ACLU: Our Holiday Book Guide for Justice-Minded Readers

Our Holiday Book Guide for Justice-Minded Readers

For nearly a century, the ACLU has defended the freedom to read and to think for every American. As we approach the holiday season, we’ve selected a list of books about civil liberties, fitted perfectly with some of our most popular products to make the perfect gift for family members and friends.

This holiday season, we’re celebrating the power of stories with a curated collection of books, paired with unique items from the ACLU Shop, such as our banned book collection, aprons, tote bags, and more. Whether you’re gifting a thought-provoking read or a statement-making accessory, each purchase supports the ACLU’s mission to protect free speech and the right to learn.

Since 2021, thousands of book titles have been challenged or removed from school libraries, often targeting BIPOC authors, LGBTQ+ creators, and other marginalized voices. These efforts to ban books and restrict discussions, especially on race, gender, sexuality, and systemic injustice, are both unlawful and a serious threat to our right to learn.

Our series, “ACLU Reads,” lets you join our fight and pick up the texts, novels, nonfiction stories, essays, and more that help us form a more perfect union – one page at a time.

So you need a gift for …

Published November 21, 2025 at 04:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4vcCxRQ

ACLU: Our Holiday Book Guide for Justice-Minded Readers

Our Holiday Book Guide for Justice-Minded Readers

For nearly a century, the ACLU has defended the freedom to read and to think for every American. As we approach the holiday season, we’ve selected a list of books about civil liberties, fitted perfectly with some of our most popular products to make the perfect gift for family members and friends.

This holiday season, we’re celebrating the power of stories with a curated collection of books, paired with unique items from the ACLU Shop, such as our banned book collection, aprons, tote bags, and more. Whether you’re gifting a thought-provoking read or a statement-making accessory, each purchase supports the ACLU’s mission to protect free speech and the right to learn.

Since 2021, thousands of book titles have been challenged or removed from school libraries, often targeting BIPOC authors, LGBTQ+ creators, and other marginalized voices. These efforts to ban books and restrict discussions, especially on race, gender, sexuality, and systemic injustice, are both unlawful and a serious threat to our right to learn.

Our series, “ACLU Reads,” lets you join our fight and pick up the texts, novels, nonfiction stories, essays, and more that help us form a more perfect union – one page at a time.

So you need a gift for …

Published November 21, 2025 at 10:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/U0QPiWX

ACLU: Gary Tyler Spent 42 Years on Death Row. Racism Put Him There.

Gary Tyler Spent 42 Years on Death Row. Racism Put Him There.

Gary Tyler, 67, spent more than four decades on death row in one of the most notorious prisons in the country for a crime he didn’t commit.

In 1974, Tyler was one of a group of Black students bused into a formerly all-white Louisiana high school under court-ordered desegregation. When a white mob attacked their bus on October 16, a white boy was killed. Tyler became a suspect, was tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree murder by an all-white jury. Tyler received a death sentence and was sent to Angola, the largest maximum-security prison in the country, at only 17.

Tyler’s case represents how racial discrimination and systemic injustice continue to infect our legal system. As a new ACLU report explains, the modern death penalty grew directly out of the racist legacy of lynching, and that history continues to shape who is charged, convicted, and sentenced to die today.

Since 1973, shortly before Tyler’s arrest, at least 200 people have been exonerated from death row. More than half were Black. Our research shows the same patterns again and again: official misconduct is the leading cause of wrongful capital convictions, especially for Black defendants; false testimony appears in nearly 70 percent of wrongful death-penalty cases; eyewitness misidentification contributes to more than one in five; and unreliable or discredited forensic evidence plays a role in about a third. These errors are compounded by juries that are disproportionately white – like in Tyler’s case – due to discriminatory jury selection, and by police, prosecutors, judges, and jurors operating under both implicit and explicit racial bias.

The human toll of each wrongful conviction is enormous. Tyler spent more than 40 years in Angola. During that time, his supporters and lawyers attempted to raise awareness about the racial discrimination that plagued his case. In 2016, 42 years after he was wrongfully convicted, Tyler was released from prison at age 57. Many people like Tyler are never released. Since 1976, at least 21 people have been executed even though they were very likely innocent.

Tyler’s memoir, Stitching Freedom, exposes the injustices in the American legal system, tracing his journey from his arrest and conviction as a teenager, through the brutal realities of Angola prison, to his eventual release and ongoing fight for justice. Tyler recently joined the ACLU to discuss how discrimination in the American legal system can lead to wrongful convictions and devastating sentences for the innocent.

ACLU: Your story shows how quickly a community’s fear and anger can turn into a demand for punishment. When you look back on the external pressure to “solve” the crime in your case, what do you see about how that pressure shaped what happened to you?

TYLER: At the time of my trial, white Americans in the South were actively pushing back against the freedoms the Civil Rights Movement were securing for Black Americans. That included busing Black children to white schools. White Americans felt they’d been personally targeted. This political environment directly impacted the outcome in my case.

For Black defendants like me, there was no benefit of the doubt or real due process. That’s why we had so many Blacks lynched and murdered. Any Black person who spoke up about mistreatment was automatically targeted and treated like a perpetrator. The police department would get a defendant and beat him, trying to get a confession.

Exacerbating the bias in my case was that, at the time of my arrest, Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke had been in Boston protesting busing with former Representative Louise Hicks, a staunch opponent of segregation. Duke saw what happened in my small Louisiana town as a chance to galvanize the white community to foment racial hatred and take vengeance. This meant a Black person accused of killing a white person was going to have to pay with his life.

ACLU: You’ve spoken about the misconduct and false testimony that led to your conviction. What do you think drives people within the system—police, prosecutors, even witnesses—to cross that line between mistake and misconduct?

TYLER: What drives far too many police and prosecutors is racial bias and wanting to hold onto power by criminalizing the innocent. In my case, they coerced the students on the bus to get them to say things that fit the police narrative. Officers preyed on the fears of adolescents, threatening long prison terms if these young people didn’t lie in their testimony. It was an abuse of power designed to protect the power they claimed for themselves. It was clear the priority was to reach a conviction, regardless of whether or not they had the right person.

ACLU: Our report points out that wrongful convictions are not accidents but predictable outcomes of bias and pressure. From your perspective, what changes—or reckonings—would have to happen before you’d call the system “just”?

TYLER: We need big, systemic changes to stop injustice and make a difference. Prisons shouldn’t be for warehousing people and making profits for big corporations. When I went to prison in 1974, there were 300,000 people in prisons across the country. Now there’s more than 2.2 million. The prison-industrial complex is about profiting off people’s free labor, imposing excessive sentences, and forcing people to confess in plea deals.

We need to mandate changes so due process is implemented across the board. There needs to be thorough investigations; vetting of police methods to stop coerced confessions and plea deals; fair and proper representation for the accused, not just a public defender who lacks experience and funds to effectively represent their client; and trials that are actually speedy. We need an end to the death penalty and excessive sentences, greater reliance on restorative justice. Importantly, juries need to be thoroughly vetted and chosen according to the racial make-up of the area to really be a jury of peers. Ultimately, we need a reimagination of the system from one that is designed for profit, utilizing human labor for pennies, to one that is a place for education, training, and rehabilitation.

ACLU: You spent more than four decades inside Angola, a prison built on the grounds of a former plantation. How did that setting shape your understanding of race, punishment, and the legacy of slavery in America?

TYLER: I didn’t know the prison was a former slave plantation when I got there. I also didn’t know about the convict leasing that took place after the Civil War, where states leased out prisoners, overwhelmingly Black men, to private businesses as a source of cheap labor. I didn’t know about the laws that allowed police to arrest Black people for so-called “vagrancy” just to force them to work, often for the same plantations that had enslaved them.

But I saw that the way Black Americans were treated when we were enslaved was replicated at the prison: guards were brutal, prisoners were forced to work in the fields to pick cotton for practically nothing, and prisoners were denied education. I saw how the prison allotted certain privileges to white prisoners, how cells and dorms and jobs were all segregated.

