatment of OPP's prisoners before, during, and after the storm. The House of Detention, the largest of four jail buildings reopened since the storm, is severely overcrowded and conditions are squalid. Prisoners are forced to sleep on the floor without mattresses for weeks at a time in areas where up to 18 prisoners are held in cells designed for 10 people. There is no air-conditioning in most of the overcrowded facility despite excessive heat. These inhumane and dangerous conditions are exacerbated by severe understaffing at the jail.
"Conditions in the New Orleans jails are among the worst in the nation," said Eric Balaban, senior staff counsel for the ACLU's National Prison Project. "The lives of staff and inmates in the House of Detention are constantly in danger because of its outmoded design, lack of staffing, and neglect by the sheriff to ensure the facility is prepared for an emergency."
According to the ACLU report, medical and mental health services at the jails are grossly inadequate. There reportedly have been several recent outbreaks of "staph" infections, a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease caused by filth and unsanitary conditions, and efforts to provide treatment are deficient. Prisoners who are identified as needing mental health care after being taken into custody have been sent to a unit where they are strapped down to a bed in five-point restraints. The ACLU has received reports of prisoners being left there, largely unsupervised, for days at a time without any breaks, even to use the restroom. The ACLU describes in its report one case where a prisoner was restrained to a bed covered in a brown substance that appeared to be blood or feces, and was forced to twist his body to urinate on the floor next to him while confined to the table at his feet, wrists, and head.
"Since the storm, the solution to mental health problems in New Orleans has been to just ‘lock them up,'" said Katie Schwartzmann, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Louisiana. "There are very few mental health services left in this city, and therefore people are going to jail, where they are subjected to abuse and neglect, because of their mental illness."
The ACLU report includes personal accounts from former prisoners, evacuees, and local advocates who have endured or witnessed the chaos since the storm.
A copy of the report and video testimonials are available online at: www.aclu.org/brokenpromises
ACLU Asks Secret Intelligence Court to Release Orders That Led to "Emergency" Wiretapping Legislation
August 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - In the first effort of its kind, the American Civil Liberties Union will today file legal papers with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting that it disclose recent legal opinions discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in secret wiretapping of Americans.
The ACLU initiated this action following Congress' passage this past weekend of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.
"Over the next six months, the public and Congress will be debating one of the most important matters of our time: under what circumstances the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of people inside the United States," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unless the FISA court discloses the documents leading up to the recent law and shedding light on the government's claimed surveillance authority, an informed and meaningful debate - the cornerstone of our democracy - cannot occur. A conversation about a threat to our most precious constitutional rights and liberties should not occur in a factual vacuum."
The FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative."
Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. Only last weekend, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass new legislation last week. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.
"Publication of these secret court orders is vitally important to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Virtually everything we know about these orders we've had to learn from executive branch officials, but executive branch officials are plainly not disinterested parties in a debate about the appropriate reach of executive branch surveillance. The public has a right to first-hand information about what the court permitted and what it disallowed."
The ACLU's legal papers acknowledge that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority. The FISC has released such orders and opinions before. In the early 1980s, the court published an opinion relating to its authority to issue warrants for physical searches. In 2002, the court published an opinion addressing procedures that the Justice Department proposed after the passage of the USA Patriot Act. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.
"The views of the judiciary on legal questions of national importance, like the scope of the government's surveillance power under FISA, or whether the executive branch has overreached in violation of constitutional limits, should be as open and accessible to the public as possible," said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "Even if public disclosure of the court records requires redaction of properly classified information, the release of even limited information pertaining to the court's legal analysis, conclusions, or the government's arguments will go a long way towards ensuring the public can participate meaningfully in the surveillance debate."
A copy of the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying
In addition to Jaffer and Goodman, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
Unprecedented settlement in racial profiling case
August 09, 2007
St. Paul, Minn -The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota announced today that a financial settlement has been reached in its long-running "flying while black" lawsuit against the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. Ms. Bonita Rhodes Berg, represented by the ACLU-MN, settled her claims for a cash payment of $20,000. The DEA agreed to the settlement after losing repeated motions to have the case dismissed and after the DEA was forced to turn over data that the DEA itself had collected regarding airport stops and searches by DEA Special Agent Tammy Key. This settlement is believed to be the first of its kind involving the DEA.
Ms. Rhodes Berg was stopped by Agent Key after arriving at the Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport on an early morning flight from Los Angeles in February 2001. The search of Ms. Berg's handbag revealed her Bible study materials, diet and cosmetics items. Here are Ms. Rhodes Berg's comments about her experience: "This has been a long and stressful process and I am glad the lawsuit is over. I thank God that I had my attorneys, the ACLU of Minnesota, the support of my two sons, granddaughter and members of my church, at St. Peter's AME, along with friends and former co-wokers at BNSF RR in St. Paul. The true test for me will be my return trip back to Minneapolis after flying to see my son in Los Angles. Because of what happened, it has been six years since my last visit. Being stopped by the DEA made me afraid to fly and I worried about being stopped again. But now, if this was to happen to me again, I know I have the right not to answer questions regarding a cold drug stop by the DEA. I can say "no" with confidence and just walk away."
Minneapolis Attorney Tim Branson, who was part of the team of volunteer lawyers who represented Ms. Rhodes Berg, commented about the settlement: "the evidence - specifically the data that the DEA itself had collected in response to a Presidential directive by then President Clinton - proved that Ms. Berg's allegations of racial profiling were well-founded." As summarized by Federal District Court Judge Michael J. Davis in his February 2, 2007 Order denying the DEA's motion for summary judgment, the data the DEA had begun to collect in 2000 showed that 88% of the individuals "cold" stopped by Agent Key at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport during the first 12 months of data collection were minorities. A "cold" stop is where a member of the traveling public is stopped based solely on the DEA Agent's observation of the traveling person, which is in contrast to a "hot" stop where an individual is stopped based on a tip of other investigative information received before the stop. The data also showed that none of the individuals cold-stopped by Agent Key were white males, and that none of the overwhelmingly minority persons cold-stopped by Agent key was found to be carrying drugs or drug money.
The written reasons Agent Key listed for her cold stops of Ms. Rhodes Berg and other African-American travelers were that they were traveling from drug "source" cities such as Los Angeles or Detroit, and carrying no bags, little baggage, or only a computer bag, a small carry-on bag, or a medium-sized heavy carry-on bag. The federal court found these innocuous reasons to be evidence of racial profiling. As Judge Davis ruled, "[c]ommon sense suggests that the ‘no bags,' ‘little bags,' ‘computer bags,' ‘heavy bags,' and other innocuous criteria upon which Key based her suspicions must apply equally to people of all races who deplane from source cities."
