The Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including gun control, free speech online, race-based discrimination in voting, reproductive rights, presidential immunity from criminal accountability, and more.

The ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. The court will decide all its cases by the beginning of July. Here are eight undecided cases to watch, and what they mean for the future of our civil liberties.

The Facts: Anti-abortion doctors, who do not prescribe medication abortion, are asking the Supreme Court to force the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to impose severe restrictions on mifepristone – a safe and effective medication used in this country in most abortions and for miscarriage management – in every state, even where abortion is protected by state law.

Our Argument: The FDA approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago, finding that it is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Since its approval, more than 5 million people in the U.S. have used this medication. Our brief argued that the two lower courts – a district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – relied on junk science and discredited witnesses to override the FDA’s expert decision to eliminate medically-unnecessary restrictions on an essential medication with a stronger safety record than Tylenol. We urged the Supreme Court to protect access to medication abortion and reverse the lower courts’ rulings.

Why it Matters: Today, with abortion access already severely restricted, the ability to get medication-abortion care using mifepristone is more important than ever. If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, individuals would be blocked from filling mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order pharmacies, forcing many to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill they can safely receive through the mail. Healthcare professionals with specialized training, like advanced practice clinicians, would also be prohibited from prescribing mifepristone, further limiting where patients can access this critical medication. The American Cancer Society and other leading patient advocacy groups are also sounding the alarm that overturning the FDA’s decision would upend drug innovation and research, with consequences well beyond reproductive health care.

The Last Word: “As this case shows, overturning Roe v. Wade wasn’t the end goal for extremists. In addition to targeting nationwide-access to mifepristone, politicians in some states have already moved on to attack birth control and IVF. We need to take these extremists seriously when they show us they’re coming for every aspect of our reproductive lives.” – Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

The Facts: Idaho politicians want the power to disregard the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations, including abortion where that is the appropriate stabilizing treatment. If the state prevails, it would jail doctors for providing pregnant patients with the necessary emergency care required under this federal law.

Our Argument: The ACLU and its legal partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining that the law requires hospitals to provide whatever emergency care is required; there is no carve-out for patients who need an abortion to stabilize an emergency condition. All three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it.

Why it Matters: Because Idaho’s current abortion ban prohibits providing the emergency care required under EMTALA, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing necessary emergency care to a pregnant patient or facing criminal prosecution from the state. Depending on how the court rules, medical providers and patients in several other states with extreme abortion bans could find themselves in a similar position.

The Last Word: “If these politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, and we fear a ripple effect across the country.” – Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

The Facts: In 2018, Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, in coordination with then-Mayor Andrew Cuomo, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the National Rifle Association (NRA) because she and Cuomo disagreed with its pro-gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo’s alleged efforts to blacklist the NRA penalized it for its political advocacy, in violation of the First Amendment.

Our Argument: The ACLU, representing the NRA at the Supreme Court, argued that any government attempt to blacklist an advocacy group and deny it financial services because of its viewpoint violates the right to free speech. Our brief urges the court to apply the precedent it set in 1963 in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, which established that even informal, indirect efforts to censor speech violate the First Amendment.

Why it Matters: While the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, this case is about securing basic First Amendment rights for all advocacy organizations. If New York State is allowed to blacklist the NRA, then Oklahoma could similarly penalize criminal justice reformers advocating for bail reform, and Texas could target climate change organizations advancing the view that all fossil fuel extraction must end. The ACLU itself could be targeted for its advocacy.

The Last Word: “The right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see. It’s a principle the ACLU has defended for more than 100 years, and one we will continue to protect from government censorship of all kinds, whether we agree or disagree with the views of those being targeted.” – David Cole, ACLU legal director

The Facts: Motivated by a perception that social media platforms disproportionately silence conservative voices, Florida and Texas passed laws that give the government authority to regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube curate content posted on their sites.

