Colombia: Selected Issues
Published March 28, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday 28 March 2024
ACLU: Quiz: State Legislation and the Part You Play
Quiz: State Legislation and the Part You Play
Published March 28, 2024 at 09:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/V6QclMk
State legislation can have an immense impact on your civil rights, for better or for worse. And even though state lawmakers are tasked with determining which bills get turned into laws, you hold a lot of power to make these decisions because you elect candidates into office. Take this quiz to learn about lawmaking at the state level, and how you can play a part in this process at the ballot box.
Click to see QuizPublished March 28, 2024 at 09:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/V6QclMk
ACLU: Quiz: State Legislation and the Part You Play
Quiz: State Legislation and the Part You Play
Published March 28, 2024 at 04:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/cGgHqwY
State legislation can have an immense impact on your civil rights, for better or for worse. And even though state lawmakers are tasked with determining which bills get turned into laws, you hold a lot of power to make these decisions because you elect candidates into office. Take this quiz to learn about lawmaking at the state level, and how you can play a part in this process at the ballot box.
Click to see QuizPublished March 28, 2024 at 04:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/cGgHqwY
Wednesday 27 March 2024
Angola: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Angola
Angola: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Angola
Published March 27, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 27, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: How We're Fighting for Gender Equity Nationwide
How We're Fighting for Gender Equity Nationwide
Published March 27, 2024 at 03:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/tu3CObq
Across the country, our affiliates are challenging discriminatory policies and practices that disproportionately affect women, and particularly women of color. From housing discrimination in Illinois, to inhumane treatment of incarcerated pregnant individuals in North Carolina, and discriminatory dress codes in Texas schools, the ACLU and its affiliates are at the forefront of legal and advocacy efforts that promote gender equality and justice for all.
Here are three ways our affiliates are stepping up:
Illinois: Challenging Discriminatory Housing Policies
The ACLU of Illinois recently joined with national and local advocates, including the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, to challenge the “No-Evictions” policies of two large landlords — Hunter Properties and Oak Park Apartments — in Cook County, Illinois. These policies automatically reject rental housing applicants who have had any prior connection to an eviction case. The effect is to shut out families from housing opportunities, even when the eviction case was dismissed or filed years ago. Such policies have a discriminatory effect on Black renters, and especially Black women. Analysis of data from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office found that Black women accounted for approximately 33 percent of those served with an eviction case or evicted, despite making up just 22 percent of all renters in Cook County. Black renters in general faced nearly triple the likelihood of experiencing an eviction case than non-Black renters.
The lawsuit filed against Hunter Properties, and the civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development against Oak Park Apartments, argue their respective “No-Evictions” policies have a disparate impact on Black renters, especially Black women renters, that violate the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The complaint against Oak Park Apartments also asserts that its policy perpetuates and reinforces residential segregation in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The two filings are among the first in the nation to challenge landlords’ eviction screening policies as discriminatory.
North Carolina: Challenging Inhumane Practices for Incarcerated Women
In 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly finally passed a statewide law banning correctional officers, sheriffs, and other prison staff from shackling incarcerated people during critical periods of their pregnancy and postpartum journey. The law, HB 608, also known as Dignity for Women Who are Incarcerated, came after years of advocacy by the ACLU of North Carolina and several other partner organizations, including Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and SisterSong.
A pivotal factor in the bill’s passage was an OB-GYN’s moving account of delivering a baby to a shackled woman in custody. Labor and childbirth are already intense and vulnerable experiences, and the use of restraints can exacerbate the physical and emotional pain of the mother. This story deeply resonated, even with resistant sheriffs, ultimately propelling the legislation forward.
Despite the passage of this legislation, challenges persist. Recent revelations suggest some North Carolina prisons and jails have not been in compliance with the law. Undeterred, the ACLU of North Carolina is initiating a comprehensive awareness and compliance campaign, and will be filing public record requests with the jails in all 100 counties in North Carolina, coordinating legal education seminars for the criminal defense bar and developing content on the importance of reproductive justice and the need to uphold the rights of incarcerated individuals. With these efforts, the ACLU-NC aims to ensure adherence to the law and foster a deeper appreciation for upholding the dignity of pregnant people in prison and jails.
Texas: Challenging Discriminatory Dress Codes in Schools
More than half of Texas public K-12 school districts still have discriminatory dress codes and grooming policies. The ACLU of Texas has uncovered alarming disparities in school dress codes, revealing a trend of discrimination against students based on gender, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ identity, religion, disability, and socioeconomic background. The ACLU of Texas recently published a new report that reviews policies from 97 percent of Texas school districts and highlights pervasive inequalities within them.
Some of the survey’s major findings include:
- More than 80 percent of districts enforce vague and subjective hair standards, which could lead to disproportionately penalizing Black students.
- 53 percent of districts uphold dress codes rooted in outdated gender norms, such as boys-only hair length policies and girls-only sleeve length policies.
- More than 80 percent of districts prohibit head coverings without explicitly noting or explaining the religious exemptions mandated by law, harming students of diverse faith backgrounds.
- Nearly 80 percent of districts penalize students for wearing worn or improperly sized clothing, disproportionately impacting economically disadvantaged students.
