ACLU: The Tulsa Race Massacre and the Violence of Forgetting

The Tulsa Race Massacre and the Violence of Forgetting

In the early 1920’s, Black Americans were under the siege of direct and indirect racial violence with widespread lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and race riots across the country. And yet the Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma was thriving. Its streets were lined with successful Black-owned businesses and Black professionals. The district was so successful that the area was dubbed “Black Wall Street.”

But 100 years ago, on May 31, 1921, a white mob of several thousand murdered up to 300 Black residents, and destroyed almost every Black business, church, and home in the 35-square-block neighborhood.

What followed the massacre was a national forgetting: no reckoning, no justice, and no accountability. Black property owners were never compensated, and neither the city nor the state committed money toward rebuilding Greenwood in the aftermath. In fact, up until recently, the massacre was hardly taught or discussed at all.

Tulsa historian and prolific author and lawyer, Hannibal B. Johnson, joined us on At Liberty this week to mark the centennial of the Tulsa Race Massacre and discuss its legacy. Johnson is the chair of the Education Committee of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, which is hosting educational and memorial events in honor of the centennial.

Listen to Episode 157 of ACLU's "At Liberty" Podcast:

https://soundcloud.com/aclu/the-tulsa-race-massacre-and-the-violence-of-forgetting

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published May 29, 2021 at 12:13AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/34pqKSj

ACLU: What Larry Krasner’s Primary Win Means for Criminal Legal Reform. And How He Can Go Further.

What Larry Krasner’s Primary Win Means for Criminal Legal Reform. And How He Can Go Further.

The 2021 Democratic primary for district attorney in Philadelphia had all of the elements of a political drama: a reformer incumbent who spent his career challenging the criminal legal system versus a career prosecutor whom the current DA fired at the start of his tenure. A powerful police officers’ union trying to hold onto political power by boosting the challenger with a series of theatrical stunts. The old guard of the city’s Democratic party committee refusing to endorse the incumbent while progressive elected officials supported him.

In the end, Larry Krasner dusted Carlos Vega; Krasner earned more than double Vega’s vote total. And while the Republicans have nominated a candidate for November’s general election, Krasner will almost certainly earn himself a second four-year term in a city in which registered Democrats outnumber Republicans seven-to-one.

The ACLU is famously and stridently nonpartisan. We do not endorse candidates for office. But we’re also not naive to the impact that election campaigns and the candidates who run in them have on civil liberties. An electoral campaign can set the tone — for better or for worse — for how the prevailing candidate will govern. That is why the ACLU launched a voter education campaign in this primary to make sure that voters understood that the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police was continuing its long record of trying to confuse and scare the public.

What does Krasner’s victory mean for civil liberties? Krasner has tackled some of the great injustices that his predecessors carried out. He also has more work to do to effectively improve the criminal legal system in Philadelphia.

The Good

Conviction integrity unit successes

Previous district attorneys engaged in behavior that directly led to innocent people being convicted of crimes and spending years in prison. And even when evidence of a person’s innocence came to light, the DAs who came before Krasner would continue to fight their appeals, most famously in the case of Anthony Wright, who was retried by DA Seth Williams, with Carlos Vega as co-lead prosecutor, despite DNA evidence proving his innocence.

Krasner changed that. Although the conviction integrity unit was started by Williams, it’s been Krasner who has given the unit’s work real meaning. The result? Twenty innocent people, who combined lost hundreds of years of their lives in prison, have been exonerated in the three-plus years that Krasner has been DA.

Through the conviction integrity unit, Krasner has made clear that the old way of doing business in the DA’s office is over.

A halt to the death penalty

Historically, Philadelphia has been responsible for populating much of Pennsylvania’s death row. When Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf implemented a moratorium on executions in 2015, it was Williams who sued to overturn Wolf’s order. (Williams lost.)

Now, Krasner has brought de facto death penalty abolition to Philadelphia. During his tenure, the DA’s office has yet to prosecute a capital case and has stopped pursuing appeals in some death penalty cases.

Slowing the war on drugs

Philly’s marijuana decriminalization ordinance, which gives police a non-criminal, civil mechanism for addressing marijuana possession and public consumption, was passed and implemented before Krasner became DA. That ordinance led to thousands of cannabis consumers staying out of the criminal legal system. But marijuana possession is still a misdemeanor crime under state law, and Philadelphia police still arrest hundreds of people under that law every year, disproportionately Black people.

Krasner stopped prosecuting those cases. By doing so, he kept those arrested from becoming entangled in the criminal legal system and, just as importantly, kept them out of mandatory treatment programs, which are typically unnecessary for cannabis consumers, saving space in those programs for people with severe substance use disorders.

Holding abusive cops accountable

Larry Krasner is not the first district attorney in Philadelphia to prosecute abusive or corrupt police officers. But none of his predecessors have been as committed to rooting out violent cops as Krasner. And now the DA’s office is before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenging the commonwealth’s use-of-force law in a case stemming from the prosecution of officer Ryan Pownall, who shot and killed David Jones as he fled from the officer.

The Not-So-Good

Krasner’s first term has not been without mistakes and challenges, though. In a second term, he and his team will have more to do to reform the criminal legal system.

Misuse of cash bail

Krasner made a big splash when he announced that the DA’s office would stop asking judges to issue cash bail orders for people charged with a long list of low-level offenses. At the time, Krasner promised this was the first part of a multi-part bail reform. That was notable and worthy of applause. However, Krasner has not gone further and continues to misuse cash bail. His prosecutors routinely seek to detain people and have been asking judges to issue bail orders of $1 million against certain defendants.

There are only two reasons to detain people before trial — because they are a flight risk or because they are a threat to public safety. Some of the people who have been issued $1 million bail orders may very well be threats to public safety. But if a person is a threat, there is a judicial process for making that determination. Instead of adhering to the value of due process, Krasner and his team are using cash bail as a workaround to avoid making the case that a person is a public safety threat. The DA’s office is using cash bail as a weapon for pretrial detention, and that must stop.

Treating kids as kids?

In 2017, Krasner ran on the idea that children should be treated as children, that youth who get mixed up in the criminal legal system should not be in adult jails or adult court. During the campaign, he claimed that this was a promise that he kept.

The reality is more complicated. Virtually the same number of youth are being charged as adults as before Krasner became district attorney, due in large part to Pennsylvania’s “direct file” law, which requires that young people accused of certain crimes start in adult court. During Krasner’s first three years in office, more of those cases have been moved to the juvenile system than in the past, through a process known as “decertification” or “reslate” agreements. This has largely happened with agreement from the district attorney’s office.

But Krasner’s team has also imposed coercive conditions on many of those agreements, despite Krasner’s recent promises to end that practice. If Krasner is serious about treating kids as kids, in the upcoming term he needs to allow kids to be addressed by the juvenile system free and clear, across the board.

Conclusion? Nice work. Now do more.

There’s an old saying that good policy makes good politics. Carlos Vega and his pals at the Fraternal Order of Police had a clean, one-on-one chance to end Larry Krasner’s tenure in the DA’s office. But Philadelphians showed that they are ready — and hungry — for a different approach to criminal law, and that the old way championed by the likes of Lynne Abraham and Frank Rizzo will no longer be tolerated. The ACLU of Pennsylvania looks forward to working with the DA when we agree. And we will hold him to account when he fails.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published May 28, 2021 at 11:49PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3c1fIa9

ACLU: The Tulsa Race Massacre and the Violence of Forgetting

The Tulsa Race Massacre and the Violence of Forgetting

In the early 1920’s, Black Americans were under the siege of direct and indirect racial violence with widespread lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and race riots across the country. And yet the Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma was thriving. Its streets were lined with successful Black-owned businesses and Black professionals. The district was so successful that the area was dubbed “Black Wall Street.”

But 100 years ago, on May 31, 1921, a white mob of several thousand murdered up to 300 Black residents, and destroyed almost every Black business, church, and home in the 35-square-block neighborhood.

What followed the massacre was a national forgetting: no reckoning, no justice, and no accountability. Black property owners were never compensated, and neither the city nor the state committed money toward rebuilding Greenwood in the aftermath. In fact, up until recently, the massacre was hardly taught or discussed at all.

Tulsa historian and prolific author and lawyer, Hannibal B. Johnson, joined us on At Liberty this week to mark the centennial of the Tulsa Race Massacre and discuss its legacy. Johnson is the chair of the Education Committee of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, which is hosting educational and memorial events in honor of the centennial.

Listen to Episode 157 of ACLU's "At Liberty" Podcast:

https://soundcloud.com/aclu/the-tulsa-race-massacre-and-the-violence-of-forgetting

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published May 28, 2021 at 07:43PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/34pqKSj

ACLU: What Larry Krasner’s Primary Win Means for Criminal Legal Reform. And How He Can Go Further.

What Larry Krasner’s Primary Win Means for Criminal Legal Reform. And How He Can Go Further.

The 2021 Democratic primary for district attorney in Philadelphia had all of the elements of a political drama: a reformer incumbent who spent his career challenging the criminal legal system versus a career prosecutor whom the current DA fired at the start of his tenure. A powerful police officers’ union trying to hold onto political power by boosting the challenger with a series of theatrical stunts. The old guard of the city’s Democratic party committee refusing to endorse the incumbent while progressive elected officials supported him.

In the end, Larry Krasner dusted Carlos Vega; Krasner earned more than double Vega’s vote total. And while the Republicans have nominated a candidate for November’s general election, Krasner will almost certainly earn himself a second four-year term in a city in which registered Democrats outnumber Republicans seven-to-one.

The ACLU is famously and stridently nonpartisan. We do not endorse candidates for office. But we’re also not naive to the impact that election campaigns and the candidates who run in them have on civil liberties. An electoral campaign can set the tone — for better or for worse — for how the prevailing candidate will govern. That is why the ACLU launched a voter education campaign in this primary to make sure that voters understood that the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police was continuing its long record of trying to confuse and scare the public.

What does Krasner’s victory mean for civil liberties? Krasner has tackled some of the great injustices that his predecessors carried out. He also has more work to do to effectively improve the criminal legal system in Philadelphia.

The Good

Conviction integrity unit successes

Previous district attorneys engaged in behavior that directly led to innocent people being convicted of crimes and spending years in prison. And even when evidence of a person’s innocence came to light, the DAs who came before Krasner would continue to fight their appeals, most famously in the case of Anthony Wright, who was retried by DA Seth Williams, with Carlos Vega as co-lead prosecutor, despite DNA evidence proving his innocence.

Krasner changed that. Although the conviction integrity unit was started by Williams, it’s been Krasner who has given the unit’s work real meaning. The result? Twenty innocent people, who combined lost hundreds of years of their lives in prison, have been exonerated in the three-plus years that Krasner has been DA.

Through the conviction integrity unit, Krasner has made clear that the old way of doing business in the DA’s office is over.

A halt to the death penalty

Historically, Philadelphia has been responsible for populating much of Pennsylvania’s death row. When Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf implemented a moratorium on executions in 2015, it was Williams who sued to overturn Wolf’s order. (Williams lost.)

Now, Krasner has brought de facto death penalty abolition to Philadelphia. During his tenure, the DA’s office has yet to prosecute a capital case and has stopped pursuing appeals in some death penalty cases.

Slowing the war on drugs

Philly’s marijuana decriminalization ordinance, which gives police a non-criminal, civil mechanism for addressing marijuana possession and public consumption, was passed and implemented before Krasner became DA. That ordinance led to thousands of cannabis consumers staying out of the criminal legal system. But marijuana possession is still a misdemeanor crime under state law, and Philadelphia police still arrest hundreds of people under that law every year, disproportionately Black people.

Krasner stopped prosecuting those cases. By doing so, he kept those arrested from becoming entangled in the criminal legal system and, just as importantly, kept them out of mandatory treatment programs, which are typically unnecessary for cannabis consumers, saving space in those programs for people with severe substance use disorders.

Holding abusive cops accountable

Larry Krasner is not the first district attorney in Philadelphia to prosecute abusive or corrupt police officers. But none of his predecessors have been as committed to rooting out violent cops as Krasner. And now the DA’s office is before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenging the commonwealth’s use-of-force law in a case stemming from the prosecution of officer Ryan Pownall, who shot and killed David Jones as he fled from the officer.

The Not-So-Good

Krasner’s first term has not been without mistakes and challenges, though. In a second term, he and his team will have more to do to reform the criminal legal system.

Misuse of cash bail

Krasner made a big splash when he announced that the DA’s office would stop asking judges to issue cash bail orders for people charged with a long list of low-level offenses. At the time, Krasner promised this was the first part of a multi-part bail reform. That was notable and worthy of applause. However, Krasner has not gone further and continues to misuse cash bail. His prosecutors routinely seek to detain people and have been asking judges to issue bail orders of $1 million against certain defendants.

There are only two reasons to detain people before trial — because they are a flight risk or because they are a threat to public safety. Some of the people who have been issued $1 million bail orders may very well be threats to public safety. But if a person is a threat, there is a judicial process for making that determination. Instead of adhering to the value of due process, Krasner and his team are using cash bail as a workaround to avoid making the case that a person is a public safety threat. The DA’s office is using cash bail as a weapon for pretrial detention, and that must stop.

Treating kids as kids?

In 2017, Krasner ran on the idea that children should be treated as children, that youth who get mixed up in the criminal legal system should not be in adult jails or adult court. During the campaign, he claimed that this was a promise that he kept.

The reality is more complicated. Virtually the same number of youth are being charged as adults as before Krasner became district attorney, due in large part to Pennsylvania’s “direct file” law, which requires that young people accused of certain crimes start in adult court. During Krasner’s first three years in office, more of those cases have been moved to the juvenile system than in the past, through a process known as “decertification” or “reslate” agreements. This has largely happened with agreement from the district attorney’s office.

But Krasner’s team has also imposed coercive conditions on many of those agreements, despite Krasner’s recent promises to end that practice. If Krasner is serious about treating kids as kids, in the upcoming term he needs to allow kids to be addressed by the juvenile system free and clear, across the board.

Conclusion? Nice work. Now do more.

There’s an old saying that good policy makes good politics. Carlos Vega and his pals at the Fraternal Order of Police had a clean, one-on-one chance to end Larry Krasner’s tenure in the DA’s office. But Philadelphians showed that they are ready — and hungry — for a different approach to criminal law, and that the old way championed by the likes of Lynne Abraham and Frank Rizzo will no longer be tolerated. The ACLU of Pennsylvania looks forward to working with the DA when we agree. And we will hold him to account when he fails.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published May 28, 2021 at 07:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3c1fIa9

Republic of the Marshall Islands: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of the Marshall Islands

Republic of the Marshall Islands: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of the Marshall Islands
Published May 27, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Biden Must Honor Pledge to Immigrant Troops: Rescind Trump Policy Blocking Path to Citizenship

Biden Must Honor Pledge to Immigrant Troops: Rescind Trump Policy Blocking Path to Citizenship

This piece first appeared in Just Security.

Over 100 days into his administration, President Joe Biden has yet to act on a Trump administration policy denying thousands of immigrants serving in the U.S. military the path to citizenship promised to them by Congress. Rescinding this policy—which runs contrary to U.S. history, values, and laws—is a no-brainer. It is also consistent with Biden’s own campaign pledge to “protect and expand opportunities” for immigrants “who risked their lives in military service.” The Biden administration should seize the opportunity to honor this pledge by immediately withdrawing the Trump policy and abandoning the Trump administration’s defense of it in federal court.

As has been the case for over 70 years, before service members can apply for citizenship, the Defense Department must first certify their honorable service. This certification is a purely administrative task, consisting of looking up an individual’s service record and verifying honorable service to date. DoD’s longstanding practice was to issue certifications almost immediately after immigrants began their service so that they could become U.S. citizens prior to deployment. However, an October 2017 Trump administration policy required DoD to withhold certification until service members satisfied new preconditions, including a minimum service duration requirement. As a result, DoD denied thousands of immigrants in uniform the path to citizenship promised to them under federal law.

In April 2020, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of immigrants whose service in the U.S. military during a period of armed conflict entitles them to naturalize expeditiously but who were blocked from doing so by the Trump administration. Four months later, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down portions of the Trump policy, ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act “contains no minimum service requirement.” The court also held that those portions of the policy were unlawful because they were “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. In October 2020, the Trump administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The government’s opening brief to the D.C. circuit was due in early February, giving the Biden administration an easy opportunity to comply with federal law, the district court’s decision, and Biden’s campaign promise by simply withdrawing the appeal. However, the Justice Department has now sought four extensions, and the brief is currently due on June 2, in just under two weeks.

We don’t know what is holding up the Biden administration, but by continually punting the decision to withdraw the appeal and disavow the Trump policy, it has left thousands of service members in a state of purgatory. The prospect of an adverse decision, which would effectively upend the expedited naturalization process for immigrant service members, continues to loom over thousands of class members in this case.

The Biden administration’s failure to act is inexplicable. The Trump policy was a component of that administration’s punishing anti-immigrant agenda, targeted specifically at immigrants serving in the U.S. military. It forced these service members to deploy and wait prolonged periods before they could obtain citizenship. In doing so, it prevented service members from enjoying the privileges of citizenship, such as voting while serving to protect the United States, or traveling with a U.S. passport while serving overseas. Because of the Trump policy, service members who fell out of lawful immigration status while awaiting citizenship became vulnerable to placement in removal proceedings and deportation, notwithstanding their ongoing military service. On top of it all, the policy prevented many immigrants from advancing their military careers since many specialized roles for which they are best suited, such as in linguistics or information-technology, require U.S. citizenship.

The Trump policy also eviscerated naturalization through military service, the path to citizenship over 100,000 immigrants have taken since 9/11. In the year following the policy’s implementation, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported a 72-percent drop in military naturalization applications from pre-policy levels. In fact, many service members waited so long to naturalize that they could have obtained citizenship faster through the civilian process, defeating the very purpose of the expedited naturalization Congress intended for non-citizens serving in the U.S. military.

The Trump policy broke the promise of expedited citizenship Congress has made to immigrant service members for over 200 years. From the War of 1812 to the present, federal laws have reflected Congress’ intent that immigrants serving during wartime naturalize almost immediately upon entering service and prior to deployment. Since 1952, that promise has been codified in a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in this case, the legislative history of that provision “is ripe with evidence that Congress intended that there be no minimum time-in-service required of a noncitizen enlistee in order to benefit from” the expedited path to citizenship. The legislative history also makes the reason for this intent clear: “if they are invited to fight and die for the United States, . . . they are good enough to come into citizenship.” Years later, when Congress expanded eligibility for expedited naturalization from those serving in World War II to those serving in future periods of conflict, it also explained that a service member should be “afforded an opportunity to acquire citizenship before he is assigned to active combat,” otherwise “the serviceman killed in action could never avail himself of the special benefits provided by his adopted country.”

The Biden administration’s failure to act on the Trump policy—either by withdrawing the appeal or rescinding the policy itself—is especially puzzling because the Trump policy so obviously conflicts with the administration’s promises on immigration reform. As part of the immigration plank of his campaign platform, Biden vowed to address the harms experienced by immigrant service members. He explicitly pledged in his first 100 days to “[p]rotect and expand opportunities” for immigrants “who risked their lives in military service” and to “restore faith in the citizenship process by removing roadblocks to naturalization.” And in a Feb. 2 executive order, he specifically ordered the secretary of state, attorney general, and secretary of homeland security to “develop a plan” within 60 days to “facilitate naturalization for . . . members of the military, in consultation with the Department of Defense.”

This failure to act is also disappointing because, as Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) outlined in a January letter to then-President-elect Biden, immigrant service members face a legion of hurdles to citizenship that go beyond this specific Trump policy. The letter outlined a series of executive and agency actions the Biden administration could take in order to build on Biden’s stated “commitment to protect and expand citizenship opportunities for the brave men and women who have fought to defend our Nation.” A Biden administration serious about this commitment would not only address the Trump policy, but also begin to put this blueprint in action.

By rescinding the Trump policy, the Biden administration would be taking an easy step to honor the president’s pledge to immigrant service members. Thousands of service members are currently relying on that pledge and the restoration of the citizenship promise Congress made to them.

Update: On May 25, the D.C. Circuit granted the Justice Department’s fifth request for an extension on its opening brief, which is now due July 2.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published May 27, 2021 at 08:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2RJoxOW

ACLU: Biden Must Honor Pledge to Immigrant Troops: Rescind Trump Policy Blocking Path to Citizenship

Biden Must Honor Pledge to Immigrant Troops: Rescind Trump Policy Blocking Path to Citizenship

This piece first appeared in Just Security.

Over 100 days into his administration, President Joe Biden has yet to act on a Trump administration policy denying thousands of immigrants serving in the U.S. military the path to citizenship promised to them by Congress. Rescinding this policy—which runs contrary to U.S. history, values, and laws—is a no-brainer. It is also consistent with Biden’s own campaign pledge to “protect and expand opportunities” for immigrants “who risked their lives in military service.” The Biden administration should seize the opportunity to honor this pledge by immediately withdrawing the Trump policy and abandoning the Trump administration’s defense of it in federal court.

As has been the case for over 70 years, before service members can apply for citizenship, the Defense Department must first certify their honorable service. This certification is a purely administrative task, consisting of looking up an individual’s service record and verifying honorable service to date. DoD’s longstanding practice was to issue certifications almost immediately after immigrants began their service so that they could become U.S. citizens prior to deployment. However, an October 2017 Trump administration policy required DoD to withhold certification until service members satisfied new preconditions, including a minimum service duration requirement. As a result, DoD denied thousands of immigrants in uniform the path to citizenship promised to them under federal law.

In April 2020, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of immigrants whose service in the U.S. military during a period of armed conflict entitles them to naturalize expeditiously but who were blocked from doing so by the Trump administration. Four months later, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down portions of the Trump policy, ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act “contains no minimum service requirement.” The court also held that those portions of the policy were unlawful because they were “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. In October 2020, the Trump administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The government’s opening brief to the D.C. circuit was due in early February, giving the Biden administration an easy opportunity to comply with federal law, the district court’s decision, and Biden’s campaign promise by simply withdrawing the appeal. However, the Justice Department has now sought four extensions, and the brief is currently due on June 2, in just under two weeks.

We don’t know what is holding up the Biden administration, but by continually punting the decision to withdraw the appeal and disavow the Trump policy, it has left thousands of service members in a state of purgatory. The prospect of an adverse decision, which would effectively upend the expedited naturalization process for immigrant service members, continues to loom over thousands of class members in this case.

The Biden administration’s failure to act is inexplicable. The Trump policy was a component of that administration’s punishing anti-immigrant agenda, targeted specifically at immigrants serving in the U.S. military. It forced these service members to deploy and wait prolonged periods before they could obtain citizenship. In doing so, it prevented service members from enjoying the privileges of citizenship, such as voting while serving to protect the United States, or traveling with a U.S. passport while serving overseas. Because of the Trump policy, service members who fell out of lawful immigration status while awaiting citizenship became vulnerable to placement in removal proceedings and deportation, notwithstanding their ongoing military service. On top of it all, the policy prevented many immigrants from advancing their military careers since many specialized roles for which they are best suited, such as in linguistics or information-technology, require U.S. citizenship.

The Trump policy also eviscerated naturalization through military service, the path to citizenship over 100,000 immigrants have taken since 9/11. In the year following the policy’s implementation, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported a 72-percent drop in military naturalization applications from pre-policy levels. In fact, many service members waited so long to naturalize that they could have obtained citizenship faster through the civilian process, defeating the very purpose of the expedited naturalization Congress intended for non-citizens serving in the U.S. military.

The Trump policy broke the promise of expedited citizenship Congress has made to immigrant service members for over 200 years. From the War of 1812 to the present, federal laws have reflected Congress’ intent that immigrants serving during wartime naturalize almost immediately upon entering service and prior to deployment. Since 1952, that promise has been codified in a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in this case, the legislative history of that provision “is ripe with evidence that Congress intended that there be no minimum time-in-service required of a noncitizen enlistee in order to benefit from” the expedited path to citizenship. The legislative history also makes the reason for this intent clear: “if they are invited to fight and die for the United States, . . . they are good enough to come into citizenship.” Years later, when Congress expanded eligibility for expedited naturalization from those serving in World War II to those serving in future periods of conflict, it also explained that a service member should be “afforded an opportunity to acquire citizenship before he is assigned to active combat,” otherwise “the serviceman killed in action could never avail himself of the special benefits provided by his adopted country.”

The Biden administration’s failure to act on the Trump policy—either by withdrawing the appeal or rescinding the policy itself—is especially puzzling because the Trump policy so obviously conflicts with the administration’s promises on immigration reform. As part of the immigration plank of his campaign platform, Biden vowed to address the harms experienced by immigrant service members. He explicitly pledged in his first 100 days to “[p]rotect and expand opportunities” for immigrants “who risked their lives in military service” and to “restore faith in the citizenship process by removing roadblocks to naturalization.” And in a Feb. 2 executive order, he specifically ordered the secretary of state, attorney general, and secretary of homeland security to “develop a plan” within 60 days to “facilitate naturalization for . . . members of the military, in consultation with the Department of Defense.”

This failure to act is also disappointing because, as Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) outlined in a January letter to then-President-elect Biden, immigrant service members face a legion of hurdles to citizenship that go beyond this specific Trump policy. The letter outlined a series of executive and agency actions the Biden administration could take in order to build on Biden’s stated “commitment to protect and expand citizenship opportunities for the brave men and women who have fought to defend our Nation.” A Biden administration serious about this commitment would not only address the Trump policy, but also begin to put this blueprint in action.

By rescinding the Trump policy, the Biden administration would be taking an easy step to honor the president’s pledge to immigrant service members. Thousands of service members are currently relying on that pledge and the restoration of the citizenship promise Congress made to them.

Update: On May 25, the D.C. Circuit granted the Justice Department’s fifth request for an extension on its opening brief, which is now due July 2.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published May 27, 2021 at 04:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2RJoxOW

ACLU: Abortion Access is at Stake, But We Will Do Everything We Can to Keep Our Clinic’s Doors Open

Abortion Access is at Stake, But We Will Do Everything We Can to Keep Our Clinic’s Doors Open

Last week, my staff and I watched alongside the rest of the nation as the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would consider a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy. This news left us feeling scared about the future of abortion access and thinking about how a bad decision could be devastating for patients like ours, for whom access to abortion is not only life-affirming, but often life-saving.

Unfortunately, these fears are not new for us here in Arkansas, where I serve as clinical director of one of the last two clinics standing in the state. We are used to keeping our chins up and fighting for the rights of our patients in the face of unrelenting attacks on our ability to provide, and our patients’ ability to access, abortion. And that is exactly what we will do when we go to court to fight Arkansas’s abortion ban today.

For nearly a decade, anti-abortion politicians in Arkansas have engaged in a targeted campaign against abortion, aimed at shutting our clinic’s doors and making it difficult, if not impossible, for our patients to access the vital reproductive health care they seek. Among other things, they’ve tried to ban abortion at particular points in pregnancy, ban abortion based on our patients’ reasons for seeking care, and imposed requirements that clinics must satisfy in order to keep our doors open, designed to be too burdensome to meet.

Rather than increase safety, these restrictions put pregnant people across Arkansas in danger by making it more difficult for patients to access abortion, and more difficult for us to provide this care. For example, Arkansas law currently requires that all abortion patients receive certain state mandated information from us in person and then wait a designated period of time before obtaining an abortion.

Over the past few years, the legislature has steadily increased this mandatory waiting period from 24, to 48, and now to 72 hours. So many of our patients already have to travel long distances, arrange time off work and/or child care, and find transportation in order to get to our clinic. Because they have to receive the state mandated information in person, and then wait 72-hours before getting their abortion, they have to do all these things twice — for no medical reason. This can be simply insurmountable for some patients, especially those who are poor or low-income, as many of our patients are.

We’ve gotten used to engaging in what feels like a constant struggle against the state’s ever-increasing set of medically unnecessary restrictions. But this year felt different. Anti-abortion legislators pushed through such a high volume of bills aimed at restricting abortion access, and the rate at which they were introduced and passed was faster than in years prior. It also seemed impossible to combat these restrictions: At times, I truly felt helpless. By the end of this whirlwind 2021 session, Arkansas had passed 20 abortion restrictions — positioning the state to tie Louisiana’s record from 1978 for most abortion restrictions passed in a single year.

Among these 20 is the near-total abortion ban that Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed into law in March, which we’re challenging on behalf of our patients today. This ban would prohibit abortion in nearly every case, and impose criminal penalties on our doctors for providing abortion care.

The day Gov. Hutchinson signed it into law, patients immediately began calling the clinic in a panic to see if they could keep their appointments, and our staff had family members calling them to see if they still had jobs. Amidst this incredible stress, we tried to make clear that abortion is still legal in Arkansas, that our clinic doors are still open, and that we would continue to fight to keep them open.

In spite of these challenges, I remain incredibly proud of the work we do at the clinic, and cannot imagine not providing this care. Many staff members have been here for 10 to 15 years or more; it is their life’s work. We are dedicated, compassionate, and have an amazing group of volunteers that do critical community outreach. Our patients depend on us for the care they need, and we are thankful for the physicians and staff who work tirelessly to make sure patients receive that care.

Abortion is essential health care, and there are still compassionate people in Arkansas willing to provide it, even as it gets more difficult with each attack and limitation. With our legal team, we will do everything we can to make sure the abortion care we provide remains accessible to anyone in Arkansas who needs it.

What you can do:

Join the fight for our reproductive freedom

Add your name

Published May 27, 2021 at 12:56AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3bW8ML4

ACLU: Abortion Access is at Stake, But We Will Do Everything We Can to Keep Our Clinic’s Doors Open

Abortion Access is at Stake, But We Will Do Everything We Can to Keep Our Clinic’s Doors Open

Last week, my staff and I watched alongside the rest of the nation as the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would consider a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy. This news left us feeling scared about the future of abortion access and thinking about how a bad decision could be devastating for patients like ours, for whom access to abortion is not only life-affirming, but often life-saving.

Unfortunately, these fears are not new for us here in Arkansas, where I serve as clinical director of one of the last two clinics standing in the state. We are used to keeping our chins up and fighting for the rights of our patients in the face of unrelenting attacks on our ability to provide, and our patients’ ability to access, abortion. And that is exactly what we will do when we go to court to fight Arkansas’s abortion ban today.

For nearly a decade, anti-abortion politicians in Arkansas have engaged in a targeted campaign against abortion, aimed at shutting our clinic’s doors and making it difficult, if not impossible, for our patients to access the vital reproductive health care they seek. Among other things, they’ve tried to ban abortion at particular points in pregnancy, ban abortion based on our patients’ reasons for seeking care, and imposed requirements that clinics must satisfy in order to keep our doors open, designed to be too burdensome to meet.