The settlement is also significant because it highlights the failure of the DEA and the Justice Department to follow through and analyze the statistical evidence that the DEA itself had collected. The evidence uncovered in the litigation regarding Agent Key's cold stops presented a stark picture of racial profiling.
What about other DEA Agents? By Executive Memorandum dated June 9, 1999, President Clinton ordered that data be collected - and analyzed - regarding the race and ethnicity of individuals stopped by federal agencies such as the DEA. In response, on October 8, 1999, the Justice Department committed to collect such data about individuals being stopped by the DEA to help "determine whether race and ethnicity are used by DEA agents as criteria for initiating contact" with individuals. The DEA began to collect such data as part of Operation Jetway in 2000 and continued doing so until 2003. However, the Justice Department and the DEA never fulfilled their commitment to analyze the data against appropriate background statistics, as well as failed to fully assess whether DEA agents engaged in racial and ethnic profiling. In litigation testimony, the chief of the DEA's Statistical Services Section admitted that within the first four months of the Bush administration that the data-analysis project had died on the vine.
As part of the settlement, Ms. Rhodes Berg and the ACLU-MN also secured the public release of certain data collected by the DEA, as well as information regarding the DEA's actions and inactions to remedy racial profiling. The release of this information could prove useful for others who might want to pursue the DEA for additional racial profiling data. The ACLU-MN intends to share this information with the Council on Crime and Justice and with others upon request.
ACLU-MN Cooperating Attorneys in this matter are Timothy Branson, Dorsey & Whitney; and Albert Goins, Goins Law Offices.
Documents for this case can be found on the Berg v DEA page.
ACLU Condemns Senate for Passing Spy Law Changes
August 06, 2007
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House and Senate for bowing to pressure from the Bush administration and rushing to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The administration lobbied heavily to alter the legislation before Congress recessed. The White House pushed for sweeping changes to the spy law after a FISA court judge recently rejected its use of wide-scale, untargeted surveillance. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 60 to 28, and the House is poised to take up the same legislation late tonight.
"We are deeply disappointed that the president's tactics of fearmongering have once again forced Congress into submission," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "That a Democratically-controlled Senate would be strong-armed by the Bush administration is astonishing. This Congress may prove to be as spineless in standing up to the Bush Administration as the one that enacted the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act."
The legislation that passed would allow for the intelligence agencies to intercept - without a court order - the calls and emails of Americans who are communicating with people abroad, and puts authority for doing so in the hands of the attorney general. No protections exist for Americans whose calls or emails are vacuumed up, leaving it to the executive branch to collect, sort, and use this information as it sees fit.
"It seems that political cover is more important to our senators than the rights and privacy of those they represent," added Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The administration is on the verge of reviving a warrantless wiretapping program even broader than the illegal one it conducted before. Though lawmakers claim these changes are temporary, we've just witnessed their lack of backbone today and, unfortunately, may soon see it again. Luckily, the sunset expires in the midst of primary season - so the voters will be able to keep lawmakers at their word."
To read the ACLU's letter to Congressional leadership on FISA changes, go to:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31154leg20070731.html
To read the ACLU's Myths and Facts about FISA, go to:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31144res20070731.html
ACLU Welcomes Supreme Court's Decision to Hear Guantanamo Challenges
July 02, 2007
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed today's decision by the Supreme Court to review an appeal by Guantánamo detainees, who are seeking the right to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court. The Court had previously declined to hear the appeal in April, but reversed course in an order issued today on the final day of the Supreme Court Term.
The following statement can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director:
"Today's action by the Supreme Court is yet another sign of growing concern with the Bush administration's failed Guantánamo policy. Even those who participated in that policy are now openly criticizing it. Having already lost three times in the Supreme Court, the administration continues to argue that it has the right to detain hundreds of people at Guantánamo indefinitely without any meaningful judicial review. The time has come for the Supreme Court to put an end to this system of injustice."
Minn Supreme Court decision hinders free speech
May 29, 2007
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision, which held that the limits that the owner of a manufactured housing community had placed on noncommercial speech within a manufactured home park are “reasonable limits as to time, place and manner under Minn. Statute.
In 2004 All Parks Alliance for Change sued Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund for their right to distribute leaflets and flyers that educated residents about their rights in a manufactured housing community. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a friend of the court brief in the case in support of APACs free speech rights. The ACLU-MN noted that park residents are in a precarious legal situation because while they usually own their own home, they do not own the land upon which it sits. This puts them in a unstable situation for which they could lose their investment if they are not fully informed of their legal rights.
The ACLU of Minnesota is dismayed at this decision, which they believe unduly restricts park residents and APACs free speech rights. In the dissent opinion issued by the Minnesota Supreme Court, it states that "Uniprop's restrictions are unreasonable because they impeded the ability of APAC and organizations like it to communicate with residents about their rights as residents . . .To allow the owner of a manufactured home park to adopt a rule specifically for the purpose of restricting the ability of park residents to receive information about their rights effectively frustrates the purpose of section 327C.13" (the Minn statue which governs the rules and responsibilities of Manufactures home parks). The ACLU-MN agrees with this conclusion and thanks the dissenting justices for their opinion.
You can read the complete decision here.
ACLU helps local woman defend her free speech rights at a park board meeting
May 16, 2007
The ACLU of Minnesota wrote a letter to the Minneapolis Park Board after they stopped a local resident, Arlene Fried, in the middle of her speech during her allotted time. Mrs. Fried was cut off during the May 2nd, 2006 after she criticzed an of the Minneapolis Park Board. After receiving the letter, The Minneapolis Park Board put Arlene Fried on the agenda for the May 16, 2007 meeting. To read more, you can visit the article in the Star Tribune, you can also read the Letter to Minneapolis Park Board that was written by the ACLU of Minnesota. You can also watch a video of the meeting at YouTube.ACLU is appaled at Mille Lacs County treatment of 11 year-old boy
May 03, 2007
The ACLU of Minnesota is appalled over Mille Lacs County treatment of an eleven year old boy. In mid-April an 11 year old was arrested, shackled and dressed in prison garb at school because he failed to show for a court appearance in which he was the victim. To read more about this story you can visit Mille Lacs County's Messenger article. The Mille Lacs County Attorney maintains that what they did was legal.
To encourage reform and resolution of this issue the ACLU-MN a letter to the Attorney General, the Govenor and Senator Mee Moua who is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Below you can read an excerpt from the letter they sent these top officials.
Minnesota has enjoyed the reputation as a state that valueshuman and civil rights.
The ACLU is shocked by the county's callous treatment of an11-year-old boy in April 2007. Certainly in this state we should all do what we can to ensure that thisis the last time that an 11 year old victim will be arrested at school, broughtto a courtroom in shackles and prison garb in order to testify against hisattacker.