In light of these disparities, the ACLU of Texas is taking action to challenge discriminatory dress codes and foster inclusive classroom environments. They’re sending the report to every district in the state to equip students, families, educators, and policymakers with knowledge that can help identify the harms of — and solutions to — discriminatory dress code policies. The report provides advocacy tools for community members and a roadmap for school districts, outlining recommendations like removing discriminatory dress code language, establishing fair enforcement practices, and providing clear and specific dress code guidelines. The ACLU of Texas is actively working in the courts and communities to push for more inclusive dress codes.
If you’ve faced or witnessed dress code discrimination, you can share your experience to continue this advocacy.
No student should ever be punished for being who they are. Instead of discriminating against young people, we should be preparing them for their futures.
Published March 27, 2024 at 03:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/tu3CObq
ACLU: How We're Fighting for Gender Equity Nationwide
How We're Fighting for Gender Equity Nationwide
Published March 27, 2024 at 09:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1znck2G
Across the country, our affiliates are challenging discriminatory policies and practices that disproportionately affect women, and particularly women of color. From housing discrimination in Illinois, to inhumane treatment of incarcerated pregnant individuals in North Carolina, and discriminatory dress codes in Texas schools, the ACLU and its affiliates are at the forefront of legal and advocacy efforts that promote gender equality and justice for all.
Here are three ways our affiliates are stepping up:
Illinois: Challenging Discriminatory Housing Policies
The ACLU of Illinois recently joined with national and local advocates, including the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, to challenge the “No-Evictions” policies of two large landlords — Hunter Properties and Oak Park Apartments — in Cook County, Illinois. These policies automatically reject rental housing applicants who have had any prior connection to an eviction case. The effect is to shut out families from housing opportunities, even when the eviction case was dismissed or filed years ago. Such policies have a discriminatory effect on Black renters, and especially Black women. Analysis of data from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office found that Black women accounted for approximately 33 percent of those served with an eviction case or evicted, despite making up just 22 percent of all renters in Cook County. Black renters in general faced nearly triple the likelihood of experiencing an eviction case than non-Black renters.
The lawsuit filed against Hunter Properties, and the civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development against Oak Park Apartments, argue their respective “No-Evictions” policies have a disparate impact on Black renters, especially Black women renters, that violate the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The complaint against Oak Park Apartments also asserts that its policy perpetuates and reinforces residential segregation in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The two filings are among the first in the nation to challenge landlords’ eviction screening policies as discriminatory.
North Carolina: Challenging Inhumane Practices for Incarcerated Women
In 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly finally passed a statewide law banning correctional officers, sheriffs, and other prison staff from shackling incarcerated people during critical periods of their pregnancy and postpartum journey. The law, HB 608, also known as Dignity for Women Who are Incarcerated, came after years of advocacy by the ACLU of North Carolina and several other partner organizations, including Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and SisterSong.
A pivotal factor in the bill’s passage was an OB-GYN’s moving account of delivering a baby to a shackled woman in custody. Labor and childbirth are already intense and vulnerable experiences, and the use of restraints can exacerbate the physical and emotional pain of the mother. This story deeply resonated, even with resistant sheriffs, ultimately propelling the legislation forward.
Despite the passage of this legislation, challenges persist. Recent revelations suggest some North Carolina prisons and jails have not been in compliance with the law. Undeterred, the ACLU of North Carolina is initiating a comprehensive awareness and compliance campaign, and will be filing public record requests with the jails in all 100 counties in North Carolina, coordinating legal education seminars for the criminal defense bar and developing content on the importance of reproductive justice and the need to uphold the rights of incarcerated individuals. With these efforts, the ACLU-NC aims to ensure adherence to the law and foster a deeper appreciation for upholding the dignity of pregnant people in prison and jails.
Texas: Challenging Discriminatory Dress Codes in Schools
More than half of Texas public K-12 school districts still have discriminatory dress codes and grooming policies. The ACLU of Texas has uncovered alarming disparities in school dress codes, revealing a trend of discrimination against students based on gender, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ identity, religion, disability, and socioeconomic background. The ACLU of Texas recently published a new report that reviews policies from 97 percent of Texas school districts and highlights pervasive inequalities within them.
Some of the survey’s major findings include:
- More than 80 percent of districts enforce vague and subjective hair standards, which could lead to disproportionately penalizing Black students.
- 53 percent of districts uphold dress codes rooted in outdated gender norms, such as boys-only hair length policies and girls-only sleeve length policies.
- More than 80 percent of districts prohibit head coverings without explicitly noting or explaining the religious exemptions mandated by law, harming students of diverse faith backgrounds.
- Nearly 80 percent of districts penalize students for wearing worn or improperly sized clothing, disproportionately impacting economically disadvantaged students.
In light of these disparities, the ACLU of Texas is taking action to challenge discriminatory dress codes and foster inclusive classroom environments. They’re sending the report to every district in the state to equip students, families, educators, and policymakers with knowledge that can help identify the harms of — and solutions to — discriminatory dress code policies. The report provides advocacy tools for community members and a roadmap for school districts, outlining recommendations like removing discriminatory dress code language, establishing fair enforcement practices, and providing clear and specific dress code guidelines. The ACLU of Texas is actively working in the courts and communities to push for more inclusive dress codes.
If you’ve faced or witnessed dress code discrimination, you can share your experience to continue this advocacy.
No student should ever be punished for being who they are. Instead of discriminating against young people, we should be preparing them for their futures.
