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

pA lot of people are surprised to hear they may not get a lawyer at their first bail hearing: “Don’t I have a right to an attorney?”/p pYou should – that’s what the ACLU has argued in court in a href=https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/pi_mem_and_recs.pdfGalveston/a, a href=https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/en/cases/guill-v-allen-previously-allison-et-al-v-allenNorth Carolina/a, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/white-et-al-v-hesse-et-alOklahoma/a, Oregon, a href=https://www.aclupa.org/en/press-releases/aclu-pa-files-federal-class-action-lawsuit-challenging-unconstitutional-bailPennsylvania/a, and Utah. But half of U.S. states do not guarantee counsel at first appearance. In these states, first appearance is typically a rushed proceeding where magistrates (limited-purpose judges) rubber-stamp detention orders without entertaining arguments to let people out of jail. This “hearing” often takes place inside the jail with no means of public access. Without defenders present to fight on behalf of arrestees, and without the check of public accountability, the gross unfairness resulting from the lack of counsel can be lost on even the most well-meaning public officials./p pOur most recent investigation in a href=https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-texas-court-wTravis County, Texas/a, documents what we commonly observe when we scratch the surface of these lawyer-less bail hearings. The ACLU of Texas organized volunteer law students to observe hundreds of first appearances in the first quarter of 2024. The results, digested by the ACLU’s data and analytics team, support our most recent a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/travis-county-sued-over-denying-right-to-legal-counsellawsuit on counsel at first appearance/a and demonstrate why counsel at first appearance is so important. Here is what we found:/p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/travis-county-sued-over-denying-right-to-legal-counsel target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=526 height=400 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/bf6ba780faedf4eb0210c7ffb12cb208.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/bf6ba780faedf4eb0210c7ffb12cb208.jpg 526w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/bf6ba780faedf4eb0210c7ffb12cb208-400x304.jpg 400w sizes=(max-width: 526px) 100vw, 526px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/travis-county-sued-over-denying-right-to-legal-counsel target=_blank Travis County Sued Over Denying Right to Legal Counsel /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/travis-county-sued-over-denying-right-to-legal-counsel target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/travis-county-sued-over-denying-right-to-legal-counsel target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markJudges are punting on release./h2 /div pMagistrates order detention but tell arrestees that down the line, a lawyer might make a persuasive argument for release. This practice effectively punts the ireal/i release decision until after a lawyer is appointed and the case is assigned to the trial judge – jailing the arrestee in the meantime. The numbers bear this out: we observed magistrates require cash bail at significantly higher rates than Travis County claims over the total duration of criminal cases. Our observation confirms what magistrates are owning up to from the start: iafter/i lawyers are appointed, the lawyer’s advocacy secures release without cash bail and gets more people out. The days that people wait in jail for their lawyer matter. Beside the fact that any time jail is inherently harmful, people lose their jobs and can’t be home to take care of their families. And even a few days in jail without a lawyer increases the chances that people plead guilty and accept harsher sentences, because they’re fighting their cases on an uneven playing field./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/betschart-v-state-of-oregon-amicus-brief target=_blank tabindex=-1 /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/betschart-v-state-of-oregon-amicus-brief target=_blank Betschart v. State of Oregon Amicus Brief /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/betschart-v-state-of-oregon-amicus-brief target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/betschart-v-state-of-oregon-amicus-brief target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markPeople are at high risk of self-incrimination./h2 /div pIt’s natural for people to try to argue for their release: 29 percent of arrestees we observed made potentially harmful statements about their cases. People without legal training can’t realistically make a strategic choice about waiving the right to silence or deciding what to say. Even statements that are not outright confessions can limit strategies for the defense. It’s impossible to know from court observation alone how harmful these statements are in the scheme of each person’s criminal defense. But the harm of some statements, including those documented in our a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/travis-county-sued-over-denying-right-to-legal-counselsubsequent lawsuit/a, is painfully obvious:/p ul liIt happened a long time ago/li liI have no choice but to be in that area (site of alleged trespass)/li liOh . . . well, I guess it was a crime/li liIf I could do it all over again, I would/li /ul div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/dawn-h-medina-v-the-hon-ann-marie-mciff-allen-amicus-brief target=_blank tabindex=-1 /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/dawn-h-medina-v-the-hon-ann-marie-mciff-allen-amicus-brief target=_blank Dawn H. Medina v. The Hon. Ann Marie McIff Allen Amicus Brief /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/dawn-h-medina-v-the-hon-ann-marie-mciff-allen-amicus-brief target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/dawn-h-medina-v-the-hon-ann-marie-mciff-allen-amicus-brief target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markVideo appearances are inadequate and prone to abuse./h2 /div pIn the absence of counsel at first appearance, court and jail personnel begin to regard first appearance as an empty formality rather than a meaningful hearing on release. First appearances conducted by video reinforce this dynamic: magistrates see arrestees as images on a screen, rather than human beings whose freedom is on the line. In Travis County, we documented communication problems resulting from video feeds in 10 percent of first appearances. Respect for the purpose of first appearance had eroded so dramatically that magistrates conducted the hearing through a camera pointed at the meal tray slot on cell doors, forcing arrestees to communicate by bending over to talk through the narrow slot. When the magistrate and arrestee could not communicate, the magistrate relied on jail staff to relay what the arrestee was saying and whether it appeared they could hear. Follow-up reporting by the a href=https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2024-04-19/video-travis-county-violating-rights-by-barring-attorneys-from-bail-hearings-aclu-claims/Austin Chronicle/a documented additional instances of this practice, leading a retired federal judge to comment on the importance of counsel at first appearance./p pMany officials – even in progressive Austin, Texas – try to convince themselves that counsel at first appearance is a luxury rather than a necessity. These findings show the need for counsel at first appearance./p

pThe Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckessoniMckesson v. Doe/i/a, that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence./p pAcross the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWhat Happened in Mckesson v. Doe?/h2 /div pThe case, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releasesiMckesson v. Doe/i/a, was brought by a police officer against a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/deray-mckesson-on-the-threat-to-protesters-rightsDeRay Mckesson/a, a prominent civil rights activist. The officer claims that Mckesson should be liable for personal injuries he suffered after an unknown individual — not Mckesson — threw a “rock-like” object at the officer during a 2016 protest of the killing of Alton Sterling by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police./p pThe officer does not claim that Mckesson encouraged or even knew about the rock-throwing. Rather than sue the rock-thrower, however, the officer is suing Mckesson on the theory that he allegedly organized the protest and in turn had a duty to protect every person there. In doing so, the argument goes, he “should have known” an assault could occur./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1600 height=1066 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358.jpg 1600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1536x1023.jpg 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1000x666.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1200x800.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1400x933.jpg 1400w sizes=(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank Mckesson v. Doe /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletCan a protest leader be held legally responsible for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act at the protest?/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThe idea is that a protest organizer can be held responsible for what a stranger present at the protest does to someone else, not because the organizer asked or meant for them to do it, but merely because it was foreseeable that they might. If this theory of “negligent protest” were accepted, it would become far more risky to organize a protest. The ACLU has argued that this standard of liability violates the First Amendment in part because it would pose an unconstitutional burden on our right to protest./p pDespite this, and after several years of procedural back-and-forth between courts, the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2023 that the negligence claim against McKesson did not violate the First Amendment. Instead, the Fifth Circuit held that a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence./p pRecognizing how this decision squarely violates First Amendment fundamentals, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson?document=plaintiff-applicant-brief-certified-question#press-releasespetition for certiorari/a, asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s obviously wrong ruling. Unfortunately, the court a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdfdenied our petition/a./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWhat Does the Supreme Court’s Denial of Review Mean for Our Right to Protest?/h2 /div pWhile the Supreme Court does not generally explain why it declines to hear a case — and it can do so for any number of reasons — Justice Sonia Sotomayor a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdfwrote a statement/a accompanying the denial that might explain the reason in this case: the Supreme Court has already settled this question, so the law is not in need of further clarification./p pIn her statement, Justice Sotomayor explains that, in 2023, shortly after the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/counterman-v-coloradoiCounterman v. Colorado/i/ai, /iwhere it confirmed that negligence is never a sufficient basis for imposing liability on political expression and association. In fact, in iCounterman/i, the court made it explicitly clear that, when it comes to drawing the line between unprotected incitement and the kinds of “strong protests against the government and prevailing social order” that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, a showing of intent is required. That’s a much higher standard than negligence, which asks only whether someone who didn’t know what impact their speech would have ishould /ihave known the possible effect. Intent, in contrast, requires that the speaker knew about, wanted, and aimed for the resulting harm./p pJustice Sotomayor concluded her statement by emphasizing that while the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in iCounterman /iwhen it issued its opinion, the lower courts in this case (and in general) now do, and are expected to fairly apply that decision in future proceedings./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardHas Our Right to Protest Changed? /h2 /div pSome people have suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case means that our right to protest has been effectively abolished in three U.S. states. That’s not accurate./p pWhile it is true that the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous decision has not been vacated, and technically could be invoked against protest organizers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, it is important to understand two things./p pFirst, separate from the First Amendment problem, there’s the question of whether a “negligent protest” claim even exists under a state’s civil law. In iMckesson/i, the Louisiana Supreme Court said yes, but the high courts in Texas and Mississippi haven’t said the same. That means, the theory of “negligent protest” in iMckesson /iis specific to Louisiana state law./p pSecond, when it comes to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it explicitly clear in many other cases that negligence is too low a threshold for imposing liability on one person for another person’s violence or other illegal acts at a protest./p pTo take just one example, in 1982, the court held that while the Constitution does not protect violence, it does limit the government’s ability to place responsibility for that violence onto peaceful protest leaders who did not direct or intend it. That seminal civil rights case, iNAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co./i, has been cited repeatedly to ensure robust speech protections, including to a href=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kentucky-lawsuit/trump-wins-dismissal-of-inciting-to-riot-lawsuit-over-2016-rally-idUSKCN1LR22Bdismiss a lawsuit/a against then-candidate Donald Trump for violent acts committed by others at a campaign rally and to a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters/challenge/a efforts to stifle Keystone XL pipeline protests. As Justice Sotomayor’s statement highlighted, the court recently reaffirmed these rules in iCounterman/i./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank South Dakota Governor Caves on Attempted Efforts to Silence Pipeline Protesters /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe state's quick retreat should serve as a lesson for other legislatures: if you criminalize protest, we will sue./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pHowever, since the Supreme Court did not officially reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision, it is possible that a court in Louisiana may decide to apply the Fifth Circuit’s logic. Say, for example, that a small crowd of people act violently at a protest in Louisiana and the protest organizer — who had no connection to the violence — is subsequently sued for negligence. The lower court should heed Justice Sotomayor#8217;s statement, correctly apply iCounterman/i, and dismiss this claim for violating the First Amendment. But it is possible that a lower court would still apply the Fifth Circuit’s decision, issued prior to iCounterman. /iIf that were to happen, the ACLU is interested in fighting alongside the organizer to ensure that the correct rule ultimately applies, and that the Fifth Circuit’s clearly erroneous decision does not govern anywhere./p pSince our founding, efforts to silence dissent have emerged in moments of mass protest, like what we find ourselves in today. However, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld our right to protest and our right to be responsible only for our own actions. Today, the ACLU urges the lower courts to continue protecting our rights, and to deny the Fifth Circuit’s deeply misguided theory from gaining any traction. No one should be afraid to express dissent, to advocate for change, or to support causes they believe in./p pa href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCR7yfxnwWAPlay the video/a/p img width=1334 height=708 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM.png class=attachment-16x9_1400 size-16x9_1400 alt=A photo of activist DeRay Mckesson. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM.png 1334w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-768x408.png 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-400x212.png 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-600x318.png 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-800x425.png 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-1000x531.png 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-1200x637.png 1200w sizes=(max-width: 1334px) 100vw, 1334px /

pFor decades, the ACLU has fought against the war on drugs. The criminalization of cannabis has led to far too many unjust incarcerations, which waste critical resources and billions of dollars. a href=https://www.aclu.org/publications/tale-two-countries-racially-targeted-arrests-era-marijuana-reformAccording to numbers from our 2020 report/a, it also disproportionately affects Black Americans, who continue to be almost four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, despite equal reported use rates./p figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://www.aclu.org/publications/tale-two-countries-racially-targeted-arrests-era-marijuana-reform img width=1364 height=958 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM.png class=attachment-original size-original alt=A map showing racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM.png 1364w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM-768x539.png 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM-400x281.png 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM-600x421.png 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM-800x562.png 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM-1000x702.png 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-15-at-2.35.23-PM-1200x843.png 1200w sizes=(max-width: 1364px) 100vw, 1364px / /a figcaption class=wp-image__caption is-caption mt-3pa href=https://graphics.aclu.org/marijuana-arrest-report/Explore more in our interactive data visualizer/a/p /figcaption /figure pWe’re fighting for not only the legalization of marijuana, but also for the repair of decades of past damage. Even as marijuana becomes legal or decriminalized in more states, rampant racial disparities still remain and thousands of people are still behind bars for innocuous cannabis charges. A more just system isn’t possible until all people incarcerated for marijuana are released and criminal records for these offenses are expunged./p pThis is why we celebrate 4/20 every year: to bring renewed attention to the fight for cannabis justice. With our new dope tees, trays, blankets and posters, we invite people to join in a href=https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/drug-law-reform/marijuana-law-reformour fight to legalize marijuana/a and repair the harms of the war on drugs. This year’s products take on a retro aesthetic to honor everything 4/20. They feature groovy waves, earth tones, interesting facts and — everyone’s favorite mascot Torchy./p pCheck out the list of merch below, and be sure to a href=https://shop.aclu.org/return to our shop/a regularly during April, and tune in on our social media channels–we’ll be celebrating 4/20 all month long with exclusive deals!/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Super Soft, Conversation-Starting Tee/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $30/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-repair-tee/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize and Repair Tee from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Tee__23611-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pFrom the gym to the farmer’s market, you’ll want to wear this ultra soft, 100% cotton tee everywhere. The perfect conversation starter, we even included an important message on the bottom./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markDope Decorative Art for Your Space/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $12/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-and-repair-poster-11x14/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize and Repair Poster from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Poster__48648-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pThinking about a Spring decor refresh? Look no further! Our 11”x14” Legalize and Repair Poster is the perfect size and perfect conversation starter./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Handy Tray Calling for Cannabis Justice/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $20/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-repair-tray/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize and Repair Tray from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Tray__16468-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pThe travel friendly Legalize and Repair tray has endless uses: from a jewelry catchall to a flat work surface for your hobbies./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Grinder Perfect for Your Own Personal Blend/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-markPrice: $25/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-repair-grinder/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize and Repair Grinder from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Grinder__47065-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pOur aluminum grinder is sturdy enough to grind even the dankest of herbs and spices. Cinnamon and nutmeg have met their match in our 4-piece grinder./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markSnuggle Up With Your Favorite ACLU Mascot/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $115/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/torchy-woven-blanket/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Torchy Woven Blanket from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Torchy_Blanket__18092-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pPicnics will never be the same once the Torchy Woven Blanket is in your life. This blanket can also double as a tapestry for your home. Made of a thick, woven fabric, each blanket is custom made just for you./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Cozy Crewneck Featuring Torchy in Action /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $66/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-repair-crewneck/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize And Repair Crewneck from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ACLU_420_Crewneck__36977-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pWith a unisex fit and an unbelievably comfy feel, the Legalize and Repair Crewneck is the perfect wardrobe addition. Pro tip: dress it up with a layered turtleneck./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Retro Lunchbox for the Munchies/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $28/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-repair-lunchbox/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize And Repair Lunchbox from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lunchbox__06231-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pKeep your munchies close in our retro-style lunchbox featuring Torchy like you’ve never seen Torchy before. Feeling adventurous? Attach a bag strap to the handles and wear it as a crossbody bag (it’s called fashion)./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markA Small Matchbox With a Blazing Message/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardPrice: $4.20/h3 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--standard figure class=wp-image mb-8 a href=https://shop.aclu.org/legalize-and-repair-matchbox/ img width=1280 height=1280 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A picture of the Legalize And Repair Matchbox from the ACLU store. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810.jpg 1280w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-400x400.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-600x600.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-800x800.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-1000x1000.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-1200x1200.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Legalize_and_Repair_Matches__04810-300x300.jpg 300w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / /a /figure /div pSpark up a conversation with our limited edition Torchy matches. Perfect for the candle connoisseur in your life (be sure to shop bright and early on 4/20–these matches will be free for the first 420 orders!)/p pnbsp;/p

My job is to sue prisons, and I love my work. My colleagues and I work to ensure the basic human dignity to people our society has locked up. But it is, more often than not, extraordinarily frustrating. Our clients, the human beings locked away in our criminal justice system, live in dire conditions. They are warehoused. Their medical and mental health needs are ignored. They are subjected to extreme physical violence. Just seeing and hearing about it is painful. And change comes all too slowly.

At the ACLU, we take heart from the little victories. Just before we go to a prison to see our clients, the bathrooms in their housing units are finally cleaned, the people in the prisons are finally given coats for when they go outside, and they are finally sent out for the medical visit that was ordered months or years ago. Unfortunately, the systemic changes to ensure people’s most basic needs are met take much longer, and are often met with resistance from prison personnel and administrations that do not believe their job is to meet those basic needs.

This year has been different. Back in June 2022, following a decade of litigation, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver found in Jensen v. Thornell that conditions in solitary confinement in the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. One year ago this week, she issued a sweeping injunction ordering ADCRR to bring the conditions of solitary confinement into compliance with the U.S. Constitution and basic standards of human decency.

Over the past year, ADCRR has made a great deal of progress, including preventing many vulnerable people from being subjected to the devastating effects that accompany solitary confinement. The department has also dramatically lowered the number of people in extremely long-term isolation, and has – to our knowledge – complied with the court’s order prohibiting any child under 18 from being placed in solitary confinement for any length of time.

Additionally, at the time of the order, there were 1,071 people housed in “maximum custody,” ADCRR’s euphemism for long-term solitary confinement. According to ADCRR, at least 200 people had been in maximum custody for a year or more, and six people had been in for over a decade. Today, there are just over 200 people in maximum custody – a reduction of more than 80 percent. Half the people who had been held in maximum custody for over a decade are no longer in solitary confinement.

The reduction in the solitary confinement population was so great that one facility, Arizona’s original “supermax” facility, was closed entirely in November 2023. This supermax facility had a reported capacity of 2,440 people, most of whom were held in solitary confinement.

There have also been significant improvements in conditions. People held in solitary confinement now receive three meals a day most days, whereas previously they received only two. In solitary confinement units where an electronic system has been installed to track movements, incarcerated people report that there is no longer a problem of being left in the shower for hours on end, as used to happen with some regularity. People are offered cleaning supplies and the housing units are treated by exterminators.

While the improvements – particularly the removal of people from long-term solitary confinement – are laudable, much remains to be done. The court ordered that one vulnerable group – people with serious mental illness – be kept out of solitary confinement altogether. There are housing units for people with serious mental illness, which ADCRR claims are not solitary confinement units. But the people inside report that they are locked in their cells more hours per day than people in the housing units ADCRR considers solitary confinement. Similarly, there is a prison in which people with dementia are held and are rarely let out of their cells, let alone allowed to go outside. There are still three people who have been in solitary confinement for over a decade. And many people remain in solitary confinement because either they themselves or ADCRR have decided that ADCRR cannot keep them safe in general population.