The ACLU requests that you use the power of youroffice to investigate and determine what changes, if any, are required toensure that no other child should go through what this child was forced to gothrough. We pledge to work with youroffice in any way possible in order to achieve what I am sure are our mutualgoals.
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Photo Cop
April 06, 2007
The Minnesota Supreme Court has joined the Hennepin County District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals by ruling that Minneapolis' Photo Cop ordinance conflicts with the state law. It conflicts with the state law because it violates the requirement that Minnesota traffic regulations be uniform; and it reduces the state's burden of proof in prosecuting red light violations.
This decision sends clear message to Minnesota Cities that under current state law cameras cannot be used to enforce traffic laws; and that cities cannot violate due process with their traffic laws. This decision preserves the presumption of innocence and the requirement that government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a driver ---- and not merely that person's vehicle --- committed a traffic offense.
If you recieved a photo cop ticket and would like to reopen the case you can visit the court's website and fill out a form to reopen your case.
Howard Bass, of Bass and Peck, LLC successfully represented Daniel Alan Kuhlman on behalf of the ACLU-MN in this case. The full court opinion is available here.
To read about the history you can visit previous press releases of State v Kuhlman (Photo Cop).
Fjellman News Release
February 22, 2007
St. Paul, MN -- The Minnesota Department of Health reversed course and decided to rescind its January 14th order for discipline against massage therapist LaRae Lundeen Fjellman. Mrs. Fjellman was disciplined for entering into a personal relationship and marrying a former client within two years of ending their professional relationship. Among other things, the Department had initially ordered Mrs. Fjellman not to have sex with any "former client" and to pay a civil penalty. The decision to rescind discipline against Mrs. Fjellman was based on a last-minute conclusion that the facts of the case, "clearly do not constitute the egregious mischief or exploitation that the legislature sought to protect the public from when it enacted Chapter 146A," and that Mrs. Fjellman does not pose "any future threat to the public". The revised order was filed just days before the ACLU-MN was set to file an appeal to the discipline. "While we are glad that the Department of Health now recognizes that discipline was inappropriate; it is deplorable that it took this long," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Charles Samuelson. "They reached this conclusion only after wasting state resources on an outrageous three-year inquisition that has shattered Mr. and Mrs. Fjellman both emotionally and financially."The ACLU-MN agreed to represent Mrs. Fjellman in her appeal from the order for discipline because the rule infringes on the constitutional right to intimate association and the right to marry. The rule also violates the right to equal protection because it holds alternative healthcare providers to a more rigorous standard than other healthcare providers. Although the discipline was rescinded in this case, the ACLU-MN is evaluating its options for challenging the constitutionality of the law in order to obtain some measure of justice for LaRae, and to prevent other alternative healthcare providers from being subject to similar outrageous charges.
LaRae has been a massage therapist for 18 years. In October 2000, Kirk Fjellman became her client. As residents of a small town, Kirk and LaRae had known each other since the late 1990's. He remained a client until April 2002. In August 2002, they began dating and fell in love. They got engaged in March 2003 and were married in September 2003. They're an ordinary middle-aged couple living an ordinary life. Kirk recently overcame a second scare of cancer after an initial bout twenty- three years ago.
While a license is not necessary to practice massage therapy in Minnesota, the entire alternative health care industry is subject to regulation by statute. This includes 22 types of alternative methods and treatments, covering all modalities of massage therapy, herbalism, aromatherapy and similar work. In April 2004, the Minnesota Department of Health notified Mrs. Fjellman about a complaint against her, filed by her husband's ex-wife, stating that LaRae violated the portion of the statute prohibiting alternative health care providers from having sex with former clients within two years of ending the client relationship. She had no idea this statute existed. LaRae belongs to a professional organization and its ethics rules only prohibit sex with current clients.
The complaint against Mrs. Fjellman set off a three-year ordeal in which Department of Health officials subjected her to an intrusive interrogation and required her to undergo a psychological examination with a state appointed psychologist, at her own expense. Despite the fact that the psychologist concluded that she's a normal and ethical person, the Department continued to pursue disciplinary charges against her, issuing numerous orders and stipulations articulating fines and punishment regarding her ability to practice her craft. The Department entered a final order for discipline on January 14th. The order rescinding the discipline was issued on February 9th.
Even though the order was rescinded, the state's action has had a tremendous emotional impact on the Fjellmans. In addition to living with the fear of retribution, the stress of the legal battle has alienated family, friends, clients, colleagues and community members. Fearing that that the discipline might end her eighteen-year career in massage therapy in Minnesota, the Fjellmans incurred significant debt in order to relocate her practice to Wisconsin. The Fjellmans also incurred significant legal fees in order to defend LaRae against the charges.
The ACLU-MN believes that the statute violates the constitutional right to engage in intimate associations. In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the notion that adults have a due process liberty interest in "deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex", 539 U.S. 558, at 572. A governmental deprivation of this fundamental right is only permissible if it serves a compelling government interest. Although the Lawrence court recognized that the government has a stronger interest in intimate associations involving "persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused", the Minnesota law at issue goes too far by imposing a two-year ban on consensual relationships between alternative health care practitioners and their former clients. The law does not impose the same two-year ban on physicians, physician assistants, physical therapists, acupuncture practitioners, or midwives. It is unclear what compelling state interest justifies holding alternative healthcare practitioners to a much higher standard than applies to these other healthcare professionals.
"We believe that this law goes too far in regulating the personal lives of alternative healthcare professionals," said ACLU-MN Legal Counsel Teresa Nelson. "The law unnecessarily extends two years after the client relationship has ended. Our hope is to prevent this from happening again."
The ACLU-MN volunteer attorneys in this matter are Robin Wolpert and Mark Johnson from the law firm of Greene Espel in Minneapolis.
SAGE Press release - 8th circuit
January 02, 2007
St. Paul, MN – The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a decision upholding a preliminary injunction requiring the Osseo School District to afford a student group promoting tolerance and respect for gays and lesbians the same treatment as other extra-curricular student groups at Maple Grove High School. The preliminary injunction requires the school to treat SAGE (Straights and Gays for Equality) like any other student group when it came to access for meetings, avenues for communication and other rights afforded to other student groups.The Minnesota affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in September 2005 following nearly two years of discussions with the school district over its policy toward the student group. In its ruling, the three-judge panel affirmed Federal District Court Judge Ericksen’s determination that SAGE is likely ultimately to win its suit, and that the preliminary injunction was needed to protect to the group in the meantime.