Published March 27, 2024 at 09:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1znck2G
Friday 22 March 2024
Togo: Request for a 42-Month Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Togo
Togo: Request for a 42-Month Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Togo
Published March 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Ukraine: Third Review of the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Requests for a Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criterion, and Modifications of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ukraine
Ukraine: Third Review of the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Requests for a Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criterion, and Modifications of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ukraine
Published March 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday 19 March 2024
ACLU: State Legislative Sessions: How They Impact Your Rights
State Legislative Sessions: How They Impact Your Rights
Published March 20, 2024 at 12:34AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8QbmkEZ
State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.
With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.
With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.
What Are State Legislative Sessions?
Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.
Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.
When Are State Legislative Sessions Held?
The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.
How Do They Impact Our Rights?
The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.
What To Watch As Sessions Are Underway
There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.
But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.
How Do I Engage/Get Involved in the Process?
The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.
Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.
To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.
Published March 20, 2024 at 12:34AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8QbmkEZ
ACLU: State Legislative Sessions: How They Impact Your Rights
State Legislative Sessions: How They Impact Your Rights
Published March 19, 2024 at 07:04PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/h65aQmK
State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.
With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.
With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.
What Are State Legislative Sessions?
Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.
Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.
When Are State Legislative Sessions Held?
The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.
How Do They Impact Our Rights?
The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.
What To Watch As Sessions Are Underway
There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.
But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.
How Do I Engage/Get Involved in the Process?
The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.
Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.
To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.
Published March 19, 2024 at 07:04PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/h65aQmK
Monday 18 March 2024
ACLU: Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court?
Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court?
Published March 19, 2024 at 01:01AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Mhrku7f
For more than 100 years the American Civil Liberties Union has defended the right to free speech – no matter the speaker, and regardless of whether we agree with their views.
The defense and protection of free speech and expression span many forms and issues at the ACLU. In the last year alone, it has included efforts to actively oppose book bans; represent educators fighting classroom censorship aimed at suppressing important race perspectives; defend protesters responding to police shootings or overseas wars; protect the ability of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia at their graduation ceremonies; and fight against retaliatory arrests for protected speech.
While the faces of the free speech movement continue to change, the significance of defending free speech remains unchanged. This work lies at the heart of the ACLU’s core principles and values.
Why the ACLU Represented the NRA
On March 18, the ACLU appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue another free speech case of great significance. In this case, the ACLU represented the National Rifle Association (NRA) against government overreach and censorship. Some may have wondered why the ACLU was representing the NRA, since the ACLU clearly opposes the NRA on gun control and the role of firearms in society. In fact, we abhor many of the group’s goals, strategies, and tactics. So, the reality that we have joined forces, notwithstanding those disagreements, reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case.
The ACLU made the decision to represent the NRA in this case because we are deeply concerned that if regulators can threaten the NRA for their political views in New York state, they can come after the ACLU and allied organizations in places where our agendas are unpopular.
If reelected, President Trump has already promised to use the power of the government to go after his political adversaries. In a second Trump administration, opposition from the ACLU and its allied organizations will be top of mind for political leaders who may seek to go after their rivals the way New York targeted the NRA. The principal issue at stake in this case is one in which the ACLU deeply believes: preventing government blacklists of advocacy groups. Indeed, the timing couldn’t be better for drawing a bright line that would help bind a future Trump administration and other government officials who misuse their power.
In this case, the ACLU argues that Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the NRA and, in Vullo’s own words, “other gun promotion” groups. The ACLU argues that coercing private parties to blacklist the NRA because of its advocacy violates the First Amendment, just as punishing the group directly for its “gun promotion” views would. And if New York can do this to the NRA, Texas or Florida could use the same tactics against groups advocating immigrants’ rights or the right to abortion.
The NRA has a right, like all other advocacy organizations, to pursue their mission free from reprisals by government officials who disagree with its political viewpoint. The government should not be able to evade the Constitution by doing indirectly what it plainly cannot do directly. History has, consistently, underscored the importance of this protection.
Nevertheless, we’ve faced criticism of our representation of the NRA on the theory that even if the NRA wins in this Supreme Court case, officials will still try to stifle the speech of people on the left, and courts will side with them. These critics are correct in one sense — those in power have an unfortunate tendency to try to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree, and we will certainly continue to bring new cases to stop them. But the critics are wrong about the impact of the precedents we win, especially at the Supreme Court. People of every ideological stripe benefit with every decision vindicating the right to freedom of speech.
Why It's Important to Defend Speech We Detest
When we defend clients with positions with which we disagree, or even abhor, it’s because we are defending values crucial to the work of civil rights advocates in the past and present. These values include doctrines that protect our rights — at the local, state, and federal level — to join economic boycotts, hold protests, and publicly dissent. In fact, a significant amount of the ACLU’s modern day First Amendment advocacy work is predicated on principles stemming from landmark civil rights legal victories of the 1960s and 70s.
Take one of our most controversial cases, which is also one of the most important cases in the entire First Amendment canon — our defense of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1969, Klan member Clarence Brandenburg addressed a rally held in Ohio where he called for “revenge” against the government and Black individuals. He was convicted of violating the state’s Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited speech that “advocate[d] … the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”
The ACLU represented Brandenburg at the Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction. The court ruled that Brandenburg’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, and that the government can make it a crime to advocate illegal conduct only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Brandenburg’s speech was reprehensible. But in preserving his First Amendment rights, the ACLU helped establish critical protection for all dissidents’ and activists’ speech. Before Brandenburg, governments had regularly charged their critics with advocating illegal activity. The Brandenburg precedent has been used to defend all kinds of political speech; indeed, today the ACLU is applying the decision in a Supreme Court case defending civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson, who took part in a Black Lives Matter protest in Louisiana.