Older, politically-engaged prisoners helped educate me about these racist legacies, and about the need to inform the public about what had happened to me. They gave me books about class and race and the history of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery except for those convicted of a crime.

ACLU: In Stitching Freedom, you write about turning to quilting as a form of survival. How did creativity become a path to reclaiming your humanity when the system tried to strip it away?

TYLER: During my time at Angola, I joined a hospice program to support my fellow inmates, particularly those impacted by the AIDS crisis in the 80s. Quilting was a way for hospice volunteers to do something for the program. We had only meager donations. We wanted to meet the needs of the dying, give them decent things like a radio, soap, books and magazines, good food, pajamas and slippers. Once I realized that I could use applique in quilting, I started making quilts with artistic designs and themes like the rodeo, quilts that had a message and dealt with prison life. My friends called me Nyeusi Kuumba, or Black Creativity. I knew this was an avenue for me to keep my sanity and humanity, knowing it would bring a smile to those I made the quilts for and also tell a story.

After I got out, I wanted my quilts to reflect on the lives of those serving time in prison. I wanted to reflect my experience at Angola and my encounters with other people, and how my life transitioned into what it is today. I wanted to show defiance, and the humanity of those incarcerated.

ACLU: Now that you’re free and sharing your story, what do you hope people understand, not just about wrongful convictions, but about the human cost of a system that still carries those same roots of racial violence?

TYLER: The human cost is enormous. It is impossible to measure the psychological trauma and economic hardship imparted on the incarcerated, their families and their communities. This carceral system uses the labor of Black people for private profit and, at the same time, denies them effective medical attention, decent nutrition and access to a high standard of education that allows them to be employed once they’re out. People question the high rate of recidivism without realizing how it is related to the lack of economic opportunity and preparedness. Marginalizing people has devastating consequences and adds to the growing inequality that maintains poverty and great harm for children, families and communities.

Published November 21, 2025 at 01:53AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/93W6cxF

ACLU: Gary Tyler Spent 42 Years on Death Row. Racism Put Him There.

Gary Tyler Spent 42 Years on Death Row. Racism Put Him There.

Gary Tyler, 67, spent more than four decades on death row in one of the most notorious prisons in the country for a crime he didn’t commit.

In 1974, Tyler was one of a group of Black students bused into a formerly all-white Louisiana high school under court-ordered desegregation. When a white mob attacked their bus on October 16, a white boy was killed. Tyler became a suspect, was tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree murder by an all-white jury. Tyler received a death sentence and was sent to Angola, the largest maximum-security prison in the country, at only 17.

Tyler’s case represents how racial discrimination and systemic injustice continue to infect our legal system. As a new ACLU report explains, the modern death penalty grew directly out of the racist legacy of lynching, and that history continues to shape who is charged, convicted, and sentenced to die today.

Since 1973, shortly before Tyler’s arrest, at least 200 people have been exonerated from death row. More than half were Black. Our research shows the same patterns again and again: official misconduct is the leading cause of wrongful capital convictions, especially for Black defendants; false testimony appears in nearly 70 percent of wrongful death-penalty cases; eyewitness misidentification contributes to more than one in five; and unreliable or discredited forensic evidence plays a role in about a third. These errors are compounded by juries that are disproportionately white – like in Tyler’s case – due to discriminatory jury selection, and by police, prosecutors, judges, and jurors operating under both implicit and explicit racial bias.

The human toll of each wrongful conviction is enormous. Tyler spent more than 40 years in Angola. During that time, his supporters and lawyers attempted to raise awareness about the racial discrimination that plagued his case. In 2016, 42 years after he was wrongfully convicted, Tyler was released from prison at age 57. Many people like Tyler are never released. Since 1976, at least 21 people have been executed even though they were very likely innocent.

Tyler’s memoir, Stitching Freedom, exposes the injustices in the American legal system, tracing his journey from his arrest and conviction as a teenager, through the brutal realities of Angola prison, to his eventual release and ongoing fight for justice. Tyler recently joined the ACLU to discuss how discrimination in the American legal system can lead to wrongful convictions and devastating sentences for the innocent.

ACLU: Your story shows how quickly a community’s fear and anger can turn into a demand for punishment. When you look back on the external pressure to “solve” the crime in your case, what do you see about how that pressure shaped what happened to you?

TYLER: At the time of my trial, white Americans in the South were actively pushing back against the freedoms the Civil Rights Movement were securing for Black Americans. That included busing Black children to white schools. White Americans felt they’d been personally targeted. This political environment directly impacted the outcome in my case.

For Black defendants like me, there was no benefit of the doubt or real due process. That’s why we had so many Blacks lynched and murdered. Any Black person who spoke up about mistreatment was automatically targeted and treated like a perpetrator. The police department would get a defendant and beat him, trying to get a confession.

Exacerbating the bias in my case was that, at the time of my arrest, Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke had been in Boston protesting busing with former Representative Louise Hicks, a staunch opponent of segregation. Duke saw what happened in my small Louisiana town as a chance to galvanize the white community to foment racial hatred and take vengeance. This meant a Black person accused of killing a white person was going to have to pay with his life.

ACLU: You’ve spoken about the misconduct and false testimony that led to your conviction. What do you think drives people within the system—police, prosecutors, even witnesses—to cross that line between mistake and misconduct?

TYLER: What drives far too many police and prosecutors is racial bias and wanting to hold onto power by criminalizing the innocent. In my case, they coerced the students on the bus to get them to say things that fit the police narrative. Officers preyed on the fears of adolescents, threatening long prison terms if these young people didn’t lie in their testimony. It was an abuse of power designed to protect the power they claimed for themselves. It was clear the priority was to reach a conviction, regardless of whether or not they had the right person.

ACLU: Our report points out that wrongful convictions are not accidents but predictable outcomes of bias and pressure. From your perspective, what changes—or reckonings—would have to happen before you’d call the system “just”?

TYLER: We need big, systemic changes to stop injustice and make a difference. Prisons shouldn’t be for warehousing people and making profits for big corporations. When I went to prison in 1974, there were 300,000 people in prisons across the country. Now there’s more than 2.2 million. The prison-industrial complex is about profiting off people’s free labor, imposing excessive sentences, and forcing people to confess in plea deals.

We need to mandate changes so due process is implemented across the board. There needs to be thorough investigations; vetting of police methods to stop coerced confessions and plea deals; fair and proper representation for the accused, not just a public defender who lacks experience and funds to effectively represent their client; and trials that are actually speedy. We need an end to the death penalty and excessive sentences, greater reliance on restorative justice. Importantly, juries need to be thoroughly vetted and chosen according to the racial make-up of the area to really be a jury of peers. Ultimately, we need a reimagination of the system from one that is designed for profit, utilizing human labor for pennies, to one that is a place for education, training, and rehabilitation.

ACLU: You spent more than four decades inside Angola, a prison built on the grounds of a former plantation. How did that setting shape your understanding of race, punishment, and the legacy of slavery in America?

TYLER: I didn’t know the prison was a former slave plantation when I got there. I also didn’t know about the convict leasing that took place after the Civil War, where states leased out prisoners, overwhelmingly Black men, to private businesses as a source of cheap labor. I didn’t know about the laws that allowed police to arrest Black people for so-called “vagrancy” just to force them to work, often for the same plantations that had enslaved them.

But I saw that the way Black Americans were treated when we were enslaved was replicated at the prison: guards were brutal, prisoners were forced to work in the fields to pick cotton for practically nothing, and prisoners were denied education. I saw how the prison allotted certain privileges to white prisoners, how cells and dorms and jobs were all segregated.

Older, politically-engaged prisoners helped educate me about these racist legacies, and about the need to inform the public about what had happened to me. They gave me books about class and race and the history of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery except for those convicted of a crime.

ACLU: In Stitching Freedom, you write about turning to quilting as a form of survival. How did creativity become a path to reclaiming your humanity when the system tried to strip it away?

TYLER: During my time at Angola, I joined a hospice program to support my fellow inmates, particularly those impacted by the AIDS crisis in the 80s. Quilting was a way for hospice volunteers to do something for the program. We had only meager donations. We wanted to meet the needs of the dying, give them decent things like a radio, soap, books and magazines, good food, pajamas and slippers. Once I realized that I could use applique in quilting, I started making quilts with artistic designs and themes like the rodeo, quilts that had a message and dealt with prison life. My friends called me Nyeusi Kuumba, or Black Creativity. I knew this was an avenue for me to keep my sanity and humanity, knowing it would bring a smile to those I made the quilts for and also tell a story.

After I got out, I wanted my quilts to reflect on the lives of those serving time in prison. I wanted to reflect my experience at Angola and my encounters with other people, and how my life transitioned into what it is today. I wanted to show defiance, and the humanity of those incarcerated.

ACLU: Now that you’re free and sharing your story, what do you hope people understand, not just about wrongful convictions, but about the human cost of a system that still carries those same roots of racial violence?

TYLER: The human cost is enormous. It is impossible to measure the psychological trauma and economic hardship imparted on the incarcerated, their families and their communities. This carceral system uses the labor of Black people for private profit and, at the same time, denies them effective medical attention, decent nutrition and access to a high standard of education that allows them to be employed once they’re out. People question the high rate of recidivism without realizing how it is related to the lack of economic opportunity and preparedness. Marginalizing people has devastating consequences and adds to the growing inequality that maintains poverty and great harm for children, families and communities.

Published November 20, 2025 at 08:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Py4kTBe

ACLU: Veterans Demand Congress Pull Troops from American Cities

Veterans Demand Congress Pull Troops from American Cities

Troops do not belong on our streets.

That’s what more than 40 of my brothers and sisters in arms will tell Congress today. The ACLU, Common Defense, and the Chamberlain Network join these veterans on Capitol Hill, where they’re urging all our elected representatives to stop the Trump administration’s misuse of the military. We know that putting troops in our communities for political purposes breaks public trust and is disrespectful to their service.

Guided By Service

This mobilization on Capitol Hill is a seminal moment for those pushing back on the Trump administration’s abuses of power -- and it’s one I relate to. My family has served this country for multiple generations. I’m a veteran myself, a former U.S. Army captain, and someone who feels strongly that we need to go to congresspeople, not wait for them to come to us.

When I was commissioned in 2000, it was uncommon for women to be assigned to combat arms branches, and I was one of only a handful of women assigned to the Field Artillery, a combat arms branch. Although other women officers were sent to work in training units, I fought for and won an assignment with a forces command (FORSCOM) unit, joined my unit shortly before September 11, 2001 and subsequently deployed in 2003. While most soldiers carried religious items on them, as a young Army officer deployed overseas, I had a pocket U.S. Constitution in the lining of my helmet because I believed so deeply in the values I swore an oath to defend.

"I had a pocket U.S. Constitution in the lining of my helmet because I believed so deeply in the values I swore an oath to defend."

This year marks the 250th birthday of the Army, Marines, and Navy. We can’t let our armed forces, which were created to defend our liberties, devolve into an arm of someone’s political pursuits. But that’s what we have seen take place this year. President Donald Trump and his administration have sent troops into our communities and enacted policies that roll back civil rights progress.

The constitution Jessica kept in her helmet while she served.

Credit: Jessica Apgar

Already we’ve seen President Trump federalize National Guard troops and other service members to cities under the guise of keeping communities safe. Often, this is happening without the consent of state governors and officials. As a veteran, I am working every day to stop this abuse of power.

Military Troops Do Not Belong on Our Streets

I’m joining the dozens of veterans on Capitol Hill for the same reason I first joined the military years ago: to protect and defend the Constitution. The oath didn’t end when I took off my uniform, and as commander in chief, President Trump also took an oath to protect the Constitution.

In the United States, the federal military should not be used for domestic law enforcement. That is a fundamental principle embodied in the Posse Comitatus Act, one that helps separate our democracy from dictatorships abroad. History shows what happens when we cross that line. The tragedy at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970, when National Guard troops shot at student demonstrators, proves that putting military troops in our communities can result in disastrous consequences. National Guard troops should be reserved for genuine emergencies, not deployed to our cities to serve the president’s political whims. Kent State continues to serve as a reminder of what happens when we comingle military troops and policing of civilians.

President Trump’s ongoing use of militarized force is not about safety; it’s about asserting power. Over the summer, his administration sent troops and armed federal agents into Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles. His administration continues to threaten to send them to Chicago, and Portland despite objections from city and state leaders.

Military troops -- and armed federal agents in masks who appropriate military uniforms -- do not make our communities safer or safeguard our rights. These deployments erode the public’s trust in a non-partisan military when our neighbors struggle to understand why troops are patrolling their communities, or to distinguish between National Guard and federal agents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents often wear military-style uniforms or gear, creating confusion that further erodes public trust. True safety comes from strong and supported communities, not from local militarization. That’s why so many veterans, active-duty service members, and military families have joined the ACLU and others in condemning these dangerous and escalatory actions.

The Politicization of the Military Must Stop

Time and again, we’ve seen how, when the military crosses the line to civilian law enforcement, the fabric of our democracy decays. The Trump administration’s dangerous misuse of the military does not begin or end with troops deployed to our cities. It extends to the politicization of the military itself.

In September, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of senior military leaders to Quantico and delivered remarks attacking the principles of equity and accountability. President Trump followed with a disturbing address urging troops to use U.S. cities as “training grounds” to fight the “enemy within.” These are not the words of leaders strengthening national defense; this is a weaponization of the military that threatens our Constitution.

Secretary Hegseth’s agenda goes further. He has moved to weaken service members’ ability to report assault, harassment, and discrimination. He also called for combat standards to “return to the highest male standard,” even though all combat roles have been gender-neutral since 2016. He spent his first months in office purging the highest levels of the military of women leaders and Black senior officers, as well as axing the Women, Peace, and Security Program that was started in the president’s first term.

As one of the few women who served in a combat arms role before it officially opened up, these attempts to dismantle progress towards the military becoming more welcoming are barbaric. The strength of our military has always come from its professionalism and unity of purpose, not from political loyalty. When leaders use the armed forces to promote a partisan political agenda, they betray the values our service members swear to defend.

When we plague the military with politics, we reduce the effectiveness of a force that is supposed to be ready for real emergencies. Our troops deserve leadership that values service to the Constitution over service to any specific president. It’s what we took an oath to do.

How We Can Act

America must be a place where everyone is safe in their neighborhoods and free to speak their minds. When troops are on our streets, we make one of our founders’ biggest fears – that a leader will send his army to police the people – a dangerous reality. Congress must act now to protect our freedoms by pulling troops out of our cities. It has the power to restrict any future deployments into our cities.

I stand with the veterans on Capitol Hill. We must lawfully protest troops on our streets and end the politicization of the military. I know my fellow veterans are not alone in asking our government to do right by our troops. All Americans must join together, on Capitol Hill and beyond, to urge the Trump administration to withdraw federal troops from our neighborhoods now.

Today, we sent a message to Congress in person doing exactly that. We urged them to co-sponsor the Military in Law Enforcement Accountability Act in the Senate and the National Guard Proper Use Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. These are vital steps to curbing the president’s ability to deploy National Guard troops for improper domestic law enforcement.

I am proud of my service to this country. Most of all, I want to ensure our military remains a respected institution in service to the people, not a single president, for the next 250 years.

Published November 19, 2025 at 02:55AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fmno6My

ACLU: Veterans Demand Congress Pull Troops from American Cities

Veterans Demand Congress Pull Troops from American Cities

Troops do not belong on our streets.

That’s what more than 40 of my brothers and sisters in arms will tell Congress today. The ACLU, Common Defense, and the Chamberlain Network join these veterans on Capitol Hill, where they’re urging all our elected representatives to stop the Trump administration’s misuse of the military. We know that putting troops in our communities for political purposes breaks public trust and is disrespectful to their service.