"Groups like SAGE work to promote tolerance and to ensure that traditionally marginalized students feel safe and valued at school,” said ACLU-MN Legal Counsel Teresa Nelson. “Instead of denying SAGE equal access, the school should be encouraging these students, and this order is an important first step toward that happening. We are gratified that it was upheld."
Attorneys Tom Kayser, Michael Okerlund and Dave Pinto of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. handled the case for the ACLU-MN. “We’re very pleased by this decision,” said Kayser. “We assume that the School District will continue to comply with this order.”
ACLU and National Abortion Federation Criticize Decision by U.S. Supreme Court Upholding Federal Abortion Ban
July 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court's decision will endanger women's health.
"Today's decision has placed politics above protecting women's health," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. "This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women's health."
The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.
A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today's Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.
"Today's decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women's health must remain paramount," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion."
Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.
Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today's opinion: "Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of ‘the rule of law' and the ‘principles of stare decisis.'"
Today's cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights.
ACLU Urges DHS to Withdraw Real ID Regulations
July 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - Calling the Real ID Act "unworkable and an intolerable threat to privacy and civil liberties," the American Civil Liberties Union today filed comments asking the Department of Homeland Security to withdraw its proposed Real ID regulations and to join with the expanding list of states, organizations and individuals pushing Congress to overhaul the ill-conceived measure. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the issue tomorrow (May 8, 2007).
"This is a bad law, and DHS' regulations won't make it any better," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The ACLU national office and state affiliates have been campaigning against Real ID for more than two years, and the effort is beginning to pay off. Our efforts helped create a genuine rebellion against this law."
"Real ID is a flimsy house of cards doomed to an inevitable collapse. The regulations do not--and cannot--fix its many problems," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project.
Opposition to Real ID is reaching a fever pitch. Seven states enacted anti-Real ID legislation, while 25 more have introduced similar legislation.
Among those testifying at the hearings will be Allen Gilbert, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Vermont, who will address the problems the act presents for his state and the nation.
"Once the hearings are over, it's time to move the Akaka-Sununu-Leahy-Tester bill that overhauls Real ID," said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy understands the problem and we are optimistic that he will advance that bill."
In its comments to DHS, the ACLU addressed four main problems with Real ID: privacy, constitutionality, individual rights and state sovereignty. The comments also address the supposed rationale for the act: increasing Americans' security.
"DHS has a duty to protect the security of our nation," the ACLU writes in its comments. "Imposing this ill-conceived federal mandate on every American is an abdication of that duty-one that will be discriminatory, expensive, burdensome, invasive, and ultimately counterproductive."
The ACLU's comments to DHS on the Real ID regulations, as well as other materials on the act, are at: www.realnightmare.org
A map showing the progress of anti-Real ID legislation across the nation is at: www.realnightmare.org/news/105
Peter Lancaster honored with Earl Larson Award
December 31, 1969
More than 100 friends of the Bill of Rights came together on November 30 at the Minneapolis Club to honor 2011's outstanding civil libertarian, Peter Lancaster, with the ACLU-MN Earl Larson Award. Lancaster, a partner at the Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis, has been the leader of a team of attorneys and volunteers who successfully litigated the TiZA case. (See more about TiZA in other parts of our website.) The event raised nearly $10,000 for the ACLU-MN Foundation.
Lancaster was lauded by ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson and President Vance Opperman for his strategy and tenacity in this case that has consumed more than 8,000 hours of pro bono work. Attorneys from top firms came to congratulate him, as well as did general members of the ACLU-MN who wanted to applaud this outstanding leader and his team.
Lancaster joins a constellation of civil liberties stars over Minnesota such as Judge Earl Larson, Dr. James Shannon, Vice President Walter Mondale, Judge Rosalie Wahl and last year's Larson Award Winner Tim Branson.
The event was sponsored by Dorsey & Whitney and Johnson Printing and Packaging.
Time for Abstinence-only programs to go!
December 31, 1969
Over the last several weeks, we've heard quite a bit of heated rhetoric about federal spending, including misguided and ill-advised calls to defund Planned Parenthood and the Title X Family Planning Program. But finally there was a breath of fresh air on Tuesday when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced a bill to end taxpayer-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
Invasive TSA Searches
December 31, 1969
Planning to fly this holiday season? You've probably already braced yourself for long lines, delays and extra fees just to check your luggage.
Unfortunately, you can also expect another hassle at the airport this year. 70 airports around the country are now using controversial body scanners-also known as "naked scanners." These machines use low-dose radiation to produce strikingly graphic images of passengers' bodies, essentially taking a naked picture as passengers pass through security checkpoints.
Yes, authorities at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) say you can opt out of the naked scan. But doing so will subject you to new and highly invasive manual searches of your body, including your breasts, buttocks and inner thighs.
All of us have a right to travel without such crude invasions of our privacy.
The government is also violating travelers' privacy in another way: by searching and seizing the laptops and other electronic devices of international travelers. Never before in history have customs officers been able to routinely pour through a lifetime's worth of letters, photographs, purchase records and other data. This enormous invasion of privacy peers into people's lives in a way that has never been done before.
There's already an outcry building over all of these new searches. In fact, travelers and the ACLU have pushed back before against invasive screening, and the TSA quietly retreated back to a lighter touch. But if we want to stop these invasive practices, we've got to put our voices together.
The ACLU has prepared a useful guide to help you navigate your options at the airport. It details ways to protect your privacy during air travel. It also describes how to file official complaints about any TSA trouble you encounter. "View it here".
If you think your rights have been violated while you're traveling, please let us know about it. Just fill out this form online to share your story.
You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage. With the holiday travel season fast approaching, we need to make sure that security measures are in place that actually make us more secure without compromising passenger privacy.
If you can't take the invasion of our privacy rights anymore, take action! Send a message to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and urge her to respect passengers' privacy rights.
For more information
ACLU: About airport security
ACLU-MN Reaches Goal on GiveMN Give to the Max Day
December 31, 1969
Thanks to friends new and old of the ACLU-MN, the ACLU-MN Foundation raised over $4,200 during the Second Annual Give to the Max Day on November 16. These contributions help move us forward in our work to defend the Bill of Rights. Dozens of donors gave to match the challenge offered by members of the ACLU-MN Board of Directors. Way to go!
Domestic Surveillance in Minnesota?
December 31, 1969
Minnesota law has since the early 1970s allowed police to keep confidential files only when investigating crimes. Our legislature faces proposals to expand the power of police to keep confidential records when no crime has occurred, but police believe there is a "reasonable possibility" of a crime.
This year, the Minnesota Legislature appointed a group to evaluate the implications of expanding police power to keep confidential records, including gang databases and their effect on communities of color. This SF2725 Workgroup is meeting on December 2nd to listen to members of the public who wish to have their opinions heard about the proposals to expand police intelligence-gathering powers. For details of various proposals and background information, click here.