Simply put, the right to speak freely applies to everyone. Otherwise, any elected official would be able to decide whose speech is acceptable, “safe,” or politically palatable. That is why we defend speech we hate. It’s why in 1978 the ACLU represented a neo-Nazi group that sought to demonstrate in Skokie, a Chicago suburb with a substantial Jewish population, including many survivors of the Holocaust. Notwithstanding the odious views of the protesters, we believed that once government officials are empowered to block demonstrations because they disagree with their message, the right to protest would be illusory. The Supreme Court agreed, and that decision ensures that city, state, and federal officials cannot suppress protests because they disapprove of their message.
The power to censor the neo-Nazis would have opened the door to censoring any protester, including civil rights activists or anti-war protesters. The ACLU’s position in this case was famously controversial and Aryeh Neier, the ACLU’s executive director in the 70s and a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, withstood withering criticism. But it was the right thing to do.
Why the First Amendment Applies to Everyone, Not Just Our Friends
The ACLU knew in the past, as we recognize now, that if the First Amendment protected only popular ideas, it would serve little purpose. If we do not take a principled stand on behalf of those with whom we disagree, we weaken our case the next time we defend those fighting for the values we share. At our core, the ACLU believes that rights and liberties are universal and “indivisible” – meaning they attach to all people, not just our friends.
Our mandate to advance all rights and liberties for all people was forged more than 100 years ago when we combatted political repression against dissidents, immigrants, workers, and other so-called radicals. Over the years the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of countless individuals and groups with which we disagree. We defended their speech rights — despite our disagreements — because we believe in free speech, and because we realize that once you chip away at one person’s rights, everyone’s rights are at risk.
Defending speech we hate is admittedly a controversial part of our mandate. Some of our allies and supporters don’t always agree with this stance. In fact, there are even some ACLU staff, leaders, and volunteers who believe that defending speech we hate does more harm than good. Some believe we shouldn’t use our limited resources defending individuals and causes with whom we disagree. Reasonable people can — and always will — disagree on the ACLU’s stance, including our own staff. Yet this is what we have done for over a century and, as the ACLU’s executive director, I respectfully believe it’s the right thing to do — for free speech and for the ACLU.
Ours is an organization that increasingly reflects all of America. We celebrate our growing diversity, just as we embrace the dissent and debate that attend it. Our commitment to free speech extends to dissent within our ranks. Dissent and debate are healthy for society — and for a civil liberties organization. This principle has long been the lifeblood of the ACLU. And it is that commitment that underlies our defense of the NRA’s free speech rights at the Supreme Court.
Published March 19, 2024 at 01:01AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Mhrku7f
ACLU: Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court?
Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court?
Published March 18, 2024 at 07:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4uw5DLK
For more than 100 years the American Civil Liberties Union has defended the right to free speech – no matter the speaker, and regardless of whether we agree with their views.
The defense and protection of free speech and expression span many forms and issues at the ACLU. In the last year alone, it has included efforts to actively oppose book bans; represent educators fighting classroom censorship aimed at suppressing important race perspectives; defend protesters responding to police shootings or overseas wars; protect the ability of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia at their graduation ceremonies; and fight against retaliatory arrests for protected speech.
While the faces of the free speech movement continue to change, the significance of defending free speech remains unchanged. This work lies at the heart of the ACLU’s core principles and values.
Why the ACLU Represented the NRA
On March 18, the ACLU appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue another free speech case of great significance. In this case, the ACLU represented the National Rifle Association (NRA) against government overreach and censorship. Some may have wondered why the ACLU was representing the NRA, since the ACLU clearly opposes the NRA on gun control and the role of firearms in society. In fact, we abhor many of the group’s goals, strategies, and tactics. So, the reality that we have joined forces, notwithstanding those disagreements, reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case.
The ACLU made the decision to represent the NRA in this case because we are deeply concerned that if regulators can threaten the NRA for their political views in New York state, they can come after the ACLU and allied organizations in places where our agendas are unpopular.
If reelected, President Trump has already promised to use the power of the government to go after his political adversaries. In a second Trump administration, opposition from the ACLU and its allied organizations will be top of mind for political leaders who may seek to go after their rivals the way New York targeted the NRA. The principal issue at stake in this case is one in which the ACLU deeply believes: preventing government blacklists of advocacy groups. Indeed, the timing couldn’t be better for drawing a bright line that would help bind a future Trump administration and other government officials who misuse their power.
In this case, the ACLU argues that Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the NRA and, in Vullo’s own words, “other gun promotion” groups. The ACLU argues that coercing private parties to blacklist the NRA because of its advocacy violates the First Amendment, just as punishing the group directly for its “gun promotion” views would. And if New York can do this to the NRA, Texas or Florida could use the same tactics against groups advocating immigrants’ rights or the right to abortion.
The NRA has a right, like all other advocacy organizations, to pursue their mission free from reprisals by government officials who disagree with its political viewpoint. The government should not be able to evade the Constitution by doing indirectly what it plainly cannot do directly. History has, consistently, underscored the importance of this protection.