Guided By Service

This mobilization on Capitol Hill is a seminal moment for those pushing back on the Trump administration’s abuses of power -- and it’s one I relate to. My family has served this country for multiple generations. I’m a veteran myself, a former U.S. Army captain, and someone who feels strongly that we need to go to congresspeople, not wait for them to come to us.

When I was commissioned in 2000, it was uncommon for women to be assigned to combat arms branches, and I was one of only a handful of women assigned to the Field Artillery, a combat arms branch. Although other women officers were sent to work in training units, I fought for and won an assignment with a forces command (FORSCOM) unit, joined my unit shortly before September 11, 2001 and subsequently deployed in 2003. While most soldiers carried religious items on them, as a young Army officer deployed overseas, I had a pocket U.S. Constitution in the lining of my helmet because I believed so deeply in the values I swore an oath to defend.

"I had a pocket U.S. Constitution in the lining of my helmet because I believed so deeply in the values I swore an oath to defend."

This year marks the 250th birthday of the Army, Marines, and Navy. We can’t let our armed forces, which were created to defend our liberties, devolve into an arm of someone’s political pursuits. But that’s what we have seen take place this year. President Donald Trump and his administration have sent troops into our communities and enacted policies that roll back civil rights progress.

The constitution Jessica kept in her helmet while she served.

Credit: Jessica Apgar

Already we’ve seen President Trump federalize National Guard troops and other service members to cities under the guise of keeping communities safe. Often, this is happening without the consent of state governors and officials. As a veteran, I am working every day to stop this abuse of power.

Military Troops Do Not Belong on Our Streets

I’m joining the dozens of veterans on Capitol Hill for the same reason I first joined the military years ago: to protect and defend the Constitution. The oath didn’t end when I took off my uniform, and as commander in chief, President Trump also took an oath to protect the Constitution.

In the United States, the federal military should not be used for domestic law enforcement. That is a fundamental principle embodied in the Posse Comitatus Act, one that helps separate our democracy from dictatorships abroad. History shows what happens when we cross that line. The tragedy at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970, when National Guard troops shot at student demonstrators, proves that putting military troops in our communities can result in disastrous consequences. National Guard troops should be reserved for genuine emergencies, not deployed to our cities to serve the president’s political whims. Kent State continues to serve as a reminder of what happens when we comingle military troops and policing of civilians.

President Trump’s ongoing use of militarized force is not about safety; it’s about asserting power. Over the summer, his administration sent troops and armed federal agents into Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles. His administration continues to threaten to send them to Chicago, and Portland despite objections from city and state leaders.

Military troops -- and armed federal agents in masks who appropriate military uniforms -- do not make our communities safer or safeguard our rights. These deployments erode the public’s trust in a non-partisan military when our neighbors struggle to understand why troops are patrolling their communities, or to distinguish between National Guard and federal agents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents often wear military-style uniforms or gear, creating confusion that further erodes public trust. True safety comes from strong and supported communities, not from local militarization. That’s why so many veterans, active-duty service members, and military families have joined the ACLU and others in condemning these dangerous and escalatory actions.

The Politicization of the Military Must Stop

Time and again, we’ve seen how, when the military crosses the line to civilian law enforcement, the fabric of our democracy decays. The Trump administration’s dangerous misuse of the military does not begin or end with troops deployed to our cities. It extends to the politicization of the military itself.

In September, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of senior military leaders to Quantico and delivered remarks attacking the principles of equity and accountability. President Trump followed with a disturbing address urging troops to use U.S. cities as “training grounds” to fight the “enemy within.” These are not the words of leaders strengthening national defense; this is a weaponization of the military that threatens our Constitution.

Secretary Hegseth’s agenda goes further. He has moved to weaken service members’ ability to report assault, harassment, and discrimination. He also called for combat standards to “return to the highest male standard,” even though all combat roles have been gender-neutral since 2016. He spent his first months in office purging the highest levels of the military of women leaders and Black senior officers, as well as axing the Women, Peace, and Security Program that was started in the president’s first term.

As one of the few women who served in a combat arms role before it officially opened up, these attempts to dismantle progress towards the military becoming more welcoming are barbaric. The strength of our military has always come from its professionalism and unity of purpose, not from political loyalty. When leaders use the armed forces to promote a partisan political agenda, they betray the values our service members swear to defend.

When we plague the military with politics, we reduce the effectiveness of a force that is supposed to be ready for real emergencies. Our troops deserve leadership that values service to the Constitution over service to any specific president. It’s what we took an oath to do.

How We Can Act

America must be a place where everyone is safe in their neighborhoods and free to speak their minds. When troops are on our streets, we make one of our founders’ biggest fears – that a leader will send his army to police the people – a dangerous reality. Congress must act now to protect our freedoms by pulling troops out of our cities. It has the power to restrict any future deployments into our cities.

I stand with the veterans on Capitol Hill. We must lawfully protest troops on our streets and end the politicization of the military. I know my fellow veterans are not alone in asking our government to do right by our troops. All Americans must join together, on Capitol Hill and beyond, to urge the Trump administration to withdraw federal troops from our neighborhoods now.

Today, we sent a message to Congress in person doing exactly that. We urged them to co-sponsor the Military in Law Enforcement Accountability Act in the Senate and the National Guard Proper Use Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. These are vital steps to curbing the president’s ability to deploy National Guard troops for improper domestic law enforcement.

I am proud of my service to this country. Most of all, I want to ensure our military remains a respected institution in service to the people, not a single president, for the next 250 years.

Published November 18, 2025 at 09:25PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rUXZQMk

ACLU: Your Smartphone, Their Rules: How App Stores Enable Corporate-Government Censorship

Your Smartphone, Their Rules: How App Stores Enable Corporate-Government Censorship

Subscribe to the Free Future Newsletter
Free Future home

Who controls what you can do on your mobile phone? What happens when your device can only run what the government decides is OK? We are dangerously close to this kind of totalitarian control, thanks to a combination of government overreach and technocratic infrastructure choices.

Most Americans have a smartphone, and the average American spends over 5 hours a day on their phone. While these devices are critical to most people’s daily lives, what they can actually do is shaped by what apps are readily available. A slim majority of American smartphone users use an iPhone, which means they can only install apps available from Apple’s AppStore. Nearly all the rest of US smartphone users use some variant of Android, and by default they get their apps from Google’s Play Store.

Collectively, these two app stores shape the universe of what is available to most people as they use the Internet and make their way through their daily lives. When those app stores block or limit apps based on government requests, they are shaping what people can do, say, communicate, and experience.

Recently, Apple pulled an app called ICEBlock from the AppStore, making it unavailable in one fell swoop. This app was designed to let people anonymously report public sightings of ICE agents. In the United States people absolutely have a First Amendment right to inform others about what they have seen government officials doing and where — very much including immigration agents whose tactics have been controversial and violent. Apple pulled the ICEBlock app at the demand of the US Department of Justice. The following day, Google pulled a similar app called Red Dot from the Google Play Store.

The DOJ’s pressuring of Apple is an unacceptable, censorious overreach. And Google’s subsequent removal of Red Dot looks like troubling premature capitulation. While some experts and activists have expressed concerns over ICEBlock’s design and development practices, those concerns are no reason for the government to meddle in software distribution. The administration’s ostensible free speech warriors are trying to shape how Americans can communicate with each other about matters of pressing political concern.

Infrastructure choices
But the government’s overreach isn’t the whole story here. The current structure of the mobile phone ecosystem enables this kind of abuse and control.

Apple’s iOS (the operating system for any iPhone) is designed to only be able to run apps from the AppStore. If Apple hasn’t signed off on it, the app won’t run. This centralized control is ripe for abuse:

• Apple has handed the Chinese government control over what apps are available to iPhone users in China, including banning gay dating apps.
• The corporation has used its authority over the AppStore to block a game that critiqued its labor practices.
• Apple’s guidelines say that “’Enemies’ within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific … government, corporation, or any other real entity.” That represents a potential for sweeping censorship of anyone who wants to use the art of games to criticize companies or otherwise advance political messages.
• It banned the popular game Fortnite from the App Store as it was battling the gamemaker to get a bigger cut of money from user transactions.
• In 2012 Apple rejected an app that compiled reports of highly controversial overseas drone strikes by the U.S. government during the “War on Terror.”