Here is the flyer for the public meeting on December 2nd: "intelligence gathering public meeting"
If you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Jackson at cjackson@aclu-mn.org; 651.645.4097 x125.
ACLU Launches Unique, Interactive Online Report On U.S. Torture
December 31, 1969
The Torture Report Is First-Of-Its-Kind Site Allowing Public To Participate In Ongoing Investigation Into Bush Torture Program
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union launched a one-of-a-kind, interactive online resource today that will not only provide regularly updated information and analysis on the Bush administration's torture program, but will allow the public to comment on content, engage with experts and have a role in the ongoing process of creating the report.
The Torture Report is an ongoing, in-depth analysis of the Bush administration's torture program - from its improvised inception to the systematic maltreatment of detainees - that is constantly updated as chapters are added. Annotators, including expert human rights advocates, military lawyers, bloggers and ACLU attorneys, will provide ongoing analysis to the report as it is written. In addition, the public will be able to offer comments and suggestions as the report is compiled.
The site is a one-stop resource for the press, the human rights community and the public. It will draw on over 130,000 pages of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents and on the work human rights groups, news organizations, investigative journalists, researchers and writers have done over the last eight years. The Torture Report synthesizes these many resources into a single, comprehensive, readable and interactive narrative. Updates will be made as new information comes to light and announced on a diary page that greets visitors to the site.
"Restoring the rule of law will require finally confronting the gross human rights abuses of the last administration," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "Crucial to this process will be the creation of a comprehensive and publicly accessible record of the last eight years. The online report we're launching today will be an important part of that record."
"The Torture Report will provide a level of detailed and comprehensive analysis and synthesis of a wide variety of materials that isn't always possible in traditional media today," said Larry Siems of the PEN American Center, the report's principle writer. "The public nature of the editorial process ensures that discussion of this complicated matter remains open, vibrant and accessible to all."
Chapters of The Torture Report will be primarily written by Siems, an experienced human rights researcher who has been published widely. Annotators include former interrogator Matthew Alexander, military defense lawyer Major David Frakt, U.S. Air Force Reserve, Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald, Director of Human Rights Watch's Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program Joanne Mariner, student activist Deborah Popowski, OneWorld Research Director John Sifton and blogger Marcy Wheeler. ACLU attorneys Alex Abdo, Mike German, Melissa Goodman, Jon Hafetz, Jameel Jaffer, Steven Watt and Ben Wizner will contribute analysis as well.
The Torture Report is available online at: www.thetorturereport.org
Pocket size Constitutions
December 31, 1969
The ACLU of Minnesota is able to provide you with pocket size Constitutions (includes both U.S. and Minnesota) at no cost.
If you would like a pocket size Constitution please send an email to constitution@aclu-mn.org with the following information:
Your name
Your address
Number of copies you’d like
You may also obtain a copy by calling Jana Kooren at 651.645.4097 x123.
Recount Blog- Challenges
December 31, 1969
Challenges, counting, duplicates and other complaints
"Challenge, identifying mark"-- "Challenge, voter intent unclear"-- those words have been said over and over again throughout the three days I have observed the Senate election recount thus far. I've learned quite a lot about how the parties play the game, and I have not always been pleased with what I saw. Pettiness, unnecessary challenges and new requests abound. By the end of my third day I was getting tired of it, and I'll bet the election judges were too.
In much of Minnesota, we use paper ballots where you fill in a circle next to a candidate's name. A challenge, if made, is supposed to be based on a campaign observer's belief that the election judge is counting the ballot for the wrong person. Let's say the voter made a mark in between the two candidates' circles and you couldn't really tell which candidate a vote was for -- the voter's intent is unclear. And occasionally, someone puts their name or other information on a ballot that would identify who the voter is, and since we have anonymous voting in Minnesota, that identifying mark could disqualify their ballot. These are circumstances where you might legitimately expect a challenge.
Since the start of the recount, which was almost a week ago, there have been over 2,000 challenges and I personally have witnessed over 50 of those challenges. What I've seen is challenge after challenge for ridiculous reasons. It would usually start out where one campaign would challenge a ballot for an accidental mark somewhere on the ballot - a random pen mark anywhere on the ballot, really. Then the other campaign would see what was going on and they would start to challenge every ballot that had a pen mark on it (now keep in mind the circles were completely filled for one candidate -- that much was clear). Then they would make petty comments to one another about how frivolous the other challenges were, but each would still continue to do it. One table that I saw had 18 challenges in the span of an hour. To give you some perspective, in the county I was observing, the head of the election said in his 24 years of leading recounts he had seen 10 challenges total!
Another common challenge was if a voter made a check mark or an "x" or scribbled outside the circle. Really, anything was challenged that was not the typical filled-in oval. I would sit there and document each challenge as I was supposed to, but thinking how this is so unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, I was angry that they were trying to disenfranchise voters: they wanted votes to be disqualified because of a random pen mark? That is a complete miscarriage of justice in my mind, and I think it hurts the campaigns' credibility.
The next objection was over how the election judges counted the votes. The first day I saw them counting, they had a stack of ballots face up and they would look at each one (with the challengers watching) and place it in the proper pile. Then one of the campaigns said that it was hard to read ballots this way, and so the next day the judges had to sort the ballots upside down before they counted, then they flipped over each one individually before they placed it. I saw challengers argue with election judges over how their hands held the ballots (apparently it obstructed their view), or how fast or slow they were sorting -- everything was argued about down to the minute details.
Then there was the recounting of ballots numerous times. Although the campaign observers would have the opportunity to view the ballots being counted, and though by this time the ballots might have been counted three times, if there was any discrepancy between what the machine said the vote count was and how many votes were hand-counted, the campaigns would ask for yet another recount. In fact, there were many precincts where the count was different because a ballot that wasn't able to be read by the machine was counted by hand. But that didn't stop the campaigns from ordering recount after recount after recount. And if the campaign observer lost count, s/he could ask the election judge to start all over even if the election judge hadn't lost count. So at many tables I wouldn't be surprised if the ballots were counted three of four times.
In all the 50 challenges I observed, I saw one legitimate challenge, involving a duplicate ballot. A duplicate ballot is one where a person had a ballot mailed to them to fill out, and when it is returned a duplicate of it is filled out on the real ballot that can be read by the machine. In a recount, each half of the duplicate is usually matched up to make sure the duplicate was filled out correctly. The original is saved in a separate envelope and not counted, but the duplicate is counted. In this particular duplicate ballot situation, it was clear in the original that the voter had voted for one candidate but on the duplicate, that vote had not been recorded. I thought to myself, this is why we have challengers to check for mistakes like that and to ensure that the proper procedure is then followed.
I don't want to be completely disparaging of the campaigns or the recount process -- not every member of the campaigns mounted such petty challenges. Also, it sounds like the campaigns have agreed to review the challenged ballots after the recount is done before they are sent on to the committee, in order to review them and throw out the frivolous challenges.
Despite all of this recount mess, it also reflects the significance of clear and open elections. The fact that the campaigns are able to ensure that correct process is followed down to the minute detail is incredibly important. Despite the fact that I was getting annoyed with both parties' challenges and ridiculous requests, I was still glad that they were able to do that. It shows how democracy should and can work when unusual circumstances demand it. At the end of the day I was glad I was a non-partisan observer and that I could rise above the fray and observe the whole process much more objectively then many of the campaign observers. So, if you are in the mood to observe some action, head on down to your local vote-recounting headquarters and hang out for a couple of hours.
Written by Jana Kooren
Recount Blog - Day 1
December 31, 1969
How the recount process works
Wednesday November 19, was the first day of the Minnesota recount for our very close U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and DFL Challenger Al Franken. Before the recount, the difference between the candidates was just over 200 votes with Coleman having a narrow lead. This recount is receiving a lot of attention nationally because of how close the Democrats are to having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
So, when I heard that there was going to be a recount I knew I wanted to be a part of it. I immediately signed up to be a non-partisan observer of the recount. I went through a brief training and signed a non-partisan code of conduct and was sent on my way. When I arrived on Wednesday morning, I didn't know quite what to expect, but found the process to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand.
In the room where the recount was taking place there were eight tables and at each table there was one county or city official, three - four election judges, and one observer from each campaign. Then there were scores of media people and other county workers, sheriff's deputies and more Coleman and Franken observers. All in all I would guess that at anytime there were between 75 - 100 people in the room (55 of which were at the tables participating in the recount).
In the morning the head of the county elections gave the instructions for how the day would proceed and what the ground rules were. Some of the rules included: no one but the election judges and the county workers could touch the ballots; no counters can leave the table until they finished with the precinct they were working on; and no one is allowed at the table except the people I listed above. He also explained that the recount numbers are final, if there is any discrepancy between the recount number and the computer generated number they used the recount number.
Each table received a box of ballots from a different precinct, which varied in size from around 1,000 to a couple thousand ballots. Each precinct box was sealed when it arrived and was unsealed on the table by the workers. The county or city worker then took a stack of ballots and begins sorting them into different piles, one for Franken, one for Coleman, one for other (which includes all other candidates and blank), and one for challenges. Challenges occurred when the party observer wanted to challenge the placement of the ballot if they felt like the official did not correctly interpret the voter's intent. Then, the election judges counted each candidates ballots into sets of 25, and stacked them into larger piles on the table.
After all the ballots were sorted and counted into stacks of 25, then they would count the number of stacks of 25 to determine the number of votes cast for each candidate. The challenged ballots were placed in a separate envelope to be turned over to the commission in charge of the recount process. The boxes were then resealed and sent back to the secure storage where they will be kept for another two years.
After my first day I felt proud that our process was so transparent in Minnesota and confident that our election could not be stolen by one party or another because we had such a good recount process. Check back in a few days to read more about challenges, what they are and who can do them.
Written by Jana Kooren
Photojournalists from Kentucky released from jail without charges after an unjustified 36 hour detainment
December 31, 1969
September 3, 2008
Saint Paul, Minn- Two photo journalism students were released September 3rd after being held without charge for 36 hours following their arrest during the Republican National Convention. The advisor was also arrested, but released earlier without charges.
Two students, Britney McIntosh and Edward Matthews, and their advisor, James Winn, of the University of Kentucky newspaper the Kentucky Kernel were arrested on Labor Day while photographing demonstrations and law enforcement response outside the RNC. The Kernel has a circulation of 30,000, one of the largest rates of student newspapers in the country, and the students and their advisor had journalist credentials and registration when they were arrested.
Despite their peaceful, lawful behavior the photo journalists were swept up and arrested with no concern by the police officers as to whether they committed any crimes.
"The arrest of a journalist while documenting political activity violates our country's freedom of the press," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota. "There are no justifications to arrest any journalists peaceably assembled at demonstrations."
The three Kentucky Kernel journalists are only a few of the many journalists taken into prolonged custody during the sweeping arrests by law enforcement this week. The ACLU of Minnesota has identified other journalists, bloggers and photographers from Rhode Island, California, Florida, Illinois and other parts of the country who have also been arrested. The photojournalist from Illinois was arrested with the Kernel photo journalists; he however was not released, and is being charged with a Gross Misdemeanor Riot.
"The freedom of all journalists, whether they report as freelancers or work for the NY Times should be respected and protected," stated Samuelson.
McIntosh, Matthews and Winn were released just prior to the end of the 36 hour hold period allowed by law. Though their physical freedom has been restored, McIntosh and Matthews have so far been denied the opportunity to continue reporting as their camera equipment has not been returned to them.
Even though they have been released, they were informed they could still be charged with a crime at a later time. The ACLU-MN is reviewing their legal options regarding their arrests.
The students and their advisor were represented by Matthew Lute of the Matthew Lute Law Office.
Phone System temporarily down
December 31, 1969
We regret to inform you that our phone system is currently experiencing technical difficulties.
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you. We are working as quickly as possible to get our phone system working at full capacity again.
Thank you for your patience.
Contact Your Legislators Today in Support of Comprehensive Sex Education!
December 31, 1969
Send an e-mail message of support for comprehensive sex education to your Representative and Senator today. We know that those who oppose comprehensive sex education legislation contact their elected officials often. This makes it even more important that legislators hear a strong message of support for this issue.
To find your Representative and Senator visit www.leg.state.mn.us. E-mail addresses can be found at www.house.mn and www.senate.mn.
Session Update
Last week the Senate amended the Education Policy Omnibus bill (SF3001) to include comprehensive sex education. The House has passed HF0615 (the bill introduced in 2007) through K-12 Finance Committee and it will now move through two additional committees on it's way to the House floor. Consistent language is found in both bills.
Suggested talking points:
1. Comprehensive sex education helps young people be safe and healthy. It provides information that Minnesota youth need to become responsible adults.
2. The bill creates standards for medically accurate, age appropriate sex education for public school students in grades 7-12.
3. Results from a survey of parents across the state show that 89 percent of parents support and want comprehensive sex education taught in public schools (view the parents survey results). Click here for Kare-11's coverage of the report.
