ACLU: Why Police Traffic Stops Are Dangerous and Ineffective

Why Police Traffic Stops Are Dangerous and Ineffective

The Fourth Amendment protects us from being stopped, searched, or detained by police without good reason. But over the years, courts have dramatically weakened those protections when it comes to cars and traffic enforcement.

Courts have ruled that a traffic stop is permitted whenever an officer has probable cause of a traffic violation, even if police are really using the stop to investigate the driver without any suspicion of a crime. Because state and local traffic codes list hundreds of non-safety traffic offenses, from tinted windows to expired registration stickers, police can have hundreds of reasons to choose from him. In practice, this lets officers use traffic stops to go on criminal investigation fishing expeditions, unfairly targeting people of color, and undermining the fundamental freedoms the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect.

We’re seeing this unfair practice in cities across the country where President Donald Trump has deployed military troops and federal law enforcement. Reports of federal agents colluding with police to set up traffic checkpoints and conduct stops show how easily traffic enforcement can open the door to the violation of people’s rights.

Being in a car should not mean losing many of the constitutional rights one would have in almost many other settings. That’s why the ACLU is working to restore people’s rights on the road by limiting or ending traffic stops for issues that are unrelated to road safety, like tinted windows or an expired registration.

More than 20 million people are stopped by police every year for alleged traffic violations.

Traffic stops are by far the most common interaction between community members and police, in large part because state and local traffic codes provide police with hundreds of reasons to stop drivers. Police stop more than 50,000 drivers on a typical day for alleged traffic violations

While these stops may seem routine, they often turn into dangerous – and even fatal – encounters with police, especially for Black and brown drivers. Police officers killed Daunte Wright after pulling him over for an expired registration sticker. Police killed Philando Castile and Walter Scott after stopping for broken taillights. These men were stopped for minor traffic violations, yet each of these stops escalated into a fatal encounter with police.

Police have more than 500 reasons to stop drivers.

In many states, decades-old traffic codes list upwards of 500 reasons for police to stop drivers, giving police significant discretion to stop almost anyone for almost any reason. These overly broad state traffic codes, combined with court rulings in favor of police discretion, has spawned a system that breeds unchecked police power and abuse.

Driving with an expired registration, tinted windows, a single broken taillight, or an air freshener hanging from a rearview mirror may be considered “violations” under many traffic codes, but they don’t make someone a dangerous driver. Yet, police frequently stop people for these non-safety issues, creating unnecessary risks to drivers, infringing on our constitutional rights, and diverting attention from the real threats to road safety, drunk driving and speeding.

In 2024, police killed 152 people during routine traffic stops.

Police are more likely to use force in a non-safety stop than in a safety-related stop, and that force all too often escalates into deadly situations. Since 2017, more than 800 individuals have lost their lives after being pulled over. Despite representing only 12 precent of the population, Black people make up more than a quarter of those killed in these encounters.

Black drivers are more than twice as likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Once stopped, Black drivers are also more likely to be treated differently and subjected to police searches, even when compared to white drivers engaged in the same driving behavior.

Because of the documented safety risks for drivers and the stark racial disparities in who gets stopped, many Black drivers say that they drive with constant fear of being harassed or brutalized by police. The stress of knowing that a simple traffic violation like an expired inspection sticker could result in a life-threatening encounter creates lasting anxiety and psychological effects for drivers of color.

With these facts in mind, it is no surprise that research finds that people who experience frequent police stops are significantly more likely to develop symptoms of anxiety and PTSD. Even youth who witness stops -- without being stopped themselves -- report higher levels of depression and anxiety and lower levels of happiness than their peers who have not.

Police arrest drivers for contraband in less than 1 percent — and in some cases as little as .3 percent – of traffic stops.

Despite the widespread use of non-safety traffic stops, they are an ineffective and inefficient tool for law enforcement. Most police departments spend massive amounts of time and money enforcing laws that don’t make our roads or communities any safer.

The data makes this abundantly clear. Non-safety-related traffic stops rarely result in the recovery of drugs, alcohol, guns, or other contraband. Studies across the country repeatedly find that police arrest drivers for contraband in less than 1 percent and in some cases as little as 0.3 percent ---of traffic stops. This means that each year millions of people are pulled over, questioned, and potentially subjected to searches or excessive force, all for a law enforcement tactic that produces almost no public safety benefit.

The leading causes of car crashes and roadway deaths are speeding and drunk driving, not broken taillights or expired registration stickers. When police spend time pulling people over for minor violations, they have less time to focus on reckless driving and other behaviors that actually put lives at risk.

As of July 2025, 32 jurisdictions across 16 states have limited or eliminated non-safety-related traffic stops.

Some police departments and cities are already rethinking their approach to traffic enforcement, and the results are promising. Police in cities that stopped enforcing non-safety traffic violations were more effective at addressing serious road safety issues, such as drunk driving and speeding. In many cases, the number of crashes was unchanged or even went down.

Additionally, limiting these stops has helped improve relationships between police and the communities they serve. In places where enforcement of non-safety traffic violations has been scaled back, community members have reported higher levels of trust in law enforcement, which leads to safer communities overall. These cities and states are proving that by reducing unnecessary stops we can create safer, fairer roads for everyone.

Seventy percent of voters support limiting or ending police enforcement of certain minor traffic violations.

Whether you care about making our roads safer, protecting people’s constitutional rights, or addressing the systemic racial discrimination on our streets, all the evidence points in the same direction: it’s time to reimagine how we enforce non-safety traffic violations. That’s why advocates across the policing, justice, and road safety spaces have come together to form the Traffic Safety for All coalition, which is working to right-size traffic enforcement and make our roads safer for everyone. Visit the coalition here to learn more and follow developments in your state.

Published October 30, 2025 at 11:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/RELWHaP

ACLU: Why Police Traffic Stops Are Dangerous and Ineffective

Why Police Traffic Stops Are Dangerous and Ineffective

The Fourth Amendment protects us from being stopped, searched, or detained by police without good reason. But over the years, courts have dramatically weakened those protections when it comes to cars and traffic enforcement.

Courts have ruled that a traffic stop is permitted whenever an officer has probable cause of a traffic violation, even if police are really using the stop to investigate the driver without any suspicion of a crime. Because state and local traffic codes list hundreds of non-safety traffic offenses, from tinted windows to expired registration stickers, police can have hundreds of reasons to choose from him. In practice, this lets officers use traffic stops to go on criminal investigation fishing expeditions, unfairly targeting people of color, and undermining the fundamental freedoms the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect.

We’re seeing this unfair practice in cities across the country where President Donald Trump has deployed military troops and federal law enforcement. Reports of federal agents colluding with police to set up traffic checkpoints and conduct stops show how easily traffic enforcement can open the door to the violation of people’s rights.

Being in a car should not mean losing many of the constitutional rights one would have in almost many other settings. That’s why the ACLU is working to restore people’s rights on the road by limiting or ending traffic stops for issues that are unrelated to road safety, like tinted windows or an expired registration.

More than 20 million people are stopped by police every year for alleged traffic violations.

Traffic stops are by far the most common interaction between community members and police, in large part because state and local traffic codes provide police with hundreds of reasons to stop drivers. Police stop more than 50,000 drivers on a typical day for alleged traffic violations

While these stops may seem routine, they often turn into dangerous – and even fatal – encounters with police, especially for Black and brown drivers. Police officers killed Daunte Wright after pulling him over for an expired registration sticker. Police killed Philando Castile and Walter Scott after stopping for broken taillights. These men were stopped for minor traffic violations, yet each of these stops escalated into a fatal encounter with police.

Police have more than 500 reasons to stop drivers.

In many states, decades-old traffic codes list upwards of 500 reasons for police to stop drivers, giving police significant discretion to stop almost anyone for almost any reason. These overly broad state traffic codes, combined with court rulings in favor of police discretion, has spawned a system that breeds unchecked police power and abuse.

