ACLU: What You Need to Know about Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court

What You Need to Know about Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court

After over a hundred years of total or near total exclusion of Black students and other students of color, the University of North Carolina and Harvard began admitting larger numbers of students, including students of color, in the 1960s and 70s. For decades, Harvard, UNC, and other universities have had the ability to consider a student’s race along with a wide range of other factors — academic merit, athletics, extra curriculars, and others — when it comes to deciding whether to admit a student. But now, the Supreme Court could change all of this.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear two cases concerning affirmative action today. If the court strikes down affirmative action — also known as race-conscious admissions policies — it would make it unconstitutional for universities across the country to consider a student’s race as one factor in a holistic admissions review process. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions earlier this year.

If the court strikes down affirmative action — also known as race-conscious admissions policies — it would make it unconstitutional for universities across the country to consider a student’s race as one factor in a holistic admissions review process.

Below, we answer some of the key questions that you need to know about how race conscious admissions policies work, how students and universities benefit from them, and what’s at stake at the Supreme Court.

Q: What is affirmative action, or race conscious admissions policies?

A: Race conscious policies, such as affirmative action, aim to address racial discrimination by recognizing and responding to the structural barriers that have denied underrepresented students access to higher education. Race-conscious admissions practices allow universities to consider a student’s race as one factor in the admissions process in order to help create a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.

Q: What cases are before the Supreme Court concerning race conscious admissions policies?

A: There are two cases in which the Supreme Court will consider whether to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In both cases, the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), led by anti-affirmative action crusader Edward Blum, is once again, after previous failed efforts, seeking the elimination of all race-conscious admissions practices. Twice already, the Supreme Court has rejected Blum’s arguments and ruled that universities can consider race in admissions to promote diversity on campus and enrich students’ learning experience.

Q: What legal rights do universities and colleges have to consider race in the admissions process?

A: Colleges have an important interest in student body diversity that furthers the values of academic freedom and equal protection. A holistic, race-conscious admissions process is the extension of a university’s academic freedom to assemble a diverse student body. Removing the consideration of race in admissions conflicts with the ability of a university to select its student body.

Additionally, the consideration of race in college admissions furthers the values of equal protection under the Constitution by helping to diminish stereotypes, promoting integration on college campuses, and improving the ability of students of all races to participate in the academic community.

Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action before?

A: Yes. In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that diversity is a “compelling governmental interest,” permitting schools to consider race as a contributing factor to admissions in higher education. Time and again, lower courts and the Supreme Court have recognized this.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions earlier this year.

Q: How do colleges, universities and students benefit from affirmative action?

A: Race-conscious admissions policies help create a diverse student body, promote integration on college campuses, and create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students. Students from diverse backgrounds who learn from each other and are exposed to a variety of experiences, backgrounds, interests, and talents are better prepared to be successful in our society. Banning any consideration of race would hamper the growth of generations of students who will be unprepared for an increasingly diverse nation.

Q: What’s at stake if the Supreme Court moves to block race conscious admissions policies? Will this impact affirmative action efforts in other areas, suchs as workplaces?

A: A decision blocking universities’ ability to consider race will almost certainly mean a significant drop in the number of students of color being admitted to selective universities. In fact, that’s what lower courts in both cases found after closely studying several race-neutral alternatives like a class-based affirmative action or plans similar to Texas’s top 10 percent plan, which guarantees Texas students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class automatic admission to all state-funded Texas universities. Less diverse campuses will harm students of color and white students alike, and take us backward in our efforts to overcome the country’s shameful legacy of racism and racial inequality.

A decision outlawing consideration of race in college admissions could also make it harder for employers to take steps to promote equity and diversify their workforce. Dozens of government programs that address past and current discrimination, advance racial equity, and seek to close the racial wealth gap, such as business incubator programs, could also be jeopardized.

Q: What actions can colleges and universities take if the Supreme Court does rule to block race conscious admissions policies?

A: Higher ed institutions will still be able to do outreach and recruit students from all backgrounds. Universities will still be able to stop considering factors that have been proven to create unjustifiable barriers for historically underrepresented students of color. For example, many schools have already stopped considering SAT and the ACT.

No matter what happens, we continue to advocate for race conscious admissions and ensuring higher education is accessible to all.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 31, 2022 at 02:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/xTO4qIP

ACLU: What You Need to Know about Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court

What You Need to Know about Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court

After over a hundred years of total or near total exclusion of Black students and other students of color, the University of North Carolina and Harvard began admitting larger numbers of students, including students of color, in the 1960s and 70s. For decades, Harvard, UNC, and other universities have had the ability to consider a student’s race along with a wide range of other factors — academic merit, athletics, extra curriculars, and others — when it comes to deciding whether to admit a student. But now, the Supreme Court could change all of this.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear two cases concerning affirmative action today. If the court strikes down affirmative action — also known as race-conscious admissions policies — it would make it unconstitutional for universities across the country to consider a student’s race as one factor in a holistic admissions review process. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions earlier this year.

If the court strikes down affirmative action — also known as race-conscious admissions policies — it would make it unconstitutional for universities across the country to consider a student’s race as one factor in a holistic admissions review process.

Below, we answer some of the key questions that you need to know about how race conscious admissions policies work, how students and universities benefit from them, and what’s at stake at the Supreme Court.

Q: What is affirmative action, or race conscious admissions policies?

A: Race conscious policies, such as affirmative action, aim to address racial discrimination by recognizing and responding to the structural barriers that have denied underrepresented students access to higher education. Race-conscious admissions practices allow universities to consider a student’s race as one factor in the admissions process in order to help create a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.

Q: What cases are before the Supreme Court concerning race conscious admissions policies?

A: There are two cases in which the Supreme Court will consider whether to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In both cases, the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), led by anti-affirmative action crusader Edward Blum, is once again, after previous failed efforts, seeking the elimination of all race-conscious admissions practices. Twice already, the Supreme Court has rejected Blum’s arguments and ruled that universities can consider race in admissions to promote diversity on campus and enrich students’ learning experience.

Q: What legal rights do universities and colleges have to consider race in the admissions process?

A: Colleges have an important interest in student body diversity that furthers the values of academic freedom and equal protection. A holistic, race-conscious admissions process is the extension of a university’s academic freedom to assemble a diverse student body. Removing the consideration of race in admissions conflicts with the ability of a university to select its student body.