Nevertheless, we’ve faced criticism of our representation of the NRA on the theory that even if the NRA wins in this Supreme Court case, officials will still try to stifle the speech of people on the left, and courts will side with them. These critics are correct in one sense — those in power have an unfortunate tendency to try to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree, and we will certainly continue to bring new cases to stop them. But the critics are wrong about the impact of the precedents we win, especially at the Supreme Court. People of every ideological stripe benefit with every decision vindicating the right to freedom of speech.
Why It's Important to Defend Speech We Detest
When we defend clients with positions with which we disagree, or even abhor, it’s because we are defending values crucial to the work of civil rights advocates in the past and present. These values include doctrines that protect our rights — at the local, state, and federal level — to join economic boycotts, hold protests, and publicly dissent. In fact, a significant amount of the ACLU’s modern day First Amendment advocacy work is predicated on principles stemming from landmark civil rights legal victories of the 1960s and 70s.
Take one of our most controversial cases, which is also one of the most important cases in the entire First Amendment canon — our defense of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1969, Klan member Clarence Brandenburg addressed a rally held in Ohio where he called for “revenge” against the government and Black individuals. He was convicted of violating the state’s Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited speech that “advocate[d] … the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”
The ACLU represented Brandenburg at the Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction. The court ruled that Brandenburg’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, and that the government can make it a crime to advocate illegal conduct only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Brandenburg’s speech was reprehensible. But in preserving his First Amendment rights, the ACLU helped establish critical protection for all dissidents’ and activists’ speech. Before Brandenburg, governments had regularly charged their critics with advocating illegal activity. The Brandenburg precedent has been used to defend all kinds of political speech; indeed, today the ACLU is applying the decision in a Supreme Court case defending civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson, who took part in a Black Lives Matter protest in Louisiana.
Simply put, the right to speak freely applies to everyone. Otherwise, any elected official would be able to decide whose speech is acceptable, “safe,” or politically palatable. That is why we defend speech we hate. It’s why in 1978 the ACLU represented a neo-Nazi group that sought to demonstrate in Skokie, a Chicago suburb with a substantial Jewish population, including many survivors of the Holocaust. Notwithstanding the odious views of the protesters, we believed that once government officials are empowered to block demonstrations because they disagree with their message, the right to protest would be illusory. The Supreme Court agreed, and that decision ensures that city, state, and federal officials cannot suppress protests because they disapprove of their message.
The power to censor the neo-Nazis would have opened the door to censoring any protester, including civil rights activists or anti-war protesters. The ACLU’s position in this case was famously controversial and Aryeh Neier, the ACLU’s executive director in the 70s and a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, withstood withering criticism. But it was the right thing to do.
Why the First Amendment Applies to Everyone, Not Just Our Friends
The ACLU knew in the past, as we recognize now, that if the First Amendment protected only popular ideas, it would serve little purpose. If we do not take a principled stand on behalf of those with whom we disagree, we weaken our case the next time we defend those fighting for the values we share. At our core, the ACLU believes that rights and liberties are universal and “indivisible” – meaning they attach to all people, not just our friends.
Our mandate to advance all rights and liberties for all people was forged more than 100 years ago when we combatted political repression against dissidents, immigrants, workers, and other so-called radicals. Over the years the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of countless individuals and groups with which we disagree. We defended their speech rights — despite our disagreements — because we believe in free speech, and because we realize that once you chip away at one person’s rights, everyone’s rights are at risk.
Defending speech we hate is admittedly a controversial part of our mandate. Some of our allies and supporters don’t always agree with this stance. In fact, there are even some ACLU staff, leaders, and volunteers who believe that defending speech we hate does more harm than good. Some believe we shouldn’t use our limited resources defending individuals and causes with whom we disagree. Reasonable people can — and always will — disagree on the ACLU’s stance, including our own staff. Yet this is what we have done for over a century and, as the ACLU’s executive director, I respectfully believe it’s the right thing to do — for free speech and for the ACLU.
Ours is an organization that increasingly reflects all of America. We celebrate our growing diversity, just as we embrace the dissent and debate that attend it. Our commitment to free speech extends to dissent within our ranks. Dissent and debate are healthy for society — and for a civil liberties organization. This principle has long been the lifeblood of the ACLU. And it is that commitment that underlies our defense of the NRA’s free speech rights at the Supreme Court.
Published March 18, 2024 at 07:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4uw5DLK
Uganda: Fifth Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Uganda
Uganda: Fifth Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Uganda
Published March 18, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published March 18, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday 15 March 2024
ACLU: Fighting Back Against Discriminatory Laws That Impact People Living with HIV
Fighting Back Against Discriminatory Laws That Impact People Living with HIV
Published March 16, 2024 at 01:39AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8KyREIU
As a Black transgender woman and a former sex worker, it’s not unusual for me to face harassment and profiling from police. Regardless of whether we’re engaged in sex work or not, police frequently target transgender women like myself for searches and arrest, using anything from condoms to cash as “proof” we were engaged in sex work. For those who actually do engage in sex work, the criminalization of that livelihood raises the stakes of police encounters, and laws that criminalize our HIV status even more so.