Driving with an expired registration, tinted windows, a single broken taillight, or an air freshener hanging from a rearview mirror may be considered “violations” under many traffic codes, but they don’t make someone a dangerous driver. Yet, police frequently stop people for these non-safety issues, creating unnecessary risks to drivers, infringing on our constitutional rights, and diverting attention from the real threats to road safety, drunk driving and speeding.

In 2024, police killed 152 people during routine traffic stops.

Police are more likely to use force in a non-safety stop than in a safety-related stop, and that force all too often escalates into deadly situations. Since 2017, more than 800 individuals have lost their lives after being pulled over. Despite representing only 12 precent of the population, Black people make up more than a quarter of those killed in these encounters.

Black drivers are more than twice as likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Once stopped, Black drivers are also more likely to be treated differently and subjected to police searches, even when compared to white drivers engaged in the same driving behavior.

Because of the documented safety risks for drivers and the stark racial disparities in who gets stopped, many Black drivers say that they drive with constant fear of being harassed or brutalized by police. The stress of knowing that a simple traffic violation like an expired inspection sticker could result in a life-threatening encounter creates lasting anxiety and psychological effects for drivers of color.

With these facts in mind, it is no surprise that research finds that people who experience frequent police stops are significantly more likely to develop symptoms of anxiety and PTSD. Even youth who witness stops -- without being stopped themselves -- report higher levels of depression and anxiety and lower levels of happiness than their peers who have not.

Police arrest drivers for contraband in less than 1 percent — and in some cases as little as .3 percent – of traffic stops.

Despite the widespread use of non-safety traffic stops, they are an ineffective and inefficient tool for law enforcement. Most police departments spend massive amounts of time and money enforcing laws that don’t make our roads or communities any safer.

The data makes this abundantly clear. Non-safety-related traffic stops rarely result in the recovery of drugs, alcohol, guns, or other contraband. Studies across the country repeatedly find that police arrest drivers for contraband in less than 1 percent and in some cases as little as 0.3 percent ---of traffic stops. This means that each year millions of people are pulled over, questioned, and potentially subjected to searches or excessive force, all for a law enforcement tactic that produces almost no public safety benefit.

The leading causes of car crashes and roadway deaths are speeding and drunk driving, not broken taillights or expired registration stickers. When police spend time pulling people over for minor violations, they have less time to focus on reckless driving and other behaviors that actually put lives at risk.

As of July 2025, 32 jurisdictions across 16 states have limited or eliminated non-safety-related traffic stops.

Some police departments and cities are already rethinking their approach to traffic enforcement, and the results are promising. Police in cities that stopped enforcing non-safety traffic violations were more effective at addressing serious road safety issues, such as drunk driving and speeding. In many cases, the number of crashes was unchanged or even went down.

Additionally, limiting these stops has helped improve relationships between police and the communities they serve. In places where enforcement of non-safety traffic violations has been scaled back, community members have reported higher levels of trust in law enforcement, which leads to safer communities overall. These cities and states are proving that by reducing unnecessary stops we can create safer, fairer roads for everyone.

Seventy percent of voters support limiting or ending police enforcement of certain minor traffic violations.

Whether you care about making our roads safer, protecting people’s constitutional rights, or addressing the systemic racial discrimination on our streets, all the evidence points in the same direction: it’s time to reimagine how we enforce non-safety traffic violations. That’s why advocates across the policing, justice, and road safety spaces have come together to form the Traffic Safety for All coalition, which is working to right-size traffic enforcement and make our roads safer for everyone. Visit the coalition here to learn more and follow developments in your state.

Published October 30, 2025 at 06:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/L0srEtw

ACLU: What the First Amendment Really Protects

What the First Amendment Really Protects

The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. It allows us to express our views, challenge authority, and engage in public debate. In recent years, however, these freedoms have come under intense scrutiny; from debates over protests on college campuses to concerns about government retaliation against journalists and activists. Understanding what the First Amendment protects is more important than ever.

Today, Americans face new challenges to free expression: increasing restrictions on the right to protest to government censorship, and limits on free speech in schools and on campuses. Immigrants, students, and public employees have all faced threats to their rights, highlighting the need to stay informed about what the Constitution guarantees.

We know you have questions. Below, you’ll find answers to some of the most pressing questions we’ve received about the First Amendment in our series “Your Questions Answered.”

Hanna Stolzer/ACLU

---

What Does the First Amendment Actually Protect?

The First Amendment safeguards five core freedoms: speech, press, religion, assembly, and petitioning the government. It not only protects your right to say what you believe – it protects your right not to be forced to agree with something you disagree with. These rights apply to popular opinions and unpopular ones alike.

Importantly, the First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship, but it does not apply to private actors like employers or social media companies. This means a private company can legally fire an employee for their speech, a consequence that would not be permissible if the employer were the government.

Schools are largely considered to be a place where speech is protected. In the 1960s, when a high school tried to punish students for wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ruled that the protest could continue as long as it wasn't disruptive because students don't lose their First Amendment rights in school.

---

Can Non-Citizens Be Legally Deported For Exercising Their Rights?

Non-citizens in the United States have First Amendment rights and those rights protect against punishment or retaliation (including through deportation) for speech. But in reality, government agencies sometimes use other legal tools (like alleged/pretextual immigration violations) to silence dissent.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, was arrested by ICE agents because of his advocacy on Columbia’s campus. His past detention, and threatened deportation, violate his First Amendment rights and hinge on an unprecedented and unconstitutional application of a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act referred to as the “foreign policy ground.”

---

Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?

“Hate speech” isn’t a legal category of speech in the United States, but in short, yes. The government cannot punish someone simply for expressing hateful views. Allowing the government to define what counts as “hateful” opens us up to the government classifying anything it doesn’t like as hate. Moreover, political speech often includes heated rhetoric or speech that some may consider hateful. However, where speech constitutes harassment, true threats, or incitement to violence, it is not protected.

Recently, the University of Florida defended its decision to expel law student Preston Damsky over a series of antisemitic social media posts, asserting that his comments disrupted the educational environment. The case will test if the disruption standard – developed under Tinker – is appropriate in higher education, where the ACLU believes there must be a higher standard to protect the free expression rights of adults.

---

Does the First Amendment Apply on Social Media or at Work?

The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not rules set by private companies or employers. That means private platforms, employers, or TV networks can set their own rules about what employees or users can say, as long as those rules are made free from government interference or pressure. But if a platform is going to operate like a global public square, we encourage it to take freedom of expression seriously.

Recently, Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily taken off the air after the government threatened to retaliate against ABC, his employer. Because the government pressured a private party to censor content, it raised serious First Amendment concerns.

---

What Is A SLAPP Suit — And How Does It Affect Free Speech?

A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is when someone sues another to punish them for their speech, even if the case has no merit. The real goal is to make speaking out too expensive or risky by saddling people with legal fees just for using their voice.

In 2024, Columbia University faculty voiced support for students’ right to protest during campus protests over the Israel-Palestine conflict and criticized the university’s authorization of police action against students. In response, several Columbia students filed a lawsuit against the faculty organization, claiming it should be held liable for Columbia’s decisions to move classes online, restrict access to campus, and cancel commencement. The ACLU argues the case is a clear SLAPP suit aimed at silencing protected speech.

---

Is Protesting in the Streets Protected by the First Amendment?

Peaceful protest is protected. Blocking roads or refusing to disperse may lead to arrest, but even as the government might be able to restrict such activity, it can't target protestors for the viewpoint they’re expressing.

It’s important to remember that no matter what uniform they wear, law enforcement and military troops are bound by the Constitution, which means that our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures still apply and set important legal limits. For example, the ACLU of D.C. is representing a person who was arrested after protesting the National Guard members’ presence in D.C. by walking behind them while playing “The Imperial March” on his phone and recording. As Michael Perloff from ACLU of D.C. explains, “The government doesn't get to decide if your protest is funny, and government officials can’t punish you for making them the punchline. That’s really the whole point of the First Amendment.”

