Which government whistleblower responsible for revealing the NSA's massive spying program released a statement encouraging Americans to rally against pervasive surveillance?
According to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, what must law enforcement obtain before attaching a GPS device to a car to track its movements?
In which state did a court rule that law enforcement has a duty to enforce anti-harassment orders to protect victims of domestic abuse?
What data broker recently allowed individuals to view certain parts of their profile (a profile generated by the data broker mining public records and secretly following individuals around the web)?
True or false: retro prudery is a hot new trend. (See: new ACLU comic by Jen Sorensen.)
Edward Snowden: This Saturday, Demand an End to the Surveillance State
This Saturday, you can join the growing movement calling on the government to get out of our private lives, at the biggest protest yet against NSA spying. Organized by the StopWatching.Us coalition – a group of 100 organizations, companies, and public figures – the rally has received the support of celebrities, politicians, and the whistleblower responsible for the robust public debate that has come out of his disclosures. In a statement Snowden provided the ACLU, he writes: "Now it's time for the government to learn from us. Join us in sending the message: Stop Watching Us."
VICTORY! Federal Appeals Court Rules Warrant Required for GPS Tracking
Yesterday the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS device to a car and track its movements. The case, United States v. Katzin, is the first in which a federal appeals court has explicitly held that a warrant is required for GPS tracking by police. The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case (joined by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and presented oral argument to the court in March.
Domestic Violence: Police Have a Duty to Protect Victims
Last week, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington took an important step forward in the fight to ensure the rights of victims of domestic violence. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the daughters of the late Baerbel Roznowski, Carola Washburn and Janet Loh, who had filed a lawsuit against the City of Federal Way for police negligence that led to their mother's death.
How Do I Get Out of This Relationship?
Acxiom—one of the largest data brokers in the country—recently allowed individuals to view certain parts of their profile and edit or delete some details. Although the ACLU believes that strong laws are necessary to ensure people have access to this information at all times, we appreciate Acxiom's nod to transparency.
The ACLU's Sandra Fulton blogs on the privacy implications of being in an unwanted "relationship" with a data broker.
STEALTH ATTACK: Don't Let it Fool You!
If it weren't for the serious life-altering implications of the anti-abortion bills passed this year all over the country, it would be downright comical. From legislators in North Carolina tacking abortion legislation onto a motorcycle safety bill, to politicians in Texas insisting that shutting down abortion clinics because of the size of their parking lots is really an attempt to protect women's health, the lengths politicians have gone to deny women their basic constitutional rights is nearly laughable. Politicians must think we're stupid.
Learn more about your civil liberty issues: 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.