4. Share with your legislator why this issue is important to you.
ACLU works to repeal Lurking Ordinance
December 31, 1969
The ACLU-MN has joined forces with over forty organizations to support the repeal of Minneapolis’s lurking law. The law reads: No person, in any public or private place, shall lurk, lie in wait or be concealed with intent to commit any crime or unlawful act. 385.80. Minneapolis is one of a few large cities in the country that has this law.
This law is being applied extremely discriminatorily in Minneapolis. Homeless people and people of color are targeted at a much higher rate than Caucasians. There were 167 people arrested or cited for “lurking” in the City of Minneapolis in 2006, 133 of these people, or more than 80%, were people of color. A homeless person is 20 times more likely than a non-homeless person to be cited for lurking. The ACLU-MN also opposes this law on the grounds that it is vague and allows police officers too much discretion.
Council member Cam Gordon introduced the repeal, the public hearing date has yet to be set.
What you can do to help
Join now and get a free T-Shirt
December 31, 1969
Join the ACLU by January 8th and get a free Close Guantanamo T-Shirt to wear on January 11.
January 11, 2008 will mark the six-year anniversary of the first arrival of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. For nearly six years, Guantanamo Bay has tarnished America's image and diminished our ideals. It is a symbol of torture, abuse, and injustice. Its closure is long overdue.
On, January 11 the ACLU is calling on people of conscience everywhere to wear orange to symbolize their disgust with the shame that is Guantanamo Bay and to demand that the U.S. government close Guantánamo!
Join the ACLU of Minnesota and Impeach for Peace for a demonstration on the corner of Hennepin Ave & Lagoon in Minneapolis at noon on the 11th to raise awareness and inform people about the abuse at Guantanamo Bay.
Fill out our survey
December 31, 1969
Dear Supporter
We are in the process of doing strategic planning for the next years at the ACLU of Minnesota and we want to hear from YOU about how you think we are doing and what we can do to improve.
We would really appreciate it if you could download our survey complete it, and return it in the mail to us by December 15th.
Our mailing address is 450 N Syndicate, Suite 230, St. Paul, MN 55103
Thank you so much,
Charles Samuelson
Executive Director
"File a complaint" Temporarily Down
December 31, 1969
Please be advised that if you submitted a legal complaint from 5:00 p.m. Thursday September 6th - 3:00 p.m. Friday September 7th the complaint was not recieved due to an error with our server. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you and encourage you to re-submit your complaint.
Thank you.
Landmark Settlement Announced in Federal Lawsuit Challenging Conditions at Immigrant Detention Center in Texas
December 31, 1969
ACLU Urges Congress to End Policy of Detaining Immigrant Children
AUSTIN, TX - The American Civil Liberties Union today announced a landmark settlement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that greatly improves conditions for immigrant children and their families inside the T. Don Hutto detention center in Taylor, Texas. Dozens of children were released from the facility with their families as a result of the litigation. The settlement is expected to be approved shortly by Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
“This is a huge victory not only for the children and families that have been released from Hutto, but for every detainee held at the facility, now or in the future,” said Vanita Gupta, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program. “Though we continue to believe that Hutto is an inappropriate place to house children, conditions have drastically improved in areas like education, recreation, medical care, and privacy.”
The settlement is the result of extensive litigation and mediation in consolidated lawsuits filed earlier this year against Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and six officials from ICE on behalf of 26 immigrant children. The children are between the ages of 1 and 17, and were detained at Hutto with their parents who, in almost all cases, were awaiting determinations on their asylum claims. The ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic, and the international law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP brought the lawsuits.
Since the original lawsuits were filed in March 2007, all of the 26 children represented by the ACLU and co-counsel have been released. The final six children were released days before the settlement was finalized, and are now living with family members who are U.S. citizens and/or legal permanent residents while pursuing their asylum claims.
For the children, the release day was very emotional. Andrea Restrepo, a 12-year-old child from Colombia, had been held in Hutto in a small cell for nearly a year with her mother and 9-year-old sister. “I feel much better, I feel tranquil, I can do things now I couldn’t do there,” said Restrepo. “I am trying to forget everything about Hutto. I feel free. It was a nightmare.”
Conditions at Hutto have gradually and significantly improved as a result of the groundbreaking litigation. Children are no longer required to wear prison uniforms and are allowed much more time outdoors. Educational programming has expanded and guards have been instructed not to discipline children by threatening to separate them from their parents.
“The ACLU has long been concerned with poor conditions in immigration detention centers, but the inhumane conditions in which the children at Hutto lived before this litigation demanded our immediate attention,” said Gouri Bhat, an attorney with the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “This agreement with ICE will make permanent important changes that already have been made and will ensure additional improvements in the future.”
“The litigation has achieved enormous results,” said Sean R. D. Gorman, a partner with LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP, which provided pro bono representation to the children. “Instead of punishing asylum seekers by treating them like criminals, the settlement requires ICE to treat children more like children – with the care and compassion that exemplify American values.”
Soon after the litigation commenced, ICE instituted a policy of detaining at Hutto only families placed in expedited removal proceedings and began to issue bonds for asylum seekers who passed their credible fear interviews.
“Imprisoning families who have fled their home countries under fear of persecution from their own governments, and detaining them in jail-like conditions, was an indescribable trauma for many of the children we represented,” said Barbara Hines, Director of the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic. “We are hopeful that by limiting the population at Hutto to families in expedited removal except in exigent circumstances, and adopting more meaningful release procedures, that the length of stay for children will be significantly reduced.”
Additional improvements ICE will be required to make as a result of the settlement include allowing children over the age of 12 to move freely about the facility; providing a full-time, on-site pediatrician; eliminating the count system so that families are not forced to stay in their cells 12 hours a day; installing privacy curtains around toilets; offering field trip opportunities to children; supplying more toys and age-and language-appropriate books; and improving the nutritional value of food. ICE must also allow regular legal orientation presentations by local immigrants’ rights organizations; allow family and friends to visit Hutto detainees seven days a week; and allow children to keep paper and pens in their rooms. ICE’s compliance with each of these reforms, as well as other conditions reforms, will be subject to external oversight to ensure their permanence.
Despite the tremendous improvements at Hutto, the facility remains a former medium security prison managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, a for-profit adult corrections company. In recent years, Congress has repeatedly directed DHS to keep immigrant families together, either by releasing them or using alternatives to detention. Where detention is necessary, Congress has said immigrant families should be housed in non-penal, homelike environments. The ACLU remains adamant that detaining immigrant children at Hutto is inappropriate, and calls on Congress to compel DHS to find humane alternatives for managing families whose immigration status is in limbo.
“We are thrilled at what we were able to accomplish through litigation and mediation,” said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of the ACLU of Texas. “But the fact remains that our government should not be locking up innocent children – period. That is not what America is about. It is time for Congress to intervene and end the policy of family detention.”