Rather than increase safety, these restrictions put pregnant people across Arkansas in danger by making it more difficult for patients to access abortion, and more difficult for us to provide this care. For example, Arkansas law currently requires that all abortion patients receive certain state mandated information from us in person and then wait a designated period of time before obtaining an abortion.

Over the past few years, the legislature has steadily increased this mandatory waiting period from 24, to 48, and now to 72 hours. So many of our patients already have to travel long distances, arrange time off work and/or child care, and find transportation in order to get to our clinic. Because they have to receive the state mandated information in person, and then wait 72-hours before getting their abortion, they have to do all these things twice — for no medical reason. This can be simply insurmountable for some patients, especially those who are poor or low-income, as many of our patients are.

We’ve gotten used to engaging in what feels like a constant struggle against the state’s ever-increasing set of medically unnecessary restrictions. But this year felt different. Anti-abortion legislators pushed through such a high volume of bills aimed at restricting abortion access, and the rate at which they were introduced and passed was faster than in years prior. It also seemed impossible to combat these restrictions: At times, I truly felt helpless. By the end of this whirlwind 2021 session, Arkansas had passed 20 abortion restrictions — positioning the state to tie Louisiana’s record from 1978 for most abortion restrictions passed in a single year.

Among these 20 is the near-total abortion ban that Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed into law in March, which we’re challenging on behalf of our patients today. This ban would prohibit abortion in nearly every case, and impose criminal penalties on our doctors for providing abortion care.

The day Gov. Hutchinson signed it into law, patients immediately began calling the clinic in a panic to see if they could keep their appointments, and our staff had family members calling them to see if they still had jobs. Amidst this incredible stress, we tried to make clear that abortion is still legal in Arkansas, that our clinic doors are still open, and that we would continue to fight to keep them open.

In spite of these challenges, I remain incredibly proud of the work we do at the clinic, and cannot imagine not providing this care. Many staff members have been here for 10 to 15 years or more; it is their life’s work. We are dedicated, compassionate, and have an amazing group of volunteers that do critical community outreach. Our patients depend on us for the care they need, and we are thankful for the physicians and staff who work tirelessly to make sure patients receive that care.

Abortion is essential health care, and there are still compassionate people in Arkansas willing to provide it, even as it gets more difficult with each attack and limitation. With our legal team, we will do everything we can to make sure the abortion care we provide remains accessible to anyone in Arkansas who needs it.

What you can do:

Join the fight for our reproductive freedom

Add your name

Published May 26, 2021 at 08:26PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3bW8ML4

Luxembourg: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Luxembourg

Luxembourg: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Luxembourg
Published May 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of Slovenia: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Slovenia

Republic of Slovenia: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Slovenia
Published May 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Technical Assistance Report-Governance and Anti-Corruption Assessment

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Technical Assistance Report-Governance and Anti-Corruption Assessment
Published May 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: We’re Suing Arkansas Over its Ban on Health Care for Trans Youth

We’re Suing Arkansas Over its Ban on Health Care for Trans Youth

In a year that has seen many horrific attacks on transgender people, among the cruelest and most dangerous is Arkansas’ new law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. If it goes into effect in July, this law will cause catastrophic harms to transgender youth.

To prevent any further harms, four families with transgender children, along with two doctors who provide this care, filed suit today challenging the constitutionality of this new Arkansas law. The ACLU is proud to represent them. Because of the shocking nature of the harms this law would impose, this is the first lawsuit we are filing against any of the anti-trans laws that state legislatures passed this year — and more will be coming soon.

Brooke Dennis is 9 years old and is finishing up the third grade. She loves to read and write and wants to be a gymnast when she grows up. She’s also transgender, which means she was assigned \ male at birth but is a girl. As her mom put it, “Brooke has known exactly who she is since she was two years old.” Brooke has the support of her parents and the family has consulted with doctors who can provide gender-affirming care when puberty begins.

But Arkansas’ first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming health care for minors means that Brooke won’t be able to get puberty-delaying treatment, which is care she will soon need. If the law is not blocked, Brooke faces the prospect of going through a typical male puberty — growing facial hair, developing an Adam’s apple, seeing her body take on the fat and muscle distribution typical of boys, and hearing her voice deepen — all of which will cause her extreme distress.

Puberty delaying treatment, which pauses puberty so that young people can have time and space to confirm who they are without the permanent physical changes of puberty, is part of the well-established standards of care for treating many transgender youth. Puberty-delaying treatments have been used for decades to treat cisgender children experiencing precocious puberty, and are completely safe and totally reversible. are completely safe and totally reversable.

Brooke could start puberty at any time, and her parents plan to begin puberty-delaying treatment as soon as her puberty starts. Brooke is already anxious about puberty and recently told her mom, through tears, that she didn’t want to get an Adam’s apple. She has previously faced the anxiety, fear, and depression of not being seen and understood as who she is and fears going back.

While Arkansas’ new law prohibits the time-sensitive medical care that Brooke needs, the law allows cisgender youth to receive the same gender-affirming care, including both puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to help align their bodies with their gender, such as to address breast development in boys or facial hair in girls. The law bans the care only when provided to affirm the gender of transgender youth. Such brazen discrimination cannot be reconciled with the Constitution.

Every mainstream medical association — from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics — agrees that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and appropriate care for the transgender youth who need it. And the effects of withholding this care from transgender youth are chilling — self-harm and suicidal ideation are many times more common among transgender youth than among cisgender youth, especially when they cannot get the care and support that they need. Indeed, in just the week after the Arkansas House of Representatives passed this bill, Arkansas Children’s Hospital reported multiple suicide attempts by transgender youth distraught at what the new statute would mean for their future.

Arkansas’s Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, vetoed this bill because he saw it as inappropriately overriding “parents, patients, and health care experts,” who are the ones who should determine the appropriate care for children. The state legislature overrode that veto, disregarding the consensus among the medical community and the harm to children like Brooke.

Transgender children in crisis shouldn’t have to turn to the courts to ensure that they can get the health care that their doctors and parents agree they need. But that’s the reality that anti-LGBTQ forces have created as part of their campaign of attacks on transgender youth.

Transgender youth and advocates fought against the over 75 anti-trans bills introduced in state legislatures this year. Whenever a bill was defeated, the voices of trans youth were instrumental in the victory. Tens of thousands of ACLU supporters acted by showing up at protests, sending emails to elected officials, and filling up governors’ inboxes urging vetoes on these discriminatory and harmful bills. We made a promise to take states that passed many of these bills to court, and today we are following through on that promise.

Brooke’s parents are anxious about what they will do if the law takes effect. They could travel out of state to get Brooke the care she needs, but that’s expensive and they don’t think it will be sustainable for long. The only other option is to move the family out of state, but Brooke’s grandparents live in Arkansas and need a lot of support, and Brooke’s parents help take care of them. If this law goes into effect, the Dennises will be forced to leave their aging parents behind to get their daughter the medical care she will need.

To keep their family together during Brooke’s medical care, Brooke and her parents, along with three other Arkansas families and two doctors, are taking this fight to court. The ACLU is proud to fight alongside transgender young people like Brooke, who are looking to protect not only themselves, but all youth who need this care.

What you can do:

Congress: Pass the Equality Act

Congress: Pass the Equality Act

Published May 26, 2021 at 01:54AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3yFN7kn

ACLU: We’re Suing Arkansas Over its Ban on Health Care for Trans Youth

We’re Suing Arkansas Over its Ban on Health Care for Trans Youth

In a year that has seen many horrific attacks on transgender people, among the cruelest and most dangerous is Arkansas’ new law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. If it goes into effect in July, this law will cause catastrophic harms to transgender youth.

To prevent any further harms, four families with transgender children, along with two doctors who provide this care, filed suit today challenging the constitutionality of this new Arkansas law. The ACLU is proud to represent them. Because of the shocking nature of the harms this law would impose, this is the first lawsuit we are filing against any of the anti-trans laws that state legislatures passed this year — and more will be coming soon.

Brooke Dennis is 9 years old and is finishing up the third grade. She loves to read and write and wants to be a gymnast when she grows up. She’s also transgender, which means she was assigned \ male at birth but is a girl. As her mom put it, “Brooke has known exactly who she is since she was two years old.” Brooke has the support of her parents and the family has consulted with doctors who can provide gender-affirming care when puberty begins.

But Arkansas’ first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming health care for minors means that Brooke won’t be able to get puberty-delaying treatment, which is care she will soon need. If the law is not blocked, Brooke faces the prospect of going through a typical male puberty — growing facial hair, developing an Adam’s apple, seeing her body take on the fat and muscle distribution typical of boys, and hearing her voice deepen — all of which will cause her extreme distress.

Puberty delaying treatment, which pauses puberty so that young people can have time and space to confirm who they are without the permanent physical changes of puberty, is part of the well-established standards of care for treating many transgender youth. Puberty-delaying treatments have been used for decades to treat cisgender children experiencing precocious puberty, and are completely safe and totally reversible. are completely safe and totally reversable.

Brooke could start puberty at any time, and her parents plan to begin puberty-delaying treatment as soon as her puberty starts. Brooke is already anxious about puberty and recently told her mom, through tears, that she didn’t want to get an Adam’s apple. She has previously faced the anxiety, fear, and depression of not being seen and understood as who she is and fears going back.

While Arkansas’ new law prohibits the time-sensitive medical care that Brooke needs, the law allows cisgender youth to receive the same gender-affirming care, including both puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to help align their bodies with their gender, such as to address breast development in boys or facial hair in girls. The law bans the care only when provided to affirm the gender of transgender youth. Such brazen discrimination cannot be reconciled with the Constitution.

Every mainstream medical association — from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics — agrees that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and appropriate care for the transgender youth who need it. And the effects of withholding this care from transgender youth are chilling — self-harm and suicidal ideation are many times more common among transgender youth than among cisgender youth, especially when they cannot get the care and support that they need. Indeed, in just the week after the Arkansas House of Representatives passed this bill, Arkansas Children’s Hospital reported multiple suicide attempts by transgender youth distraught at what the new statute would mean for their future.

Arkansas’s Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, vetoed this bill because he saw it as inappropriately overriding “parents, patients, and health care experts,” who are the ones who should determine the appropriate care for children. The state legislature overrode that veto, disregarding the consensus among the medical community and the harm to children like Brooke.

Transgender children in crisis shouldn’t have to turn to the courts to ensure that they can get the health care that their doctors and parents agree they need. But that’s the reality that anti-LGBTQ forces have created as part of their campaign of attacks on transgender youth.

Transgender youth and advocates fought against the over 75 anti-trans bills introduced in state legislatures this year. Whenever a bill was defeated, the voices of trans youth were instrumental in the victory. Tens of thousands of ACLU supporters acted by showing up at protests, sending emails to elected officials, and filling up governors’ inboxes urging vetoes on these discriminatory and harmful bills. We made a promise to take states that passed many of these bills to court, and today we are following through on that promise.

Brooke’s parents are anxious about what they will do if the law takes effect. They could travel out of state to get Brooke the care she needs, but that’s expensive and they don’t think it will be sustainable for long. The only other option is to move the family out of state, but Brooke’s grandparents live in Arkansas and need a lot of support, and Brooke’s parents help take care of them. If this law goes into effect, the Dennises will be forced to leave their aging parents behind to get their daughter the medical care she will need.

To keep their family together during Brooke’s medical care, Brooke and her parents, along with three other Arkansas families and two doctors, are taking this fight to court. The ACLU is proud to fight alongside transgender young people like Brooke, who are looking to protect not only themselves, but all youth who need this care.

What you can do:

Congress: Pass the Equality Act

Congress: Pass the Equality Act

Published May 25, 2021 at 09:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3yFN7kn

ACLU: The People, Not the Police, Should Decide If and How Surveillance Technologies Are Used In Their Communities

The People, Not the Police, Should Decide If and How Surveillance Technologies Are Used In Their Communities

Four and a half years ago, the use of surveillance technologies by local police and governments was growing exponentially. There were many factors behind this rapid growth, but the two most significant were (1) the ever-increasing pool of federal grant money that was being made available for surveillance tech purchases, and (2) that in almost every jurisdiction, local police were empowered to make decisions about acquiring and using surveillance technologies unilaterally and in secret. Because it is hard to oppose a specific local surveillance tech acquisition when you don’t know it’s happening, surveillance tech use by local police was turning into a runaway train.

While this trend was worrisome enough unto itself, another inescapable fact made it even more troubling: Namely, while police and government surveillance negatively impacts everyone, it does not impact everyone equally. Specifically, dating all the way back to New York City’s pre-revolutionary lantern laws, surveillance — like policing itself — has been used to disproportionately target people of color.

These realities raised a challenging question: If the ACLU was going to seek to disrupt the growing use of surveillance technologies on the local level, what would a new approach look like? Put another way, if we were going to take decisions about acquiring and using surveillance technologies out of the hands of the police, who then should be empowered to decide if and how surveillance technologies are used and how would the new model work?

The most just and equitable answer to that question is that the people and communities most impacted by surveillance should have the greatest influence over surveillance technology decisions.

Having arrived at that answer, the next question was how we could most effectively empower local communities to influence surveillance technology decisions. Having local communities vote on every proposed surveillance technology acquisition presented the most direct route to such empowerment, but such frequent ballot measures would be expensive, cumbersome, and open to manipulation by those who formulated the ballot language. The next best approach, which the ACLU arrived at after examining and building upon some innovative legislation from Santa Clara County, California and seeking advice from 17 national partner organizations, was to pursue local legislation that would shift the existing, secretive acquisition processes into one that is transparent and driven by community opinion.

Specifically, this new, transparent process would require that (1) the public be provided with substantial, detailed information about a proposed surveillance technology and how it is proposed to be used well before any funding, acquisition, and deployment decisions are made, (2) the public is given ample opportunity to form opinions, organize, and express those positions in public hearings before their local elected representatives, and (3) those democratically accountable elected officials — most often city councilmembers — would replace the police in having the final say on if and how surveillance technologies are used, knowing that if they take a position contrary to that of their constituents, it could cost them their jobs. While this approach was imperfect in the same way democracy is imperfect, it offered a powerful platform from which the people could question, limit, and even reject the local use of surveillance technologies. And that is how the Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) effort was born.

Today, we celebrate the adoption of our 20th and 21st CCOPS laws by the cities of Dayton and Detroit. This milestone was achieved by passing CCOPS laws at an astounding rate of one new law every 2.67 months. As a result, more than 17 million residents, along with countless visitors and undocumented persons, now have a meaningful say over, and real opportunity to reject, the use of intrusive surveillance technologies.

This achievement could not be more important as the ACLU, its members, and our allies embark on the fight for systemic equality in 2021 and beyond. Systemic equality does not permit around-the-clock monitoring of communities of color, so their residents feel like they live in open air prisons. Systemic equality does not accept the massive surveilling of communities of color so minor infractions, which would go largely unnoticed in whiter communities, regularly result in police interventions. Systemic equality does not permit faulty technologies, like facial recognition and predictive policing, to drive the false arrest and imprisonment of Black and Brown people, because doing so is considered acceptable (or even intended) collateral damage in the fight against crime. Finally, systemic equality rejects the disproven narrative that surveillance technologies prevent people from becoming crime victims when, in fact, it regularly victimizes persons of color.

 

In places where CCOPS laws exist and government surveillance tech secrecy has given way to transparency, impacted communities now have a meaningful chance to debate and push back against the deployment of surveillance technologies. (Most CCOPS laws, per the ACLU model bill, require existing techs to get council approval or have their use discontinued.) In some cases, as with San Francisco’s ban on government facial recognition, CCOPS laws have chosen to reject certain surveillance techs at their inception. We have even noticed police internally rejecting the use of a surveillance technology because they knew the blowback during a CCOPS review would be overwhelming. Such important protections should extend beyond those who live in one of CCOPS’ 21 jurisdictions.