Additionally, the consideration of race in college admissions furthers the values of equal protection under the Constitution by helping to diminish stereotypes, promoting integration on college campuses, and improving the ability of students of all races to participate in the academic community.

Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action before?

A: Yes. In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that diversity is a “compelling governmental interest,” permitting schools to consider race as a contributing factor to admissions in higher education. Time and again, lower courts and the Supreme Court have recognized this.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions earlier this year.

Q: How do colleges, universities and students benefit from affirmative action?

A: Race-conscious admissions policies help create a diverse student body, promote integration on college campuses, and create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students. Students from diverse backgrounds who learn from each other and are exposed to a variety of experiences, backgrounds, interests, and talents are better prepared to be successful in our society. Banning any consideration of race would hamper the growth of generations of students who will be unprepared for an increasingly diverse nation.

Q: What’s at stake if the Supreme Court moves to block race conscious admissions policies? Will this impact affirmative action efforts in other areas, suchs as workplaces?

A: A decision blocking universities’ ability to consider race will almost certainly mean a significant drop in the number of students of color being admitted to selective universities. In fact, that’s what lower courts in both cases found after closely studying several race-neutral alternatives like a class-based affirmative action or plans similar to Texas’s top 10 percent plan, which guarantees Texas students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class automatic admission to all state-funded Texas universities. Less diverse campuses will harm students of color and white students alike, and take us backward in our efforts to overcome the country’s shameful legacy of racism and racial inequality.

A decision outlawing consideration of race in college admissions could also make it harder for employers to take steps to promote equity and diversify their workforce. Dozens of government programs that address past and current discrimination, advance racial equity, and seek to close the racial wealth gap, such as business incubator programs, could also be jeopardized.

Q: What actions can colleges and universities take if the Supreme Court does rule to block race conscious admissions policies?

A: Higher ed institutions will still be able to do outreach and recruit students from all backgrounds. Universities will still be able to stop considering factors that have been proven to create unjustifiable barriers for historically underrepresented students of color. For example, many schools have already stopped considering SAT and the ACT.

No matter what happens, we continue to advocate for race conscious admissions and ensuring higher education is accessible to all.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 31, 2022 at 08:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3avAxj9

ACLU: Religious Discrimination Persists in Zoning Proceedings, Despite Strong Legal Protections

Religious Discrimination Persists in Zoning Proceedings, Despite Strong Legal Protections

Last Sunday marked a historic and joyful day in DeSoto County, Mississippi. The county’s first mosque, the Abraham House of God, finally broke ground in the City of Horn Lake. While the occasion was celebratory, it was also a relief to the mosque’s founders, who were forced to sue last year after city officials — motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice — denied them a critical zoning authorization.

Represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Mississippi, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, the mosque and its founders argued in a 2021 lawsuit that the zoning decision violated both the First Amendment, which prohibits singling out one faith for discriminatory treatment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that provides heightened protections for religious groups seeking to establish a house of worship or to use property for other religious purposes. In a decisive victory, our clients quickly won a consent decree (a court order to which the parties agree) requiring the city to approve their construction site plan and prohibiting further discrimination against them.

Members of the mosque gathered in prayer at the groundbreaking ceremony.

Yoselin Moreno

But that didn’t stop Horn Lake from once again trying to thwart our clients’ right to develop their property. In April, our clients applied for a conditional-use permit to establish an Islamic cemetery next to the mosque. Although the city’s Planning Commission staff “strongly and categorically” recommended approval of the application, some commissioners balked. Echoing the biased sentiments expressed nearly a year before by a city Alderman who voted against the mosque’s site plan, one planning commissioner complained, “I am assuming that Muslims nationwide will be coming to Horn Lake to bury their dead.”

It was only after we intervened, yet again, and reminded the city that it must comply with the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and the consent decree, that the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the permit. And, last week, the Board of Aldermen voted in favor of the recommendation, ensuring that the mosque will be able to offer vital funeral and burial services for the local Muslim community.

The Horn Lake matter is not the only recent incident in which minority-faith groups or houses of worship have faced discriminatory hurdles in zoning proceedings. In some instances, as in Horn Lake, the prejudice is overt and unmistakable. In others, the bias may be more veiled, cloaked in vague — and unsupported — allegations that the proposed land use will cause problems with parking, traffic, or noise.

Congregants gather and smile for the camera at the groundbreaking.

Yoselin Moreno

This past summer, the ACLU and the ACLU of Rhode Island stepped in to represent the Horn and Cauldron, Church of the Earth, a small Wiccan church located in Coventry, Rhode Island. Wicca is a nature-based religion, and the church’s religious services, educational classes, and other faith-based activities focus on the relationship between the earth and the divine. As in Horn Lake, the Coventry Planning Commission staff recommended approval of our clients’ permit application, noting that the application met all requirements and that “the church has been holding activities on the property for many years and the Planning and Zoning department has not received any complaints since the church’s founding.”

Nevertheless, during a public hearing, members of the Coventry Zoning Board of Review declined to approve the permit, citing inaccurate parking concerns (the church has more-than-adequate parking for visitors) and unsubstantiated allegations about fire safety (the church follows all fire-safety laws, and the facilities comply with the fire marshal’s directives). When we became involved, it was clear that town officials either were not aware of, or did not care about, their obligations under RLUIPA, let alone under the First Amendment. Earlier this month, in response to our advocacy, the zoning board granted the church’s permit.

Unfortunately, some zoning discrimination matters are not resolved so quickly. In 2016, the Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, a Buddhist religious organization, filed suit after the City of Mobile repeatedly stymied its attempts to develop a meditation center on a 100-acre parcel of property. The complaint argued that’s the city’s denial of zoning approval bowed to community animus against Buddhism — to some, an unfamiliar faith. The case has dragged on for years, with a court recently finding that city officials made deceptive statements, violated local ordinances, failed to account for the religious nature of the proposed use, and “manipulated the reasons that the planning approval was denied,” including by drafting false meeting minutes. As the lawsuit proceeds, the ACLU and a number of other civil-rights and religious-freedom groups recently filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, supporting the Association’s claims.

Abraham House of God congregants smile as they great each other.

Yoselin Moreno

Even if the Association ultimately prevails, however, it will come at great cost, as we have seen with our own clients. Challenging discriminatory zoning decisions often requires religious groups to tap into limited financial reserves. Moreover, every day that zoning approvals are wrongfully denied is another day that the religious groups or houses of worship are prevented from fully exercising their faith in fundamental ways. And because zoning matters are deeply rooted in and tied to the local community, the distress and dignitary harm that minority-faith applicants suffer from discriminatory denials hits that much closer to home.