Our Argument: In a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and the ACLU of Texas argued that the First Amendment right to speak includes the right to choose what to publish and how to prioritize what is published. The government’s desire to have private speakers, like social media companies, distribute more conservative viewpoints–or any specific viewpoints–is not a permissible basis for state control of what content appears on privately-owned platforms.

Why it Matters: If these laws are allowed to stand, platforms may fear liability and decide to publish nothing at all, effectively eliminating the internet’s function as a modern public square. Or, in an attempt to comply with government regulations, social media companies may be forced to publish a lot more distracting and unwanted content. For example, under the Texas law, which requires “viewpoint neutrality,” a platform that publishes posts about suicide prevention would also have to publish posts directing readers to websites that encourage suicide. .

The Last Word: “Social media companies have a First Amendment right to choose what to host, display, and publish. The Supreme Court has recognized that right for everyone from booksellers to newspapers to cable companies, and this case should make clear that the same is true for social media platforms.” — Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, & Technology Project

The Facts: In 2022, South Carolina adopted a racially-gerrymandered congressional map. The state legislature singled out Black communities, “cracking” predominantly Black communities and neighborhoods across two districts to reduce their electoral influence in the state’s first congressional district.

Our Argument: The ACLU and its legal partners sued on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP and an affected voter to challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map. We argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest, which the state failed to provide.

Why it Matters: This racially-gerrymandered congressional map deprives Black South Carolinians the political representation they deserve in all but one of seven districts, limiting the power and influence of more than a quarter of the state’s population just before the 2024 election.

The Last Word: “South Carolina’s failure to rectify its racially-gerrymandered congressional map blatantly disregards the voices and the rights of Black voters. The ACLU is determined to fight back until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.” – Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project

The Facts: Zackey Rahimi was convicted under a federal law that forbids individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Our Argument: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns. It invalidated the federal gun law because it found no historical analogues in the 1700s or 1800s that prohibited those subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. The ACLU argued that the Fifth Circuit’s analysis is a misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen because it effectively required a “historical twin” law in order to uphold a law today. There were no identical laws at the time of the Framing because there were no domestic violence protective orders then, but that should not be a basis for invalidating the laws today. We also argued that imposing time-limited firearms restrictions based on civil restraining orders is a critical tool for protecting those who have experienced domestic violence and face a threat of further violence.

Why it Matters: If the Fifth Circuit’s rationale is affirmed, then governments would lose the ability to prohibit gun possession by persons subject to restraining orders — and presumably even to run pre-acquisition background checks, which have stopped more than 77,000 purchases of weapons by individuals subject to domestic violence orders in the 25 years that the federal law has been in place. This “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment not only hinders our ability to protect individuals against newly recognized threats, but also tethers the authority to regulate gun possession to periods when governments disregarded many forms of violence directed against women, Black people, Indigenous people, and others.

The Last Word: “It would be a radical mistake to allow historical wrongs to defeat efforts today to protect women and other survivors of domestic abuse. The Supreme Court should affirm that the government can enact laws aimed at preventing intimate partner violence, consistent with the Second Amendment.” – Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project

The Facts: Grants Pass, Oregon, enacted ordinances that make it illegal for people, including unhoused persons with no access to shelter, to sleep outside in public using a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard sheet to lie on. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no other choice violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Our Argument: In Oregon, and elsewhere in the United States, the population of unhoused persons often exceeds the number of shelter beds available, forcing many to sleep on the streets or in parks. The ACLU and 19 state affiliates submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it is cruel and unusual to punish unhoused people for the essential life-sustaining activity of sleeping outside when they lack access to any alternative shelter.

Why it Matters: When applied to people with nowhere else to go, fines and arrests for sleeping outside serve no purpose and are plainly disproportionately punitive. Arresting and fining unhoused people for sleeping in public only exacerbates cycles of homelessness and mass incarceration.