---

Do We Have First Amendment Rights at School?

Yes — students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, and the First Amendment protects their ability to express opinions, even on controversial issues. However, schools are also responsible for maintaining a safe and orderly learning environment, which means they may impose reasonable limits on speech that substantially disrupts classroom activities, promotes violence, or targets others with threats or harassment. The challenge — and the legal battleground — often lies in determining where protected expression ends and actionable misconduct begins.

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania high school violated a student’s First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the cheer team for posting a Snapchat saying “Fuck school, Fuck cheer.” The court held that schools have limited authority to punish off-campus speech, reaffirming strong protections for students’ free expression outside school grounds.

---

What is Academic Freedom and What Does it Protect?

Academic freedom is a “special concern” of the First Amendment that allows professors and scholars to research and debate freely, without government interference.

In 2022, Florida educators and students challenged the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” arguing that its restrictions on teaching about race and gender violated the First and 14th Amendments by censoring academic speech and imposing vague, discriminatory standards. A trial court blocked the law in higher education. The case is still on appeal, but serves as a key test of whether public universities can remain spaces for open inquiry or be subject to government-controlled instruction.

Published October 30, 2025 at 11:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/5gFEHKv

ACLU: What the First Amendment Really Protects

What the First Amendment Really Protects

The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. It allows us to express our views, challenge authority, and engage in public debate. In recent years, however, these freedoms have come under intense scrutiny; from debates over protests on college campuses to concerns about government retaliation against journalists and activists. Understanding what the First Amendment protects is more important than ever.

Today, Americans face new challenges to free expression: increasing restrictions on the right to protest to government censorship, and limits on free speech in schools and on campuses. Immigrants, students, and public employees have all faced threats to their rights, highlighting the need to stay informed about what the Constitution guarantees.

We know you have questions. Below, you’ll find answers to some of the most pressing questions we’ve received about the First Amendment in our series “Your Questions Answered.”

Hanna Stolzer/ACLU

---

What Does the First Amendment Actually Protect?

The First Amendment safeguards five core freedoms: speech, press, religion, assembly, and petitioning the government. It not only protects your right to say what you believe – it protects your right not to be forced to agree with something you disagree with. These rights apply to popular opinions and unpopular ones alike.

Importantly, the First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship, but it does not apply to private actors like employers or social media companies. This means a private company can legally fire an employee for their speech, a consequence that would not be permissible if the employer were the government.

Schools are largely considered to be a place where speech is protected. In the 1960s, when a high school tried to punish students for wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ruled that the protest could continue as long as it wasn't disruptive because students don't lose their First Amendment rights in school.

---

Can Non-Citizens Be Legally Deported For Exercising Their Rights?

Non-citizens in the United States have First Amendment rights and those rights protect against punishment or retaliation (including through deportation) for speech. But in reality, government agencies sometimes use other legal tools (like alleged/pretextual immigration violations) to silence dissent.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, was arrested by ICE agents because of his advocacy on Columbia’s campus. His past detention, and threatened deportation, violate his First Amendment rights and hinge on an unprecedented and unconstitutional application of a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act referred to as the “foreign policy ground.”

---

Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?

“Hate speech” isn’t a legal category of speech in the United States, but in short, yes. The government cannot punish someone simply for expressing hateful views. Allowing the government to define what counts as “hateful” opens us up to the government classifying anything it doesn’t like as hate. Moreover, political speech often includes heated rhetoric or speech that some may consider hateful. However, where speech constitutes harassment, true threats, or incitement to violence, it is not protected.

Recently, the University of Florida defended its decision to expel law student Preston Damsky over a series of antisemitic social media posts, asserting that his comments disrupted the educational environment. The case will test if the disruption standard – developed under Tinker – is appropriate in higher education, where the ACLU believes there must be a higher standard to protect the free expression rights of adults.

---

Does the First Amendment Apply on Social Media or at Work?

The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not rules set by private companies or employers. That means private platforms, employers, or TV networks can set their own rules about what employees or users can say, as long as those rules are made free from government interference or pressure. But if a platform is going to operate like a global public square, we encourage it to take freedom of expression seriously.

Recently, Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily taken off the air after the government threatened to retaliate against ABC, his employer. Because the government pressured a private party to censor content, it raised serious First Amendment concerns.

---

What Is A SLAPP Suit — And How Does It Affect Free Speech?

A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is when someone sues another to punish them for their speech, even if the case has no merit. The real goal is to make speaking out too expensive or risky by saddling people with legal fees just for using their voice.

In 2024, Columbia University faculty voiced support for students’ right to protest during campus protests over the Israel-Palestine conflict and criticized the university’s authorization of police action against students. In response, several Columbia students filed a lawsuit against the faculty organization, claiming it should be held liable for Columbia’s decisions to move classes online, restrict access to campus, and cancel commencement. The ACLU argues the case is a clear SLAPP suit aimed at silencing protected speech.

---

Is Protesting in the Streets Protected by the First Amendment?

Peaceful protest is protected. Blocking roads or refusing to disperse may lead to arrest, but even as the government might be able to restrict such activity, it can't target protestors for the viewpoint they’re expressing.

It’s important to remember that no matter what uniform they wear, law enforcement and military troops are bound by the Constitution, which means that our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures still apply and set important legal limits. For example, the ACLU of D.C. is representing a person who was arrested after protesting the National Guard members’ presence in D.C. by walking behind them while playing “The Imperial March” on his phone and recording. As Michael Perloff from ACLU of D.C. explains, “The government doesn't get to decide if your protest is funny, and government officials can’t punish you for making them the punchline. That’s really the whole point of the First Amendment.”

---

Do We Have First Amendment Rights at School?

Yes — students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, and the First Amendment protects their ability to express opinions, even on controversial issues. However, schools are also responsible for maintaining a safe and orderly learning environment, which means they may impose reasonable limits on speech that substantially disrupts classroom activities, promotes violence, or targets others with threats or harassment. The challenge — and the legal battleground — often lies in determining where protected expression ends and actionable misconduct begins.

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania high school violated a student’s First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the cheer team for posting a Snapchat saying “Fuck school, Fuck cheer.” The court held that schools have limited authority to punish off-campus speech, reaffirming strong protections for students’ free expression outside school grounds.

---

What is Academic Freedom and What Does it Protect?

Academic freedom is a “special concern” of the First Amendment that allows professors and scholars to research and debate freely, without government interference.

In 2022, Florida educators and students challenged the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” arguing that its restrictions on teaching about race and gender violated the First and 14th Amendments by censoring academic speech and imposing vague, discriminatory standards. A trial court blocked the law in higher education. The case is still on appeal, but serves as a key test of whether public universities can remain spaces for open inquiry or be subject to government-controlled instruction.

Published October 30, 2025 at 05:39PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/SqaRC4A

ACLU: How Governors and Mayors Can Protect Nonprofits from Trump's NSPM-7

How Governors and Mayors Can Protect Nonprofits from Trump's NSPM-7

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump has decided to muster the full power of the federal government to threaten and persecute his perceived political enemies. Many of America’s crown jewel cities – like Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, and Washington, D.C. – have been threatened with or endured the unjustifiable deployment of National Guard troops and federal agents, including masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Current and former law enforcement officials who dared to cross the president, like former FBI Director James Comey and current New York State Attorney General Letitia James, are now being indicted based on trumped up charges that career federal prosecutors previously rejected as meritless. And the number of groups and communities -- such as immigrants, transgender persons, journalists, and human rights protestors --Trump has targeted because he either deems them insufficiently subservient to his administration or believes such attacks will further whip up his MAGA base seems to grow daily.

As an ACLU senior policy counsel whose work focuses on government surveillance, I have developed a great familiarity with how authoritarian-leaning governments use oppressive tools and tactics to persecute their opposition and instill fear amongst their populations. Accordingly, I was deeply troubled but not the least surprised when, on September 25, President Trump launched the latest salvo in the federal government’s efforts to target Trump’s political opponents, which came in the form of National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7. Under the guise of “countering domestic terrorism and organized political violence,” NSPM-7 directs the United States attorney general and the secretaries of state, the treasury, and homeland security to “request operational assistance from and coordinate with law enforcement partners,” to identify, target and investigate “institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations” who engage in vaguely defined and potentially First Amendment-protected speech and activity the Trump administration views unfavorably.

Make no mistake – when NSPM-7 orders federal law enforcement to “coordinate and supervise a comprehensive national strategy to investigate, prosecute, and disrupt entities and individuals” President Trump views as political opponents, he is focusing his sights on two groups in particular: non-profits and charitable foundations.

In response to this threat, more than 3,700 politically diverse non-profits and charities condemned the issuance of NSPM-7, correctly stating that “No president–Democrat or Republican–should have the power to punish nonprofit organizations simply because he disagrees with them. That is not about protecting Americans or defending the public interest. It is about using unchecked power to silence opposition and voices [Trump] disagrees with.”

The widespread condemnation of NSPM-7 is a good start, but an effective response requires more. Fortunately, Trump’s NSPM-7 strategy includes an Achilles’ heel that the ACLU has long noted exists in many of his efforts to target his opponents and vulnerable populations. Namely, to most effectively engage in these attacks, his administration needs the assistance of state and local governments. That weakness presents our nation’s governors and mayors with a critical opportunity to hinder the president's NSPM-7 efforts.

This needed cooperation goes well beyond receiving on-the-ground assistance from state and local personnel. From state and local law enforcement agencies, to departments of taxation and finance, to public school systems, to motor vehicle and other licensing agencies -- states and localities possess troves of highly-sensitive data that can be used to identify, target, and persecute non-profits, charities, those who work for and with these organizations, and those who benefit from their efforts.

As someone who used to work for a large municipal agency, I know full well that voluntary information sharing between agencies at all levels of government is commonplace and encouraged. This is the case for two reasons: First, when another government agency requests data from your agency, there is a sense your relationship will be impacted. If you voluntarily provide the information, your relationship gets stronger, but if you deny the request, it might suffer. Second, there is a mutual back-scratching element at play: if your agency provides the requested data now, when it asks for data later, it is more likely to have its prior cooperation reciprocated. In both cases, there is a strong institutional incentive to voluntarily provide the requested information.

In the current political climate, this common practice has become dangerous and, at least as it applies to cooperating with NSPM-7's federally-directed efforts to target nonprofits, charitable foundations, and their supporters and beneficiaries, needs to stop.

And our governors and mayors have the power to make that happen.

The ACLU has drafted model gubernatorial and mayoral executive orders that prohibit voluntary cooperation with efforts to effectuate NSPM-7's attacks on non-profits and charities, including the voluntary provision of data and other information. Under the model orders, even where a government employee is unsure of a request’s motive but reasonably suspects it might be in support of the Trump administration’s targeting of non-profits, charities, and their leaders and employees, the executive orders mandate that states and localities err on the side of caution and refuse to provide the data.

There is an exception to this rule, based on the independence and political neutrality of America’s courts: if and only if the federal agency obtains a valid judicial warrant or other court order will the requested information be turned over. The challenge for the federal agencies tasked with effectuating NSPM-7's mandate is that, to get a warrant or court order, they (or any other law enforcement agency acting on their behalf) must demonstrate to a judge that their request is based on probable cause and individualized suspicion or other more neutral standards, which politically-motivated fishing expeditions will struggle to meet.

Fighting against Trump’s authoritarian impulses is hard work, but undermining his effort to target the non-profit organizations and charitable foundations that deeply benefit our country and society is comparatively easy. All our nation’s governors and mayors need to do to address this urgent threat is to summon the courage to wield the greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy: their pens.

Please call on your state’s governor and your local mayor to immediately issue an executive order protecting non-profits and charitable foundations from politically-motivated targeting by the federal government. The model executive orders are ready and awaiting their signatures.

Published October 29, 2025 at 01:57AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/K1rhIe8

ACLU: How Governors and Mayors Can Protect Nonprofits from Trump's NSPM-7

How Governors and Mayors Can Protect Nonprofits from Trump's NSPM-7

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump has decided to muster the full power of the federal government to threaten and persecute his perceived political enemies. Many of America’s crown jewel cities – like Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, and Washington, D.C. – have been threatened with or endured the unjustifiable deployment of National Guard troops and federal agents, including masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Current and former law enforcement officials who dared to cross the president, like former FBI Director James Comey and current New York State Attorney General Letitia James, are now being indicted based on trumped up charges that career federal prosecutors previously rejected as meritless. And the number of groups and communities -- such as immigrants, transgender persons, journalists, and human rights protestors --Trump has targeted because he either deems them insufficiently subservient to his administration or believes such attacks will further whip up his MAGA base seems to grow daily.

As an ACLU senior policy counsel whose work focuses on government surveillance, I have developed a great familiarity with how authoritarian-leaning governments use oppressive tools and tactics to persecute their opposition and instill fear amongst their populations. Accordingly, I was deeply troubled but not the least surprised when, on September 25, President Trump launched the latest salvo in the federal government’s efforts to target Trump’s political opponents, which came in the form of National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7. Under the guise of “countering domestic terrorism and organized political violence,” NSPM-7 directs the United States attorney general and the secretaries of state, the treasury, and homeland security to “request operational assistance from and coordinate with law enforcement partners,” to identify, target and investigate “institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations” who engage in vaguely defined and potentially First Amendment-protected speech and activity the Trump administration views unfavorably.

Make no mistake – when NSPM-7 orders federal law enforcement to “coordinate and supervise a comprehensive national strategy to investigate, prosecute, and disrupt entities and individuals” President Trump views as political opponents, he is focusing his sights on two groups in particular: non-profits and charitable foundations.

In response to this threat, more than 3,700 politically diverse non-profits and charities condemned the issuance of NSPM-7, correctly stating that “No president–Democrat or Republican–should have the power to punish nonprofit organizations simply because he disagrees with them. That is not about protecting Americans or defending the public interest. It is about using unchecked power to silence opposition and voices [Trump] disagrees with.”

The widespread condemnation of NSPM-7 is a good start, but an effective response requires more. Fortunately, Trump’s NSPM-7 strategy includes an Achilles’ heel that the ACLU has long noted exists in many of his efforts to target his opponents and vulnerable populations. Namely, to most effectively engage in these attacks, his administration needs the assistance of state and local governments. That weakness presents our nation’s governors and mayors with a critical opportunity to hinder the president's NSPM-7 efforts.

This needed cooperation goes well beyond receiving on-the-ground assistance from state and local personnel. From state and local law enforcement agencies, to departments of taxation and finance, to public school systems, to motor vehicle and other licensing agencies -- states and localities possess troves of highly-sensitive data that can be used to identify, target, and persecute non-profits, charities, those who work for and with these organizations, and those who benefit from their efforts.

As someone who used to work for a large municipal agency, I know full well that voluntary information sharing between agencies at all levels of government is commonplace and encouraged. This is the case for two reasons: First, when another government agency requests data from your agency, there is a sense your relationship will be impacted. If you voluntarily provide the information, your relationship gets stronger, but if you deny the request, it might suffer. Second, there is a mutual back-scratching element at play: if your agency provides the requested data now, when it asks for data later, it is more likely to have its prior cooperation reciprocated. In both cases, there is a strong institutional incentive to voluntarily provide the requested information.

In the current political climate, this common practice has become dangerous and, at least as it applies to cooperating with NSPM-7's federally-directed efforts to target nonprofits, charitable foundations, and their supporters and beneficiaries, needs to stop.

And our governors and mayors have the power to make that happen.

The ACLU has drafted model gubernatorial and mayoral executive orders that prohibit voluntary cooperation with efforts to effectuate NSPM-7's attacks on non-profits and charities, including the voluntary provision of data and other information. Under the model orders, even where a government employee is unsure of a request’s motive but reasonably suspects it might be in support of the Trump administration’s targeting of non-profits, charities, and their leaders and employees, the executive orders mandate that states and localities err on the side of caution and refuse to provide the data.

There is an exception to this rule, based on the independence and political neutrality of America’s courts: if and only if the federal agency obtains a valid judicial warrant or other court order will the requested information be turned over. The challenge for the federal agencies tasked with effectuating NSPM-7's mandate is that, to get a warrant or court order, they (or any other law enforcement agency acting on their behalf) must demonstrate to a judge that their request is based on probable cause and individualized suspicion or other more neutral standards, which politically-motivated fishing expeditions will struggle to meet.

Fighting against Trump’s authoritarian impulses is hard work, but undermining his effort to target the non-profit organizations and charitable foundations that deeply benefit our country and society is comparatively easy. All our nation’s governors and mayors need to do to address this urgent threat is to summon the courage to wield the greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy: their pens.

Please call on your state’s governor and your local mayor to immediately issue an executive order protecting non-profits and charitable foundations from politically-motivated targeting by the federal government. The model executive orders are ready and awaiting their signatures.

Published October 28, 2025 at 08:27PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vYdulbB

ACLU: Government Pressure to Suspend Jimmy Kimmel Was an Abuse of Power

Government Pressure to Suspend Jimmy Kimmel Was an Abuse of Power

Earlier this month, Jimmy Kimmel joined a long line of comedians and entertainers to survive the government’s attempt to limit free speech.

“Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave right now. (He’s dead, right?),” Kimmel said during the opening monologue on his first show back after ABC suspended his late-night talk show. “Look, I never imagined I would be in a situation like this. I barely paid attention in school. But one thing I did learn from Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Howard Stern is that a government threat to silence a comedian the president doesn’t like is anti-American. That’s anti-American.”

In our next installment of “Press in Peril,” our series on the value of a free press, we explore how the Trump administration’s attempt to censor late-night entertainment is an abuse of power, and how this administration’s attempts stand apart historically.

FCC Takes Action Against Jimmy Kimmel and Pressures Networks

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened affiliate broadcast licenses if they did not “take action” against Kimmel for remarks he made on his show. ABC’s parent company, Disney, suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in mid-September following pressure from the FCC.

Carr’s threat was met with wide-spread outrage, with many individuals, prominent organizations, and the artist community, naming how dangerous Kimmel’s suspension is for free speech. The ACLU issued a letter cosigned by 475 artists, reading in part: “In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board. This runs counter to the values our nation was built upon, and our Constitution guarantees.”

In part because of the outcry, ABC announced Kimmel would return to the air six days after his suspension. Still, Nexstar and Sinclair, which own about 25% of local ABC affiliate stations across the country, refused to air the show on their stations. Both companies have business before the FCC, and hold some of the broadcast licenses threatened by Carr. Following additional public outrage and action from the ACLU directed at Nexstar and Sinclair, Kimmel’s show returned to television screens across the country.

“The president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from our jobs. Our leader celebrates Americans losing their livelihoods because he can’t take a joke. He was somehow able to squeeze Colbert out of CBS. Then he turned his sights on me,” Kimmel said during his return. “We have to speak out against this because he’s not stopping.”

Comedy Has Historically Faced Censorship Issues

The attack on Kimmel came as a shock to free speech experts, who recognized it as an attempt to drastically expand the powers the FCC has to regulate content.

The FCC has only limited authority to police the airwaves. According to the FCC’s website, “The limitations on the FCC's power to restrict or ban speech begin with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which decrees that the federal government ‘shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’" The FCC does, however, have limited authority to police broadcasts for indecency, which it can relegate to just late night hours, and obscenity, which it can bar from the air altogether.

In 1962, the comedian Lenny Bruce was criminally convicted of obscenity and indecency. That conviction was later overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court. Notably, the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, but the definition of obscenity requires an assessment of whether material lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." That element gave considerable leeway to prosecutors. As a result, Bruce was charged with obscenity or indecency multiple times throughout the 1960s, marking a dark time for freedom of speech in America.

Bruce’s struggles inspired future entertainers like George Carlin to challenge social norms in their work. Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” bit – which satirized the seven words you can’t say on television – was meant to highlight the absurdity of why some vulgar words were so bad to hear. Carlin’s routine, and one of the radio stations that played it, first came under fire through an FCC complaint that claimed it was inappropriate for minors.

A radio station that was threatened with punishment for airing Carlin’s bit sued, and several years later, the case became a critical turning point for the FCC’s regulatory powers. The Supreme Court deemed Carlin’s routine indecent but not obscene and allowed the FCC to regulate what time indecent content could be aired. But, summarizing the debates over regulation and obscenity that continue to this day, then-Supreme Court Justice William Brennan dissented and called it a misapplication of free speech principles: "The Court's decision may be seen for what, in the broader perspective, it really is: another of the dominant culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who do not share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking."

But even compared to debates over indecency and obscenity regulations, attempts to censor Kimmel were clearly different. The network faced threats to have its broadcast license revoked by the FCC based upon the political viewpoint and perceived accuracy of a joke. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, which prevents the government from regulating any kind of speech based on its political stance, and largely precludes the government from acting as the “truth police.”

President Donald Trump himself has encouraged this move by the FCC to silence criticism in the late-night scene, often claiming that criticism is inaccurate. He once noted that all the major networks should have their broadcast licenses revoked because they are “97% against me.” Shortly after Kimmel’s show was first suspended, President Trump posted on Truth Social: “Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”

But the constitution is stronger than the president's social media accounts would suggest, and his administration's power over late night is finite, if we continue to stand up to abuses of power like this one.

President Trump Cannot Silence Media He Disagrees With

A free and independent press is critical to our democracy, but the administration has made clear that they intend to intimidate and silence any reporting the president dislikes. The Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act would block the FCC from revoking broadcast licenses or imposing unjust conditions on transaction approvals for broadcasters based on the viewpoints they broadcast. Introduced in March by Senator Ben Ray Lujan and Representative Doris Matsui, the bill is our chance to rein in these out-of-control and unconstitutional attacks.

A free and independent press is foundational to our democracy – and that includes our right to make a joke.

Published October 29, 2025 at 12:38AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lZi8yO3

ACLU: Government Pressure to Suspend Jimmy Kimmel Was an Abuse of Power

Government Pressure to Suspend Jimmy Kimmel Was an Abuse of Power

Earlier this month, Jimmy Kimmel joined a long line of comedians and entertainers to survive the government’s attempt to limit free speech.

“Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave right now. (He’s dead, right?),” Kimmel said during the opening monologue on his first show back after ABC suspended his late-night talk show. “Look, I never imagined I would be in a situation like this. I barely paid attention in school. But one thing I did learn from Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Howard Stern is that a government threat to silence a comedian the president doesn’t like is anti-American. That’s anti-American.”

In our next installment of “Press in Peril,” our series on the value of a free press, we explore how the Trump administration’s attempt to censor late-night entertainment is an abuse of power, and how this administration’s attempts stand apart historically.

FCC Takes Action Against Jimmy Kimmel and Pressures Networks

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened affiliate broadcast licenses if they did not “take action” against Kimmel for remarks he made on his show. ABC’s parent company, Disney, suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in mid-September following pressure from the FCC.

Carr’s threat was met with wide-spread outrage, with many individuals, prominent organizations, and the artist community, naming how dangerous Kimmel’s suspension is for free speech. The ACLU issued a letter cosigned by 475 artists, reading in part: “In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board. This runs counter to the values our nation was built upon, and our Constitution guarantees.”