That’s why we’ll continue to defend the right of all faiths — especially those that may be unfamiliar to some or unpopular in the eyes of others — to be free from unfair treatment in zoning proceedings. It’s not only the law; it’s the right thing to do.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 29, 2022 at 01:45AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/oJqpvlO

ACLU: Religious Discrimination Persists in Zoning Proceedings, Despite Strong Legal Protections

Religious Discrimination Persists in Zoning Proceedings, Despite Strong Legal Protections

Last Sunday marked a historic and joyful day in DeSoto County, Mississippi. The county’s first mosque, the Abraham House of God, finally broke ground in the City of Horn Lake. While the occasion was celebratory, it was also a relief to the mosque’s founders, who were forced to sue last year after city officials — motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice — denied them a critical zoning authorization.

Represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Mississippi, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, the mosque and its founders argued in a 2021 lawsuit that the zoning decision violated both the First Amendment, which prohibits singling out one faith for discriminatory treatment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that provides heightened protections for religious groups seeking to establish a house of worship or to use property for other religious purposes. In a decisive victory, our clients quickly won a consent decree (a court order to which the parties agree) requiring the city to approve their construction site plan and prohibiting further discrimination against them.

Members of the mosque gathered in prayer at the groundbreaking ceremony.

Yoselin Moreno

But that didn’t stop Horn Lake from once again trying to thwart our clients’ right to develop their property. In April, our clients applied for a conditional-use permit to establish an Islamic cemetery next to the mosque. Although the city’s Planning Commission staff “strongly and categorically” recommended approval of the application, some commissioners balked. Echoing the biased sentiments expressed nearly a year before by a city Alderman who voted against the mosque’s site plan, one planning commissioner complained, “I am assuming that Muslims nationwide will be coming to Horn Lake to bury their dead.”

It was only after we intervened, yet again, and reminded the city that it must comply with the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and the consent decree, that the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the permit. And, last week, the Board of Aldermen voted in favor of the recommendation, ensuring that the mosque will be able to offer vital funeral and burial services for the local Muslim community.

The Horn Lake matter is not the only recent incident in which minority-faith groups or houses of worship have faced discriminatory hurdles in zoning proceedings. In some instances, as in Horn Lake, the prejudice is overt and unmistakable. In others, the bias may be more veiled, cloaked in vague — and unsupported — allegations that the proposed land use will cause problems with parking, traffic, or noise.

Congregants gather and smile for the camera at the groundbreaking.

Yoselin Moreno

This past summer, the ACLU and the ACLU of Rhode Island stepped in to represent the Horn and Cauldron, Church of the Earth, a small Wiccan church located in Coventry, Rhode Island. Wicca is a nature-based religion, and the church’s religious services, educational classes, and other faith-based activities focus on the relationship between the earth and the divine. As in Horn Lake, the Coventry Planning Commission staff recommended approval of our clients’ permit application, noting that the application met all requirements and that “the church has been holding activities on the property for many years and the Planning and Zoning department has not received any complaints since the church’s founding.”

Nevertheless, during a public hearing, members of the Coventry Zoning Board of Review declined to approve the permit, citing inaccurate parking concerns (the church has more-than-adequate parking for visitors) and unsubstantiated allegations about fire safety (the church follows all fire-safety laws, and the facilities comply with the fire marshal’s directives). When we became involved, it was clear that town officials either were not aware of, or did not care about, their obligations under RLUIPA, let alone under the First Amendment. Earlier this month, in response to our advocacy, the zoning board granted the church’s permit.

Unfortunately, some zoning discrimination matters are not resolved so quickly. In 2016, the Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, a Buddhist religious organization, filed suit after the City of Mobile repeatedly stymied its attempts to develop a meditation center on a 100-acre parcel of property. The complaint argued that’s the city’s denial of zoning approval bowed to community animus against Buddhism — to some, an unfamiliar faith. The case has dragged on for years, with a court recently finding that city officials made deceptive statements, violated local ordinances, failed to account for the religious nature of the proposed use, and “manipulated the reasons that the planning approval was denied,” including by drafting false meeting minutes. As the lawsuit proceeds, the ACLU and a number of other civil-rights and religious-freedom groups recently filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, supporting the Association’s claims.

Abraham House of God congregants smile as they great each other.

Yoselin Moreno

Even if the Association ultimately prevails, however, it will come at great cost, as we have seen with our own clients. Challenging discriminatory zoning decisions often requires religious groups to tap into limited financial reserves. Moreover, every day that zoning approvals are wrongfully denied is another day that the religious groups or houses of worship are prevented from fully exercising their faith in fundamental ways. And because zoning matters are deeply rooted in and tied to the local community, the distress and dignitary harm that minority-faith applicants suffer from discriminatory denials hits that much closer to home.

That’s why we’ll continue to defend the right of all faiths — especially those that may be unfamiliar to some or unpopular in the eyes of others — to be free from unfair treatment in zoning proceedings. It’s not only the law; it’s the right thing to do.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 28, 2022 at 09:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/QJAhfmw

ACLU: Gender-Affirming Care Gave My Daughter a Future. Lawmakers Want to Take it Away.

Gender-Affirming Care Gave My Daughter a Future. Lawmakers Want to Take it Away.

Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically-necessary health care. A trial began last week. Here, one of our plaintiffs shares how the law would impact her daughter and family.

My husband, Aaron, and I are raising our three daughters in Arkansas. Our entire family and community are here and we love our home state.

My oldest daughter, Sabrina, is transgender and the medical treatment she has received for her gender dysphoria has changed her life. At one time, Sabrina shrank from the world. She was anxious and unsure of herself and struggled with severe dysphoria. Today, Sabrina is confident and has hopes for her future and a joy that we had not seen in her before she started this care. We are fighting to ensure the medical treatment that has given her the life she has today.

Sabrina Jennen

Credit: Rana Young

When Sabrina was younger and before she started receiving medical treatment for her gender dysphoria, she expressed to us, the best she could at the time, that she couldn’t see a future for herself and didn’t know why. As parents, we were in agony watching her struggle. We saw her as a brilliant, gifted mind, with a very gentle soul. It was heartbreaking that she didn’t see the beautiful person that we saw in her.