Unlike Apple, Google’s Android operating system has traditionally allowed relatively easy access to “sideloading”, which just means installing apps through means other than Google’s Play Store. Although most installations default to getting apps from the Play Store, the availability of sideloading means that even if Google censors apps in the Play Store, people can still install them. Even apps critical of Google can make it onto an Android device. It’s also possible to run a variant of Android without the Play Store at all, such as GrapheneOS.

Unfortunately that is all set to change with a recent Google announcement that it will block apps from “certified Android” devices (which is nearly all Android phones) unless they come from what Google calls a “verified developer.” This means that the common Android user trying to install an app will have to get Google’s blessing: does this app come from someone that Google has “verified”? How Google will decide who is allowed to be verified and who is not is still unclear. Can a developer become “unverified”?

This upcoming change is framed by Google as a security measure, but merely knowing the identity of the developer of an app doesn’t provide any security. So the only way that the “verified developer” requirement can offer security is if Google withholds “verified developer” status from people it deems bad actors. But Google’s ability to withhold that status can be abused in the same way that Apple’s AppStore lock-in is being abused. A government will simply make a demand: “treat this developer as a bad actor” and effectively cut off any app by targeting its developer.

When a lever of control is available, the would-be censors will try to use it. It has never been true that someone who buys a Lenovo or Dell laptop, for example, has to let Lenovo or Dell tell them what programs they can and cannot install on their computer. Yet that will soon be the situation with regards to nearly all cell phones used in the United States.

Note that American iPhones are limited to only apps from the AppStore, but European Union (EU) iPhones don’t have that restriction. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) required Apple to permit alternate app stores and sideloading (which Apple calls “web distribution”). As a result, marketplaces like AltStore are starting to become available — but Apple only lets EU customers use them. The European regime is not perfect, however; while sideloaded apps and alternative app stores aren’t subject to the app store’s constraints, they are still obliged to follow Apple’s “Notarization” requirements, which requires Apple to review all iOS apps – even from these alternate sources – on the basis of several vaguely worded rationales. For example, if the DoJ were to claim that ICEBlock “promoted physical harm” (even though it clearly does not), Apple could use this as an excuse to justify revoking their notarization of the app, which would prevent it from being installed even from these alternate channels.

App store security and surveillance
Both Apple and Google make claims that their app distribution mechanisms improve security for their users. And clearly, these tech giants do block some abusive apps by exercising the control they have.

But both of them also regularly allow apps that contain common malicious patterns, including many apps built with surveillance tooling that sell their users’ data to data brokers. If either tech giant were serious about user security, they could ban these practices, but they do not. Google’s security claims are also undermined by the fact that the cellphone hacking company Cellebrite tells law enforcement that Google’s Pixel phones can be hacked, while those running GrapheneOS, created by a small non-profit,cannot. (Asked by a reporter why that was so, Google did not respond.)

Making matters worse, organizations like Google are unclear about their policies, and some of their policy statements can put developers and users at risk. Discussing blocking Red Dot, for example, Google told 404Media that “apps that have user generated content must also conduct content moderation.” This implies that Google could become unwilling to distribute fully end-to-end encrypted apps, like Signal Private Messenger or Delta Chat, since those app vendors by design are incapable of reviewing user-generated content. End-to-end encrypted apps are the gold standard for secure communications, and no app store that signals a willingness to remove them can claim to put security first.

In addition, even if you’ve carefully curated the apps you have installed from these dominant app stores to avoid spyware and use strongly secure apps, the stores themselves monitor the devices, keeping dossiers of what apps are installed on each device, and maybe more. Being a user of these app stores means being under heavy, regular surveillance.

Other options exist
These centralized, surveilled, censorship-enabling app stores are not the only way to distribute software. Consider alternative app stores for Android, like Accrescent, which prioritizes privacy and security requirements in its apps, and F-Droid, which enables installation of free and open source apps. In addition to offering quality tools and auditing, F-Droid’s policies incentivize the apps distributed on the platform to trim out overwhelming amounts of corporate spyware that infest both Google and Apple’s app stores. Neither F-Droid nor Accrescent do any surveillance of their users at all.

The F-Droid developers recently wrote about the impact that Google’s upcoming developer registration requirements are likely to have on the broader ecosystem of privacy-preserving Android apps. The outcome doesn’t look good: the ability to install free and open source software on a common device might be going away. Those few people left using unusual devices (“uncertified” Android deployments like GrapheneOS, or even more obscure non-Android operating systems like phosh) will still have the freedom to install tools that they want, but the overwhelming majority of people will be stuck with what can quickly devolve into a government-controlled cop-in-your-pocket.

How we can push back
In an increasingly centralized world, it will take very little for an abusive government to cause an effective organizing tool to disappear, to block an app that belongs to a critical dissenting media outlet, or to force invasive malware into a software update used by everyone. We need a shared infrastructure that doesn’t permit this kind of centralized control. We can disrupt oligopolistic control over software through user choice (e.g., preferring and installing free software), building good protocol frameworks (e.g., demanding tools that use open standards for interoperability), and through regulatory intervention (e.g., breaking up monopolistic actors, or mandating that an OS must allow sideloading, as the EU did with the DMA).

The device you carry with you that is privy to much of your life should be under your control, not under the control of an abusive government or corporations that do its bidding.

Published November 19, 2025 at 01:42AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/b0Nz3yX

ACLU: Your Smartphone, Their Rules: How App Stores Enable Corporate-Government Censorship

Your Smartphone, Their Rules: How App Stores Enable Corporate-Government Censorship

Subscribe to the Free Future Newsletter
Free Future home

Who controls what you can do on your mobile phone? What happens when your device can only run what the government decides is OK? We are dangerously close to this kind of totalitarian control, thanks to a combination of government overreach and technocratic infrastructure choices.

Most Americans have a smartphone, and the average American spends over 5 hours a day on their phone. While these devices are critical to most people’s daily lives, what they can actually do is shaped by what apps are readily available. A slim majority of American smartphone users use an iPhone, which means they can only install apps available from Apple’s AppStore. Nearly all the rest of US smartphone users use some variant of Android, and by default they get their apps from Google’s Play Store.

Collectively, these two app stores shape the universe of what is available to most people as they use the Internet and make their way through their daily lives. When those app stores block or limit apps based on government requests, they are shaping what people can do, say, communicate, and experience.

Recently, Apple pulled an app called ICEBlock from the AppStore, making it unavailable in one fell swoop. This app was designed to let people anonymously report public sightings of ICE agents. In the United States people absolutely have a First Amendment right to inform others about what they have seen government officials doing and where — very much including immigration agents whose tactics have been controversial and violent. Apple pulled the ICEBlock app at the demand of the US Department of Justice. The following day, Google pulled a similar app called Red Dot from the Google Play Store.

The DOJ’s pressuring of Apple is an unacceptable, censorious overreach. And Google’s subsequent removal of Red Dot looks like troubling premature capitulation. While some experts and activists have expressed concerns over ICEBlock’s design and development practices, those concerns are no reason for the government to meddle in software distribution. The administration’s ostensible free speech warriors are trying to shape how Americans can communicate with each other about matters of pressing political concern.

Infrastructure choices
But the government’s overreach isn’t the whole story here. The current structure of the mobile phone ecosystem enables this kind of abuse and control.

Apple’s iOS (the operating system for any iPhone) is designed to only be able to run apps from the AppStore. If Apple hasn’t signed off on it, the app won’t run. This centralized control is ripe for abuse:

• Apple has handed the Chinese government control over what apps are available to iPhone users in China, including banning gay dating apps.
• The corporation has used its authority over the AppStore to block a game that critiqued its labor practices.
• Apple’s guidelines say that “’Enemies’ within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific … government, corporation, or any other real entity.” That represents a potential for sweeping censorship of anyone who wants to use the art of games to criticize companies or otherwise advance political messages.
• It banned the popular game Fortnite from the App Store as it was battling the gamemaker to get a bigger cut of money from user transactions.
• In 2012 Apple rejected an app that compiled reports of highly controversial overseas drone strikes by the U.S. government during the “War on Terror.”