The Last Word: “There is no punishment that fits the ‘crime’ of being forced to sleep outside. Instead of saddling people with fines, jail time, and criminal records, cities should focus on proven solutions, like affordable housing, accessible and voluntary services, and eviction protections.” – Scout Katovich, staff attorney with the ACLU Trone Center for Justice and Equality

The Facts: Former President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to rule that he cannot be held criminally liable for any official acts as president, even after leaving office, and even where the crimes concern efforts to resist the peaceful transition of power after an election. This claim runs contrary to fundamental principles of constitutional accountability, and decades of precedent.

Our Argument: Our friend-of-the-court brief argues that former President Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, and that the Constitution and long-established Supreme Court precedent support the principle that in our democracy, nobody is above the law — even the president. Our brief warns that there are “few propositions more dangerous” in a democracy than the notion that an elected head of state has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution.

Why it Matters: No other president has asserted that presidents can never be prosecuted for official acts that violate criminal law. The president’s accountability to the law is an integral part of the separation of powers and the rule of law. If the President is free, as Trump’s legal counsel argued, to order the assassination of his political opponents and escape all criminal accountability even after he leaves office, both of these fundamental principles of our system would have a fatal Achilles’ heel.

The Last Word: “The United States does not have a king, and former presidents have no claim to being above the law. A functioning democracy depends on our ability to critically reckon with the troubling actions of government officials and hold them accountable.” – David Cole, ACLU legal director

Exclusive: Judge accused Robert Courts of ‘mischaracterising evidence’ against Trudi Warner

The government’s most senior law officer is to appeal against a decision not to allow a contempt of court action against climate campaigner Trudi Warner for holding a placard on the rights of jurors outside a British court, the Guardian can reveal.

Mr Justice Saini ruled at the high court last month there was no basis to take action against Warner, 69, for holding up the sign informing jurors of their right to acquit a defendant based on their conscience. He said the government’s claim that her behaviour fell into the category of criminal contempt was “fanciful”.

Continue reading...

💾

© Photograph: Emily Pennink/PA

💾

© Photograph: Emily Pennink/PA

State legislation can have an immense impact on your civil rights, for better or for worse. And even though state lawmakers are tasked with determining which bills get turned into laws, you hold a lot of power to make these decisions because you elect candidates into office. Take this quiz to learn about lawmaking at the state level, and how you can play a part in this process at the ballot box.

Click to see Quiz

State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.

With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.

With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.

Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a ​​bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.

Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.

The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.

The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.

There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.

But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.

The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.

Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.

To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.