After she came out to us and began to receive medical treatment for her gender dysphoria, we began to notice her confidence. She began to smile again and found joy in shopping and styling outfits for not only herself, but her two sisters. They love to swap clothes and accessories, which is really fun to watch. She is also a gifted artist who has created some pretty amazing self-portraits that emphasize her beautiful red curls. Sabrina, who once was a very shy, reserved, and unhappy person, is now our confident social butterfly who loves a good selfie opportunity.

As a parent, I never imagined I’d have to fight for my daughter to be able to receive medically necessary health care. I never imagined having to watch my child suffer and then get better only to have lawmakers take away the treatment she needs.

As a parent, I never imagined I’d have to fight for my daughter to be able to receive medically necessary health care.

The state of Arkansas has suggested that people are rushing into this care, but nothing could be further from the truth for us. My husband and I are very careful and thoughtful people. We had many long, serious discussions with each other, with Sabrina, and with her medical providers. We prayed about the decisions we all had to make as a family.

Arkansas is our home. We have lived here our entire lives, and our parents, siblings, grandparents, church, and entire support system are all here in Arkansas. We do not want to have to leave our home simply to be able to provide necessary medical care for our daughter.

Sabrina is an amazing, smart, beautiful person and an incredible daughter. I wish that those politicians who passed this law would take the time to listen to the experiences of trans youth and to get to know people like our daughter. I can’t imagine anyone who truly got to know and understand how this care has impacted Sabrina could take action that would jeopardize her joy, her smile, and her sense of possibility for her future.

What you can do:

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now

Take the pledge

Published October 28, 2022 at 05:49PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4jJAekn

ACLU: Gender-Affirming Care Gave My Daughter a Future. Lawmakers Want to Take it Away.

Gender-Affirming Care Gave My Daughter a Future. Lawmakers Want to Take it Away.

Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically-necessary health care. A trial began last week. Here, one of our plaintiffs shares how the law would impact her daughter and family.

My husband, Aaron, and I are raising our three daughters in Arkansas. Our entire family and community are here and we love our home state.

My oldest daughter, Sabrina, is transgender and the medical treatment she has received for her gender dysphoria has changed her life. At one time, Sabrina shrank from the world. She was anxious and unsure of herself and struggled with severe dysphoria. Today, Sabrina is confident and has hopes for her future and a joy that we had not seen in her before she started this care. We are fighting to ensure the medical treatment that has given her the life she has today.

Sabrina Jennen

Credit: Rana Young

When Sabrina was younger and before she started receiving medical treatment for her gender dysphoria, she expressed to us, the best she could at the time, that she couldn’t see a future for herself and didn’t know why. As parents, we were in agony watching her struggle. We saw her as a brilliant, gifted mind, with a very gentle soul. It was heartbreaking that she didn’t see the beautiful person that we saw in her.

After she came out to us and began to receive medical treatment for her gender dysphoria, we began to notice her confidence. She began to smile again and found joy in shopping and styling outfits for not only herself, but her two sisters. They love to swap clothes and accessories, which is really fun to watch. She is also a gifted artist who has created some pretty amazing self-portraits that emphasize her beautiful red curls. Sabrina, who once was a very shy, reserved, and unhappy person, is now our confident social butterfly who loves a good selfie opportunity.

As a parent, I never imagined I’d have to fight for my daughter to be able to receive medically necessary health care. I never imagined having to watch my child suffer and then get better only to have lawmakers take away the treatment she needs.

As a parent, I never imagined I’d have to fight for my daughter to be able to receive medically necessary health care.

The state of Arkansas has suggested that people are rushing into this care, but nothing could be further from the truth for us. My husband and I are very careful and thoughtful people. We had many long, serious discussions with each other, with Sabrina, and with her medical providers. We prayed about the decisions we all had to make as a family.

Arkansas is our home. We have lived here our entire lives, and our parents, siblings, grandparents, church, and entire support system are all here in Arkansas. We do not want to have to leave our home simply to be able to provide necessary medical care for our daughter.

Sabrina is an amazing, smart, beautiful person and an incredible daughter. I wish that those politicians who passed this law would take the time to listen to the experiences of trans youth and to get to know people like our daughter. I can’t imagine anyone who truly got to know and understand how this care has impacted Sabrina could take action that would jeopardize her joy, her smile, and her sense of possibility for her future.

What you can do:

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now

Take the pledge

Published October 28, 2022 at 10:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/PaoA2mV

ACLU: Voting With a Disability: Breaking Down Barriers to the Ballot

Voting With a Disability: Breaking Down Barriers to the Ballot

People with disabilities have long faced some of the greatest barriers to voting in our elections. From inaccessible polling places and a lack of working accessible voting machines to onerous restrictions on absentee voting, our right to the ballot has often been ignored or forgotten.

In 2020, over 11 percent of voters with disabilities reported that they faced some type of difficulty casting a ballot — more than any other group and despite expanded access to mail-in voting due to the pandemic. But instead of embracing the more accessible forms of voting that sparked record turnout, including among voters with disabilities, states have doubled down on new and more restrictive voter suppression laws.

In 2021 alone, more than 400 anti-voter measures were introduced by states across the country, many of which are most burdensome to people of color and voters with disabilities. These measures run the gamut from restricting access to absentee voting, eliminating Election Day registration, and making it more difficult to vote early in person, to criminalizing the act of assisting voters with disabilities to vote. We’re challenging some of the measures that have become law in court in Georgia and Texas, where egregious restrictions illegally burden the right to vote for people with disabilities.

Whether you choose to vote in person early or on Election Day, or vote absentee, you’ll have to navigate a complex web of state and local election rules and deadlines regarding voter registration, absentee ballots, and fixing or “curing” a ballot that was rejected, often due to missing or incorrect information.

This election season, we’re fighting back against voter suppression and urging all Americans to vote for their values and fight for their rights.

American Civil Liberties Union

Vote Your Values | American Civil Liberties Union

For voters with disabilities, we’re making sure you know your rights and can find resources about how to vote, including voting absentee and curing a ballot if it’s rejected.

---

Register to Vote or Check Your Registration

Vote.gov helps you quickly register to vote if you haven’t already. Register early, as some states require you to register to vote 30 days or more before an election.

If you’re already registered, double check that your registration, including current address, is up to date.

---

Request an Absentee Ballot

All U.S. states and Washington, D.C. permit people with an illness or disability to vote absentee, allowing you to mail in your ballot or drop it off at a drop box or polling location.