Unlike Apple, Google’s Android operating system has traditionally allowed relatively easy access to “sideloading”, which just means installing apps through means other than Google’s Play Store. Although most installations default to getting apps from the Play Store, the availability of sideloading means that even if Google censors apps in the Play Store, people can still install them. Even apps critical of Google can make it onto an Android device. It’s also possible to run a variant of Android without the Play Store at all, such as GrapheneOS.

Unfortunately that is all set to change with a recent Google announcement that it will block apps from “certified Android” devices (which is nearly all Android phones) unless they come from what Google calls a “verified developer.” This means that the common Android user trying to install an app will have to get Google’s blessing: does this app come from someone that Google has “verified”? How Google will decide who is allowed to be verified and who is not is still unclear. Can a developer become “unverified”?

This upcoming change is framed by Google as a security measure, but merely knowing the identity of the developer of an app doesn’t provide any security. So the only way that the “verified developer” requirement can offer security is if Google withholds “verified developer” status from people it deems bad actors. But Google’s ability to withhold that status can be abused in the same way that Apple’s AppStore lock-in is being abused. A government will simply make a demand: “treat this developer as a bad actor” and effectively cut off any app by targeting its developer.

When a lever of control is available, the would-be censors will try to use it. It has never been true that someone who buys a Lenovo or Dell laptop, for example, has to let Lenovo or Dell tell them what programs they can and cannot install on their computer. Yet that will soon be the situation with regards to nearly all cell phones used in the United States.

Note that American iPhones are limited to only apps from the AppStore, but European Union (EU) iPhones don’t have that restriction. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) required Apple to permit alternate app stores and sideloading (which Apple calls “web distribution”). As a result, marketplaces like AltStore are starting to become available — but Apple only lets EU customers use them. The European regime is not perfect, however; while sideloaded apps and alternative app stores aren’t subject to the app store’s constraints, they are still obliged to follow Apple’s “Notarization” requirements, which requires Apple to review all iOS apps – even from these alternate sources – on the basis of several vaguely worded rationales. For example, if the DoJ were to claim that ICEBlock “promoted physical harm” (even though it clearly does not), Apple could use this as an excuse to justify revoking their notarization of the app, which would prevent it from being installed even from these alternate channels.

App store security and surveillance
Both Apple and Google make claims that their app distribution mechanisms improve security for their users. And clearly, these tech giants do block some abusive apps by exercising the control they have.

But both of them also regularly allow apps that contain common malicious patterns, including many apps built with surveillance tooling that sell their users’ data to data brokers. If either tech giant were serious about user security, they could ban these practices, but they do not. Google’s security claims are also undermined by the fact that the cellphone hacking company Cellebrite tells law enforcement that Google’s Pixel phones can be hacked, while those running GrapheneOS, created by a small non-profit,cannot. (Asked by a reporter why that was so, Google did not respond.)

Making matters worse, organizations like Google are unclear about their policies, and some of their policy statements can put developers and users at risk. Discussing blocking Red Dot, for example, Google told 404Media that “apps that have user generated content must also conduct content moderation.” This implies that Google could become unwilling to distribute fully end-to-end encrypted apps, like Signal Private Messenger or Delta Chat, since those app vendors by design are incapable of reviewing user-generated content. End-to-end encrypted apps are the gold standard for secure communications, and no app store that signals a willingness to remove them can claim to put security first.

In addition, even if you’ve carefully curated the apps you have installed from these dominant app stores to avoid spyware and use strongly secure apps, the stores themselves monitor the devices, keeping dossiers of what apps are installed on each device, and maybe more. Being a user of these app stores means being under heavy, regular surveillance.

Other options exist
These centralized, surveilled, censorship-enabling app stores are not the only way to distribute software. Consider alternative app stores for Android, like Accrescent, which prioritizes privacy and security requirements in its apps, and F-Droid, which enables installation of free and open source apps. In addition to offering quality tools and auditing, F-Droid’s policies incentivize the apps distributed on the platform to trim out overwhelming amounts of corporate spyware that infest both Google and Apple’s app stores. Neither F-Droid nor Accrescent do any surveillance of their users at all.

The F-Droid developers recently wrote about the impact that Google’s upcoming developer registration requirements are likely to have on the broader ecosystem of privacy-preserving Android apps. The outcome doesn’t look good: the ability to install free and open source software on a common device might be going away. Those few people left using unusual devices (“uncertified” Android deployments like GrapheneOS, or even more obscure non-Android operating systems like phosh) will still have the freedom to install tools that they want, but the overwhelming majority of people will be stuck with what can quickly devolve into a government-controlled cop-in-your-pocket.

How we can push back
In an increasingly centralized world, it will take very little for an abusive government to cause an effective organizing tool to disappear, to block an app that belongs to a critical dissenting media outlet, or to force invasive malware into a software update used by everyone. We need a shared infrastructure that doesn’t permit this kind of centralized control. We can disrupt oligopolistic control over software through user choice (e.g., preferring and installing free software), building good protocol frameworks (e.g., demanding tools that use open standards for interoperability), and through regulatory intervention (e.g., breaking up monopolistic actors, or mandating that an OS must allow sideloading, as the EU did with the DMA).

The device you carry with you that is privy to much of your life should be under your control, not under the control of an abusive government or corporations that do its bidding.

Published November 18, 2025 at 08:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/90f43so

ACLU: 2025 Elections: Voters Came Out in Record Numbers to Defend Key Civil Liberties Issues Across the Country

2025 Elections: Voters Came Out in Record Numbers to Defend Key Civil Liberties Issues Across the Country

Across the country, voters took to the ballot box to make their voices heard on Tuesday. The results overwhelmingly demonstrate that voters want leaders who will push against the Trump administration’s cruel policies and abuses of power and work to make life better for the American people.

Voters are fed up with fearmongering in place of policy proposals and came out in record numbers to create sweeping victories for civil liberties. Tuesday’s results made clear that the people want real solutions for the economy, support for access to abortion, and protection for other freedoms for every person in the country.

Democracy depends on every level of government protecting our rights, and as we build on the energy of the 2025 elections, the ACLU will work to keep defending key civil liberties issues in the elections ahead. Here’s what we learned in the 2025 election.

Voters Showed Up for Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom

In response to consistent attacks on reproductive rights from hostile elected officials and courts, the American people have shown time and time again that they want reproductive freedom to be protected.

Polling showed that reproductive freedom was a top civil liberties issue going into this election cycle. Reproductive freedom was critical to the wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, where a large majority of voters support abortion rights and want their elected officials to as well. In all three states, voters saw a stark contrast between candidates supporting abortion rights and those wanting to ban abortion in these critical access states. In Pennsylvania, campaigns were dominated by the urgency of maintaining a state supreme court that will continue to defend reproductive freedom. “When we think of the state supreme court, this court is often the last line of defense,” said Danitra Sherman, the deputy advocacy and policy director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “We want to make sure that we have a [judicial] body that protects the civil rights and liberties of those here in Pennsylvania.”

On election night, 60 percent of voters chose to keep three justices who will protect abortion rights, preserving a majority in favor of reproductive freedom on Pennsylvania’s highest court.

Voters in Virginia, the last state in the southeast without an abortion ban, prioritized leaders who would protect reproductive freedom across the ballot. In the race for governor, voters saw through candidate Winsome Earle-Sears’ attempts to downplay her views on abortion, which include a desire to ban it entirely. Instead, they elected Abigail Spanberger, a staunch champion for reproductive freedom. In addition to electing Spanberger as governor, voters elected a majority in their House of Delegates that will put a measure to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution on the ballot next year.

In New Jersey, voters rejected a candidate who opposed the state’s abortion protections and wanted to impose new restrictions, instead electing Mikie Sherrill as governor.