In part because of the outcry, ABC announced Kimmel would return to the air six days after his suspension. Still, Nexstar and Sinclair, which own about 25% of local ABC affiliate stations across the country, refused to air the show on their stations. Both companies have business before the FCC, and hold some of the broadcast licenses threatened by Carr. Following additional public outrage and action from the ACLU directed at Nexstar and Sinclair, Kimmel’s show returned to television screens across the country.

“The president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from our jobs. Our leader celebrates Americans losing their livelihoods because he can’t take a joke. He was somehow able to squeeze Colbert out of CBS. Then he turned his sights on me,” Kimmel said during his return. “We have to speak out against this because he’s not stopping.”

Comedy Has Historically Faced Censorship Issues

The attack on Kimmel came as a shock to free speech experts, who recognized it as an attempt to drastically expand the powers the FCC has to regulate content.

The FCC has only limited authority to police the airwaves. According to the FCC’s website, “The limitations on the FCC's power to restrict or ban speech begin with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which decrees that the federal government ‘shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’" The FCC does, however, have limited authority to police broadcasts for indecency, which it can relegate to just late night hours, and obscenity, which it can bar from the air altogether.

In 1962, the comedian Lenny Bruce was criminally convicted of obscenity and indecency. That conviction was later overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court. Notably, the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, but the definition of obscenity requires an assessment of whether material lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." That element gave considerable leeway to prosecutors. As a result, Bruce was charged with obscenity or indecency multiple times throughout the 1960s, marking a dark time for freedom of speech in America.

Bruce’s struggles inspired future entertainers like George Carlin to challenge social norms in their work. Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” bit – which satirized the seven words you can’t say on television – was meant to highlight the absurdity of why some vulgar words were so bad to hear. Carlin’s routine, and one of the radio stations that played it, first came under fire through an FCC complaint that claimed it was inappropriate for minors.

A radio station that was threatened with punishment for airing Carlin’s bit sued, and several years later, the case became a critical turning point for the FCC’s regulatory powers. The Supreme Court deemed Carlin’s routine indecent but not obscene and allowed the FCC to regulate what time indecent content could be aired. But, summarizing the debates over regulation and obscenity that continue to this day, then-Supreme Court Justice William Brennan dissented and called it a misapplication of free speech principles: "The Court's decision may be seen for what, in the broader perspective, it really is: another of the dominant culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who do not share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking."

But even compared to debates over indecency and obscenity regulations, attempts to censor Kimmel were clearly different. The network faced threats to have its broadcast license revoked by the FCC based upon the political viewpoint and perceived accuracy of a joke. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, which prevents the government from regulating any kind of speech based on its political stance, and largely precludes the government from acting as the “truth police.”

President Donald Trump himself has encouraged this move by the FCC to silence criticism in the late-night scene, often claiming that criticism is inaccurate. He once noted that all the major networks should have their broadcast licenses revoked because they are “97% against me.” Shortly after Kimmel’s show was first suspended, President Trump posted on Truth Social: “Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”

But the constitution is stronger than the president's social media accounts would suggest, and his administration's power over late night is finite, if we continue to stand up to abuses of power like this one.

President Trump Cannot Silence Media He Disagrees With

A free and independent press is critical to our democracy, but the administration has made clear that they intend to intimidate and silence any reporting the president dislikes. The Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act would block the FCC from revoking broadcast licenses or imposing unjust conditions on transaction approvals for broadcasters based on the viewpoints they broadcast. Introduced in March by Senator Ben Ray Lujan and Representative Doris Matsui, the bill is our chance to rein in these out-of-control and unconstitutional attacks.

A free and independent press is foundational to our democracy – and that includes our right to make a joke.

Published October 28, 2025 at 07:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/6s2HRoy

ACLU: Pregnant and Postpartum Women Face Neglect and Abuse in ICE Detention

Pregnant and Postpartum Women Face Neglect and Abuse in ICE Detention

*Names have been changed to protect identities

Shackled and chained while miscarrying, denied prenatal care, given inadequate food and water—these are the conditions that pregnant women in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention must endure.

Despite its own directive advising against detaining pregnant individuals, ICE has increasingly held pregnant immigrants in facilities across the country, where abuse and medical neglect go unchecked. Over the past nine months, the ACLU and partner immigrant rights groups, including the National Immigration Project, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Sanctuary of the South, and SNAP, interviewed more than a dozen pregnant women who described horrific treatment at ICE facilities. We found widespread neglect and repeated violations of federal policy.

“Immigration detention is known for medical neglect, abusive conditions, and utter disregard for the dignity of people in ICE’s custody,” says Eunice Cho, senior counsel at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, who co-authored a letter to ICE documenting these conditions. “Still, what we heard from the pregnant women we interviewed are some of the most horrifying stories I’ve heard about detention.”

Although ICE has stopped publicly reporting the number of pregnant individuals it detains, and has refused to provide this information to Congress, ICE acknowledged that Basile, a detention center in south Louisiana, was holding 14 pregnant women as of April 2025. That number reflects a broader trend of detaining people who should qualify for release under federal regulations, which require the release of women “medically certified as pregnant.”

Interviews with detained women reveal that ICE officers have arrested pregnant individuals even after they informed staff of their pregnancies, including survivors of domestic violence, who are at heightened risk.

In April 2025, Alicia* arrived for her routine ICE check-in in Louisiana and was detained without warning, sent to Basile. She soon discovered she was pregnant. She was taken to a local hospital for a blood test, but no one explained her medical treatment or provided interpretation. In detention, she received small portions of poor-quality food that left her feeling weak and hungry. By May, Alicia began experiencing severe abdominal pain, cramping, and bleeding. She reported her symptoms to facility staff, who transported her to an emergency room, where medical personnel performed an invasive uterine test without her consent, injected her with an unknown medication, and later informed her that she had miscarried.

Despite this miscarriage, ICE returned her to Basile that night and detained her for two more months. She continued to experience heavy bleeding, swelling, fever, and severe uterine pain, submitting repeated sick call requests that went unanswered. In July 2025, ICE deported Alicia, separating her from her children, and she later sought hospital care for a severe infection acquired while in custody.

Alicia’s experience is far from unique. Marie,* a graduate student and lawful visitor to the United States, was detained for more than 20 weeks at Basile during her high-risk pregnancy. Although she had informed ICE officers that she was pregnant, officers placed in solitary confinement after transferring her thousands of miles from the U.S-Canada border to Basile. She was not sent for medical treatment until other detained women advocated for her. Inside the facility, Marie said the food was often inedible and when she asked about missing prenatal vitamins, a nurse told her, “You won’t die if you don’t take them.”

Marie was released only after legal advocates intervened, but after her detention she developed eclampsia, endured a difficult delivery, and continues to struggle with postpartum depression linked to her detention trauma.

Other women’s stories mirror these experiences. Lucia,* who was detained after appearing for a regular check-in appointment with ICE, began to experience heavy vaginal bleeding in the middle of the night when she was two months pregnant. She requested immediate medical attention, but was not taken to see medical staff for several hours. Instead, medical staff took her to a small room and left her bleeding alone without providing her any food, water, or pain medication. Later that evening, after a significant loss of blood, she was taken to the emergency room, with her arms and legs shackled as she was actively miscarrying. When she arrived at the hospital, she required a blood transfusion because she had suffered a miscarriage.

Julieta,* detained for two months despite having a valid visa, was shackled at the ankles, hands, and waist during cross-country transport and feared that poor nutrition and stress could endanger her pregnancy. Ana,* six months pregnant and still in detention, was denied prenatal vitamins and meaningful medical care. Jenny,* visibly pregnant when detained in February 2025, was restrained during transport, suffered vomiting, diarrhea, and vaginal bleeding, and had limited access to drinking water.

Together, these accounts depict a systemic pattern of cruelty and medical neglect toward pregnant women in ICE custody, in direct violation of agency prohibitions on detaining and restraining pregnant individuals.