In 2010, I was arrested in Memphis, Tennessee, and charged under the state’s aggravated prostitution statute, a law that raises sex work from a misdemeanor to a felony strictly on the basis of my HIV diagnosis. The law, passed in a wave of fear and panic following the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1991, doesn’t require transmission of HIV, or even an act that could possibly transmit HIV, for prosecution. It applies to everyone living with HIV, regardless of whether they are taking precautions to ensure there is no possibility of transmission or if they have disclosed their status. It targets someone like me solely on the basis of my HIV status – a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act – even though there are lots of ways people living with HIV can have safe sex.
Most alarmingly, the law requires me, and anyone else convicted under it, to register a “violent sex offender” for the rest of my life, even though I have committed no such violent act and only engaged in consensual sexual activity between adults. This unfair registration requirement has denied me housing opportunities, leading me to be homeless for more than a year, with no access to shelters or support programs. It shut down job opportunities and has made it difficult to maintain a living. In fact, just 23 percent of people charged under Tennessee’s law are employed in traditional wage work after their conviction.
Even though my conviction had nothing to do with children, I cannot legally be alone with my nephew, whom I love. I’m afraid to have children of my own for fear of how my registration would impact them and my ability to parent them. This needless shame and embarrassment has been made worse by the public status of my registration, giving strangers the ability to harass, or even blackmail, me.
When I first pleaded guilty to my charges, I was not informed of any of the specifics about registration. I was not informed my registration would be for the rest of my life – despite the fact that I haven’t hurt a living soul. Tennessee’s law is a relic from a time before treatments such as antiretroviral therapy (ART) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which can reduce viral loads to undetectable levels, blocking the possibility of transmission of HIV. I had no idea such a law was even still on the books.Many other states have repealed their HIV criminalization laws because of opposition by advocates and medical experts alike.Studies consistently show the laws don’t work to reduce HIV transmission, but rather interfere with people’s willingness to get tested, which is the most effective way to reduce transmission.
In October 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, and the Transgender Law Center filed a lawsuit to challenge Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution law on the basis that it discriminates against people living with HIV, like me, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I joined this lawsuit because this law has had such a detrimental impact on me and my life. No one should be forced to endure what I have endured.
Published March 16, 2024 at 01:39AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8KyREIU
ACLU: Fighting Back Against Discriminatory Laws That Impact People Living with HIV
Fighting Back Against Discriminatory Laws That Impact People Living with HIV
Published March 15, 2024 at 08:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/leaGzbx
As a Black transgender woman and a former sex worker, it’s not unusual for me to face harassment and profiling from police. Regardless of whether we’re engaged in sex work or not, police frequently target transgender women like myself for searches and arrest, using anything from condoms to cash as “proof” we were engaged in sex work. For those who actually do engage in sex work, the criminalization of that livelihood raises the stakes of police encounters, and laws that criminalize our HIV status even more so.
In 2010, I was arrested in Memphis, Tennessee, and charged under the state’s aggravated prostitution statute, a law that raises sex work from a misdemeanor to a felony strictly on the basis of my HIV diagnosis. The law, passed in a wave of fear and panic following the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1991, doesn’t require transmission of HIV, or even an act that could possibly transmit HIV, for prosecution. It applies to everyone living with HIV, regardless of whether they are taking precautions to ensure there is no possibility of transmission or if they have disclosed their status. It targets someone like me solely on the basis of my HIV status – a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act – even though there are lots of ways people living with HIV can have safe sex.
Most alarmingly, the law requires me, and anyone else convicted under it, to register a “violent sex offender” for the rest of my life, even though I have committed no such violent act and only engaged in consensual sexual activity between adults. This unfair registration requirement has denied me housing opportunities, leading me to be homeless for more than a year, with no access to shelters or support programs. It shut down job opportunities and has made it difficult to maintain a living. In fact, just 23 percent of people charged under Tennessee’s law are employed in traditional wage work after their conviction.
Even though my conviction had nothing to do with children, I cannot legally be alone with my nephew, whom I love. I’m afraid to have children of my own for fear of how my registration would impact them and my ability to parent them. This needless shame and embarrassment has been made worse by the public status of my registration, giving strangers the ability to harass, or even blackmail, me.
When I first pleaded guilty to my charges, I was not informed of any of the specifics about registration. I was not informed my registration would be for the rest of my life – despite the fact that I haven’t hurt a living soul. Tennessee’s law is a relic from a time before treatments such as antiretroviral therapy (ART) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which can reduce viral loads to undetectable levels, blocking the possibility of transmission of HIV. I had no idea such a law was even still on the books.Many other states have repealed their HIV criminalization laws because of opposition by advocates and medical experts alike.Studies consistently show the laws don’t work to reduce HIV transmission, but rather interfere with people’s willingness to get tested, which is the most effective way to reduce transmission.
In October 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, and the Transgender Law Center filed a lawsuit to challenge Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution law on the basis that it discriminates against people living with HIV, like me, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I joined this lawsuit because this law has had such a detrimental impact on me and my life. No one should be forced to endure what I have endured.
Published March 15, 2024 at 08:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/leaGzbx
ACLU: Why Allowing Chaplains in Public Schools Harms Students
Why Allowing Chaplains in Public Schools Harms Students
Published March 15, 2024 at 09:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/jawm3BK
A 2023 Texas law allowing public schools to hire chaplains, or accept them as volunteers, to provide student support services has inspired more states to consider copycat legislation. In March 2024, the Florida Legislature passed a school chaplain bill, which now awaits the governor’s signature. Similar bills have been introduced in 13 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.