The Hutto lawsuits were filed by Gupta and Elora Mukherjee of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program; Bhat and Tom Jawetz of the ACLU’s National Prison Project; Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project; Graybill of the ACLU Foundation of Texas; Hines of the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic; and Gorman, Stephen J. Lable and Carol A. Lafond of the law firm LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP.
More information about Hutto and the ACLU’s litigation is available online at: www.aclu.org/hutto <http://www.aclu.org/hutto>;
ACLU-MN Day at the Hill 2007
December 31, 1969
Join the ACLU of Minnesota for our 1st Annual Day at the Hill!
April 17th 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Lobby Day Topics
- Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System
- Pending bills: HF 1130/SF 1348; HF 1306/SF0914; HF 1306/0914; HF1380/SF0279
- Reproductive Freedom
- Pending bills: HF 1442/SF1266; HF 0615/SF0588
- GLBT Rights
- Pending bills: HF 1618/SF1369; HF 1097/SF960
Schedule
8:45 am: Registration begins in Room 319, refreshments will be available.
9:00 am: Meet in Senate Room 319 for training and speeches by a Senator and a
Representative
11:00 am: The group will split into two groups depending on thescheduling of legislator meetings
Group A: Meet with legislators
Group B: Guided capitol complex tour
Noon: Lunch on your own
1:00 pm: Group A: Guided capitol complex tour
Group B: Meet with legislators
2:00 pm: Continue meeting with legislators
3:00 pm: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing in Capitol Room 112
4:00 pm: Wrap up meeting in room 300 N at the State Office Building
There are two ways to register
#1 Download a flyer which via fax (651-647-5948)
#2 Register online
It's free and open to anyone in the public so invite a friend!
Let your voice be heard, we hope to see you there!
Annual Meeting 2007
December 31, 1969
Join the ACLU of Minnesota for their Annual Member Meeting on April 28th, 2007.
The meeting will be held at Hamline University Graduate School, 1536 Hewitt Ave. Saint Paul, MN in room 005 from 10:00 am.
The meeting is open to all ACLU of Minnesota members. If you are currently not a member but would like to attend memberships will be sold at the door.
To R.S.V.P for this meeting please send an email to Molly Miller at mmiler@aclu-mn.org ;
ACLU National - restore due process
December 31, 1969
WASHINGTON - As the House Armed Services Committee met to consider the Military Commissions Act, the American Civil Liberties Union urged lawmakers to restore habeas corpus and other due process protections eliminated by that law. The hearing comes during the same week that the first commissions under the new law began in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."The Military Commissions Act violates American values and our commitment to due process," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The so-called hearings that began this week in Guantanamo are a mockery-no better than a kangaroo court. Congress must reaffirm the American value of due process and fix the Military Commissions Act."
The ACLU is one of four organizations that have been granted status as human rights observers at the military commission proceedings. The ACLU continues to press the government to close the facility and to restore the right of due process under the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
Already, several measures have been introduced in Congress to fix the Military Commissions Act. The ACLU is urging Congress to enact both measures. The "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" (H.R.1416/S.185) would restore habeas corpus for those detained by the American government.
The "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007" (H.R. 1415/S. 576) would also reinstate habeas rights and clarify the definition of "enemy combatants." Additionally, it would block the federal government from making up its own rules on torture and abuse. The Geneva Conventions have governed American behavior during war for decades. The bill makes clear the federal government must comply with the Conventions, and no one in the federal government - not even the president -- can make up his or her own rules on torture and abuse.
To build support for the Restoring the Constitution Act, the ACLU is running radio advertisements, at saturation levels, in various states around the country. The ACLU noted that in the Senate this week, two new cosponsors have joined the Restoring the Constitution Act.
"Congress must restore the American values of fairness and freedom," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "We hope that these hearings will be the first step to shutting down the Guantanamo Bay prison and bringing back due process and the rule of law."
More on the ACLU's concerns with the Military Commissions Act is available at:
www.aclu.org/militarycommissions
ACLU News - detention
December 31, 1969
SAN FRANCISCO - The American Civil Liberties Union, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the ACLU of Northern California, and the law firm of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a U.S. citizen child who was unlawfully detained for ten hours by immigration officials.
Six-year-old Kebin Reyes was taken into custody with his father, Noe Reyes, in the early hours of March 6, 2007 when U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement Agency (ICE) agents raided his home in San Rafael, California.
"ICE's treatment of children is not in line with American values of decency and fairness," said Julia Harumi Mass, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "In addition to Kebin's case, we have heard reports of children left without care after their parents are detained, immigration agents targeting areas around elementary schools, and children too upset to participate ain class after witnessing early morning raids in their communities. The human cost of these tactics is unacceptable."
Immigration agents stormed into the apartment where Kebin and his father were living and rounded up all the occupants, demanding their immigration papers and passports. Mr. Reyes immediately gave the ICE agents his son's U.S. passport, identifying Kebin as a U.S. citizen. An ICE agent then told Mr. Reyes to wake his son and said they would take them in for only an hour or two. Mr. Reyes asked several times to make a phone call so that he could arrange for a family member or family friend to care of Kebin. Each of these requests was denied, and Kebin was forced to watch as his father was handcuffed and taken away. The immigration officers then told Kebin to place his own arms behind his back, like his father's.
At the ICE processing center in San Francisco, Mr. Reyes' additional requests to make a phone call were denied and ICE agents made no efforts to seek alternative care for his son. Kebin and his father were placed in a locked room and were only provided with bread and water. Kebin's uncle learned about the arrests from neighbors and rushed to the ICE office. He waited several hours before Kebin was finally released into his custody.
"There is a long history of abuse and misconduct by immigration agents," said Philip Hwang, a staff attorney at the Lawyer's Committee. "In recent months, government agents have entered homes without warrants and threatened and intimidated community members. What happened to Kebin is the latest, most shocking incident. This lawsuit is an important step in holding the government accountable." The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area has brought nine cases against immigration agents in recent years.
Since last May when ICE's "Operation Return to Sender" was launched, immigration raids were conducted throughout the nation, resulting in the detention of more than 18,000 immigrants, according to recent news reports. In the Bay Area, raids were conducted in several counties including Marin, Contra Costa County, San Francisco, Redwood City and Santa Cruz.
In response to reports of misconduct and abuse by ICE agents, the ACLU of Northern California, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and the San Francisco Bay Guardian filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on March 6 seeking records relating to recent raids. Some of the abusive practices reported in the press included illegal entries and searches by ICE agents, misidentification of ICE agents as a member of local police forces, inappropriate tactics related to children, ethnic profiling, violations of due process and abusive treatment.
The civil rights groups and the law firm are seeking damages for Kebin Reyes.
