Court Blocks Implementation Of Key Sections Of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
UPDATED
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
PHOENIX – Ensuring that Arizona law enforcement will not be required to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S., a federal court in Phoenix today blocked key provisions of Arizona's racial profiling law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging the Arizona law. The ruling vindicates similar claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit challenging the discriminatory measure.
The blocked sections under the law include the following provisions:
• The requirement that police officers investigate the immigration status of all individuals they stop if the officers suspect that they are in the country unlawfully;
• The mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested, even for minor offenses that would normally result in a ticket, if they cannot verify that they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
• The new statute imposing state criminal penalties for non-citizens failing to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
• The provision for warrantless arrest of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and
• The new state statute making it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.
The court blocked the provision that would create an Arizona ban on undocumented persons applying for, soliciting or performing work. However, the court did not block the provisions that prohibit day laborers from being hired if the party hiring them impedes traffic. The civil rights coalition maintains these sections violate free speech protections and are confident that they too will ultimately be barred as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.*
The civil rights coalition that also challenged the law includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.
The coalition's lawsuit, filed on May 17 and argued the same day as the Justice Department's case, challenges SB 1070 on legal grounds raised in the Justice Department's lawsuit as well as others including that the law invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.
The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.
Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
"This is a major step that will help protect the residents of Arizona against racial profiling and discrimination, and the Obama administration deserves praise for its principled decision to challenge this law despite pressure to stay silent. A single state's frustration with federal policy cannot be allowed to hijack federal authority or dictate federal priorities in ways that impede effective law enforcement, threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and violate core American values."
Nina Perales, Regional Counsel Southwest Region for MALDEF:
"Today's ruling guts the unconstitutional immigration scheme that Arizona wanted to establish. The judge's decision further shows that SB 1070 is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to take over the federal immigration system within Arizona's borders. States around the nation should take heed that any similar efforts will not succeed."
Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:
"With today's ruling, Judge Bolton enjoined the most egregious provisions of SB 1070, a dangerous enactment that threatens the fundamental rights of countless Arizonans and visitors. Other states following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned: attempts to trample on the constitutional rights of communities of color in this country must not be permitted. We look forward to showing, through our lawsuit, that this pernicious law should be taken off Arizona's books permanently."
Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:
"This is a first step toward a victory for civil liberties in Arizona. We eagerly anticipate proving to the court that this reactionary racial profiling law violates the Constitution so we can begin the real work of crafting practical solutions that address our nation's immigration concerns rather than violate fundamental American values."
Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:
"We applaud the judge for seeing the imminent danger of having this law enacted. SB 1070 presents a distinct and separate immigration scheme that conflicts with federal law and policy, and would have a devastating impact on Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos and other people of color in Arizona. Indeed, some of those negative effects have already been felt. This ruling makes clear that intimidation of immigrant communities, pretextual stops to ask for 'papers,' and rhetoric about who belongs in Arizona and who doesn't under the guise of enforcing SB 1070 should cease immediately."
Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON:
"If history is any guide, the road ahead in Arizona will be a long one. Today was one stop along the way, and we while we have complete faith in the legal process to ultimately defend the United States Constitution, we will not declare victory until SB 1070 is stopped in its entirety and until civil rights of all people in Arizona are fully protected."
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
• ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
• MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
• NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
• ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
• NDLON: Chris Newman;
• NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro;
• Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-
A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers
More information about the Arizona law can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona
* This paragraph was rewritten to better explain the decision.
Immigrants' Rights
Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.
Immigrants' Rights
Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Smart Justice
ACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their CommunitiesACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their Communities
WASHINGTON – President Biden heeded the calls of advocates and families today by granting commutations to close to 1,500 people who were released to home confinement at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act and pardons to 39 additional people, including many veterans and women. The CARES Act, passed in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed certain groups of people to serve part of their sentences at home to mitigate the dangers of COVID-19 in federal prisons. Since then, thousands of people have been allowed to serve part of their sentences at home, securing jobs, reconnecting with loved ones, and reintegrating into their communities. The American Civil Liberties Union advocated for the CARES Act and has been urging President Biden to provide clemency to CARES Act release recipients since 2021, launching a six-figure ad buy, engaging grassroots supporters, filing FOIA litigation, and more. “We are thrilled that President Biden has allowed people to remain with their families and communities, where they belong, said Cynthia W. Roseberry, director of policy and government affairs at the ACLU’s Justice Division. “The CARES Act was an unprecedented experiment in decarceration, and the data tells us it was incredibly successful. Of the over 13,000 people released, more than 99 percent have safely and successfully reintegrated into their communities. We urge Congress to build on the remarkable success of the CARES Act and pass other decarceration policies that prioritize compassion, redemption, and public safety.” “President Biden’s actions today also remind us of the incredible and