Most of the proposed legislation authorizing school chaplains would allow chaplains to take on sensitive and critical responsibilities, such as counseling students, without the same qualifications as school counselors or other student support staff.
The ACLU, along with faith groups and other civil rights organizations, has vigorously opposed these efforts. Allowing chaplains in public schools violates students’ and families’ right to religious freedom. And, because chaplains are typically not trained or certified to provide educational or counseling services to youth, students are likely to receive inadequate mental health support that, in some cases, may be harmful.
Installing chaplains in public schools violates the separation of church and state.
Allowing public schools to establish paid or voluntary positions for chaplains will inevitably lead to evangelizing and religious coercion of students. This violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which, along with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, safeguards the constitutional right to religious liberty. Courts have repeatedly ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to invite religious leaders to engage in religious activities with students or to promote religious doctrine to them.
Chaplains are trained to provide spiritual guidance. They do not have the experience necessary to ensure that they adhere to public schools’ educational mandates and avoid veering into impermissible religious counseling and promotion of religion. In fact, many of the bills proposed across the country specifically state that school chaplains do not need the same qualifications or certifications as school counselors or staff who provide other support services for students. Exempting chaplains from the same professional requirements as other school staff makes clear that installing them in public schools is not about helping students, but is yet another effort to subject children to unconstitutional government sponsored religious indoctrination.
Allowing chaplains in public schools endangers students’ wellbeing.
Authorizing untrained and uncertified chaplains to engage in the same duties as school counselors will result in inadequate mental health support for students. In some cases, chaplains may provide inappropriate responses or interventions that could gravely harm students, including those experiencing mental health crises, LGBTQ students, and other vulnerable individuals. When a student seeks mental health care at school, that care should be provided by a qualified professional.
State lawmakers and school boards must reject school chaplain proposals.
School chaplain bills usurp the role of religious communities. Chaplains themselves have opposed these bills, arguing that they would “misuse the authority of chaplains of any religion” and “cause division among student bodies” that include students of myriad faiths as well as non-religious students.
These bills also undermine the fundamental promise of our public education system: Public schools must serve all students equally. The ACLU, together with faith groups, civil rights organizations, and chaplains nationwide, is pushing back against these unconstitutional efforts to impose religion on public school students. To ensure that our public schools remain safe and welcoming for everyone, state lawmakers and school boards must do the same.
Published March 15, 2024 at 09:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/jawm3BK
ACLU: Why Allowing Chaplains in Public Schools Harms Students
Why Allowing Chaplains in Public Schools Harms Students
Published March 15, 2024 at 04:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/9iFQ7Tv
A 2023 Texas law allowing public schools to hire chaplains, or accept them as volunteers, to provide student support services has inspired more states to consider copycat legislation. In March 2024, the Florida Legislature passed a school chaplain bill, which now awaits the governor’s signature. Similar bills have been introduced in 13 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.
Most of the proposed legislation authorizing school chaplains would allow chaplains to take on sensitive and critical responsibilities, such as counseling students, without the same qualifications as school counselors or other student support staff.
The ACLU, along with faith groups and other civil rights organizations, has vigorously opposed these efforts. Allowing chaplains in public schools violates students’ and families’ right to religious freedom. And, because chaplains are typically not trained or certified to provide educational or counseling services to youth, students are likely to receive inadequate mental health support that, in some cases, may be harmful.
Installing chaplains in public schools violates the separation of church and state.
Allowing public schools to establish paid or voluntary positions for chaplains will inevitably lead to evangelizing and religious coercion of students. This violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which, along with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, safeguards the constitutional right to religious liberty. Courts have repeatedly ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to invite religious leaders to engage in religious activities with students or to promote religious doctrine to them.
Chaplains are trained to provide spiritual guidance. They do not have the experience necessary to ensure that they adhere to public schools’ educational mandates and avoid veering into impermissible religious counseling and promotion of religion. In fact, many of the bills proposed across the country specifically state that school chaplains do not need the same qualifications or certifications as school counselors or staff who provide other support services for students. Exempting chaplains from the same professional requirements as other school staff makes clear that installing them in public schools is not about helping students, but is yet another effort to subject children to unconstitutional government sponsored religious indoctrination.
Allowing chaplains in public schools endangers students’ wellbeing.
Authorizing untrained and uncertified chaplains to engage in the same duties as school counselors will result in inadequate mental health support for students. In some cases, chaplains may provide inappropriate responses or interventions that could gravely harm students, including those experiencing mental health crises, LGBTQ students, and other vulnerable individuals. When a student seeks mental health care at school, that care should be provided by a qualified professional.
State lawmakers and school boards must reject school chaplain proposals.
School chaplain bills usurp the role of religious communities. Chaplains themselves have opposed these bills, arguing that they would “misuse the authority of chaplains of any religion” and “cause division among student bodies” that include students of myriad faiths as well as non-religious students.
These bills also undermine the fundamental promise of our public education system: Public schools must serve all students equally. The ACLU, together with faith groups, civil rights organizations, and chaplains nationwide, is pushing back against these unconstitutional efforts to impose religion on public school students. To ensure that our public schools remain safe and welcoming for everyone, state lawmakers and school boards must do the same.