The proverbial low-hanging fruit has been harvested. The hard work of further reducing – and ultimately eliminating – solitary confinement in Arizona remains. It appears the ADCRR administration has the will to take on this difficult labor in pursuit of human dignity. This spring, one year into implementation of the Jensen injunction, I have hope.

Cities all across the United States have been increasingly passing laws that punish people who are forced to sleep outside each night due a lack of available shelter and extreme housing shortages. The Supreme Court will soon decide if doing so violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, in a case that arose out of southern Oregon and is arguably the most significant case on homelessness in decades. The ACLU’s Scout Katovich explains how the case made its way to the highest court in the U.S. and breaks down the stakes – both for the hundreds of thousands of people who are unhoused on any given night and for critical constitutional protections.

Katie Hoeppner: Can you tell us how this lawsuit came about and how it got to the Supreme Court?

Scout Katovich: Sure. The case comes out of Grants Pass, Oregon, which, like many cities in America, is facing a shortage of affordable housing that has led to increased homelessness. In 2019, there were at least 600 unhoused people in the city. The city’s response was to pass a set of laws making it illegal to sleep in public anywhere, at any time. The city called some of these laws “camping bans,” but they weren’t really about banning tents or what we usually think of as camping. Instead, they prohibited sleeping outside while using anything that could be considered “bedding,” even just a thin blanket to keep from freezing at night, or a rolled up t-shirt used as a pillow.

The punishment for this “crime” was hundreds of dollars in fines, which could quickly escalate to a sentence of 30-days in jail. Grants Pass started fining and arresting unhoused people under these laws, even though the city had zero accessible shelters for adults. So, every night, hundreds of people had no choice but to sleep outside and break these laws. In essence, they were being punished for the unavoidable human need to sleep.

A group of unhoused residents of Grants Pass challenged the enforcement of these laws and a federal court ruled in their favor, holding that the city’s enforcement of these “anti-sleeping” and “anti-camping” laws against unhoused residents with no access to shelter violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court. Now that decision is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, and the justices will hear oral arguments in the case on April 22.

KH: A lot of cities across the country have similar bans. Can you tell us how the Supreme Court’s ruling could affect the large number of people all over the country who don’t have any choice but to sleep outside at night?

SK: That’s exactly right – we’ve seen a troubling uptick in these kinds of unconstitutional sleeping and camping bans all across the U.S. One study found that over half of the 187 cities it surveyed have laws restricting sleeping in public and almost three-fourths have laws restricting camping. The Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass will determine whether cities can use laws like this to punish unhoused people with no access to shelter, just for sleeping outside with rudimentary protections from the elements. This ruling could affect a huge number of people. With over 600,000 unhoused people and a shortfall of at least 200,000 shelter beds nationwide, hundreds of thousands of people have no choice but to sleep in public every night.

If the Supreme Court rules for Grants Pass, cities could be empowered to treat all of those people as “criminals.”

KH: The stakes are clearly enormous. What is the ACLU’s involvement in this case?

SK: Absolutely, this is a really important case, both for unhoused people and for the constitutional principles at issue. We felt strongly that the ACLU should weigh in at the Supreme Court, in part because it’s part of our mission to protect constitutional rights, including the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. But we’re also deeply invested in protecting the rights of unhoused people and, in fact, the ACLU and its affiliates have brought lawsuits similar to the one before the Supreme Court, challenging enforcement of sleeping and camping bans in cities across the country, including Albuquerque, Honolulu, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Boulder. In this Supreme Court case, the ACLU and 19 of its affiliates submitted a “friend of the court” brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that punishing unhoused people without access to shelter for sleeping in public violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

KH: Can you explain why the Eighth Amendment is such an important focus of the brief and lawsuit?

SK: Yes, our brief explains that the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning and more than a century of Supreme Court cases make clear that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause bars governments from punishing people in ways that are disproportionate to the crime. It may sound a little wonky, but it boils down to the idea that the Constitution places some checks on how the government can punish crime. Punishment must be appropriate to the seriousness of the crime and should only be as severe as is necessary to promote legitimate goals of our criminal legal system, like rehabilitation and deterrence. Applying these well-established principles to the Grants Pass case, any punishment for the “crime” of sleeping in public when you have no other choice is unconstitutionally excessive.

KH: Can you say how the Grants Pass case fits within the ACLU’s other work, for those who may not immediately think of homelessness as an ACLU issue?

SK: Well, first and foremost, the ACLU is committed to protecting the civil rights and liberties of all, and especially the most marginalized members of our society, which certainly includes unhoused people. And our society’s approach to homelessness has made it a criminal justice issue and an equality issue. When cities like Grants Pass choose to respond to homelessness with police and jails, it fuels mass incarceration, keeping people in an endless cycle of poverty, incarceration, and institutionalization. Rather than confront the decades of policy failures that have led to a dearth of safe and affordable housing, and access to healthcare, and other services, politicians and government officials blame individuals for our society’s failings and use criminal punishment to try to push people out of sight.