Similar to voter registration, each state has its own set of deadlines and rules for voting absentee. Check out the deadlines here on Vote.org. Some states require you to complete an application in order to receive an absentee ballot, and the deadline to apply may be as early as two weeks before the election. New voter suppression laws may require you to provide proof of ID to request an absentee ballot.

An absentee ballot from the Wayne County Board of Elections.

Hannah Schoenbaum/ AP Photo

You can find information about how to request an absentee ballot in your state using this tool from the National Association of Secretaries of State. Pick your state from the drop down menu and it will open a page or document with instructions on how to request an absentee ballot.

VoteAmerica, Vote.org, and the Election Protection Hotline have additional resources and information.

---

Cast Your Ballot, and Make Sure It’s Counted

If you plan to vote in person or return your absentee ballot in a drop box, locate your polling place or drop box. Many states do not allow you to vote in person at a location that is not designated as your assigned precinct. Check to see if your state requires an ID to vote in person.

If you plan to submit your ballot by mail, send it at least a week before the election to be sure it arrives by Election Day. Your absentee ballot will likely require you to sign the ballot and/or ballot envelope, and may require one or more witnesses to sign as well. Your ballot will be rejected if the signature is missing

Once your ballot is in, use your state’s ballot tracker to see if it’s been counted. Ballots may be rejected if there is a missing signature on the ballot envelope or a discrepancy in the signature matching process, or if your voter file is missing identifying information like your social security number or driver’s license number. One in eight mail-in ballots were rejected in the Texas primary earlier this year, so make sure your voter file is up to date with all the required information.

If your ballot is rejected, 24 states will allow you to correct your ballot in a process known as “curing.” These states are required to notify you via mail, phone, or email, that your ballot has been rejected and you need to correct it.

Most states will notify you within days of the election if your ballot has been rejected, and you will be given between 3 days and two weeks to prove your identity for your ballot to be counted.

---

Know Your Rights at the Polling Place

Federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Voting Rights Act, require election workers to:

• Make polling places fully accessible to voters with disabilities.
• Have at least one voting system at each polling place that allows people with disabilities to vote privately and independently.
• Allow voters with disabilities to receive in-person help at the polls (except from an agent of your employer or union).
• Make other reasonable accommodations if possible for them to do so.

Read more about your rights as a voter with a disability here.

---

Get Help if You Need It

If you need more information about voting, or want to report voter suppression or intimidation, contact the Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683).

What you can do:

Join the Vote Your Values Team

Sign up

Published October 27, 2022 at 12:39AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kTuU5tq

ACLU: Voting With a Disability: Breaking Down Barriers to the Ballot

Voting With a Disability: Breaking Down Barriers to the Ballot

People with disabilities have long faced some of the greatest barriers to voting in our elections. From inaccessible polling places and a lack of working accessible voting machines to onerous restrictions on absentee voting, our right to the ballot has often been ignored or forgotten.

In 2020, over 11 percent of voters with disabilities reported that they faced some type of difficulty casting a ballot — more than any other group and despite expanded access to mail-in voting due to the pandemic. But instead of embracing the more accessible forms of voting that sparked record turnout, including among voters with disabilities, states have doubled down on new and more restrictive voter suppression laws.

In 2021 alone, more than 400 anti-voter measures were introduced by states across the country, many of which are most burdensome to people of color and voters with disabilities. These measures run the gamut from restricting access to absentee voting, eliminating Election Day registration, and making it more difficult to vote early in person, to criminalizing the act of assisting voters with disabilities to vote. We’re challenging some of the measures that have become law in court in Georgia and Texas, where egregious restrictions illegally burden the right to vote for people with disabilities.

Whether you choose to vote in person early or on Election Day, or vote absentee, you’ll have to navigate a complex web of state and local election rules and deadlines regarding voter registration, absentee ballots, and fixing or “curing” a ballot that was rejected, often due to missing or incorrect information.

This election season, we’re fighting back against voter suppression and urging all Americans to vote for their values and fight for their rights.

American Civil Liberties Union

Vote Your Values | American Civil Liberties Union

For voters with disabilities, we’re making sure you know your rights and can find resources about how to vote, including voting absentee and curing a ballot if it’s rejected.

---

Register to Vote or Check Your Registration

Vote.gov helps you quickly register to vote if you haven’t already. Register early, as some states require you to register to vote 30 days or more before an election.

If you’re already registered, double check that your registration, including current address, is up to date.

---

Request an Absentee Ballot

All U.S. states and Washington, D.C. permit people with an illness or disability to vote absentee, allowing you to mail in your ballot or drop it off at a drop box or polling location.

Similar to voter registration, each state has its own set of deadlines and rules for voting absentee. Check out the deadlines here on Vote.org. Some states require you to complete an application in order to receive an absentee ballot, and the deadline to apply may be as early as two weeks before the election. New voter suppression laws may require you to provide proof of ID to request an absentee ballot.

An absentee ballot from the Wayne County Board of Elections.

Hannah Schoenbaum/ AP Photo

You can find information about how to request an absentee ballot in your state using this tool from the National Association of Secretaries of State. Pick your state from the drop down menu and it will open a page or document with instructions on how to request an absentee ballot.

VoteAmerica, Vote.org, and the Election Protection Hotline have additional resources and information.

---

Cast Your Ballot, and Make Sure It’s Counted

If you plan to vote in person or return your absentee ballot in a drop box, locate your polling place or drop box. Many states do not allow you to vote in person at a location that is not designated as your assigned precinct. Check to see if your state requires an ID to vote in person.

If you plan to submit your ballot by mail, send it at least a week before the election to be sure it arrives by Election Day. Your absentee ballot will likely require you to sign the ballot and/or ballot envelope, and may require one or more witnesses to sign as well. Your ballot will be rejected if the signature is missing

Once your ballot is in, use your state’s ballot tracker to see if it’s been counted. Ballots may be rejected if there is a missing signature on the ballot envelope or a discrepancy in the signature matching process, or if your voter file is missing identifying information like your social security number or driver’s license number. One in eight mail-in ballots were rejected in the Texas primary earlier this year, so make sure your voter file is up to date with all the required information.

If your ballot is rejected, 24 states will allow you to correct your ballot in a process known as “curing.” These states are required to notify you via mail, phone, or email, that your ballot has been rejected and you need to correct it.