“The stories that are represented in this letter are just the tip of the iceberg,” Cho told NBC News earlier this month. “You have women who are talking about being shackled and restrained while they’re actively miscarrying; you have women begging and pleading for things as basic as prenatal vitamins and being denied.”

The ACLU and partners are calling on ICE to act immediately to address this systemic abuse. In a letter to Congress, advocates urged the agency to identify and release all pregnant, postpartum, and nursing individuals and to follow its own directives prohibiting detention except in rare circumstances. They also recommended establishing a clear process for pregnant detainees to request timely release, ensuring access to medical care that meets community standards, investigating neglect and abuse at Basile, and closing facilities that have repeatedly violated detention standards designed to protect pregnant and postpartum individuals.

Published October 28, 2025 at 02:37AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yDgKrV0

ACLU: Pregnant and Postpartum Women Face Neglect and Abuse in ICE Detention

Pregnant and Postpartum Women Face Neglect and Abuse in ICE Detention

*Names have been changed to protect identities

Shackled and chained while miscarrying, denied prenatal care, given inadequate food and water—these are the conditions that pregnant women in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention must endure.

Despite its own directive advising against detaining pregnant individuals, ICE has increasingly held pregnant immigrants in facilities across the country, where abuse and medical neglect go unchecked. Over the past nine months, the ACLU and partner immigrant rights groups, including the National Immigration Project, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Sanctuary of the South, and SNAP, interviewed more than a dozen pregnant women who described horrific treatment at ICE facilities. We found widespread neglect and repeated violations of federal policy.

“Immigration detention is known for medical neglect, abusive conditions, and utter disregard for the dignity of people in ICE’s custody,” says Eunice Cho, senior counsel at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, who co-authored a letter to ICE documenting these conditions. “Still, what we heard from the pregnant women we interviewed are some of the most horrifying stories I’ve heard about detention.”

Although ICE has stopped publicly reporting the number of pregnant individuals it detains, and has refused to provide this information to Congress, ICE acknowledged that Basile, a detention center in south Louisiana, was holding 14 pregnant women as of April 2025. That number reflects a broader trend of detaining people who should qualify for release under federal regulations, which require the release of women “medically certified as pregnant.”

Interviews with detained women reveal that ICE officers have arrested pregnant individuals even after they informed staff of their pregnancies, including survivors of domestic violence, who are at heightened risk.

In April 2025, Alicia* arrived for her routine ICE check-in in Louisiana and was detained without warning, sent to Basile. She soon discovered she was pregnant. She was taken to a local hospital for a blood test, but no one explained her medical treatment or provided interpretation. In detention, she received small portions of poor-quality food that left her feeling weak and hungry. By May, Alicia began experiencing severe abdominal pain, cramping, and bleeding. She reported her symptoms to facility staff, who transported her to an emergency room, where medical personnel performed an invasive uterine test without her consent, injected her with an unknown medication, and later informed her that she had miscarried.

Despite this miscarriage, ICE returned her to Basile that night and detained her for two more months. She continued to experience heavy bleeding, swelling, fever, and severe uterine pain, submitting repeated sick call requests that went unanswered. In July 2025, ICE deported Alicia, separating her from her children, and she later sought hospital care for a severe infection acquired while in custody.

Alicia’s experience is far from unique. Marie,* a graduate student and lawful visitor to the United States, was detained for more than 20 weeks at Basile during her high-risk pregnancy. Although she had informed ICE officers that she was pregnant, officers placed in solitary confinement after transferring her thousands of miles from the U.S-Canada border to Basile. She was not sent for medical treatment until other detained women advocated for her. Inside the facility, Marie said the food was often inedible and when she asked about missing prenatal vitamins, a nurse told her, “You won’t die if you don’t take them.”

Marie was released only after legal advocates intervened, but after her detention she developed eclampsia, endured a difficult delivery, and continues to struggle with postpartum depression linked to her detention trauma.

Other women’s stories mirror these experiences. Lucia,* who was detained after appearing for a regular check-in appointment with ICE, began to experience heavy vaginal bleeding in the middle of the night when she was two months pregnant. She requested immediate medical attention, but was not taken to see medical staff for several hours. Instead, medical staff took her to a small room and left her bleeding alone without providing her any food, water, or pain medication. Later that evening, after a significant loss of blood, she was taken to the emergency room, with her arms and legs shackled as she was actively miscarrying. When she arrived at the hospital, she required a blood transfusion because she had suffered a miscarriage.

Julieta,* detained for two months despite having a valid visa, was shackled at the ankles, hands, and waist during cross-country transport and feared that poor nutrition and stress could endanger her pregnancy. Ana,* six months pregnant and still in detention, was denied prenatal vitamins and meaningful medical care. Jenny,* visibly pregnant when detained in February 2025, was restrained during transport, suffered vomiting, diarrhea, and vaginal bleeding, and had limited access to drinking water.

Together, these accounts depict a systemic pattern of cruelty and medical neglect toward pregnant women in ICE custody, in direct violation of agency prohibitions on detaining and restraining pregnant individuals.

“The stories that are represented in this letter are just the tip of the iceberg,” Cho told NBC News earlier this month. “You have women who are talking about being shackled and restrained while they’re actively miscarrying; you have women begging and pleading for things as basic as prenatal vitamins and being denied.”

The ACLU and partners are calling on ICE to act immediately to address this systemic abuse. In a letter to Congress, advocates urged the agency to identify and release all pregnant, postpartum, and nursing individuals and to follow its own directives prohibiting detention except in rare circumstances. They also recommended establishing a clear process for pregnant detainees to request timely release, ensuring access to medical care that meets community standards, investigating neglect and abuse at Basile, and closing facilities that have repeatedly violated detention standards designed to protect pregnant and postpartum individuals.

Published October 27, 2025 at 09:07PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/5R3htTX

ACLU: Trump's Attempt to Roll Back Key Civil Rights-Enforcement Tool

Trump's Attempt to Roll Back Key Civil Rights-Enforcement Tool

On April 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at narrowing civil rights protections and directing federal agencies to roll back the use of the disparate impact standard in “all contexts to the maximum degree,” including across housing, lending, employment, education, and healthcare. The order represents a major reversal in civil rights protections undermining a critical enforcement tool that has for decades been used to challenge policies and practices that appear neutral but impose unjustified and discriminatory barriers for marginalized communities to housing, jobs, and more.

Just last month, for example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — the federal agency responsible for enforcing worker rights — announced it would stop investigating complaints about company policies that may disproportionately harm certain groups but don’t discriminate explicitly. The shift undermines decades of progress in workplace equality, stripping away a key mechanism that has helped expose and remedy hidden bias.

---

What is Disparate Impact Liability?

Federal civil rights laws protect against discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and age in housing, employment, education, and other aspects of society. When many of these laws were first enacted, they offered critical protections against overt forms of discrimination — like restaurants and stores that openly refused to serve Black customers — that not long before had been sanctioned by the federal government. At that time, Congress also recognized that discrimination isn’t always about intent, but is often built into systems and policies, and that civil rights protections were necessary to remedy longstanding patterns of systemic inequality in our country.

For these reasons, civil rights laws incorporate disparate-impact liability, which focuses on the consequences of policies on protected groups, not just the express motives for putting those policies in place. Ever since, disparate impact liability has been a vital tool in advancing equality. In 2014, the Supreme Court remarked on the role of disparate impact in Texas DHCA v. Inclusive Communities: “It permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment. In this way disparate-impact liability may prevent [discrimination] that might otherwise result from covert and illicit stereotyping.”

How Does Disparate Impact Liability Work?

First, disparate impact analysis asks whether there is a disparity caused by a particular policy or practice. Second, it asks if there is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory need for the policy. If so, it asks if there is an alternative way to meet the need that does not result in disparate impact. Statistics are an important part of disparate impact analysis, but they are never the sole facet of inquiry. The multistep road map provided by disparate impact analysis allows for careful consideration.