We may have a long way to go before CCOPS laws protect every or even a majority of persons in America, but we are off to a strong start. Whereas CCOPS bills were once sold as a new approach to local surveillance oversight and community empowerment, they are now recognized as the prevailing gold standard. And while we once had to explain what CCOPS was and even how it’s acronym is pronounced (it’s see-cops), CCOPS has now been the subject of articles detailing how its laws are formulated and have spread, how we can most effectively center racial justice considerations during the CCOPS review process, and how the CCOPS campaign itself was developed and operates. By design, the CCOPS effort is decentralized, so over the years we have seen successful CCOPS efforts led by the ACLU and our affiliates, local CCOPS coalitions, and by local activists who discovered the CCOPS website’s resources and ran with them to victory.

At this milestone moment, we pause to celebrate our achievements and all those who help us reach them. After some COVID-appropriate high fives, however, we will turn our thoughts back to those who are not yet protected by CCOPS laws. CCOPS has come a long way, but there’s still a long way to go. Time to get back to work.

What you can do:

Stop Face Surveillance Technologies

Send your message

Published May 25, 2021 at 11:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3ueWMuI

ACLU: The People, Not the Police, Should Decide If and How Surveillance Technologies Are Used In Their Communities

The People, Not the Police, Should Decide If and How Surveillance Technologies Are Used In Their Communities

Four and a half years ago, the use of surveillance technologies by local police and governments was growing exponentially. There were many factors behind this rapid growth, but the two most significant were (1) the ever-increasing pool of federal grant money that was being made available for surveillance tech purchases, and (2) that in almost every jurisdiction, local police were empowered to make decisions about acquiring and using surveillance technologies unilaterally and in secret. Because it is hard to oppose a specific local surveillance tech acquisition when you don’t know it’s happening, surveillance tech use by local police was turning into a runaway train.

While this trend was worrisome enough unto itself, another inescapable fact made it even more troubling: Namely, while police and government surveillance negatively impacts everyone, it does not impact everyone equally. Specifically, dating all the way back to New York City’s pre-revolutionary lantern laws, surveillance — like policing itself — has been used to disproportionately target people of color.

These realities raised a challenging question: If the ACLU was going to seek to disrupt the growing use of surveillance technologies on the local level, what would a new approach look like? Put another way, if we were going to take decisions about acquiring and using surveillance technologies out of the hands of the police, who then should be empowered to decide if and how surveillance technologies are used and how would the new model work?

The most just and equitable answer to that question is that the people and communities most impacted by surveillance should have the greatest influence over surveillance technology decisions.

Having arrived at that answer, the next question was how we could most effectively empower local communities to influence surveillance technology decisions. Having local communities vote on every proposed surveillance technology acquisition presented the most direct route to such empowerment, but such frequent ballot measures would be expensive, cumbersome, and open to manipulation by those who formulated the ballot language. The next best approach, which the ACLU arrived at after examining and building upon some innovative legislation from Santa Clara County, California and seeking advice from 17 national partner organizations, was to pursue local legislation that would shift the existing, secretive acquisition processes into one that is transparent and driven by community opinion.

Specifically, this new, transparent process would require that (1) the public be provided with substantial, detailed information about a proposed surveillance technology and how it is proposed to be used well before any funding, acquisition, and deployment decisions are made, (2) the public is given ample opportunity to form opinions, organize, and express those positions in public hearings before their local elected representatives, and (3) those democratically accountable elected officials — most often city councilmembers — would replace the police in having the final say on if and how surveillance technologies are used, knowing that if they take a position contrary to that of their constituents, it could cost them their jobs. While this approach was imperfect in the same way democracy is imperfect, it offered a powerful platform from which the people could question, limit, and even reject the local use of surveillance technologies. And that is how the Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) effort was born.

Today, we celebrate the adoption of our 20th and 21st CCOPS laws by the cities of Dayton and Detroit. This milestone was achieved by passing CCOPS laws at an astounding rate of one new law every 2.67 months. As a result, more than 17 million residents, along with countless visitors and undocumented persons, now have a meaningful say over, and real opportunity to reject, the use of intrusive surveillance technologies.

This achievement could not be more important as the ACLU, its members, and our allies embark on the fight for systemic equality in 2021 and beyond. Systemic equality does not permit around-the-clock monitoring of communities of color, so their residents feel like they live in open air prisons. Systemic equality does not accept the massive surveilling of communities of color so minor infractions, which would go largely unnoticed in whiter communities, regularly result in police interventions. Systemic equality does not permit faulty technologies, like facial recognition and predictive policing, to drive the false arrest and imprisonment of Black and Brown people, because doing so is considered acceptable (or even intended) collateral damage in the fight against crime. Finally, systemic equality rejects the disproven narrative that surveillance technologies prevent people from becoming crime victims when, in fact, it regularly victimizes persons of color.

 

In places where CCOPS laws exist and government surveillance tech secrecy has given way to transparency, impacted communities now have a meaningful chance to debate and push back against the deployment of surveillance technologies. (Most CCOPS laws, per the ACLU model bill, require existing techs to get council approval or have their use discontinued.) In some cases, as with San Francisco’s ban on government facial recognition, CCOPS laws have chosen to reject certain surveillance techs at their inception. We have even noticed police internally rejecting the use of a surveillance technology because they knew the blowback during a CCOPS review would be overwhelming. Such important protections should extend beyond those who live in one of CCOPS’ 21 jurisdictions.

We may have a long way to go before CCOPS laws protect every or even a majority of persons in America, but we are off to a strong start. Whereas CCOPS bills were once sold as a new approach to local surveillance oversight and community empowerment, they are now recognized as the prevailing gold standard. And while we once had to explain what CCOPS was and even how it’s acronym is pronounced (it’s see-cops), CCOPS has now been the subject of articles detailing how its laws are formulated and have spread, how we can most effectively center racial justice considerations during the CCOPS review process, and how the CCOPS campaign itself was developed and operates. By design, the CCOPS effort is decentralized, so over the years we have seen successful CCOPS efforts led by the ACLU and our affiliates, local CCOPS coalitions, and by local activists who discovered the CCOPS website’s resources and ran with them to victory.

At this milestone moment, we pause to celebrate our achievements and all those who help us reach them. After some COVID-appropriate high fives, however, we will turn our thoughts back to those who are not yet protected by CCOPS laws. CCOPS has come a long way, but there’s still a long way to go. Time to get back to work.

What you can do:

Stop Face Surveillance Technologies

Send your message

Published May 25, 2021 at 07:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3ueWMuI

ACLU: What Insights Would RBG Offer About the Upcoming Supreme Court Abortion Rights Case?

What Insights Would RBG Offer About the Upcoming Supreme Court Abortion Rights Case?

One week ago, the Supreme Court announced it would consider a major case about abortion. The case, which directly challenges Roe v. Wade, raises the question of whether states can ban abortion. The legal right to abortion is at stake.

Yet, missing from much of the conversation about this crucial case is an explicit reminder of why we care, and why preserving Roe is not enough. There is talk of what the country might look like in terms of the legality of abortion if the court holds there is no federal constitutional protection for abortion, but little talk about gender equality, fairness, and racial justice. These are all essential for any real discussion of abortion and the promise and limits of its legality today.

As we face this threat now because of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the court, it makes sense to consider what Justice Ginsburg had to say about why abortion — and access to it — matters.