Most states will notify you within days of the election if your ballot has been rejected, and you will be given between 3 days and two weeks to prove your identity for your ballot to be counted.

---

Know Your Rights at the Polling Place

Federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Voting Rights Act, require election workers to:

• Make polling places fully accessible to voters with disabilities.
• Have at least one voting system at each polling place that allows people with disabilities to vote privately and independently.
• Allow voters with disabilities to receive in-person help at the polls (except from an agent of your employer or union).
• Make other reasonable accommodations if possible for them to do so.

Read more about your rights as a voter with a disability here.

---

Get Help if You Need It

If you need more information about voting, or want to report voter suppression or intimidation, contact the Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683).

What you can do:

Join the Vote Your Values Team

Sign up

Published October 26, 2022 at 08:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/mGzE5vi

Belarus: Technical Assistance Report-Financial Accounts and Balance Sheet Statistics Mission

Belarus: Technical Assistance Report-Financial Accounts and Balance Sheet Statistics Mission
Published October 25, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Solomon Islands: Technical Assistance Report-Central Bank Risk Management

Solomon Islands: Technical Assistance Report-Central Bank Risk Management
Published October 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Sierra Leone: Technical Assistance Report-National Accounts Statistics Mission

Sierra Leone: Technical Assistance Report-National Accounts Statistics Mission
Published October 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Ireland: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism

Ireland: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism
Published October 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Brandt v. Rutledge: What to Know About the Arkansas Trial on Gender-Affirming Care

Brandt v. Rutledge: What to Know About the Arkansas Trial on Gender-Affirming Care

Among the many responsibilities that come with raising a child, standing in a federal courtroom and defending your child’s constitutional rights isn’t likely what most parents plan for. But in a federal courthouse in Little Rock this week, a historic trial against Arkansas’ ban on gender-affirming care brought four families together to defend the rights and well-being of their transgender adolescent children.

The first in a two-part trial, the week-long hearing in Brandt v. Rutledge focused first on the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming health care: an individualized, evidence-based approach to reducing gender dysphoria that can include counseling, hormone therapy, and, in some more exceptional cases for adolescents, top surgery. Experts with decades of research and practice told the court about widely accepted treatment protocols that are supported across the medical community — including by endocrinologists, pediatricians, general practitioners, and bioethicists, among others.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/brandt-et-al-v-rutledge-et-al

The court also heard from two providers who’ve worked with transgender youth in Arkansas: Dr. Michele Hutchison and Dr. Kathleen Stambough, the former and current medical directors of the Gender Spectrum Clinic at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. In the language of professionals quite used to describing complex medical concepts to children, the doctors explained to the court the careful balance they and families strike when making decisions about a child’s medical needs related to gender dysphoria, weighing carefully the risks and benefits of treatment for each individual child’s current and future well-being.

They also spoke about the impact of the law banning this widely accepted treatment. Dr. Hutchison — who testified against the bill in the Arkansas General Assembly — noted four of her own patients were hospitalized for suicide attempts shortly after the bill was introduced, and anxiety scores of patients being seen at the clinic climbed from 40 percent to 60 percent in the wake of the bill’s introduction. Even after the law was blocked by a preliminary injunction, Dr. Stambough explained that the clinic was forced to decline medically-necessary care like puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in anticipation of the law potentially going into effect at some point in the future.

Fundamentally, however, this trial was about the constitutional and civil rights of the parents and transgender youth impacted by Act 626, an Arkansas law banning this evidence-based medicine passed in 2021 and currently blocked by a federal injunction. Four parents — Donnie Ray Saxton, Aaron Jennen, Amanda Dennis, and Joanna Brandt — took the stand to share their experience of watching their children suffer from dysphoria, come out as transgender, and flourish with the help of medical providers who prescribed treatment the state they are proud to call home now seeks to ban.

Donnie Ray Saxton, who operates a plumbing business while raising his five children, spoke about the confidence his 17-year-old transgender son Parker gained after starting testosterone treatment.

“We’re a family, and we’re not a family without Parker,” Donnie told the court. “We’d have to pick up and leave if this took effect. This is home. Our small town transitioned with us.” Asked what would happen if Parker could no longer access this care, Donnie replied tersely, “I’m not going to think about that.”

Aaron Jennen, a government attorney and father of 17-year-old Sabrina, described his transgender daughter as “smart, gifted, beautiful.. [she] easily has the most envied hair in the courtroom.” Sabrina, who has struggled with depression, anxiety, and a noted lack of confidence, now proudly shares selfies and “even put her name in the hat to be homecoming queen.”

Denying Sabrina this care is simply not an option, said Aaron. Through tears, he stared across the courtroom at his daughter sitting in the gallery. “I promise you,” he said emphatically, “that will not happen.”

Left to right: the Brandt, Jennen, and Saxton families.

Credit: Gillian Brandstetter

Amanda Dennis, an advertising technology specialist and mother of 10-year-old Brooke, said her young transgender daughter “was one of the most incredible humans I know.” While Brooke is too young for any endocrine treatments for her gender dysphoria, she is already wary of the coming effects of puberty; she sees her older brother growing taller and his Adam’s apple becoming more prominent, and is growing more and more anxious, leaving Amanda gravely distressed her daughter may be forced to undergo her endogenous puberty with the potential irreversible changes that come with it.

“I’ve always promised all of my children that we will care for you,” said Amanda. “It fills me with so much sorrow that this would happen where I live.”

Joanna Brandt took the stand and spoke of her 17-year-old transgender son Dylan, who began testosterone in 2020.

“His capacity for empathy for others — but more importantly for himself — has been remarkable,” said Joanna. “Dylan is the most emotionally intelligent person I know. The kid that Dylan was [before transitioning] would not be in this courtroom today. It is because of this care he is able to fight for himself.”

And fight he did. Dylan Brandt took the stand as the lone transgender person to testify in any of the hearings. Calmly and stoically, he told the court of his experiences with dysphoria, his family’s “right off the bat” acceptance when he came out, and the relief gender-affirming care has brought him.

“The thought of going back is just not an option,” said Dylan. “We’d probably have to leave the state. I have a job, my mom has a business. I still have a year and a half of high school left. Being pushed out of the place I’ve lived my entire life is hard.”

The last person called to the stand by the plaintiffs challenging this ban, Dylan was asked by ACLU attorney Chase Strangio how he would sum up the way his treatment made him feel. Leaning into the mic, he said “hopeful.”