Disparate impact liability has advanced civil rights in many areas. In the housing sector, disparate impact suits have invalidated housing restrictions that arbitrarily and unfairly exclude people of color from certain neighborhoods, perpetuating segregation. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, St. Bernard Parish blocked the construction of affordable, multi-family housing and restricted housing rentals to blood relatives in an area that was roughly 88 percent white and 7 percent Black. For no good reason, these actions made it harder for Black people to live in the area. Disparate impact analysis was applied to challenge and invalidate these acts.

The Department of Education has also signaled its intent to do away with disparate impact enforcement, despite the important role this tool serves in ensuring all students have access to educational opportunities. First, investigating disparate impact can reveal evidence of discriminatory treatment. For example, a school may have a goal of reducing tardiness to maximize time in class. However, if Asian American students tend to live in a neighborhood furthest from the school and often experience bus delays, then the policy would cause them to receive a higher number of tardies, leading to school suspensions. A disparate impact analysis would prompt consideration of whether the school could redesign its bus routes to reduce delays, or look to alternatives to discipline for tardiness due to bus delays. Removing unfair and unnecessary barriers to education furthers equal opportunity. Ignoring them creates an unequal playing field for some schoolchildren.

The availability of disparate impact is also important for challenging emerging forms of discrimination. In the age of big data, employers, lenders, insurers and others have increasing access to data about us — things like where you shop, whether you just got married, whether you are interested in products for Black hair. Access to this data makes it easier to differentiate and target groups and easier to produce disparate impacts, affecting whether you see a job opportunity, how much you are charged for health insurance, or whether you are marketed a loan with high-risk terms. Thinking about disparate impacts is critical to ensuring that advances in technology don’t expand inequality and segregation.

How is the ACLU Fighting Back?

The ACLU has long relied on disparate impact liability as a tool to remove systemic barriers to opportunity in housing, employment, education, and beyond for historically marginalized people. For example, the ACLU has fought to remove unjust barriers to housing opportunities for Black women and other renters of color by challenging landlords’ use of blanket bans on prior eviction records, regardless of whether the eviction cases were dismissed, filed unlawfully, or occurred many years ago. The ACLU has also worked to end so-called “nuisance” and “crime-free” ordinances that unfairly and disproportionately jeopardize housing opportunities for people of color, immigrant families, domestic violence survivors, and people with disabilities.

The ACLU is committed to defending existing civil rights protections against disparate-impact discrimination. We have fought back against the administration’s efforts to rollback these critical protections, including by opposing the administration’s recent attempts to eliminate the Department of Energy’s disparate impact regulations and challenging its past attempt to gut the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s existing disparate-impact standards. No one should be unfairly excluded from equal access to opportunities in housing, employment, and education based on arbitrary and discriminatory policies and practices.

Published October 24, 2025 at 01:09AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/XoMEriN

ACLU: Trump's Attempt to Roll Back Key Civil Rights-Enforcement Tool

Trump's Attempt to Roll Back Key Civil Rights-Enforcement Tool

On April 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at narrowing civil rights protections and directing federal agencies to roll back the use of the disparate impact standard in “all contexts to the maximum degree,” including across housing, lending, employment, education, and healthcare. The order represents a major reversal in civil rights protections undermining a critical enforcement tool that has for decades been used to challenge policies and practices that appear neutral but impose unjustified and discriminatory barriers for marginalized communities to housing, jobs, and more.

Just last month, for example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — the federal agency responsible for enforcing worker rights — announced it would stop investigating complaints about company policies that may disproportionately harm certain groups but don’t discriminate explicitly. The shift undermines decades of progress in workplace equality, stripping away a key mechanism that has helped expose and remedy hidden bias.

---

What is Disparate Impact Liability?

Federal civil rights laws protect against discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and age in housing, employment, education, and other aspects of society. When many of these laws were first enacted, they offered critical protections against overt forms of discrimination — like restaurants and stores that openly refused to serve Black customers — that not long before had been sanctioned by the federal government. At that time, Congress also recognized that discrimination isn’t always about intent, but is often built into systems and policies, and that civil rights protections were necessary to remedy longstanding patterns of systemic inequality in our country.

For these reasons, civil rights laws incorporate disparate-impact liability, which focuses on the consequences of policies on protected groups, not just the express motives for putting those policies in place. Ever since, disparate impact liability has been a vital tool in advancing equality. In 2014, the Supreme Court remarked on the role of disparate impact in Texas DHCA v. Inclusive Communities: “It permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment. In this way disparate-impact liability may prevent [discrimination] that might otherwise result from covert and illicit stereotyping.”

How Does Disparate Impact Liability Work?

First, disparate impact analysis asks whether there is a disparity caused by a particular policy or practice. Second, it asks if there is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory need for the policy. If so, it asks if there is an alternative way to meet the need that does not result in disparate impact. Statistics are an important part of disparate impact analysis, but they are never the sole facet of inquiry. The multistep road map provided by disparate impact analysis allows for careful consideration.

Disparate impact liability has advanced civil rights in many areas. In the housing sector, disparate impact suits have invalidated housing restrictions that arbitrarily and unfairly exclude people of color from certain neighborhoods, perpetuating segregation. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, St. Bernard Parish blocked the construction of affordable, multi-family housing and restricted housing rentals to blood relatives in an area that was roughly 88 percent white and 7 percent Black. For no good reason, these actions made it harder for Black people to live in the area. Disparate impact analysis was applied to challenge and invalidate these acts.

The Department of Education has also signaled its intent to do away with disparate impact enforcement, despite the important role this tool serves in ensuring all students have access to educational opportunities. First, investigating disparate impact can reveal evidence of discriminatory treatment. For example, a school may have a goal of reducing tardiness to maximize time in class. However, if Asian American students tend to live in a neighborhood furthest from the school and often experience bus delays, then the policy would cause them to receive a higher number of tardies, leading to school suspensions. A disparate impact analysis would prompt consideration of whether the school could redesign its bus routes to reduce delays, or look to alternatives to discipline for tardiness due to bus delays. Removing unfair and unnecessary barriers to education furthers equal opportunity. Ignoring them creates an unequal playing field for some schoolchildren.

The availability of disparate impact is also important for challenging emerging forms of discrimination. In the age of big data, employers, lenders, insurers and others have increasing access to data about us — things like where you shop, whether you just got married, whether you are interested in products for Black hair. Access to this data makes it easier to differentiate and target groups and easier to produce disparate impacts, affecting whether you see a job opportunity, how much you are charged for health insurance, or whether you are marketed a loan with high-risk terms. Thinking about disparate impacts is critical to ensuring that advances in technology don’t expand inequality and segregation.

How is the ACLU Fighting Back?

The ACLU has long relied on disparate impact liability as a tool to remove systemic barriers to opportunity in housing, employment, education, and beyond for historically marginalized people. For example, the ACLU has fought to remove unjust barriers to housing opportunities for Black women and other renters of color by challenging landlords’ use of blanket bans on prior eviction records, regardless of whether the eviction cases were dismissed, filed unlawfully, or occurred many years ago. The ACLU has also worked to end so-called “nuisance” and “crime-free” ordinances that unfairly and disproportionately jeopardize housing opportunities for people of color, immigrant families, domestic violence survivors, and people with disabilities.

The ACLU is committed to defending existing civil rights protections against disparate-impact discrimination. We have fought back against the administration’s efforts to rollback these critical protections, including by opposing the administration’s recent attempts to eliminate the Department of Energy’s disparate impact regulations and challenging its past attempt to gut the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s existing disparate-impact standards. No one should be unfairly excluded from equal access to opportunities in housing, employment, and education based on arbitrary and discriminatory policies and practices.

Published October 23, 2025 at 08:39PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kW3Stex