And that’s where the ACLU comes in. We can’t stand by and let governments choose ineffective “solutions” that trample on the rights and dignity of our neighbors. This is also an ACLU issue because homelessness intersects with many marginalized identities, compounding discrimination and the disproportionate harms that our criminal legal system inflicts on marginalized communities.

KH: That’s a really important point about compounding discrimination…

SK: Yes, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people, and people of color, especially Black and indigenous people, are far more likely to experience homelessness because of systemic inequality and discrimination. Their overrepresentation in both the criminal legal system and among the unhoused creates a vicious feedback loop – unhoused people have an increased risk of arrest and incarceration and, in turn, a jail or prison stay often leaves people without housing and employment, keeping them in homelessness. The ACLU has long been invested in ending mass incarceration and addressing inequities in the criminal legal system, and it’s clear that our society’s approach to homelessness is exacerbating both.

KH: You mentioned that elected officials “choose” the punitive approach. And I think that’s important to underline, because they often act as though their hands are tied. Can you say more about what elected leaders could actually do to meaningfully address homelessness?

SK: There’s so much they could be doing. But first, I just want to emphasize that the punitive approaches they are taking only make the situation worse. Criminal legal system involvement and homelessness are part of a vicious cycle. Arrests, citations, and jail or prison time don’t solve homelessness, they exacerbate it. These carceral approaches also cost taxpayers a lot of money. In 2015, Los Angeles spent $50 million policing anti-homeless laws and, in Seattle, enforcing just one of its “quality of life” laws cost the city $2.3 million over just five years. So we really need to call on elected officials to stop passing these laws and adopting policies that take this misguided approach. Instead, cities and states need to focus on policies that actually address the root causes of homelessness.

KH: I wish more elected leaders would show this courage. What specifically would address those root causes?

SK: First and foremost, they need to focus on investing in safe, affordable housing. The link between homelessness and unaffordable housing could not be clearer: the areas with the most unsheltered homelessness are also the most expensive housing markets. Addressing this is a long-term commitment, but it will pay off. There’s a lot of research demonstrating that providing permanent, affordable housing, coupled with accessible services, successfully ends chronic homelessness and also reduces arrests and incarceration. We also need to increase access to wrap-around supportive services, and voluntary mental health and substance use treatment, and adopt non-law enforcement responses to situations stemming from mental health issues and poverty. There’s strong evidence that these non-carceral approaches are cost-effective, reduce contact with the criminal legal system, and increase chances of obtaining housing and employment.

KH: Is there anything else you think people should know?

SK: Yes, I think it’s really important to underscore that homelessness is not a nuisance, it’s a symptom of our collective failure to invest in our communities. It’s uncomfortable for sheltered people to have to confront this failure, but the answer to that discomfort is not to temporarily push people out of sight through criminal punishments. Addressing homelessness in humane and effective ways helps everyone. So many of us are just one bad circumstance away from losing our homes.

Housing costs have skyrocketed while wages have not kept pace. We are also facing extreme housing shortages. As a result, there’s nowhere in the country where a person working a full-time minimum-wage job can afford even a modest two-bedroom apartment. So protecting unhoused people’s rights and adopting effective approaches to reducing and preventing homelessness is something we should all be invested in.