Justice Ginsburg was direct about the importance of abortion. During in her confirmation hearings for appointment to the Supreme Court in 1993, Ginsburg stated: “Abortion prohibition by the State … controls women.” She went on: “[W]hen Government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Dignity and equality are at stake, and she made that clear: “[I]t is essential to a woman’s equality … that she be the decision maker, that her choice be controlling, and that if you impose restraints and disadvantage her, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

For Ginsburg, the government perpetuated sex discrimination when it denied access to abortion. And it perpetuated sex discrimination when it pressed women not to have children, forcing them to decide between keeping a job or a pregnancy. And it went further, practicing eugenics when it forcibly sterilized women.

In 2007, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, upheld a federal law outlawing certain abortion procedures. In the decision, he infamously speculated that some women might regret their choice to have such an abortion. His court’s solution? Ban the procedures to avert this hypothetical regret.

Justice Ginsburg, in turn, is famous for her response, which highlighted Kennedy’s archaic logic: “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited,” including men’s role to serve as “woman’s protector and defender.”

Justice Ginsburg never spoke of the importance of abortion rights to transgender men and nonbinary people, and how pervasive and archaic notions of sex have thwarted even visibility for those who don’t conform to persistent gender norms. (She did vote in favor of every LGBT rights case to come before her.) But her analysis of dignity, of control, and of the harm of stereotypes points in only one direction: Restrictions on abortion constitute sex discrimination for nonbinary people and transgender men, as well as women.

Following the high court’s latest abortion-related news, the headline — “gender justice is at stake” — doesn’t run across the fold of any paper I’m reading.

Nor does the coverage in the major press always trumpet the truth: For many, abortion is already as good as banned. Hundreds of thousands could join their ranks. Even today, while the constitutional right to abortion still exists, people’s ability to get the care they need depends in large part on where they live and how much money they have. Ginsburg recognized this: She spoke of the economic realities that limit abortion, even where it is legal. She spoke of the “sorry state” where we have “one law for women of means and another for poor women,” where “poor women don’t have choice” and women of means do, and always will.

People of means will be able to travel the ever larger distances to get to an abortion provider, to take time off work, to secure child care, and to pay for the abortion — which the government bars insurance from covering in many places. The same is simply not true for many who are poor. These barriers to getting reproductive care will be felt most acutely by Black people, given the wealth gap that results from systemic inequality.

Even today, with abortion in every state protected by the Constitution, this care is as out of reach for many as if it were illegal. Too much talk focuses on legality; too little on the ability to actually get the care one needs. Too little on the federal government’s continued banning of abortion from insurance for the poor (Medicaid), for Native Americans, federal employees, and more.

This isn’t to say that legality doesn’t matter; far from it. The number of those unable to access abortion will increase substantially if abortion were to become illegal in a swath of states; the journey required will no longer be across Mississippi for example, but perhaps to Illinois.

The major press also aren’t centering what the court’s decision to hear the abortion case means for people of color. Women of color are more likely to have abortions than other women, because of longstanding disparities in access to contraception, discrimination in health care, and economic inequalities that make raising children more difficult for many, among other reasons. Any decision of the court to reduce federal protection for the right to have an abortion won’t address discrimination or increase resources for Black people and other people of color, it will simply erect more obstacles and add to injustice.

The court took a case about abortion, to be sure, but it also took a case about gender justice, racial justice, and economic justice. It took a case that calls on us to recognize the import and limits of the right we have now. It took a case that demands that we start talking about what’s really at stake, so we can fight for and secure something other than a “sorry state” where only some have access.

What you can do:

Join the fight for our reproductive freedom

Add your name

Published May 25, 2021 at 08:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3uqHx20

ACLU: What Insights Would RBG Offer About the Upcoming Supreme Court Abortion Rights Case?

What Insights Would RBG Offer About the Upcoming Supreme Court Abortion Rights Case?

One week ago, the Supreme Court announced it would consider a major case about abortion. The case, which directly challenges Roe v. Wade, raises the question of whether states can ban abortion. The legal right to abortion is at stake.

Yet, missing from much of the conversation about this crucial case is an explicit reminder of why we care, and why preserving Roe is not enough. There is talk of what the country might look like in terms of the legality of abortion if the court holds there is no federal constitutional protection for abortion, but little talk about gender equality, fairness, and racial justice. These are all essential for any real discussion of abortion and the promise and limits of its legality today.

As we face this threat now because of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the court, it makes sense to consider what Justice Ginsburg had to say about why abortion — and access to it — matters.

Justice Ginsburg was direct about the importance of abortion. During in her confirmation hearings for appointment to the Supreme Court in 1993, Ginsburg stated: “Abortion prohibition by the State … controls women.” She went on: “[W]hen Government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Dignity and equality are at stake, and she made that clear: “[I]t is essential to a woman’s equality … that she be the decision maker, that her choice be controlling, and that if you impose restraints and disadvantage her, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

For Ginsburg, the government perpetuated sex discrimination when it denied access to abortion. And it perpetuated sex discrimination when it pressed women not to have children, forcing them to decide between keeping a job or a pregnancy. And it went further, practicing eugenics when it forcibly sterilized women.

In 2007, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, upheld a federal law outlawing certain abortion procedures. In the decision, he infamously speculated that some women might regret their choice to have such an abortion. His court’s solution? Ban the procedures to avert this hypothetical regret.

Justice Ginsburg, in turn, is famous for her response, which highlighted Kennedy’s archaic logic: “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited,” including men’s role to serve as “woman’s protector and defender.”

Justice Ginsburg never spoke of the importance of abortion rights to transgender men and nonbinary people, and how pervasive and archaic notions of sex have thwarted even visibility for those who don’t conform to persistent gender norms. (She did vote in favor of every LGBT rights case to come before her.) But her analysis of dignity, of control, and of the harm of stereotypes points in only one direction: Restrictions on abortion constitute sex discrimination for nonbinary people and transgender men, as well as women.

Following the high court’s latest abortion-related news, the headline — “gender justice is at stake” — doesn’t run across the fold of any paper I’m reading.

Nor does the coverage in the major press always trumpet the truth: For many, abortion is already as good as banned. Hundreds of thousands could join their ranks. Even today, while the constitutional right to abortion still exists, people’s ability to get the care they need depends in large part on where they live and how much money they have. Ginsburg recognized this: She spoke of the economic realities that limit abortion, even where it is legal. She spoke of the “sorry state” where we have “one law for women of means and another for poor women,” where “poor women don’t have choice” and women of means do, and always will.

People of means will be able to travel the ever larger distances to get to an abortion provider, to take time off work, to secure child care, and to pay for the abortion — which the government bars insurance from covering in many places. The same is simply not true for many who are poor. These barriers to getting reproductive care will be felt most acutely by Black people, given the wealth gap that results from systemic inequality.

Even today, with abortion in every state protected by the Constitution, this care is as out of reach for many as if it were illegal. Too much talk focuses on legality; too little on the ability to actually get the care one needs. Too little on the federal government’s continued banning of abortion from insurance for the poor (Medicaid), for Native Americans, federal employees, and more.

This isn’t to say that legality doesn’t matter; far from it. The number of those unable to access abortion will increase substantially if abortion were to become illegal in a swath of states; the journey required will no longer be across Mississippi for example, but perhaps to Illinois.

The major press also aren’t centering what the court’s decision to hear the abortion case means for people of color. Women of color are more likely to have abortions than other women, because of longstanding disparities in access to contraception, discrimination in health care, and economic inequalities that make raising children more difficult for many, among other reasons. Any decision of the court to reduce federal protection for the right to have an abortion won’t address discrimination or increase resources for Black people and other people of color, it will simply erect more obstacles and add to injustice.

The court took a case about abortion, to be sure, but it also took a case about gender justice, racial justice, and economic justice. It took a case that calls on us to recognize the import and limits of the right we have now. It took a case that demands that we start talking about what’s really at stake, so we can fight for and secure something other than a “sorry state” where only some have access.

What you can do:

Join the fight for our reproductive freedom

Add your name

Published May 25, 2021 at 04:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3uqHx20