pMany polls suggest if the presidential election were held today, Donald Trump could return to the White House. Fears of irreparable threats to our democracy and freedoms are neither abstract nor hyperbolic./p pWe must believe Trump when he reveals his authoritarian plans for a second term and take these threats seriously. He has made clear he intends to deploy the military to crush protests; activate state national guards to deport millions of immigrants; build on his legacy of gutting reproductive freedoms by implementing a nationwide abortion ban; create a police state in which anyone who he views as an “enemy” is surveilled and our law enforcement are further empowered to use lethal force; and undermine the integrity of our elections./p pTerrifying as these threats are, despair and resignation are not a strategy. We and our allies are prepared to fight back, informed by our experiences in his first term./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Nimble Legal Strategy to Combat Every New Threat and Prevent Harm/h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=ACLU attorney speaking in front of the Supreme Court. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-attorney-speaking-in-front-of-scotus-b-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / figcaption class=wp-image__caption is-caption mt-3pACLU Legal Director David Cole speaking in front of the Supreme Court building. The ACLU filed 434 legal actions against the Trump administration during his presidential term./p /figcaption span class=wp-image__credit is-creditpMolly Kaplan/ACLU/p /span /figure pThe ACLU filed 434 legal actions against the Trump administration, and hundreds of other lawsuits were filed by sister organizations, state attorneys general and even private citizens./p pWe turned to the courts during Trump’s first week in office when we, with the International Refugee Assistance Project and other partners, filed the first lawsuit challenging Trump’s Muslim ban. We got our first win the day after Trump’s executive order was signed. As the administration pivoted to “perfect” its unconstitutional ban, we fought every subsequent version. Along with our allies, we defeated the first two iterations of the ban, and ramped up pressure for President Biden to revoke the third and final ban on day one of his presidency./p pWe employed a similar strategy when the administration started forcibly separating families at the southern border. Initially, we only wanted to reunite one mother and her daughter, but subsequently learned that the government had codified this horrific practice into standard policy. We quickly expanded our suit and did everything possible to have the full extent of this tragedy revealed to the public. We, Kids in Need of Defense, the Women’s Refugee Commission and Justice in Motion mobilized thousands of people to march in opposition. Under significant, sustained public and legal pressure, the administration finally reversed their family separation policy, with our lawsuit helping reunite approximately 3,200 families./p pLitigation remains a powerful tool even in the face of Trump’s 245 judicial appointments. Much to his chagrin, many of his appointees proved willing to buck his agenda as Trump-appointed judges stood up nearly en masse for the rule of law and civil liberties in response to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump appointees also ruled against the administration’s anti-immigrant policies around Title 42 and the third-country transit ban./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markOrganizing Communities in the Streets/h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=ACLU Supporters carrying signs with the ACLU logo readingquot; We The People.quot; decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aclu-protestors-with-we-the-ppeople-signs-b-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / figcaption class=wp-image__caption is-caption mt-3pProtestors rally in support of trans rights at the Indiana Statehouse./p /figcaption span class=wp-image__credit is-creditpAJ Mast/ACLU/p /span /figure pShould Trump return to the White House, advocacy organizations will need to come together like never before. No single organization will be able to stop the power of the federal government at Trump’s disposal. If he unleashes a deportation force to remove 13 million immigrants or deploys the National Guard to crack down on demonstrations, we and our partners will be in court daily challenging these unconstitutional and immoral policies. But that’s not enough./p pEven more so than the first, the second resistance will be one of the people, not just lawyers. We will activate our 6.5 million supporters and our 54 affiliates in every state and territory. In partnership with grassroots organizations, labor unions, religious congregations and community leaders, we will exercise our First Amendment rights to mobilize the people in the streets, lobby in their statehouses, and advocate for local leaders to resist. General strikes, economic boycotts, and worker walk-outs will be critical tools to demonstrate that Americans will not sit idly by while a constitutional crisis is perpetrated./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markFighting Back in Congress, State Legislatures, and on the Ballot/h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=Congress in a joint meeting at the Capitol Building. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/us-congress-at-capitol-building-b-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / figcaption class=wp-image__caption is-caption mt-3pCongressional members seated for a speech at the US Capitol building./p /figcaption span class=wp-image__credit is-creditpBonnie Cash/UPI/Shutterstock/p /span /figure pIn a second Trump administration, the public must force Congress to serve as a co-equal branch of government, not the lap-dog of the executive branch. We have to hold Congress accountable to do its job—keeping the pressure on through calls, lobbying, and grassroots visits, reminding them they work for us./p pBut fixing a broken Congress can’t just come from the Democratic Party. With the future of our democracy at stake, we need a bipartisan commitment to govern. We’ve seen glimmers of it. If a group of bipartisan Senators found common ground to reform the antiquated Electoral Count Act—which would now prevent Donald Trump, or any president, from pressuring their vice president to refuse certifying election results—surely they can agree to update the two-centuries old Insurrection Act and ensure its not abused by President Trump to shut down legitimate forms of dissent and debate./p pAs we ramp up the pressure on our representatives, the ballot box is where the people will get the final say. The Supreme Court’s emDobbs/em decision overturning emRoe v. Wade—/emall thanks to a new Trump majority on the bench—illustrated the extent to which states are our last line of defense to bring forth the will of the people on issues such as abortion. And wherever reproductive freedom has been on the ballot since, we’ve won. Since Dobbs, we spent more than $23 million in key elections to protect abortion rights. This year, that playing field has significantly expanded: there are abortion ballot measures under consideration in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Maryland, New York, Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada./p pAdmittedly, ballot initiatives won’t be enough if Trump enacts a nationwide ban that restricts abortion services everywhere. But direct democracy efforts, through state constitutional amendments and local elections, will send strong signals that a power grab by the federal government will not be tolerated, and help make a case on states’ rights and federalism that might convince even conservative judges to limit these power grabs./p pTrump and his allies have spent the last four years plotting his return and revenge. They will be more organized, deliberate, and aggressive. But if Trump does return to the Oval Office, the first “resistance” will look tame by comparison. Trump’s anti-liberty and fundamentally anti-American policies will assuredly be met with the full firepower of the ACLU, the might of our allies, and the commitment of the American people./p

