Who said the police don't need a warrant to demand cell phone location records of innocent citizens not even suspected of crime?
When was the last time Congress updated electronic privacy law?
Who violated the NAACP's right to free speech?
Which department is still discriminating against homosexual service members despite the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
What bill will ensure that citizens will not be treated as criminals based on their racial or ethnic heritage?
D.C. Judge: Government Doesn't Need a Warrant to Demand Cell Phone Location Information
These days, most people carry a cell phone with them everywhere they go: to work, to church, on vacation, and more. And cell phone carriers may capture and retain records of your location even when you're not using your phone. Does that mean that the government can simply demand these records from your carrier without a warrant? Unfortunately, according to Judge Royce Lamberth of the D.C. District Court, the answer to that question is 'yes.'
Want to Read My Email? Not Without a Warrant.
Congress hasn't updated our basic electronic privacy law since 1986, long before most Americans sent their first email. So, it's no surprise that our privacy protections haven't kept pace with new technological advancements. The current law even allows the government to read virtually all of our emails without a warrant. This extraordinary power is an egregious violation of the privacy Americans rightly expect.
Read more posts from commemorating ECPA's 25th birthday >>
Free Speech at the Airport: The Government Can't Selectively Silence Viewpoints
This week, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the NAACP filed a lawsuit against Philadelphia, which violated the First Amendment when it refused to accept an NAACP advertisement in the city's airport. The ad is part of a campaign to promote changes in the criminal justice and education systems. The lawsuit also names as a defendant Clear Channel Outdoor, which handles advertising for the airport.
Gay Veterans Will Have Their Day in Court
We may be a few months out from the new year, but it's safe to say the demise of Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be marked as a highlight of 2011. The end of that discriminatory statute and its demeaning implications to the men and women who serve our country is something to be celebrated. But even though DADT is gone, the legacy of unfair treatment of gay and lesbian veterans continues.
That includes the Defense Department's separation pay policy for discharged service members. If you serve six years in the military and are then discharged involuntarily, Congress says you're entitled to separation pay to help ease your transition to civilian life. But the DOD has an internal policy — not required by any statute — of cutting that separation pay in half if you're discharged, even honorably, for "homosexuality."
The Three Faces of Racial Profiling: The ACLU Connects the Dots
Before there was even a name for it, racial profiling has been ingrained in our country's law enforcement practices. But racial profiling not only goes against our Constitution and our country's value for equality — it also hinders law enforcement officials from doing an effective job.
For years, many of our political leaders have vowed to put an end to racial profiling. Attorney General Eric Holder has made it clear that ending the practice of racial profiling is a "priority" for the Obama administration. And certain members of Congress have echoed that sentiment, by introducing S. 1670, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2011, in the Senate on Oct. 6. The law also will be reintroduced in the House, and should receive bipartisan support.
Read more from our blog series, The Three Faces of Racial Profiling >>
This is your week in civil liberties. Let us know if this is useful or if you'd like to see changes. Share your thoughts: ideas@aclu.org
Learn more about your rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature.