ACLU: One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One year ago, President Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term. Within hours of his inauguration, it was clear that he and his administration would, once again, test the Constitution and the willingness of our nation’s institutions and people to defend it. However, what stood out most to us during the last year has been the volume, pace, and persistence of the second Trump administration’s assault on many of our most fundamental rights and freedoms. There were multiple flashpoints throughout the last year, as the administration’s “shock and awe” strategy yielded a sustained and aggressive assault on civil rights and civil liberties resulting in 225 executive orders signed (as of December).

Near daily efforts to dismantle civil rights and civil liberties protections, intimidate marginalized communities, and upend the rule of law threatened to normalize the previously unthinkable. At the U.S. Supreme Court, blows to trans rights and free speech set dangerous precedents. At the state level, attacks on core protections for reproductive freedom and voting rights persisted.

Although we faced an incredibly bleak landscape for civil rights and civil liberties, the ACLU did not relent because we were ready on day one and able to meet the Trump administration’s shock and awe strategy with an even more shocking and awesome response. Months before the 2024 election, we studied President Trump’s campaign promises and Project 2025, and, in a series of public memos, laid out the civil rights and civil liberties threats a second Trump presidency would pose. We anticipated the renewed attacks on immigrants and other vulnerable communities, expanded domestic use of federal force, and systematic efforts to suppress dissent.

Yet, defending the Constitution in this environment has required more than advance preparation and a sense of urgency. It necessitated an unshakable belief that democratic norms are worth fighting for even when the pressure seems unyielding. That’s why we mobilized our lawyers, advocates, organizers, storytellers, and supporters to delay unconstitutional policies before they took effect, dilute their reach when full blockage wasn’t immediately possible, and defeat them through courts, public pressure, and sustained organizing.

One year in, our work is guided by a simple principle: we are only in a constitutional crisis if we allow ourselves to be.

We Fought — and Won — in Court

Mere hours after taking office, President Trump issued a blitz of executive orders and policy directives that immediately threatened birthright citizenship, trans rights, freedom of speech, and voting rights. Our response reflected a core constitutional principle: rights endure not because leaders respect them, but because people and institutions insist on enforcing them.

• Birthright Citizenship. Two hours after President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship — a constitutional guarantee for more than 150 years — the ACLU sued. When a Supreme Court ruling threatened partial enforcement of the order, we shifted tactics, filing a class-action lawsuit that protected more than 129,000 children from harm. This spring, the ACLU’s National Legal Director, Cecillia Wang, will argue the case before the Court that the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment.

• Alien Enemies Act. We also sued the Trump administration over the president’s unlawful and unprecedented invocation of a centuries-old wartime act, the Alien Enemies Act, to accelerate mass deportations. This spring, the ACLU scored a critical legal victory with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Additionally, in December, a federal judge ruled that the Venezuelan men sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador were denied due process and ordered the government to facilitate their return or offer hearings compliant with due process.

• Free Speech. The ACLU acted swiftly to secure the release of international students and scholars Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri who were detained by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian speech. Claiming their speech threatened U.S. foreign policy, the government sought to intimidate dissent by using immigration enforcement to punish lawful political expression. In addition to securing the students’ release, the ACLU was able to protect them from immediate deportation while their cases move through the courts, reaffirming that political advocacy is not grounds for exile.

• Troop Deployment. We took action when federal troops and National Guard units were sent to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., under the pretext of controlling protests. Through lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs, and aggressive transparency demands, we forced scrutiny of these actions and constrained their scope so that this grave abuse of power will never be normalized. Thanks to a string of court victories prohibiting deployments, including in Illinois v. Trump, as well as sustained political opposition, President Trump announced on New Year’s Eve that he was abandoning efforts to use the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland.

• Equal Protection. When President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments to anyone under 19 years old, we challenged the order. A court then temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing it.

The ACLU's legal docket comprises 239 legal actions and 139 lawsuits. More importantly, a majority (64 percent) of our cases succeeded in delaying, diluting, or defeating the Trump administration's policies. As a result of our’s and other organizations’ efforts, the courts continue to be a check on the power of the presidency, just as our Constitution demanded.

We Mobilized Communities and Built Power

As proud as we are of our work in the courts, we know that we will not be successful unless millions of individuals demand change. Across the country, ACLU affiliates and partners trained more than 84,000 people on their rights and enrolled 180,000 individuals in our People Power activist program. When protests were met with militarized responses, we rapidly expanded Know Your Rights training nationwide, equipping tens of thousands of people to demonstrate safely and lawfully. We also mobilized our supporters and members of Congress to advocate on behalf of immigrants facing neglect and abuse in detention centers.

In what became one of the most visible free-speech confrontations in recent decades, political pressure led ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! after FCC leadership threatened broadcast licenses over a monologue they found objectionable. The ACLU mobilized more than 500 prominent artists and more than 50,000 supporters to sign an open letter criticizing Trump administration’s attempts at censorship. Within hours of our mobilization, the show returned to air — stopping the censorship before it could harden into precedent.

The Road Ahead: 2026 and Beyond

As we enter 2026, the stakes feel as high as ever. In coming months, the courts will make decisions that affect civil rights and civil liberties and determine whether marginalized communities can fully participate in public life for years to come. This year also marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — a moment that reminds us of the centrality of liberty and equality to the founding of our nation.

Having led the ACLU through eight presidential administrations, I’ve learned one thing for certain: progress is never permanent, and setbacks are never inevitable. Yet, our work endures. What the ACLU does over the next three years and how well we do it will play a role in shaping the course of American history.

This is because democracy doesn’t defend itself — people do. And together, we will keep showing up.

Published January 20, 2026 at 06:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EHin1kq

ACLU: One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One year ago, President Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term. Within hours of his inauguration, it was clear that he and his administration would, once again, test the Constitution and the willingness of our nation’s institutions and people to defend it. However, what stood out most to us during the last year has been the volume, pace, and persistence of the second Trump administration’s assault on many of our most fundamental rights and freedoms. There were multiple flashpoints throughout the last year, as the administration’s “shock and awe” strategy yielded a sustained and aggressive assault on civil rights and civil liberties resulting in 225 executive orders signed (as of December).

Near daily efforts to dismantle civil rights and civil liberties protections, intimidate marginalized communities, and upend the rule of law threatened to normalize the previously unthinkable. At the U.S. Supreme Court, blows to trans rights and free speech set dangerous precedents. At the state level, attacks on core protections for reproductive freedom and voting rights persisted.

Although we faced an incredibly bleak landscape for civil rights and civil liberties, the ACLU did not relent because we were ready on day one and able to meet the Trump administration’s shock and awe strategy with an even more shocking and awesome response. Months before the 2024 election, we studied President Trump’s campaign promises and Project 2025, and, in a series of public memos, laid out the civil rights and civil liberties threats a second Trump presidency would pose. We anticipated the renewed attacks on immigrants and other vulnerable communities, expanded domestic use of federal force, and systematic efforts to suppress dissent.

Yet, defending the Constitution in this environment has required more than advance preparation and a sense of urgency. It necessitated an unshakable belief that democratic norms are worth fighting for even when the pressure seems unyielding. That’s why we mobilized our lawyers, advocates, organizers, storytellers, and supporters to delay unconstitutional policies before they took effect, dilute their reach when full blockage wasn’t immediately possible, and defeat them through courts, public pressure, and sustained organizing.

One year in, our work is guided by a simple principle: we are only in a constitutional crisis if we allow ourselves to be.

We Fought — and Won — in Court

Mere hours after taking office, President Trump issued a blitz of executive orders and policy directives that immediately threatened birthright citizenship, trans rights, freedom of speech, and voting rights. Our response reflected a core constitutional principle: rights endure not because leaders respect them, but because people and institutions insist on enforcing them.

• Birthright Citizenship. Two hours after President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship — a constitutional guarantee for more than 150 years — the ACLU sued. When a Supreme Court ruling threatened partial enforcement of the order, we shifted tactics, filing a class-action lawsuit that protected more than 129,000 children from harm. This spring, the ACLU’s National Legal Director, Cecillia Wang, will argue the case before the Court that the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment.

• Alien Enemies Act. We also sued the Trump administration over the president’s unlawful and unprecedented invocation of a centuries-old wartime act, the Alien Enemies Act, to accelerate mass deportations. This spring, the ACLU scored a critical legal victory with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Additionally, in December, a federal judge ruled that the Venezuelan men sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador were denied due process and ordered the government to facilitate their return or offer hearings compliant with due process.

• Free Speech. The ACLU acted swiftly to secure the release of international students and scholars Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri who were detained by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian speech. Claiming their speech threatened U.S. foreign policy, the government sought to intimidate dissent by using immigration enforcement to punish lawful political expression. In addition to securing the students’ release, the ACLU was able to protect them from immediate deportation while their cases move through the courts, reaffirming that political advocacy is not grounds for exile.

• Troop Deployment. We took action when federal troops and National Guard units were sent to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., under the pretext of controlling protests. Through lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs, and aggressive transparency demands, we forced scrutiny of these actions and constrained their scope so that this grave abuse of power will never be normalized. Thanks to a string of court victories prohibiting deployments, including in Illinois v. Trump, as well as sustained political opposition, President Trump announced on New Year’s Eve that he was abandoning efforts to use the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland.

• Equal Protection. When President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments to anyone under 19 years old, we challenged the order. A court then temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing it.

The ACLU's legal docket comprises 239 legal actions and 139 lawsuits. More importantly, a majority (64 percent) of our cases succeeded in delaying, diluting, or defeating the Trump administration's policies. As a result of our’s and other organizations’ efforts, the courts continue to be a check on the power of the presidency, just as our Constitution demanded.

We Mobilized Communities and Built Power

As proud as we are of our work in the courts, we know that we will not be successful unless millions of individuals demand change. Across the country, ACLU affiliates and partners trained more than 84,000 people on their rights and enrolled 180,000 individuals in our People Power activist program. When protests were met with militarized responses, we rapidly expanded Know Your Rights training nationwide, equipping tens of thousands of people to demonstrate safely and lawfully. We also mobilized our supporters and members of Congress to advocate on behalf of immigrants facing neglect and abuse in detention centers.

In what became one of the most visible free-speech confrontations in recent decades, political pressure led ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! after FCC leadership threatened broadcast licenses over a monologue they found objectionable. The ACLU mobilized more than 500 prominent artists and more than 50,000 supporters to sign an open letter criticizing Trump administration’s attempts at censorship. Within hours of our mobilization, the show returned to air — stopping the censorship before it could harden into precedent.

The Road Ahead: 2026 and Beyond

As we enter 2026, the stakes feel as high as ever. In coming months, the courts will make decisions that affect civil rights and civil liberties and determine whether marginalized communities can fully participate in public life for years to come. This year also marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — a moment that reminds us of the centrality of liberty and equality to the founding of our nation.

Having led the ACLU through eight presidential administrations, I’ve learned one thing for certain: progress is never permanent, and setbacks are never inevitable. Yet, our work endures. What the ACLU does over the next three years and how well we do it will play a role in shaping the course of American history.

This is because democracy doesn’t defend itself — people do. And together, we will keep showing up.

Published January 20, 2026 at 01:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2Nz5Xwq

ACLU: Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained

Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained

President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota this week, continuing to stoke fear and chaos in a situation his administration created by unleashing lawless, armed federal agents against our communities..

This is not the first time the president has threatened to invoke the act, which Congress intended presidents to use only for specified and extreme emergencies, in his first or second administrations. Each time, it has been clear that President Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act would be unnecessary, inflammatory, and a dangerous abuse of power.

The Insurrection Act is meant to be a rarely-used exception to our foundational principle that the American military should not police the American people on domestic soil. That general rule exists for good reasons: military policing of civilians is corrosive to democracy and it puts our civil liberties and rights in peril.

Despite this, Trump renewed his threat. He did so after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer killed 37-year-old mother Renee Nicole Good during a reckless and violent federal immigration enforcement operation, to which the American people have responded with overwhelmingly peaceful protests.

Federal agents’ abuses of authority and violations of constitutional rights are already brazen and cruel. President Trump’s Insurrection Act threat is contrived to escalate conflict and intimidate people exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out against injustice and observe federal agents’ activities in public spaces. The threat itself shows why the Insurrection Act is unjustified: the president would be using troops to undermine our rights, not protect them.

We’ve seen this pattern in Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities. Federal officers descend on communities to conduct violent immigration raids, instill fear, and profile residents based on race. When the American people exercise their First Amendment right to protest, federal officers respond with recklessness, injuring and maiming community members.

Below we break down what the Insurrection Act is, its long history, and how it could impact our communities if it’s invoked.

What is happening in Minnesota?

Since December, the Trump administration has deployed nearly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minnesota. In response to their lawless approach — characterized by masked and armed federal agents conducting violent raids, racial profiling, and violations of people’s rights, including U.S. citizens’ — overwhelmingly peaceful protests have grown in size.

These protests ballooned both in Minnesota and across the country after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother and American citizen. Yet the Trump administration doubled down on its tactics. Federal agents have continued their reckless raids and even shot three other people in Minneapolis and Portland. President Trump posted on Truth Social falsely characterizing protestors as “insurrectionists” and said he would invoke the Insurrection Act if state officials did not quell protests in Minnesota.

But “the real risk to people's safety comes from ICE and other federal agents' violence against our communities,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The killing of Renee Good starkly shows what happens when ICE operates without accountability.”

What is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to use federal troops to police civilians in certain specified and extreme emergencies.

The general rule in our system is that presidents are prohibited from using the federal military for law enforcement on domestic soil. The Insurrection Act is a narrow exception and is rarely used specifically because unchecked power is a threat to liberty and can lead to tyranny.

The ACLU and others have long criticized the Insurrection Act as far too vague, but it still has important restrictions on when presidents can use it. It contains three provisions: one that authorizes the president to deploy federal or federalized National Guard troops at the request of a state, to suppress an insurrection against the state’s government. Two other provisions do not require a state governor’s request, but presidents may only invoke them to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrection, violence, or conspiracy and enforce federal law when courts or ordinary law enforcement cannot, or to protect civil rights.

Congress, the courts, and the executive branch have therefore treated invocation of the Insurrection Act as a last resort, to put down forcible state resistance to a court order, or to enforce federal rights when state authorities are entirely unable or unwilling to do so.

That’s far from the situation in Minnesota or anywhere else in the country.

Has the Insurrection Act been invoked before?

In 230 years, presidents have invoked the law only 30 times. Not only is presidential invocation of the act rare, it’s almost always controversial. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal opinions for the president, has generally advised caution and restraint in invoking it.

The last time a president invoked the Insurrection Act without a state governor’s consent was more than 60 years ago. In keeping with the act’s constraints, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson invoked it to protect civil-rights protestors after Alabama state troopers attacked peaceful activists at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday. President Trump, by contrast, appears bent on using the Insurrection Act based on falsehoods and to enable further federal deprivation of people’s rights. Under the current conditions in Minnesota, Trump’s invocation of the act would be an unprecedented and dangerous use of the military on American soil.

What happened in Trump’s previous deployments of troops?

Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act comes after months of legal defeats surrounding his previous deployments of military forces domestically.

In 2025, in spite of over state governors’ objections, President Trump forcibly federalized and deployed — or attempted to deploy — National Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. He did so after issuing a June 7th Presidential Memorandum, claiming authority under a rarely used statute to federalize and deploy National Guard members (and active-duty military troops) without geographic or temporal limitations to protect federal property and functions and enforce federal law.

California, Oregon, and Illinois filed lawsuits challenging these actions, and federal district courts in all three states ruled against the president, as did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Illinois case.

Courts rejected the president’s arguments that he alone can decide when to deploy troops and courts have no role to play. The district court in California found that troops had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from carrying out law enforcement functions. The district court in Oregon found that the president’s determination that federal law enforcement officers could not enforce federal law in Portland was “simply untethered to the facts,” there was no “rebellion” or a “danger of rebellion” in the city, and that the forced federalization of Oregon National Guard members violated the Constitution. The district court in Illinois found that federal officials’ versions of the facts were “not reliable” and identified a “troubling trend” of government officials “equating protests with riots,” indicating “both bias and lack of objectivity.”

Finally, the Supreme Court halted Trump’s attempt to send troops into Chicago, recognizing that troop deployment to carry out federal law is “exceptional” and the Trump administration had not legally justified it. On December 31, Trump announced that he would end his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles, and those troops have now been withdrawn. Federalized National Guard troops remain deployed in Washington, D.C., however, courts have held that because D.C. is not a state, the president exercises unique power there.

The recent threat to use the Insurrection Act is but one more attempt by Trump to circumvent the rule of law, silence dissent against his destructive policies, and further his lawless immigration agenda.

What does the Insurrection Act not do?

Despite Trump’s threat to invoke the act in response to protests, presidents may not, consistent with First Amendment principles, use the military to quell or deter lawful political protests.

Invocation of the Insurrection Act cannot and does not suspend constitutional protections. Far from it. The conduct of any troops deployed under the Insurrection Act is governed by the safeguards of our Constitution.

No matter what uniform they wear, military troops and armed federal agents must respect our constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process. If troops or federal agents violate these constraints, they and their leadership must be held accountable.

What will happen if President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act?

Much remains uncertain, but this much is clear: The most dangerous consequence of President Trump invoking the Insurrection Act is the harm it would cause for individual civil rights and liberties. To help protect ourselves and each other we need to know our rights.

President Trump would also be placing troops in legal and ethical jeopardy, and further politicizing the military in furtherance of his partisan agenda. And he would undermine the constitutional design, which prevents direct military involvement in civilian life, except in the most limited genuine crises. Images of troops patrolling city streets are more often seen under authoritarian regimes, not in our democracy.

So "what's needed now is not federal escalation, but deescalation,” said Shamsi. “Congress must demand these mass federal law enforcement forces leave Minneapolis and rein in ICE and [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] until the administration backs down.”

Published January 17, 2026 at 12:52AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/IRruzYO

ACLU: Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained

Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained

President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota this week, continuing to stoke fear and chaos in a situation his administration created by unleashing lawless, armed federal agents against our communities..

This is not the first time the president has threatened to invoke the act, which Congress intended presidents to use only for specified and extreme emergencies, in his first or second administrations. Each time, it has been clear that President Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act would be unnecessary, inflammatory, and a dangerous abuse of power.

The Insurrection Act is meant to be a rarely-used exception to our foundational principle that the American military should not police the American people on domestic soil. That general rule exists for good reasons: military policing of civilians is corrosive to democracy and it puts our civil liberties and rights in peril.

Despite this, Trump renewed his threat. He did so after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer killed 37-year-old mother Renee Nicole Good during a reckless and violent federal immigration enforcement operation, to which the American people have responded with overwhelmingly peaceful protests.

Federal agents’ abuses of authority and violations of constitutional rights are already brazen and cruel. President Trump’s Insurrection Act threat is contrived to escalate conflict and intimidate people exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out against injustice and observe federal agents’ activities in public spaces. The threat itself shows why the Insurrection Act is unjustified: the president would be using troops to undermine our rights, not protect them.

We’ve seen this pattern in Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities. Federal officers descend on communities to conduct violent immigration raids, instill fear, and profile residents based on race. When the American people exercise their First Amendment right to protest, federal officers respond with recklessness, injuring and maiming community members.

Below we break down what the Insurrection Act is, its long history, and how it could impact our communities if it’s invoked.

What is happening in Minnesota?

Since December, the Trump administration has deployed nearly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minnesota. In response to their lawless approach — characterized by masked and armed federal agents conducting violent raids, racial profiling, and violations of people’s rights, including U.S. citizens’ — overwhelmingly peaceful protests have grown in size.

These protests ballooned both in Minnesota and across the country after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother and American citizen. Yet the Trump administration doubled down on its tactics. Federal agents have continued their reckless raids and even shot three other people in Minneapolis and Portland. President Trump posted on Truth Social falsely characterizing protestors as “insurrectionists” and said he would invoke the Insurrection Act if state officials did not quell protests in Minnesota.

But “the real risk to people's safety comes from ICE and other federal agents' violence against our communities,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The killing of Renee Good starkly shows what happens when ICE operates without accountability.”

What is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to use federal troops to police civilians in certain specified and extreme emergencies.

The general rule in our system is that presidents are prohibited from using the federal military for law enforcement on domestic soil. The Insurrection Act is a narrow exception and is rarely used specifically because unchecked power is a threat to liberty and can lead to tyranny.

The ACLU and others have long criticized the Insurrection Act as far too vague, but it still has important restrictions on when presidents can use it. It contains three provisions: one that authorizes the president to deploy federal or federalized National Guard troops at the request of a state, to suppress an insurrection against the state’s government. Two other provisions do not require a state governor’s request, but presidents may only invoke them to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrection, violence, or conspiracy and enforce federal law when courts or ordinary law enforcement cannot, or to protect civil rights.

Congress, the courts, and the executive branch have therefore treated invocation of the Insurrection Act as a last resort, to put down forcible state resistance to a court order, or to enforce federal rights when state authorities are entirely unable or unwilling to do so.

That’s far from the situation in Minnesota or anywhere else in the country.

Has the Insurrection Act been invoked before?

In 230 years, presidents have invoked the law only 30 times. Not only is presidential invocation of the act rare, it’s almost always controversial. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal opinions for the president, has generally advised caution and restraint in invoking it.

The last time a president invoked the Insurrection Act without a state governor’s consent was more than 60 years ago. In keeping with the act’s constraints, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson invoked it to protect civil-rights protestors after Alabama state troopers attacked peaceful activists at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday. President Trump, by contrast, appears bent on using the Insurrection Act based on falsehoods and to enable further federal deprivation of people’s rights. Under the current conditions in Minnesota, Trump’s invocation of the act would be an unprecedented and dangerous use of the military on American soil.

What happened in Trump’s previous deployments of troops?

Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act comes after months of legal defeats surrounding his previous deployments of military forces domestically.

In 2025, in spite of over state governors’ objections, President Trump forcibly federalized and deployed — or attempted to deploy — National Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. He did so after issuing a June 7th Presidential Memorandum, claiming authority under a rarely used statute to federalize and deploy National Guard members (and active-duty military troops) without geographic or temporal limitations to protect federal property and functions and enforce federal law.

California, Oregon, and Illinois filed lawsuits challenging these actions, and federal district courts in all three states ruled against the president, as did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Illinois case.

Courts rejected the president’s arguments that he alone can decide when to deploy troops and courts have no role to play. The district court in California found that troops had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from carrying out law enforcement functions. The district court in Oregon found that the president’s determination that federal law enforcement officers could not enforce federal law in Portland was “simply untethered to the facts,” there was no “rebellion” or a “danger of rebellion” in the city, and that the forced federalization of Oregon National Guard members violated the Constitution. The district court in Illinois found that federal officials’ versions of the facts were “not reliable” and identified a “troubling trend” of government officials “equating protests with riots,” indicating “both bias and lack of objectivity.”

Finally, the Supreme Court halted Trump’s attempt to send troops into Chicago, recognizing that troop deployment to carry out federal law is “exceptional” and the Trump administration had not legally justified it. On December 31, Trump announced that he would end his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles, and those troops have now been withdrawn. Federalized National Guard troops remain deployed in Washington, D.C., however, courts have held that because D.C. is not a state, the president exercises unique power there.

The recent threat to use the Insurrection Act is but one more attempt by Trump to circumvent the rule of law, silence dissent against his destructive policies, and further his lawless immigration agenda.

What does the Insurrection Act not do?

Despite Trump’s threat to invoke the act in response to protests, presidents may not, consistent with First Amendment principles, use the military to quell or deter lawful political protests.

Invocation of the Insurrection Act cannot and does not suspend constitutional protections. Far from it. The conduct of any troops deployed under the Insurrection Act is governed by the safeguards of our Constitution.

No matter what uniform they wear, military troops and armed federal agents must respect our constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process. If troops or federal agents violate these constraints, they and their leadership must be held accountable.

What will happen if President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act?

Much remains uncertain, but this much is clear: The most dangerous consequence of President Trump invoking the Insurrection Act is the harm it would cause for individual civil rights and liberties. To help protect ourselves and each other we need to know our rights.

President Trump would also be placing troops in legal and ethical jeopardy, and further politicizing the military in furtherance of his partisan agenda. And he would undermine the constitutional design, which prevents direct military involvement in civilian life, except in the most limited genuine crises. Images of troops patrolling city streets are more often seen under authoritarian regimes, not in our democracy.

So "what's needed now is not federal escalation, but deescalation,” said Shamsi. “Congress must demand these mass federal law enforcement forces leave Minneapolis and rein in ICE and [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] until the administration backs down.”

Published January 16, 2026 at 07:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/LNh86RB

ACLU: Your Questions Answered: Where We Are on AI Regulation, and Where We Go From Here

Your Questions Answered: Where We Are on AI Regulation, and Where We Go From Here

Whether you encounter it in your daily life or never think about it at all, artificial intelligence (AI) affects us all. From applying for a loan to sitting at the doctor’s office, AI systems are often used behind the scenes to make real-world decisions — and impact us in ways that aren’t disclosed upfront.

Play the video

Yet despite the growing reach of AI and the diversity of tools and systems it encompasses, regulations governing how it is developed and deployed and how impacted people are informed remain worryingly sparse. Left unregulated, these systems can infringe on your ability to control your data or reinforce discrimination in hiring and employment practices. As the civil rights implications become more serious, strengthening protections is no longer optional.

While policymakers and advocates must do more, existing local, state, and federal laws already offer some protection against discrimination, including digital discrimination. As part of our “Your Questions Answered” series, we asked four ACLU experts to break down what you need to know about your digital rights today, the current state of AI policy, and where regulation may be headed next.

Why is there a need for more regulation in how AI is used?

AI is often used to make decisions about our lives without transparent disclosure. For example, when you apply for a loan or submit a job application, banks or employers might use AI to analyze your materials before a real person ever does. At the doctor’s office, your provider may use an AI scribe to take notes on your conversation. And government agencies are using AI and other automated systems to make crucial decisions about who gets benefits and what those benefits are. AI should be held to strict standards when dealing with people’s lives.

— Olga Akselrod, senior counsel, ACLU Racial Justice Program

What specific harms to our civil liberties might the unregulated use of AI worsen?

Without careful oversight, AI systems used for decision-making have been proven to perpetuate existing systematic inequalities. We’ve seen that when AI tools are used to screen job applications or assess prospective employees, they can unfairly discriminate against people of color, people with disabilities, neurodiverse people, and people from low-income backgrounds. The use of AI in areas like hiring, housing, and policing means that you can be denied a job or an apartment — or even wrongfully arrested when AI-based systems that use facial recognition technology — which suffer from serious racial biases issues and are often used without appropriate safeguards — misidentify suspects in criminal investigations.

None of this is an accident, and it’s not unavoidable. There is an incredibly diverse set of tools and systems that are often categorized as “AI,” and the civil rights implications of these systems depend on the context in which they are used. While some of these systems may be used in relatively benign ways, in other instances, biased AI systems create serious risks of discriminating against real people in life-altering situations. The people, companies, and institutions developing and deploying AI systems are responsible for enabling these biases,but stricter policies and regulation can hold them accountable for their impact and ensure that these practices do not continue.

— Marissa Gerchick, data science manager & algorithmic justice specialist

How can policymakers and advocates address the real-world challenges emerging from the use of AI?

In our new report with researchers from Brown University's Center for Technological Responsibility, we highlight the wide range of AI regulations proposed by policymakers across the country. There are bills which regulate the use of AI in specific areas like education or elections and broader proposals that further expand civil rights protections that already apply to AI uses in high-stakes areas.

Our report also shows how advocates and policymakers can carefully apply computational tools to spot trends and track similarities across the growing AI policy landscape.

Our research also unearthed two key recommendations to address the challenges that emerge when conducting computational AI policy analysis, and we propose solutions to address them:

1. We urge researchers and policy staff to work together to create standardized formats and structures for legislative texts across jurisdictions to facilitate computational analysis of data.
2. We encourage researchers and advocates to incorporate a multilingual perspective when analyzing AI legislation introduced in regions under U.S. jurisdiction. Leveraging language technologies tailored to specific languages and legal contexts, while engaging with native speakers and regional AI policy experts, would provide insights into the diverse approaches to AI policy.

While our focus in our report is AI legislation, our findings and recommendations can be applied to other policy areas seeing a growth of bills across jurisdictions, and thus help to understand and strengthen emerging legislation.

— Evani Radiya-Dixit, algorithmic justice fellow

What digital rights do I have when automated tools are used to make decisions about me?

Whether decisions are made by a human or AI, longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws continue to prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment based on race or ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, disability, and other protected characteristics. In addition to federal protections, a growing number of states have passed laws regulating how employers and third-party vendors collect, use, and share your personal data during hiring. These laws give you greater control over your information and more transparency about whether automated systems are evaluating you — and how those systems may influence employment decisions.

— Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel, National Political Advocacy

You can learn more about digital discrimination and your digital rights when searching or applying for jobs at our Know Your Rights page.

Published January 17, 2026 at 12:06AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/jvpi2L1

ACLU: Your Questions Answered: Where We Are on AI Regulation, and Where We Go From Here

Your Questions Answered: Where We Are on AI Regulation, and Where We Go From Here

Whether you encounter it in your daily life or never think about it at all, artificial intelligence (AI) affects us all. From applying for a loan to sitting at the doctor’s office, AI systems are often used behind the scenes to make real-world decisions — and impact us in ways that aren’t disclosed upfront.

Play the video

Yet despite the growing reach of AI and the diversity of tools and systems it encompasses, regulations governing how it is developed and deployed and how impacted people are informed remain worryingly sparse. Left unregulated, these systems can infringe on your ability to control your data or reinforce discrimination in hiring and employment practices. As the civil rights implications become more serious, strengthening protections is no longer optional.

While policymakers and advocates must do more, existing local, state, and federal laws already offer some protection against discrimination, including digital discrimination. As part of our “Your Questions Answered” series, we asked four ACLU experts to break down what you need to know about your digital rights today, the current state of AI policy, and where regulation may be headed next.

Why is there a need for more regulation in how AI is used?

AI is often used to make decisions about our lives without transparent disclosure. For example, when you apply for a loan or submit a job application, banks or employers might use AI to analyze your materials before a real person ever does. At the doctor’s office, your provider may use an AI scribe to take notes on your conversation. And government agencies are using AI and other automated systems to make crucial decisions about who gets benefits and what those benefits are. AI should be held to strict standards when dealing with people’s lives.

— Olga Akselrod, senior counsel, ACLU Racial Justice Program

What specific harms to our civil liberties might the unregulated use of AI worsen?

Without careful oversight, AI systems used for decision-making have been proven to perpetuate existing systematic inequalities. We’ve seen that when AI tools are used to screen job applications or assess prospective employees, they can unfairly discriminate against people of color, people with disabilities, neurodiverse people, and people from low-income backgrounds. The use of AI in areas like hiring, housing, and policing means that you can be denied a job or an apartment — or even wrongfully arrested when AI-based systems that use facial recognition technology — which suffer from serious racial biases issues and are often used without appropriate safeguards — misidentify suspects in criminal investigations.

None of this is an accident, and it’s not unavoidable. There is an incredibly diverse set of tools and systems that are often categorized as “AI,” and the civil rights implications of these systems depend on the context in which they are used. While some of these systems may be used in relatively benign ways, in other instances, biased AI systems create serious risks of discriminating against real people in life-altering situations. The people, companies, and institutions developing and deploying AI systems are responsible for enabling these biases,but stricter policies and regulation can hold them accountable for their impact and ensure that these practices do not continue.

— Marissa Gerchick, data science manager & algorithmic justice specialist

How can policymakers and advocates address the real-world challenges emerging from the use of AI?

In our new report with researchers from Brown University's Center for Technological Responsibility, we highlight the wide range of AI regulations proposed by policymakers across the country. There are bills which regulate the use of AI in specific areas like education or elections and broader proposals that further expand civil rights protections that already apply to AI uses in high-stakes areas.