pWith his white handlebar mustache, Levon “Bo” Jones was a striking and unmistakable presence. Mr. Jones, a Black man from Duplin County, North Carolina, was wrongfully convicted in 1993 and sentenced to death. a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/innocent-north-carolina-man-exonerated-after-14-years-death-row After 14 years on death row/a, Mr. Jones, who had always maintained his innocence, was exonerated and released in 2008. We were among the lawyers working with Mr. Jones to win his freedom./p pIn 2009, Mr. Jones was among three death row exonerees — found guilty and sentenced by all-white or nearly all-white juries — who lobbied in support of novel and transformative legislation that would allow people on death row to challenge their convictions if they could show race played a significant factor in their prosecution. Out of that effort, the state legislature passed the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA)./p pThe RJA was a historic and overdue piece of legislation that sought to rectify long standing racial injustices in death penalty cases. After its momentous passage in 2009, more than 100 people on death row filed RJA claims, challenging their convictions. We represented several of these people, bringing some of the first successful cases under the RJA and reducing four people’s sentences from death to life./p pUnfortunately, a new conservative majority in the North Carolina Legislature repealed the law four years after it was passed./p pBut the fight for justice never stopped. After a lengthy legal battle, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled, in 2020, that all lawsuits brought under the RJA before its repeal could still move forward./p pThat brings us to this month, where, in a landmark hearing, we’ll be back in court arguing on behalf of Hasson Bacote, a Black man who was sentenced to death after the prosecution prevented multiple qualified Black jurors from serving on his jury. He argues that race played an impermissible role in jury selection, not just in his case, but in all death penalty cases in North Carolina./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardPervasive Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection/h2 /div pWe will come to court with statistical, case specific, and historical evidence that racial discrimination tainted jury selection in Mr. Bacote’s case, in Johnston County (where Mr. Bacote was prosecuted), and the entire state./p pIn Mr. Bacote’s case, the prosecution a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-hasson-bacote?document=North-Carolina-v-Bacote-Amended-RJA-Motion-with-Exhibits#press-releasesstruck/a three times more Black prospective jurors than white prospective jurors. In Johnston County, prosecutors struck prospective jurors of color at nearly twice the rate of white prospective jurors in all capital cases. A similar pattern emerges across the state: in North Carolina capital cases, prosecutors struck Black prospective jurors at nearly twice the rate of white jurors./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-hasson-bacote target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=3000 height=2058 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295.jpg 3000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-768x527.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-1536x1054.jpg 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-2048x1405.jpg 2048w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-400x274.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-600x412.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-800x549.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-1000x686.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-1200x823.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-1400x960.jpg 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/39338ce9384b4dff4baa9810b8eb2295-1600x1098.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 3000px) 100vw, 3000px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-hasson-bacote target=_blank North Carolina v. Hasson Bacote /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-hasson-bacote target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletHasson Bacote, a Black man from Johnston County, is challenging his death sentence under the North Carolina Racial Justice Act./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-hasson-bacote target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pHow have prosecutors gotten away with this?/p pIn all criminal cases that go to trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys have what are known as “peremptory strikes” — that is, an attorney can remove a certain number of potential jurors for any reason. Often, prosecutors exclude Black jurors on the basis of their race./p pEven though the landmark 1986 Supreme Court case, iBatson v. Kentucky,/i prohibited peremptory strikes on the basis of race or gender, unconstitutional juror discrimination persists./p pOften, prosecutors offer pretextual — or disingenuous — reasons for excluding Black jurors and other jurors of color. In our previous RJA casei, /ia href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-robinson?document=north-carolina-v-robinson-orderiNorth Carolina v. Robinson/i/a, a judge found North Carolina prosecutors excluded Black jurors for pretextual, even irrational, reasons, interrogated Black jurors with invasive questions not posed to white jurors, and struck Black jurors even though they allowed white jurors with similar characteristics to remain in the jury pool./p pWe even have a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/capital-punishment/will-north-carolinas-supreme-courtevidence/a of overt racism in jury selection which we’ve presented in past RJA cases. One prosecutor wrote in his notes that a Black juror with a criminal record was a “thug” while a white juror with a criminal record was “a fine guy;” a Black juror was described as a “blk wino” while a white juror with a DUI conviction was a “country boy – ok.” In another case, a prosecutor noted on a juror questionnaire that a Black woman was “too dumb.”