What you can do:

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now

Take the pledge

Published October 21, 2022 at 05:53PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/y8HCe5h

ACLU: Brandt v. Rutledge: What to Know About the Arkansas Trial on Gender-Affirming Care

Brandt v. Rutledge: What to Know About the Arkansas Trial on Gender-Affirming Care

Among the many responsibilities that come with raising a child, standing in a federal courtroom and defending your child’s constitutional rights isn’t likely what most parents plan for. But in a federal courthouse in Little Rock this week, a historic trial against Arkansas’ ban on gender-affirming care brought four families together to defend the rights and well-being of their transgender adolescent children.

The first in a two-part trial, the week-long hearing in Brandt v. Rutledge focused first on the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming health care: an individualized, evidence-based approach to reducing gender dysphoria that can include counseling, hormone therapy, and, in some more exceptional cases for adolescents, top surgery. Experts with decades of research and practice told the court about widely accepted treatment protocols that are supported across the medical community — including by endocrinologists, pediatricians, general practitioners, and bioethicists, among others.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/brandt-et-al-v-rutledge-et-al

The court also heard from two providers who’ve worked with transgender youth in Arkansas: Dr. Michele Hutchison and Dr. Kathleen Stambough, the former and current medical directors of the Gender Spectrum Clinic at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. In the language of professionals quite used to describing complex medical concepts to children, the doctors explained to the court the careful balance they and families strike when making decisions about a child’s medical needs related to gender dysphoria, weighing carefully the risks and benefits of treatment for each individual child’s current and future well-being.

They also spoke about the impact of the law banning this widely accepted treatment. Dr. Hutchison — who testified against the bill in the Arkansas General Assembly — noted four of her own patients were hospitalized for suicide attempts shortly after the bill was introduced, and anxiety scores of patients being seen at the clinic climbed from 40 percent to 60 percent in the wake of the bill’s introduction. Even after the law was blocked by a preliminary injunction, Dr. Stambough explained that the clinic was forced to decline medically-necessary care like puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in anticipation of the law potentially going into effect at some point in the future.

Fundamentally, however, this trial was about the constitutional and civil rights of the parents and transgender youth impacted by Act 626, an Arkansas law banning this evidence-based medicine passed in 2021 and currently blocked by a federal injunction. Four parents — Donnie Ray Saxton, Aaron Jennen, Amanda Dennis, and Joanna Brandt — took the stand to share their experience of watching their children suffer from dysphoria, come out as transgender, and flourish with the help of medical providers who prescribed treatment the state they are proud to call home now seeks to ban.

Donnie Ray Saxton, who operates a plumbing business while raising his five children, spoke about the confidence his 17-year-old transgender son Parker gained after starting testosterone treatment.

“We’re a family, and we’re not a family without Parker,” Donnie told the court. “We’d have to pick up and leave if this took effect. This is home. Our small town transitioned with us.” Asked what would happen if Parker could no longer access this care, Donnie replied tersely, “I’m not going to think about that.”

Aaron Jennen, a government attorney and father of 17-year-old Sabrina, described his transgender daughter as “smart, gifted, beautiful.. [she] easily has the most envied hair in the courtroom.” Sabrina, who has struggled with depression, anxiety, and a noted lack of confidence, now proudly shares selfies and “even put her name in the hat to be homecoming queen.”

Denying Sabrina this care is simply not an option, said Aaron. Through tears, he stared across the courtroom at his daughter sitting in the gallery. “I promise you,” he said emphatically, “that will not happen.”

Left to right: the Brandt, Jennen, and Saxton families.

Credit: Gillian Brandstetter

Amanda Dennis, an advertising technology specialist and mother of 10-year-old Brooke, said her young transgender daughter “was one of the most incredible humans I know.” While Brooke is too young for any endocrine treatments for her gender dysphoria, she is already wary of the coming effects of puberty; she sees her older brother growing taller and his Adam’s apple becoming more prominent, and is growing more and more anxious, leaving Amanda gravely distressed her daughter may be forced to undergo her endogenous puberty with the potential irreversible changes that come with it.

“I’ve always promised all of my children that we will care for you,” said Amanda. “It fills me with so much sorrow that this would happen where I live.”

Joanna Brandt took the stand and spoke of her 17-year-old transgender son Dylan, who began testosterone in 2020.

“His capacity for empathy for others — but more importantly for himself — has been remarkable,” said Joanna. “Dylan is the most emotionally intelligent person I know. The kid that Dylan was [before transitioning] would not be in this courtroom today. It is because of this care he is able to fight for himself.”

And fight he did. Dylan Brandt took the stand as the lone transgender person to testify in any of the hearings. Calmly and stoically, he told the court of his experiences with dysphoria, his family’s “right off the bat” acceptance when he came out, and the relief gender-affirming care has brought him.

“The thought of going back is just not an option,” said Dylan. “We’d probably have to leave the state. I have a job, my mom has a business. I still have a year and a half of high school left. Being pushed out of the place I’ve lived my entire life is hard.”

The last person called to the stand by the plaintiffs challenging this ban, Dylan was asked by ACLU attorney Chase Strangio how he would sum up the way his treatment made him feel. Leaning into the mic, he said “hopeful.”

What you can do:

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now

Take the pledge

Published October 21, 2022 at 10:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/tpQasAd

Solomon Islands: Technical Assistance Report on Government Finance Statistics Mission (April 18-29, 2022)

Solomon Islands: Technical Assistance Report on Government Finance Statistics Mission (April 18-29, 2022)
Published October 20, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott

It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott

From the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery bus boycott to the boycott of apartheid South Africa, politically motivated consumer boycotts have long been part and parcel of American politics. But are they protected by the First Amendment? For 40 years, the answer has been an unequivocal “yes.” But in a recent case from Arkansas, a federal court of appeals ruled otherwise. If the right to boycott is to be preserved, the Supreme Court must step in.

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the Supreme Court in 1982 unanimously upheld the First Amendment right of Black Mississippians to boycott local businesses in protest against segregation and racial inequality. The decision established that politically-motivated consumer boycotts are fully protected by the Constitution. As a result, today, people of all political stripes can proudly exercise their right to boycott — from right-wing boycotts of companies that support Planned Parenthood to left-wing boycotts of companies that support the National Rifle Association. Now, that long-standing precedent has been called into question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not protect “the purchasing decisions at the heart of a boycott” — even if a law selectively penalizes boycotts on a specific topic, like boycotts of Israel.

