Congress is back in session, so we've got a busy week ahead.
Today, the ACLU, along with several other groups, is launching a weeklong campaign called "Stop Cyber Spying Week" to draw attention to the massive civil liberties problems in H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, better known as CISPA. CISPA is scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives next week. Tomorrow ACLU Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson will speak at a House Hill Briefing called "The False Choice: Cybersecurity vs. Civil Liberties."
Tomorrow, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will hold a hearing on racial profiling in America. The hearing will explore how profiling harms law enforcement and will focus on the many different faces of racial profiling, including historic racism against African-Americans in community and drug enforcement, the post-9/11 intelligence gathering and racial mapping particularly of Arab Muslims and South Asians and the profiling of Latinos, Asians and other people of color in the context of immigration and border enforcement. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero will testify at the hearing. We will also hold a blog series this week that will feature posts written by ACLU clients and staff who have been victims of racial profiling.
We'll be live-tweeting both the racial profiling and cybersecurity events Tuesday; follow us @ACLULive for updates.
Tomorrow is also Equal Pay Day, the day that marks how far women, on average, have to work into 2012 to be paid the same as men were paid in 2011. Senior Legislative Counsel Deborah J. Vagins will participate in a Congressional briefing on Equal Pay Day.
Next week's marquee event is on Wednesday, April 25, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Arizona v. U.S., the challenge to Arizona's racial profiling law, S.B. 1070. We'll be participating in a number of events in the days leading up to the argument. On Monday, April 23, the ACLU's Andre Segura will participate in a press conference on Capitol Hill and the Washington Legislative Office's Director Laura Murphy will moderate a congressional briefing on S.B. 1070. And on Tuesday, April 24, a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee will hold a hearing on S.B. 1070 called "Examining the Constitutionality and Prudence of State and Local Governments Enforcing Immigration Law."
Also next Wednesday, Deborah will be back on the Hill to participate in a congressional briefing on the Democracy Restoration Act hosted by Sen. Ben Cardin. She will be speaking alongside other members of the civil rights, faith, and law enforcement community working for passage of the DRA.
Monday, April 16
Death Penalty: On Monday we will kick off a blog series to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, in which the Court ruled that a defendant cannot rely upon statistical evidence of racial bias to prove his death sentence unconstitutional, no matter how strong that evidence may be. McCleskey has been roundly condemned as a low point in the quest for equality — the Dred Scott of its time. Watch here for daily posts.
Detention: The International Committee of the Red Cross will host a roundtable discussion with ICRC Geneva Legal Advisor on Detention Issues, Jelena Pejic, an expert on status, treatment, and judicial guarantees for persons deprived of their freedom.
Prisoners' Rights: On Monday, the ACLU National Prison Project's Margaret Winter will testify before the L.A. County Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence. In January, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the longstanding, widespread pattern of violence by deputies against inmates in the county jails.
Tuesday, April 17
Cybersecurity: Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson will speak on a panel at a House Hill Briefing on cybersecurity called "The False Choice: Cybersecurity vs. Civil Liberties," which is being cohosted by the ACLU, the Constitution Project, and the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Medical Marijuana: On Tuesday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear arguments in our case on behalf of Joseph Casias, a cancer patient in Michigan who was fired from his job at Wal-Mart for using medical marijuana in compliance with state law.
Racial Profiling: The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, will hold a hearing titled, "Ending Racial Profiling in America." ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero will testify at the hearing and will submit written testimony as well. Following the hearing, the ACLU and its coalition partners will host a press conference to spotlight the need to pass the End Racial Profiling Act. The press event will feature Sens. Dick Durbin and Ben Cardin as well as ACLU clients from Michigan and Minnesota and the Deputy Commander of the Hinds County Sheriff's Department who has worked closely with the ACLU of Mississippi on anti-racial profiling training.
Women's Rights: Tuesday is Equal Pay Day, the day that marks how far women, on average, have to work into 2012 to be paid the same as men were paid in 2011. Senior Legislative Counsel Deborah J. Vagins will participate in a Congressional briefing on Equal Pay Day and will be discussing a range of pay equity issues, including Obama administration programs that support enforcement efforts, current and upcoming pay equity legislation and the issue of pay secrecy. The briefing is sponsored by the Fair Pay Coalition, and other speakers will include representatives from the American Association of University Women, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, Mom's Rising, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the National Women's Law Center. The ACLU is also working in conjunction with the administration and the Fair Pay Coalition to roll out material and promote issues of fair pay, including gaining congressional support for the Paycheck Fairness Act and urging the president to sign an executive order banning retaliation for wage disclosure in federal contracting.
Criminal Law Reform: The Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases, Hill v. United States and Dorsey v. United States, to address whether the Fair Sentencing Act's new sentencing guidelines for crack offenses apply to those who committed crimes before the FSA became law but were sentenced after its passage.
Cybercrime: The House Judiciary Committee will hold a markup of a bill amending the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Wednesday, April 18
Voting Rights: The Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled "Voting Wrongs: Oversight of the Justice Department's Voting Rights Enforcement." The ACLU will monitor.
Employment Discrimination: The Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and the Workforce Committee will hold a hearing titled "Reviewing the Impact of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' Regulatory and Enforcement Actions." The ACLU recently submitted comments on proposed OFCCP regulations, and will monitor the hearing.
Racial Profiling: The ACLU, Leadership Conference, NAACP and Rights Working Group will host a National End Racial Profiling Advocacy Day in which advocates, organizers, and community members from 13 different states will convene in D.C. to urge their members of Congress to pass the End Racial Profiling Act.
Privacy: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on nominations to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
E-Verify: The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement is holding a hearing titled "Document Fraud in Employment Authorization: How an E-Verify Requirement Can Help."
Cybersecurity: The House Oversight and Government reform will mark up a rewrite of the Federal Information Security Management Act.
PRECISE Act: The House Homeland Security Committee will mark up H.R. 3674, the Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011. The bill was marked up by the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies on February 1, and was forwarded to the full committee by a voice vote.
Thursday, April 19
Racial Profiling: Policy Counsel Mike German will appear at a briefing sponsored by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to discuss racial profiling and spying of the Muslim community.
Criminal Justice: The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens and potentially address the need for reform of the Brady Rule.
Friday, April 20
On Friday, we expect a decision in the first-ever case under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act, which allows capital defendants to present evidence to show that racial bias was a factor in the imposition of the death penalty. The ACLU and co-counsel are challenging the death sentence of Marcus Robinson.
UPDATE: The April 19 racial profiling briefing paragraph has been amended to add the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus as sponsors of the event.
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
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.