/p figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=2294 height=1112 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM.png class=attachment-original size-original alt=Handwritten jury selection notes in which a black candidate was described as a “blk wino.” decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM.png 2294w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-768x372.png 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-1536x745.png 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-2048x993.png 2048w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-400x194.png 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-600x291.png 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-800x388.png 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-1000x485.png 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-1200x582.png 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-1400x679.png 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-21-at-3.32.06-PM-1600x776.png 1600w sizes=(max-width: 2294px) 100vw, 2294px / /figure pThe effect of outright or pretextual racial discrimination is ultimately the same: Black prospective jurors are excluded from jury service at greater rates than white prospective jurors, and a person facing capital punishment is judged by a jury inot/i of their peers./p pThe results of these unrepresentative juries are stark: Since 1990, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-hasson-bacote?document=North-Carolina-v-Bacote-Amended-RJA-Motion-with-Exhibits#press-releasesevery Black person/a facing a capital prosecution in Johnston County has been sentenced to death./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardA Question of Democracy /h2 /div pParticipation in the jury box is one of the fundamental ways Americans engage with their democracy. Even though the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments conferred citizenship rights and equal protection to Black Americans, the right to serve in a jury remains compromised by racial discrimination. Jury service — like the right to vote — is a question of democracy. Who do we consider part of our community, whose voices matter, who has power./p pLevon “Bo” Jones’ voice mattered. Even though he was disenfranchised for the years he was wrongfully convicted, he became a powerful voice for freedom and equal justice. Because of his efforts and the efforts of other Black exonerees — survivors of the racist death penalty and criminal legal system — our client Hasson Bacote will have his day in court on February 26, and the opportunity to win relief for his case, and a ruling that could mean relief for almost all of North Carolina#8217;s death row./p pRace has always been at the center of the death penalty. The RJA challenges give North Carolina the rare legal opportunity to confront that shameful fact. In court this month, we will take another step with our client Mr. Bacote to shed light on and rectify the harms that racism has caused in our legal system./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThe Racial Justice Act: A Timeline/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark1977/h2 /div pNorth Carolina passes the current law authorizing the death penalty. Johnston County a href=https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article233018762.htmlremoves the KKK billboards /athat line the highway into Smithfield, the County Seat./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark1987/h2 /div pIn iMcCleskey v. Kemp/i, the Supreme Court majority holds that, despite statistical evidence of racial discrimination in Georgia’s administration of the death penalty, there is no Equal Protection violation because the petitioner, Warren McCleskey, couldn’t show overt racial discrimination occurred in his case./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark1988/h2 /div pA federal Racial Justice Act bill is drafted in response to iMcCleskey/i. The federal RJA ultimately passed the House of Representatives in 1992 and in 1994, but failed in the Senate./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark1998/h2 /div pKentucky becomes the first state to enact a Racial Justice Act statute./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2007-2008/h2 /div pThree Black men, Jonathan Hoffman, Levon Jones, and Glen Chapman, are exonerated from death row in North Carolina. All three innocent men, wrongfully convicted by all-white or nearly all-white juries, become inspired to help other people wrongfully convicted on the basis of race./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2009/h2 /div pMr. Jones, Mr. Hoffman, and