Overall, voters sent a clear message: we expect elected officials to protect access to reproductive freedom, including abortion access. Attempts to undermine it are dangerous and unacceptable to our communities.

Divisive Attacks on Transgender Rights Failed to Sway Voters

Efforts to erode our civil liberties by dividing communities and pitting Americans against each other fell flat, and candidates who ran on a platform of fearmongering around the rights of transgender people were dealt a resounding defeat.

In Virginia, the Earl-Sears campaign spent millions on anti-trans attack ads against her opponent and made demonizing transgender people a major theme in her campaign. That approach failed resoundingly: not only did voters trust Abigail Spanberger more on transgender rights but polling showed that the issue was not driving people to the voting booth. Spanberger was elected as a strong advocate for inclusivity, running on a platform of affordability, safety, and freedom which resonated more with voters than fearmongering.

The results of these elections prove that the politics of cruelty and control are deeply unpopular. Voters weren’t tricked into voting against their own interests to limit transgender people’s rights or expand the government’s control over our personal lives.

Voters Defended Against Attacks on Voting Rights

We have seen voting rights come under attack nationwide as states continue to pass suppressive voting laws. But voters fought back. We worked with the ACLU of Maine and Save Maine Absentee Voting to help overwhelmingly defeat a ballot question on a constitutional amendment that would have removed two days absentee voters could submit their ballots. It also would have tightened voter identification laws and created significant hurdles for registered voters across the state. It wasn’t even close: Maine voters soundly rejected the proposed amendment by 63.6 percent to 36.4 percent.

The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to impose limits on who can exercise their right to vote, but these attempts have continued to fail at the hands of courts and voters across the country. In October, for example, a provision of President Trump’s executive order that sought to add a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote with the federal voter registration form was permanently blocked by a federal court, which ruled on the side of voting rights.

Despite these attacks at the federal level, the victory in Maine shows people are concerned about voter suppression and overwhelmingly showed up to defend their access to the ballot box. Voter suppression under the guise of “election integrity” was swiftly defeated, but the fight for voting rights continues to intensify, and so does the dedication of the American public to defend their access to the ballot box. Because here in the United States, the voters pick our leaders, not the other way around.

Voters Are Building Their Resistance Against Authoritarianism

The Trump administration has doubled down on attempts to further limit our civil rights, use the federal government to stifle dissent, and undermine checks and balances on presidential power. The results of this week’s elections serve as a critical step toward holding those in power accountable to the people. While this was an “off cycle” election with a handful of state races, it produced massive shifts in support as voters used these elections to send a deafening message to President Trump. The electoral gains made by opponents of civil liberties in 2024 were fiercely rolled back, and even erased, in many states this year.

In Virginia, candidates who stood for civil liberties won a staggering 13 seats in the House of Delegates. We’re excited to further this work next year on key ballot initiatives to protect the right to abortion, expand voting rights, and guarantee marriage equality.

These results speak for themselves. Voters have decisively debunked any narrative that the American people are indifferent to authoritarianism. Instead, we've seen that when our freedom is on the ballot, voters will rise up to defend our democracy.

The ACLU Will Continue the Fight During Midterms and Future Elections

This election cycle, the ACLU was committed to ensuring that voters are informed, empowered, and protected. And we will continue this effort in every election cycle. Our voter education efforts helped people across the country understand their rights, what was at stake in this election, and how to make their voices count. The ACLU worked relentlessly to become a top messenger, spender, and organizer within the pro-civil liberties coalitions using our strong brand, and thousands of volunteers.

Across Pennsylvania and Virginia, the ACLU spent nearly $3 million on voter education campaigns to ensure voters made an informed vote. Thanks in part to these efforts, which reached nearly 1.4 million voters, pro-civil liberties candidates were retained or elected across every election we worked in.

Ultimately, our civil liberties came out victorious in elections across the country, but we know that the fight is far from over. The ACLU will channel the energy, unity, and courage of this election to defend and strengthen our democracy. We will fight back against the Trump administration’s encroachment of our rights, whether it’s in the courts, the streets, or at the ballot box.

Our democracy is strongest when every level of government works to protect our rights. We must channel the energy from the 2025 elections into building the momentum we need for elections to come. Voters have the power to ensure that Congress, statehouses, city councils, and courts stand as a bulwark against efforts to erode freedom and equality.

When the federal government seeks to roll back civil liberties or target vulnerable communities, state and local officials have the power to resist by passing and enforcing protective laws and ensuring people’s rights remain intact.

As we look forward to next year’s midterm elections, so much is at stake. Every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for election. Additionally, 36 gubernatorial races will determine the fight for our rights across the country. Until then, we must continue showing up for abortion rights, voting rights, our civil liberties, and our neighbors.

Learn more about how you can get involved here to support our efforts and fight to defend our democracy. As we prepare for the next elections, there is so much more to be done.

Today, we celebrate our victories. Tomorrow, we continue our hard work.

Published November 13, 2025 at 02:30AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/l6eHA3d

ACLU: 2025 Elections: Voters Came Out in Record Numbers to Defend Key Civil Liberties Issues Across the Country

2025 Elections: Voters Came Out in Record Numbers to Defend Key Civil Liberties Issues Across the Country

Across the country, voters took to the ballot box to make their voices heard on Tuesday. The results overwhelmingly demonstrate that voters want leaders who will push against the Trump administration’s cruel policies and abuses of power and work to make life better for the American people.

Voters are fed up with fearmongering in place of policy proposals and came out in record numbers to create sweeping victories for civil liberties. Tuesday’s results made clear that the people want real solutions for the economy, support for access to abortion, and protection for other freedoms for every person in the country.

Democracy depends on every level of government protecting our rights, and as we build on the energy of the 2025 elections, the ACLU will work to keep defending key civil liberties issues in the elections ahead. Here’s what we learned in the 2025 election.

Voters Showed Up for Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom

In response to consistent attacks on reproductive rights from hostile elected officials and courts, the American people have shown time and time again that they want reproductive freedom to be protected.

Polling showed that reproductive freedom was a top civil liberties issue going into this election cycle. Reproductive freedom was critical to the wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, where a large majority of voters support abortion rights and want their elected officials to as well. In all three states, voters saw a stark contrast between candidates supporting abortion rights and those wanting to ban abortion in these critical access states. In Pennsylvania, campaigns were dominated by the urgency of maintaining a state supreme court that will continue to defend reproductive freedom. “When we think of the state supreme court, this court is often the last line of defense,” said Danitra Sherman, the deputy advocacy and policy director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “We want to make sure that we have a [judicial] body that protects the civil rights and liberties of those here in Pennsylvania.”

On election night, 60 percent of voters chose to keep three justices who will protect abortion rights, preserving a majority in favor of reproductive freedom on Pennsylvania’s highest court.

Voters in Virginia, the last state in the southeast without an abortion ban, prioritized leaders who would protect reproductive freedom across the ballot. In the race for governor, voters saw through candidate Winsome Earle-Sears’ attempts to downplay her views on abortion, which include a desire to ban it entirely. Instead, they elected Abigail Spanberger, a staunch champion for reproductive freedom. In addition to electing Spanberger as governor, voters elected a majority in their House of Delegates that will put a measure to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution on the ballot next year.

In New Jersey, voters rejected a candidate who opposed the state’s abortion protections and wanted to impose new restrictions, instead electing Mikie Sherrill as governor.

Overall, voters sent a clear message: we expect elected officials to protect access to reproductive freedom, including abortion access. Attempts to undermine it are dangerous and unacceptable to our communities.

Divisive Attacks on Transgender Rights Failed to Sway Voters

Efforts to erode our civil liberties by dividing communities and pitting Americans against each other fell flat, and candidates who ran on a platform of fearmongering around the rights of transgender people were dealt a resounding defeat.

In Virginia, the Earl-Sears campaign spent millions on anti-trans attack ads against her opponent and made demonizing transgender people a major theme in her campaign. That approach failed resoundingly: not only did voters trust Abigail Spanberger more on transgender rights but polling showed that the issue was not driving people to the voting booth. Spanberger was elected as a strong advocate for inclusivity, running on a platform of affordability, safety, and freedom which resonated more with voters than fearmongering.