Published March 15, 2024 at 04:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/9iFQ7Tv
Thursday 14 March 2024
ACLU: "We Do No Such Thing": What the 303 Creative Decision Means and Doesn't Mean for Anti-Discrimination and Public Accommodation Laws
"We Do No Such Thing": What the 303 Creative Decision Means and Doesn't Mean for Anti-Discrimination and Public Accommodation Laws
Published March 14, 2024 at 04:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/bv8jGnE
Can a bakery that objects to marriage equality refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple for their wedding? This question, or some variant thereof, has occupied courts even before marriages for same-sex couples were legally recognized. In June 2023, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court addressed this question in a case asking whether a wedding website design business could refuse to design websites for weddings of same-sex couples. The court ruled for the business. But properly understood, the decision does not license discrimination; it merely recognizes that where a business will not provide a particular product or service to anyone, it has the right to refuse it to a gay couple. That exception should not apply to most applications of anti-discrimination laws, which require only equal treatment, and do not require businesses to provide any particular service or product. As I explain in more detail in this Yale Law Journal article and as we argue in this model brief, 303 Creative does not create a First Amendment right to discriminate.
Can a bakery that objects to marriage equality refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple for their wedding?
Under Colorado’s public accommodations law, businesses that choose to serve the public at large cannot turn people away because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics. 303 Creative claimed that because its service is expressive and its owner objects to same-sex marriage, it can’t be required to provide website design services for same-sex weddings.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled for the business, concluding that Colorado’s application of its public accommodations law violated the designer’s First Amendment rights. In our view, the decision was wrong. We submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the Constitution did not give the business a right to refuse to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. But it’s important to understand the limits of the decision.
The case was brought by 303 Creative, a website design business, and its owner, Lorie Smith. Smith argued that Colorado’s law violated her First Amendment rights by compelling her, if she opened a wedding website design business, to serve both gay and heterosexual couples seeking to marry. The business had never actually designed a wedding website. Still, Smith brought the case before doing so, arguing that she was deterred from pursuing the business out of fear that Colorado’s public accommodations law would require her to create websites celebrating marriages that she opposed.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled for the business, concluding that Colorado’s application of its public accommodations law violated the designer’s First Amendment rights. In our view, the decision was wrong.
Because the case was brought before any actual application of the law, it was unclear what the designer would or wouldn’t do, or how the law would apply to her. As a result, the court’s opinions treat the case as if it presented two very different questions.
According to the majority opinion, the case involved a business owner unwilling to design for anyone a website whose content contravened her beliefs by expressly celebrating marriages of same-sex couples. It did not involve a business that refused services to customers based on their sexual orientation. Rather, Smith objected to the content of the message the state was compelling, not the identity of the customers. And equally significantly, the majority viewed Colorado’s purpose in applying its public accommodations law in such circumstances—where the business did not object to the identity of the customers but to the message requested—to be in suppressing disfavored ideas about marriage and compelling expression of the state’s favored viewpoint. In this particular application, the majority concluded, the business objected only to the message, and the state sought to enforce the law to compel a message–not to prohibit discriminatory sales on the basis of identity.
The dissenting opinions saw the case entirely differently. It viewed it as involving a website designer who objected to making any wedding website for a same-sex couple, regardless of its content. In its view, 303 Creative would refuse to make a website for a same-sex couple even if the website was identical to that of a different-sex couple. In its view, then, the designer sought a right to discriminate not based on the content of any particular message, but based on the customer’s sexual orientation. It correctly argued that the law has long been settled that the First Amendment does not permit businesses, even those whose services are expressive, to discriminate based on identity.
In essence, the majority and the dissent decided different cases. Indeed, when the dissent accused the majority of permitting businesses to discriminate on the basis of identity, the majority strongly rejected that conclusion, saying “We do no such thing.”
One way of understanding the difference is to imagine two paradigm cases. A t-shirt manufacturer that objects to making a t-shirt that says “Support Gay Marriage” has the right to refuse to make that t-shirt for a gay customer where his objection is to the message, not the identity of the customer. If the t-shirt manufacturer would not make a shirt with those words for anyone, it need not make one for a particular customer because they are gay. But at the same time, the t-shirt manufacturer could not refuse to sell a shirt saying “Love Marriage” to a customer because he was gay or sought to wear it to celebrate his marriage. If the business sells such shirts to others, it has to sell it to all. Nor could the t-shirt designer put up a sign saying “We Don’t Serve Gays.” In short, the decision permits a denial of service based on the message requested, but not based on who the product is for.
Understood in this light, the decision should have minimal impact on the enforcement of public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws. It recognizes a right to refuse service only where a business objects to expressing a particular message for anyone, not where it objects to serving certain customers because of their identity.
Because that is not the situation in the vast majority of instances in which antidiscrimination laws are applied, the decision leaves standing what the court previously described as the “general rule”—namely, that religious and philosophical objections “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
In short, the decision in 303 Creative does not mean that a caterer, florist, or baker can refuse to provide food, flowers, or a cake for a wedding merely because the participants are of the same sex and the vendor objects to the implicit message providing those services sends. Instead, it is only when a public accommodations law compels speech that a business owner objects to providing for anyone—and does so in order to excise disfavored ideas, that it violates the First Amendment.
Published March 14, 2024 at 04:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/bv8jGnE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)