Mr. Chapman join with Darryl Hunt, another wrongfully convicted person charged with capital murder and later exonerated, to lobby the North Carolina Legislature. North Carolina enacted the Racial Justice Act in August, allowing people on death row to challenge their sentences if they could show race played a significant factor. The North Carolina law is the first law in the country to specify that statistical evidence of discrimination in jury selection and/or jury sentencing is sufficient proof to set aside a death sentence./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2009/h2 /div pOur client, Hasson Bacote, is convicted of felony murder in Johnston County. Like every Black man tried in Johnston County, Mr. Bacote receives the death penalty./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2010/h2 /div pIn August, more than 100 people on North Carolina’s death row filed RJA motions. At least 30 of those people were sentenced to death by all-white juries./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2010/h2 /div pIn November, control of the North Carolina General Assembly flipped from Democratic control to Republican control. A single Republican donor, Art Pope, was connected toa href=https://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078608/the-multimillionaire-helping-republicans-win-n-c 75 percent/a of all outside group spending on the race, spending millions on small local campaigns. Some of these groups ran ads deliberately attacking candidates for voting for the Racial Justice Act. Ironically, these ads profiled a href=https://nccadp.org/stories/henry-mccollum-leon-brown/Henry McCollum/a, a Black man then on North Carolina’s death row who would ultimately be exonerated./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2012/h2 /div pNorth Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue issued pardons of innocence to the defendants in the a href=https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/31/justice/north-carolina-wilmington-10/index.htmlWilmington 10 case/a on December 31, citing “the dominant role that racism played in jury selection.” The prosecution’s jury selection notes included overt race-based bias, such as a capital B written next to the name of every Black juror, and “KKK good!!” written next to the names of at least six prospective jurors./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2012/h2 /div pThe first RJA case in the country is heard by a superior court judge in Cumberland County in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-robinsoniNorth Carolina v. Robinson/i/a. The death row petitioner, Marcus Robinson, proved widespread discrimination in jury selection across North Carolina, in Cumberland County, and in his own case. a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/north-carolina-v-tilmon-golphin-christina-walters-and-quintel-augustineThree other cases/a were heard in Cumberland County later that year based on similar evidence, and those challengers, Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters, and Quintel Augustine, also prevailed. The state sought review of these decisions by the North Carolina Supreme Court./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2013/h2 /div pThe North Carolina Legislature repealed the Racial Justice Act on June 19 and overrode the governor’s veto./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2015/h2 /div pThe North Carolina Supreme Court held that prosecutors should have been given more time to prepare for the Cumberland County RJA hearings, vacated the decisions, and remanded for new cases. This meant that the iRobinson/i and other Cumberland County case orders had no precedential value./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2017/h2 /div pA North Carolina Superior Court dismissed the claims of Mr. Robinson and the other three people in Cumberland County, holding that the legislature’s repeal was retroactive and required dismissal of their cases. The four defendants sought review./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2019/h2 /div pCharles Finch, a Black man, is exonerated from North Carolina’s death row. Mr. Finch is the 12th person exonerated in North Carolina since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973. a href=https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/database/innocence?state=North+CarolinaEleven of the 12/a men exonerated are men of color and 10 are Black men./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-mark2020/h2 /div pIn iState v. Ramseur/i, and iState v. Burke/i, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that application of the repeal to bar review of properly-filed RJA claims violated the Ex Post Facto clause of the North Carolina Constitution. This ruling effectively reinstated the more than 100 filed claims by people on death row, including Hasson Bacote./p pIn iState v. Robinson/i, the Hon. Justice Cheri L. Beasley, the first African-American woman to serve as Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, wrote for the majority in an opinion that cataloged the history of Black citizens’ exclusion from jury service in the United States and North Carolina, and the failure of state appellate courts to confront the problem. The state Supreme Court reinstated the life sentences of Marcus Robinson, Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters, and Quintel Augustine./p