The results of these elections prove that the politics of cruelty and control are deeply unpopular. Voters weren’t tricked into voting against their own interests to limit transgender people’s rights or expand the government’s control over our personal lives.

Voters Defended Against Attacks on Voting Rights

We have seen voting rights come under attack nationwide as states continue to pass suppressive voting laws. But voters fought back. We worked with the ACLU of Maine and Save Maine Absentee Voting to help overwhelmingly defeat a ballot question on a constitutional amendment that would have removed two days absentee voters could submit their ballots. It also would have tightened voter identification laws and created significant hurdles for registered voters across the state. It wasn’t even close: Maine voters soundly rejected the proposed amendment by 63.6 percent to 36.4 percent.

The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to impose limits on who can exercise their right to vote, but these attempts have continued to fail at the hands of courts and voters across the country. In October, for example, a provision of President Trump’s executive order that sought to add a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote with the federal voter registration form was permanently blocked by a federal court, which ruled on the side of voting rights.

Despite these attacks at the federal level, the victory in Maine shows people are concerned about voter suppression and overwhelmingly showed up to defend their access to the ballot box. Voter suppression under the guise of “election integrity” was swiftly defeated, but the fight for voting rights continues to intensify, and so does the dedication of the American public to defend their access to the ballot box. Because here in the United States, the voters pick our leaders, not the other way around.

Voters Are Building Their Resistance Against Authoritarianism

The Trump administration has doubled down on attempts to further limit our civil rights, use the federal government to stifle dissent, and undermine checks and balances on presidential power. The results of this week’s elections serve as a critical step toward holding those in power accountable to the people. While this was an “off cycle” election with a handful of state races, it produced massive shifts in support as voters used these elections to send a deafening message to President Trump. The electoral gains made by opponents of civil liberties in 2024 were fiercely rolled back, and even erased, in many states this year.

In Virginia, candidates who stood for civil liberties won a staggering 13 seats in the House of Delegates. We’re excited to further this work next year on key ballot initiatives to protect the right to abortion, expand voting rights, and guarantee marriage equality.

These results speak for themselves. Voters have decisively debunked any narrative that the American people are indifferent to authoritarianism. Instead, we've seen that when our freedom is on the ballot, voters will rise up to defend our democracy.

The ACLU Will Continue the Fight During Midterms and Future Elections

This election cycle, the ACLU was committed to ensuring that voters are informed, empowered, and protected. And we will continue this effort in every election cycle. Our voter education efforts helped people across the country understand their rights, what was at stake in this election, and how to make their voices count. The ACLU worked relentlessly to become a top messenger, spender, and organizer within the pro-civil liberties coalitions using our strong brand, and thousands of volunteers.

Across Pennsylvania and Virginia, the ACLU spent nearly $3 million on voter education campaigns to ensure voters made an informed vote. Thanks in part to these efforts, which reached nearly 1.4 million voters, pro-civil liberties candidates were retained or elected across every election we worked in.

Ultimately, our civil liberties came out victorious in elections across the country, but we know that the fight is far from over. The ACLU will channel the energy, unity, and courage of this election to defend and strengthen our democracy. We will fight back against the Trump administration’s encroachment of our rights, whether it’s in the courts, the streets, or at the ballot box.

Our democracy is strongest when every level of government works to protect our rights. We must channel the energy from the 2025 elections into building the momentum we need for elections to come. Voters have the power to ensure that Congress, statehouses, city councils, and courts stand as a bulwark against efforts to erode freedom and equality.

When the federal government seeks to roll back civil liberties or target vulnerable communities, state and local officials have the power to resist by passing and enforcing protective laws and ensuring people’s rights remain intact.

As we look forward to next year’s midterm elections, so much is at stake. Every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for election. Additionally, 36 gubernatorial races will determine the fight for our rights across the country. Until then, we must continue showing up for abortion rights, voting rights, our civil liberties, and our neighbors.

Learn more about how you can get involved here to support our efforts and fight to defend our democracy. As we prepare for the next elections, there is so much more to be done.

Today, we celebrate our victories. Tomorrow, we continue our hard work.

Published November 12, 2025 at 09:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yMr0lUQ

ACLU: Defending Veterans’ Rights for Over a Century

Defending Veterans’ Rights for Over a Century

The ACLU marks this Veterans Day with a continued commitment to advancing the rights of veterans, servicemembers, and their families. We have a long, proud history of litigation and advocacy on behalf of those who serve, as reflected in a new report released today.

Our commitment to the fundamental freedoms of veterans, servicemembers, and their families is unwavering. Military life in many ways can mirror civil society, often making explicit the segregation, discrimination, and other indignities of the time. By breaking down barriers in the military, we ensure that those who serve their country are treated fairly. And, in doing so, we challenge the assumptions that undergird similar forms of unfairness in civilian life as well.

Dissent and Discrimination: Early Battles for Equality and Justice in the Military

In 1917, as the United States prepared to enter World War I, Congress passed the Selective Service Act requiring men to register for the draft and leaving few avenues to object based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Around the same time, Roger Nash Baldwin founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau to protect the rights of war dissenters and conscientious objectors. That organization soon became the ACLU, and our defense of war opponents helped cement the ACLU’s reputation as a champion of liberty for both civilians and service members.

From the 1940s to the 1970s, the ACLU took on some of the most consequential cases affecting veterans and servicemembers. In 1942, the ACLU represented Winfred Lynn, a Black man, who responded to his draft notice by defiantly stating that he was “ready to serve in any unit of the armed forces of my country which is not segregated by race.” This case was a contributing factor in President Harry Truman's 1948 executive order ending racial segregation in the military.

Thirty years later, we fought to uphold the rights of pregnant servicemembers, , most notably in the landmark case of Struck v. Secretary of Defense, which challenged the Air Force policy requiring people in the service who were pregnant to have an abortion or be discharged. The case forced the Air Force to change its policy.

At the same time, in the 1970s, the ACLU also represented a gay servicemember in his attempt to serve openly and pursued changes to allow women to serve on equal terms as men in the armed forces.

These battles, some of which made it all the way to the Supreme Court, helped break down gender and race barriers in the military. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as a founding director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, was one of the key legal minds advancing these and other fights on behalf of women during the 1970s.

Beyond Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Veterans’ and Servicemembers’ Civil Liberties in the Modern Era

Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the ACLU also attended to the needs of veterans, addressing inequities in the military’s discharge system. In the 1970s, our Veterans Education Project published the “ACLU Practice Manual on Military Discharge Upgrading,” and we launched a national telephone hotline to connect veterans with assistance to upgrade their discharges.

Today, fights over who has the right to serve continue. We fought Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which banned lesbian, gay, and bisexual troops from serving openly in the military until it was repealed in 2010. We also worked to expand access to military academies for women and parents, represented military whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, and defended the free speech and voting rights of servicemembers and veterans when they came under threat.

Under the first Trump administration, servicemembers and veterans faced an onslaught of attacks. Cruelly, the Trump White House banned transgender people from serving in the military, regardless of their ability and willingness to serve. We filed suit on behalf of affected servicemembers who were discharged based on their gender identity, and saw the ban lifted. Trump recently reinstated the ban.

When the first Trump administration sought to undermine the expedited pathway to citizenship for immigrants who served, we sued. Our advocacy in support of veteran-led organizing has helped bring as many as 175 deported veterans back home.

But as far as we’ve come, there’s still work to do. Black people, other people of color, women, and additional marginalized communities are still underrepresented in military academies and officer ranks. Transgender people are now excluded altogether from service. Veterans are still subject to deportation despite their service, and those who remain in our country face disproportionate rates of homelessness and incarceration.

Just as these inequities persist, so does our dedication to demanding better. The ACLU is in courts in Congress to fight for a military that reflects our country’s values of fairness, equality, and justice.

Published November 11, 2025 at 02:05AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JX3UryB