Our report also shows how advocates and policymakers can carefully apply computational tools to spot trends and track similarities across the growing AI policy landscape.

Our research also unearthed two key recommendations to address the challenges that emerge when conducting computational AI policy analysis, and we propose solutions to address them:

1. We urge researchers and policy staff to work together to create standardized formats and structures for legislative texts across jurisdictions to facilitate computational analysis of data.
2. We encourage researchers and advocates to incorporate a multilingual perspective when analyzing AI legislation introduced in regions under U.S. jurisdiction. Leveraging language technologies tailored to specific languages and legal contexts, while engaging with native speakers and regional AI policy experts, would provide insights into the diverse approaches to AI policy.

While our focus in our report is AI legislation, our findings and recommendations can be applied to other policy areas seeing a growth of bills across jurisdictions, and thus help to understand and strengthen emerging legislation.

— Evani Radiya-Dixit, algorithmic justice fellow

What digital rights do I have when automated tools are used to make decisions about me?

Whether decisions are made by a human or AI, longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws continue to prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment based on race or ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, disability, and other protected characteristics. In addition to federal protections, a growing number of states have passed laws regulating how employers and third-party vendors collect, use, and share your personal data during hiring. These laws give you greater control over your information and more transparency about whether automated systems are evaluating you — and how those systems may influence employment decisions.

— Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel, National Political Advocacy

You can learn more about digital discrimination and your digital rights when searching or applying for jobs at our Know Your Rights page.

Published January 16, 2026 at 06:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1Y4xPFZ

ACLU: Executions Spiked in 2025, but the Death Penalty Is Still Losing Ground

Executions Spiked in 2025, but the Death Penalty Is Still Losing Ground

For death penalty opponents, the dramatic spike in executions last year was truly horrifying. After several years of no more than 25 executions, there were 47 executions in 2025, nearly double the years prior. This included the executions of people with intellectual disability, powerful claims of innocence, and whose trials were marked by profound unfairness and racism.

Even as executions surged, 2025 was also a year of continued progress in efforts to abolish the death penalty.

For years, the number of executions reflected decisions made decades ago: cases tried by prosecutors who were more likely to seek death and decided by juries who were more willing to hand down a death sentence. They are not a measure of where most Americans are today. When we look at modern indicators – public opinion, new prosecutions, and jury verdicts – the death penalty is losing its legitimacy.

Even as executions surged, 2025 was also a year of continued progress in efforts to abolish the death penalty.

New death sentences and public support for the death penalty are continuing a historic decline. Thirty years ago, juries returned new death sentences in over 300 cases. In 2025, they did so in only 23 cases. According to Death Penalty Information Center, more than half of the juries in 2025 recommended life verdicts. This is particularly remarkable considering how slanted capital juries are towards the death penalty. A process called death qualification ensures that jurors who are opposed to the death penalty and will not consider voting for life are excluded from serving on capital juries. As a result, juries areless diverse and more likely to convict and sentence someone to death.

That the death penalty has continued to decline despite most pro-death juries is a major feat and also confounding without looking into the larger context of pro-death sentencing. In his first term, President Donald Trump carried out an outrageous execution spree, executing 13 people before leaving office in 2020. President Joe Biden then issued large scale commutations to avoid another slate of executions. Voices from across the political spectrum celebrated President Biden’s historic act of clemency. However, last year, on day one of President Trump’s second term, he announced his pledge to do everything possible to restart and expand the death penalty.

When we look at modern indicators – public opinion, new prosecutions, and jury verdicts – the death penalty is losing its legitimacy.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis eagerly latched onto President’s Trump’s direction to embrace executions. After directing just one execution in 2023, Governor DeSantis ordered 19 in 2025. Advocates in California have publicly called on Governor Newsom to answer this threat by ensuring that this kind of death spree will not happen in his state and commuting California’s row, which is the largest in the country.

That's why at the ACLU, we're working to end capital punishment in courtrooms and statehouses across the country.

Trump and DeSantis’ focus on the death penalty shows how, despite public opinion, a few powerful individuals can promote pro-death penalty logic in our legal system and across the country. An administration set on cruelty over justice has only energized the resistance and made the problems with the death penalty impossible to ignore. After 50 years of reform, the death penalty’s innocence problem has proven intractable. The more than 200 U.S. death row inmates have been exonerated since 1973, a rate of about one exoneration for every eight executions. Key causes for false conviction include official misconduct, false accusations, faulty forensic "junk science," inadequate legal counsel, and racial bias.

That's why at the ACLU, we're working to end capital punishment in courtrooms and statehouses across the country. Each execution this year further exposes what the system really is and only strengthens the movement that will end it.

Published January 16, 2026 at 07:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/XMjeysd