Garza Martinez, ACLU, and ACLU of Texas Fight to Hold Government Accountable for Unlawful Prosecution of South Texas’ Lizelle Gonzalez
McALLEN, Texas – The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and Texas-based firm Garza Martinez filed an opposition to a motion to dismiss today in a case challenging the unlawful investigation and prosecution of Lizelle Gonzalez, who was arrested, jailed, and unlawfully charged with murder after a medication abortion she had in 2022.
Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancy. Despite knowing that Ms. Gonzalez’s conduct was not a crime under Texas law, the sheriff, district attorney, and assistant district attorney initiated a criminal investigation, and then pursued and obtained what they knew to be an unlawful indictment against Ms. Gonzalez. She spent three days in jail before a $500,000 bond was posted to secure her release. Though the district attorney eventually dismissed the charge, the government officials who caused her harm have yet to be held accountable for the misconduct, abuse of power, and violation of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights.
Soon after the criminal charge was dropped, the Texas Bar investigated the district attorney for knowingly pursuing an unlawful indictment. The Texas Bar made a finding of professional misconduct, including for lying in his response to the bar’s investigation and for prosecuting a murder charge against Ms. Gonzalez that he knew was unsupported by probable cause. Despite these violations, the district attorney remains in office as the chief prosecutor for the county and still has the power to investigate and prosecute.
“No one is above the law, including and especially the people we entrust to enforce it,” said Cecilia Garza, attorney at Garza Martinez Law, “The actions of the Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff put our client’s private life on display for the whole world: It was traumatizing, humiliating, and impacted her life forever. Lizelle is a mother of three, a sister, a daughter, and an integral member of our community, unlawfully prosecuted at one of the most difficult and personal times in her life. Our community is diverse – with varying views on the right to end a pregnancy – but if government officials can unlawfully prey on people based on their personal beliefs, we are all at risk of being their next target.”
The brief counters the prosecutors’ and law enforcement’s claims of legal immunity, a legal doctrine that may prohibit government officials, including police and prosecutors, from being held accountable for some constitutional violations. However, that doctrine does not shield government actors who knowingly falsely accuse and arrest someone for a crime they did not commit. The individuals here should not be permitted to evade responsibility for the violations of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights and the harm they caused her.
“We will not let this egregious constitutional violation be swept under the rug and go away quietly,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas. “In Starr County and across the state of Texas, we must demand that law enforcement officials commit to using their power responsibly and justly.”
The civil suit, filed by Ms. Gonzalez in March 2024, seeks accountability and damages from the district attorney, assistant district attorney, sheriff, and county for the wrongful investigation, prosecution, and arrest that continue to harm her and her family.
“A system in which law enforcement and prosecutors can ignore the law to wrongfully charge, arrest, and upend the lives of individuals is not a fair or just system and it certainly isn’t a system that makes us any safer,” said Lauren Johnson, director of the ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. “We need to hold prosecutors accountable to stop this abuse of power and put an end to the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes.”
Related Documents
Criminal Law Reform
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Criminal Law Reform
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.