pAt the onset of President Biden’s term, in January 2021, he issued an a href=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/executive-order-reforming-our-incarceration-system-to-eliminate-the-use-of-privately-operated-criminal-detention-facilities/executive order/a to phase out the federal criminal system’s use of for-profit prisons. This was an important step toward stemming the flow of federal money to corporations that lock people up for profit. The executive order covered both the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which holds people convicted of crimes, and the U.S. Marshals Service, which holds people while they await trial or await transfer to a federal prison after sentencing. However, it left out the federal government’s a href=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/28/biden-is-ending-justice-departments-contracts-with-private-prisons-now-end-ices/heavy use of for-profit immigration detention facilities/a, which are rife with abuse, unsanitary conditions, and overcrowding./p pThe Bureau of Prisons followed the executive order and has a href=https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/20221201_ends_use_of_privately_owned_prisons.jspclosed all of its for-profit prisons/a. The Marshals Service has not. An a href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.15-FINAL-ACLU-Letter-on-USMS-Failure-to-Comply-with-EO-14006.pdfACLU analysis/a of documents produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request shows that, despite the executive order, the Marshals Service continues to hold nearly a third of its entire detention population in for-profit facilities, totaling 20,000 people. It does this by exploiting two loopholes it has created that undermine the purpose of the executive order: to end prison profiteering./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.15-FINAL-ACLU-Letter-on-USMS-Failure-to-Comply-with-EO-14006.pdf target=_blank tabindex=-1 /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.15-FINAL-ACLU-Letter-on-USMS-Failure-to-Comply-with-EO-14006.pdf target=_blank The ACLU's Letter to the United States Marshals Service Due to It's Failure to Comply with Executive Order 14006 /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.15-FINAL-ACLU-Letter-on-USMS-Failure-to-Comply-with-EO-14006.pdf target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.15-FINAL-ACLU-Letter-on-USMS-Failure-to-Comply-with-EO-14006.pdf target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pFirst, the Marshals Service has obtained repeated waivers from the White House that allow it to ignore the executive order and keep five for-profit facilities open. The Marshals Service and White House have not publicized these waivers, and when internal government investigators asked for documentation of these waivers, they were a href=https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-055.pdf“told that no such documentation existed.”/a/p pSecond, the Marshals Service has determined that it can continue to pay corporations to operate detention facilities for profit, so long as it uses a city or county government as a middleman. Under this arrangement, known as a “pass-through” agreement, the Marshals Service pays a city or county government, which keeps a portion of the payment and passes along most of the payment to the corporation that runs the facility. An a href=https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-055.pdfinternal government investigation/a found that these agreements cost the Marshals Service more and provide less control and oversight over operations at its detention facilities./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/americas-pretrial-system-broken-heres-our-vision-fix-it target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1160 height=768 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e.jpg 1160w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e-768x508.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e-400x265.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e-600x397.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e-800x530.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/e6684cdc9ab1c58813941b773a90730e-1000x662.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1160px) 100vw, 1160px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/americas-pretrial-system-broken-heres-our-vision-fix-it target=_blank America’s Pretrial System Is Broken. Here’s Our Vision to Fix It. /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/americas-pretrial-system-broken-heres-our-vision-fix-it target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/americas-pretrial-system-broken-heres-our-vision-fix-it target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pBy using these two loopholes to keep funneling money to corporations that profit from incarceration, the Marshals Service perpetuates the harm that these corporations cause. In the words of a href=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-private-prisons-susan-rice-b1793046.htmlPresident Biden’s domestic policy advisor/a: “Private prisons profiteer off federal prisoners and are proven to be, or found to be by the Department of Justice inspector general, less safe for correctional officers and prisoners.”/p pA a href=https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/statistical analysis/a has shown that as states turn more to for-profit prisons, their incarceration rates increase. This should come as no surprise: for-profit prison companies use the taxpayer money they receive to lobby extensively for increased incarceration. The two largest for-profit prison companies spent a href=https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2023amp;id=D000021940$1.7 million/a and a href=https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2023amp;id=D000022003$1.3 million/a lobbying the federal government alone, with more money going to state lobbying. This does not include the for-profit prison industry’s significant donations to political campaigns and PACs. a href=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-executive-order-rewards-private-prison-campaign-donors/For example/a, these two companies each spent a quarter million on President Trump’s 2017 inauguration festivities, and one donated $225,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC./p pCongress has taken notice. Nine senators wrote a a href=https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-united-states-marshals-serviceletter/a to “express deep concern that the [Marshals Service] appears to be circumventing President Biden’s Executive Order.”/p pThere are a few concrete steps that the Biden administration and the Marshals Service can take now to address these problems and plan for an orderly transition away from for-profit prison companies. First and foremost, they should work together to a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/americas-pretrial-system-broken-heres-our-vision-fix-itdivert people away from pre-trial detention/a in a way that protects community safety and ensures people show up for their trials. With fewer people to detain, the Marshals Service will have less need to pay for-profit facilities./p pThe Biden administration and Marshals Service should also work to find viable alternatives to for-profit facilities for those who remain in detention, where people can be held near their families, friends, and lawyers. People have a right to confer with their attorney regularly to prepare a defense, and numerous studies show that proximity to loved ones and support networks supports better outcomes when people are released from custody./p pAs they do this, they should be transparent. The Marshals Service should publish its plan to close the five for-profit prisons with which it continues to directly contract. It should develop a plan to stop using pass-through intergovernmental agreements and publish a plan to phase out these detention facilities as well. Spending taxpayer dollars to enrich private corporations and shareholders who run facilities with abusive practices, poor medical care, and unsanitary conditions is a policy that harms incarcerated individuals and creates unsafe working conditions for correctional officers. The Biden administration has called for an end to this policy, it is past time for the Marshals Service to listen./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