Since 2016, 28 states have passed laws requiring individuals and businesses that receive government contracts – from substitute teachers to construction workers — to certify that they will not participate in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements in the West Bank. My client, the Arkansas Times, was asked to sign such a certification in order to renew its advertising contract with a state technical college. Although the Arkansas Times does not boycott Israel, it refuses to be bullied by the state into disavowing its civil liberties. As Alan Leveritt, the publisher, put it: “If we signed the pledge, I believe, we’d be signing away our right to freedom of conscience. And as journalists, we would be unworthy of the protections granted us under the First Amendment.”

These anti-boycott laws have affected Americans from all walks of life. A teacher in Kansas was told that she could not participate in the state’s teacher-training program because she refused to sign the anti-boycott form. A lawyer in Arizona was told that he could not be paid for his work on behalf of incarcerated people because he refused to sign the certification. And a child speech pathologist in Texas lost her contract with a local school district because she refused to sign. Engineers, writers, journalists, and even university students who want to judge high school debate tournaments have all been asked to certify that they do not participate in boycotts of Israel or Israel-controlled territories. One town in Texas even briefly required victims of Hurricane Harvey to sign the anti-boycott certification as a condition of receiving disaster relief funds.

If the right to boycott is to be preserved, the Supreme Court must step in.

Most of the federal courts that have addressed these anti-boycott laws have recognized that they violate the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Arkansas Times’ case came out differently. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not protect “the purchasing decisions at the heart of a boycott” — even if a law selectively penalizes boycotts on a specific topic, like boycotts of Israel. Under the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, Alabama could have suppressed the Montgomery bus boycott by outlawing boycotts of municipal buses or segregated businesses. That notion is in direct conflict with the precedent set in Claiborne Hardware affirming our right to participate in political boycotts, as well as a long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing that the government cannot take sides and distort public debate by selectively penalizing disfavored viewpoints.

The court of appeals reasoned that because one can’t know the meaning of a decision not to purchase from a business unless it is accompanied by speech, the boycott itself is not protected, and the state is free to single out and penalize the boycotts it disfavors. The same reasoning applies to marches. One can’t know the meaning of a group of people walking together unless it is accompanied by placards, chants, and speeches. But surely the government could not selectively ban marches protesting the Israeli government’s policies.

That is why the ACLU just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the Arkansas Times’ case and reaffirm that the First Amendment still protects the right to boycott. While we await their decision, states have started to pass similar laws suppressing boycotts of the fossil fuels, firearms, mining, timber, and agriculture industries. All sorts of special interests are pushing anti-boycott laws to stifle protest against them. If the court does not step in, a form of protest dating back to the American Revolution itself will remain in jeopardy.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 21, 2022 at 01:07AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2S3zHPd

ACLU: It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott

It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott

From the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery bus boycott to the boycott of apartheid South Africa, politically motivated consumer boycotts have long been part and parcel of American politics. But are they protected by the First Amendment? For 40 years, the answer has been an unequivocal “yes.” But in a recent case from Arkansas, a federal court of appeals ruled otherwise. If the right to boycott is to be preserved, the Supreme Court must step in.

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the Supreme Court in 1982 unanimously upheld the First Amendment right of Black Mississippians to boycott local businesses in protest against segregation and racial inequality. The decision established that politically-motivated consumer boycotts are fully protected by the Constitution. As a result, today, people of all political stripes can proudly exercise their right to boycott — from right-wing boycotts of companies that support Planned Parenthood to left-wing boycotts of companies that support the National Rifle Association. Now, that long-standing precedent has been called into question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not protect “the purchasing decisions at the heart of a boycott” — even if a law selectively penalizes boycotts on a specific topic, like boycotts of Israel.

Since 2016, 28 states have passed laws requiring individuals and businesses that receive government contracts – from substitute teachers to construction workers — to certify that they will not participate in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements in the West Bank. My client, the Arkansas Times, was asked to sign such a certification in order to renew its advertising contract with a state technical college. Although the Arkansas Times does not boycott Israel, it refuses to be bullied by the state into disavowing its civil liberties. As Alan Leveritt, the publisher, put it: “If we signed the pledge, I believe, we’d be signing away our right to freedom of conscience. And as journalists, we would be unworthy of the protections granted us under the First Amendment.”

These anti-boycott laws have affected Americans from all walks of life. A teacher in Kansas was told that she could not participate in the state’s teacher-training program because she refused to sign the anti-boycott form. A lawyer in Arizona was told that he could not be paid for his work on behalf of incarcerated people because he refused to sign the certification. And a child speech pathologist in Texas lost her contract with a local school district because she refused to sign. Engineers, writers, journalists, and even university students who want to judge high school debate tournaments have all been asked to certify that they do not participate in boycotts of Israel or Israel-controlled territories. One town in Texas even briefly required victims of Hurricane Harvey to sign the anti-boycott certification as a condition of receiving disaster relief funds.

If the right to boycott is to be preserved, the Supreme Court must step in.

Most of the federal courts that have addressed these anti-boycott laws have recognized that they violate the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Arkansas Times’ case came out differently. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not protect “the purchasing decisions at the heart of a boycott” — even if a law selectively penalizes boycotts on a specific topic, like boycotts of Israel. Under the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, Alabama could have suppressed the Montgomery bus boycott by outlawing boycotts of municipal buses or segregated businesses. That notion is in direct conflict with the precedent set in Claiborne Hardware affirming our right to participate in political boycotts, as well as a long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing that the government cannot take sides and distort public debate by selectively penalizing disfavored viewpoints.

The court of appeals reasoned that because one can’t know the meaning of a decision not to purchase from a business unless it is accompanied by speech, the boycott itself is not protected, and the state is free to single out and penalize the boycotts it disfavors. The same reasoning applies to marches. One can’t know the meaning of a group of people walking together unless it is accompanied by placards, chants, and speeches. But surely the government could not selectively ban marches protesting the Israeli government’s policies.

That is why the ACLU just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the Arkansas Times’ case and reaffirm that the First Amendment still protects the right to boycott. While we await their decision, states have started to pass similar laws suppressing boycotts of the fossil fuels, firearms, mining, timber, and agriculture industries. All sorts of special interests are pushing anti-boycott laws to stifle protest against them. If the court does not step in, a form of protest dating back to the American Revolution itself will remain in jeopardy.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 20, 2022 at 08:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/FBKYDcR