unique power of executive clemency,” Roseberry continued. “The ACLU has long advocated for the categorical use of clemency to address unjust outcomes of the criminal legal system. While today’s announcement is wonderful, there is more to do in the final weeks before President Biden leaves office. We strongly urge President Biden to use his power to address this country's failed death penalty by commuting death row sentences.” According to data the ACLU obtained this year through FOIA litigation, the vast majority (71.8 percent) of those on home confinement had less than one year remaining in their sentence. Almost a quarter (23.5 percent) of CARES Act clemency recipients are older than 61 and over half (59.4 percent) are people of color. “Biden's announcement today means I can finally breathe a sigh of relief after 3.5 years of living with the fear of being sent back to prison for no reason,” said Won Lee, released on CARES Act home confinement in May 2021. “The second chance I got through the CARES Act allowed me to take care of my aging parents, restart my career, pursue a graduate degree, and receive treatment for the cancer I was diagnosed with shortly after returning home. Today's decision means I will no longer have to live with the uncertainty and fear that I will be unjustly uprooted from my life and family, who now depend on me. I am incredibly grateful and thrilled to sleep soundly tonight knowing I'll remain at home.” Learn more about the ACLU’s campaign to commute death row here: https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/president-biden-commute-the-row -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Smart Justice
Just City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail LawJust City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail Law
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Criminal Law Reform Project, ACLU of Tennessee, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of Just City Memphis to challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee’s unprecedented new bail law, arguing that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment by mandating unfair bail hearing procedures and discriminatory wealth-based detention. The law makes Tennessee the only state in the country to prohibit judges from considering whether people appearing before them will be able to pay for release. The new law, which went into effect on May 1, targeted successful bail reforms that Shelby County implemented following an agreement with the ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, Just City, and other local advocates. The agreement required the examination of a person’s financial circumstances prior to any bail decision; individualized bail hearings with counsel no later than three days after a person’s arrest; and imposition of secured money bail only as a last resort. As a result, more people returned home to their communities while at the same time lowering the number of people rearrested for new crimes. By rolling back these reforms, the Tennessee legislature has created a two-tiered system of justice, leaving those who cannot afford to pay detained indefinitely, even if they are not a flight or safety risk. Meanwhile, those who face the same charges but can afford to pay money bail are freed until trial. “Bail reform works, and it was working in Shelby County. More Tennesseans were returning home to live peacefully in their communities,” said Trisha Trigilio, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “This shameful legislation targets low-income and marginalized Tennesseans for pointless jail time. We will not allow Tennessee lawmakers to end successful bail reform for political gain.” "Our Constitution demands that judges make individualized determinations about pretrial release," said Josh Spickler, executive director at Just City. "This law prevents judges from doing that crucial work and results in the unnecessary detention of people who pose no risk to public safety because they can't afford to pay an arbitrary bail amount. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work." “We don't have to choose between safety and justice; we can have both if we maintain a bail system that is evidence-based, fair, and constitutional.” said Stella Yarbrough, legal director at the ACLU of Tennessee. “Everyone has a basic right to freedom, and this new law contradicts decades of constitutional precedent. Freedom for the wealthy and punishment for poor people of all races violates the Constitution and disproportionately impacts Black people and people with disabilities, while doing nothing to address the systemic causes of crime—like poverty and lack of opportunity.” Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Litigation Partner Craig Waldman added, “Tennessee’s law banning judges from considering an individual’s ability to pay bail is unfair and unconstitutional. The right to due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment is a bedrock of our justice system.” Just City is an organization dedicated to fighting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and income in Shelby County criminal proceedings, and has long advocated for pretrial practices that prioritize fair and sensible release decisions over a person’s ability to pay. Their lawsuit asks the court to declare that this new bail law violates the Fourteenth Amendment and requests a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the Shelby County Sheriff from enforcing this law. -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Reproductive Freedom
+2 Issues
Court Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of AbortionCourt Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of Abortion
McALLEN, Texas – A federal judge ruled today that a lawsuit seeking accountability for the unlawful investigation and prosecution of Lizelle Gonzalez can proceed, rejecting attempts by Starr County officials to have the case dismissed. Gonzalez, represented by Garza Martinez, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas was unlawfully arrested, jailed, and charged with murder after a medication abortion she had in 2022. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancy. “When I first heard Lizelle’s story, I was outraged at the behavior of our elected officials,” said Cecilia Garza, attorney at Garza Martinez. “The court’s decision today to allow this case to proceed gives me hope that courts will not allow these types of egregious acts to continue. Law enforcement need to be held accountable to the laws that they took an oath to uphold.” In the motions to dismiss, the prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez’s constitutional rights. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez’s case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. “Immunity doctrine creates a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people’s rights, knowing they will face few – if any – consequences,” said Lauren Johnson, director of the ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. “While immunity often obstructs victims of misconduct from attaining accountability, the court’s decision today to allow the case to proceed will give Lizelle a chance to pursue the justice she deserves for being unlawfully targeted and prosecuted.” “Texas is one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to abortion health care, but even in Texas, the laws are uniform and clear that pregnant women cannot be criminally liable for having an abortion,” said David Donatti, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “We expect and demand that our elected officials follow the rule of law, and that is especially true for officials elected to enforce the laws with so much power over our daily lives and personal decisions.”