pOn October 24, 2022 at 2 a.m., 27-year-old Joshua Wesley called a crisis help line from his home in Washington County, Oregon, just west of Portland. He was having suicidal thoughts and knew that he needed professional help. But instead of receiving a mental health provider as specifically requested, he encountered a group of armed police officers at his door. This response not only deprived Wesley of the immediate psychiatric care that he needed, but it also led to him being arrested and seriously injured by the responding officer. He ultimately spent two weeks in the hospital, and six months in jail./p pWesley told us that he felt that he needed qualified professionals to console him, talk him down, and give him solutions. But the officers that showed up made the situation worse by simply trying tried to put him in handcuffs and cart him off./p pJoining forces with the ACLU, Disability Rights Oregon, the ACLU of Oregon, and the law firm Shepherd Mullin, Wesley is a plaintiff in a recently filed lawsuit against Washington County and the local 911 dispatch center. The lawsuit asserts that the county’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities and exposes them to risk of serious harm, including injury, arrest, and incarceration. Wesley said that he joined the case because he believes strongly in helping out others facing similar struggles./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardA Life-or-Death Situation/h2 /div pWashington County has a history of inappropriately responding to mental health crises. In 2022, police officers were dispatched to 100 percent of the calls coded as “behavioral health incidents” in Washington County. The county does have mobile crisis teams comprised exclusively of mental health clinicians, the sole non-police response available there. But, while the mobile crisis teams are intended to be available 24/7, in practice, they’re underfunded, not connected with the emergency dispatch system, and often unavailable — especially at night, when many mental health crises occur./p pPolice response to mental health crises can be dangerous and even deadly. Police officers are not qualified mental health professionals and should not be expected to assess and treat people in crisis. Beyond that, police presence may actually make mental health symptoms worse, triggering anxiety and paranoia. Most alarming of all, it is a href=https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/reports_publications/overlooked-in-the-undercounted-the-role-of-mental-illness-in-fatal-law-enforcement-encounters/estimated/a that people with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely than others to be killed by the police during an encounter./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/911-reimagining-a-system-that-defaults-to-dispatching-police target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/7d213448e117ddd5d2241ad28928c059-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/911-reimagining-a-system-that-defaults-to-dispatching-police target=_blank 911: Reimagining a System that Defaults to Dispatching Police /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/911-reimagining-a-system-that-defaults-to-dispatching-police target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletEmergency response systems must be revamped to equip 911 call-takers to dispatch non-police first responders./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/911-reimagining-a-system-that-defaults-to-dispatching-police target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThat’s what nearly happened in Wesley’s case. Instead of being provided with the care he was seeking — on-site psychiatric assessment and treatment — he was placed under a “police officer hold,” a form of involuntary detention, and transported to a hospital via ambulance. Wesley was not treated or stabilized during transport and his symptoms worsened. At the hospital, Wesley was still suicidal and he attempted to take an officer’s firearm to use on himself. During the incident, the officer stabbed Wesley several times, resulting in serious injuries to his chest, stomach, and head./p pThe damage to Wesley’s body serves as a constant reminder of the incident. The scars left from the incident demonstrate that there could have been other ways to deal with the situation, Wesley told us./p pWesley then spent two weeks in the hospital recovering. During this time, his repeated requests for mental health assistance and therapy were denied. He remained handcuffed to his bed and kept under near-constant police surveillance. Wesley felt that the doctors stopped looking at him as a patient who needed help and treatment to heal, but rather, as a criminal./p pAfter being released from the hospital, Wesley faced criminal charges arising from the altercation with the officer. He spent six months in jail, missing the birth of his first and only son. He also missed the holidays and time with his family at a time of great strife./p pUltimately, it took months for Wesley to receive the psychiatric help that he first sought in October./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardA More Humane Emergency Response/h2 /div pWhen someone in Washington County experiences a physical health crisis, like a heart attack or a severe allergic reaction, they can call 911 and expect a response from a qualified medical professional, like an EMT or paramedic. The same cannot be said, however, for someone experiencing a mental health crisis./p pThe lawsuit explains how this discrepancy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Mental health crises demand a mental health response — not a police response — because they are, at their core, health emergencies./p pExperts agree that mental health emergencies should be addressed by mental health professionals, not the police. As part of theira href=https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/national-guidelines-for-behavioral-health-crisis-care-02242020.pdf recommended best practices,/a the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposes a three-tiered system that includes a crisis call center, mobile crisis teams, and stabilization centers for walk-ins and drop-offs. SAMHSA also noted that responding with police is “unacceptable and unsafe,” a view that the a href=https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/July-2022/Mobile-Crisis-Teams-Providing-an-Alternative-to-Law-Enforcement-for-Mental-Health-CrisesNational Alliance on Mental Illness/a shares./p pAs a result of Washington County’s inappropriate response to mental health crises, it discriminates against people with mental health disabilities on a daily basis. . This lawsuit seeks to improve its mental healthcare system. Possible solutions include fully funding mobile crisis response teams that can bring care and support to the people who need it, when they need it./p pWashington County isn#8217;t the only jurisdiction with a system in need of reform. Justice Department investigations have found similar discrimination in Louisville and Minneapolis, stating that relying on police as mental health first responders causes “real harm in the form of trauma, injury, and death to people experiencing behavioral health issues.”/p pWesley hopes that this case brings widespread attention to an issue that impacts many lives on a daily basis. People with mental health disabilities are harmed both because of a failed response to mental health crises , and because many people with mental health disabilities don’t want to call for help out of fear of an armed police response. Wesley sees a need nationwide for an important reckoning for how jurisdictions respond to mental health crises. Counties and other locales should be looking at their systems and asking, “Is our system for mental health crisis response fair? Is it safe? Is it right?”/p pHow jurisdictions answer these questions could have a major impact on the care and support people with mental health disabilities receive while in crisis. We must not allow discriminatory practices that cause real harm and death to go unchecked./p div class=rss-cta__titleWe need you with us to keep fighting/diva href=https://action.aclu.org/give/now class=rss-cta__buttonDonate today/a/div