ACLU: I Should Not Have to Fight for Fair Treatment in the Workplace

I Should Not Have to Fight for Fair Treatment in the Workplace

As a Pawnee woman who is Deaf, I’ve long faced barriers to being evaluated fairly, not because I lack experience or qualifications, but because of systemic bias and technology that wasn’t built with people like me in mind.

So when I was offered a job at Intuit, a financial software company, in late 2019 as a tax associate, I was thrilled. In this role, I helped customers with their tax questions and consistently received high ratings for my service. I took pride in being able to resolve customer concerns quickly and with empathy.

My experience reflects a bigger problem: the systemic discrimination embedded in AI-powered hiring tools.

But, during my first year, I was shocked to learn that one of my key performance indicator scores was unusually low. After meeting with my manager, I learned that Intuit’s artificial intelligence (AI) software—used to measure how closely employees followed call scripts—wasn’t accurately recognizing my speech because of my Deaf accent. Instead of correcting the problem, I was reassigned to a role that no longer involved answering customer calls.Even after that setback, I stayed committed to my work. In 2021, I was promoted to Tax Expert Lead. Over the next three tax seasons, I consistently hit high performance metrics and received positive feedback.

In 2023, I joined Intuit’s Accessibility Team to help identify and address barriers that people with disabilities face across the company’s services. During that time, I raised concerns about Intuit’s use of HireVue—a vendor that provides AI-based video interviewing software—as part of the company’s hiring process. I specifically noted that the platform posed challenges for deaf and hard-of-hearing applicants. The Accessibility Team chair said they would look into it, but I never heard about any follow-up or action taken.

AI should never be used as a barrier. It’s time for action, accountability, and justice.

After the 2023 tax season, my manager—who was also part of the hiring committee—encouraged me to apply for a seasonal manager position. It was the next logical step in my career, and I knew I was qualified. I applied in spring 2024.Soon after, I received an invitation to complete a video interview using the HireVue platform. I immediately knew this would be a problem because the platform didn’t provide consistent subtitles for all audio content. In fact, studies show that the technology underlying HireVue performs worse for non-white speakers and even worse for speakers with a deaf accent.

I requested an accommodation: human-generated captioning for the interview. Unfortunately, Intuit did not provide me with this requested accommodation, instead saying that HireVue had built-in subtitles. But, when I began the interview, those subtitles weren’t there for all the content. I had to rely on Google Chrome’s auto-captions, which were full of errors and made it hard to fully understand the questions.Still, I pushed forward. I did my best, confident in my qualifications and experience.

Weeks later, I got an email letting me know Intuit had moved on with other candidates. The feedback I received was devastating: I was told to improve my communication by being more concise, adapting my style to different audiences, and projecting more confidence. What hurt the most was the suggestion that I “practice active listening.”As a Deaf woman, that comment was not only ignorant—it was deeply offensive. It made me feel like the HireVue system had completely failed to assess me fairly. Worse, it made clear that the people interpreting the HireVue results didn’t understand the realities of Deaf communication.

My experience reflects a bigger problem: the systemic discrimination embedded in AI-powered hiring tools. These systems were not built for people like me. Native professionals, deaf individuals, and countless others are being unfairly screened out by biased technology that prioritizes data over human understanding.

That’s why the ACLU, the ACLU of Colorado, Public Justice, and Eisenberg & Baum, LLP have filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint charges Intuit and HireVue with violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Real change is needed. Companies must stop using hiring technologies that discriminate against disabled and non-white applicants. They must implement accessible, equitable hiring practices that evaluate people based on their skills, experience, and potential—not on biased algorithms.

AI should never be used as a barrier. It’s time for action, accountability, and justice.

Published April 7, 2025 at 11:03PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/7hulwd1

ACLU: I Should Not Have to Fight for Fair Treatment in the Workplace

I Should Not Have to Fight for Fair Treatment in the Workplace

As a Pawnee woman who is Deaf, I’ve long faced barriers to being evaluated fairly, not because I lack experience or qualifications, but because of systemic bias and technology that wasn’t built with people like me in mind.

So when I was offered a job at Intuit, a financial software company, in late 2019 as a tax associate, I was thrilled. In this role, I helped customers with their tax questions and consistently received high ratings for my service. I took pride in being able to resolve customer concerns quickly and with empathy.

My experience reflects a bigger problem: the systemic discrimination embedded in AI-powered hiring tools.

But, during my first year, I was shocked to learn that one of my key performance indicator scores was unusually low. After meeting with my manager, I learned that Intuit’s artificial intelligence (AI) software—used to measure how closely employees followed call scripts—wasn’t accurately recognizing my speech because of my Deaf accent. Instead of correcting the problem, I was reassigned to a role that no longer involved answering customer calls.Even after that setback, I stayed committed to my work. In 2021, I was promoted to Tax Expert Lead. Over the next three tax seasons, I consistently hit high performance metrics and received positive feedback.

In 2023, I joined Intuit’s Accessibility Team to help identify and address barriers that people with disabilities face across the company’s services. During that time, I raised concerns about Intuit’s use of HireVue—a vendor that provides AI-based video interviewing software—as part of the company’s hiring process. I specifically noted that the platform posed challenges for deaf and hard-of-hearing applicants. The Accessibility Team chair said they would look into it, but I never heard about any follow-up or action taken.

AI should never be used as a barrier. It’s time for action, accountability, and justice.

After the 2023 tax season, my manager—who was also part of the hiring committee—encouraged me to apply for a seasonal manager position. It was the next logical step in my career, and I knew I was qualified. I applied in spring 2024.Soon after, I received an invitation to complete a video interview using the HireVue platform. I immediately knew this would be a problem because the platform didn’t provide consistent subtitles for all audio content. In fact, studies show that the technology underlying HireVue performs worse for non-white speakers and even worse for speakers with a deaf accent.

I requested an accommodation: human-generated captioning for the interview. Unfortunately, Intuit did not provide me with this requested accommodation, instead saying that HireVue had built-in subtitles. But, when I began the interview, those subtitles weren’t there for all the content. I had to rely on Google Chrome’s auto-captions, which were full of errors and made it hard to fully understand the questions.Still, I pushed forward. I did my best, confident in my qualifications and experience.

Weeks later, I got an email letting me know Intuit had moved on with other candidates. The feedback I received was devastating: I was told to improve my communication by being more concise, adapting my style to different audiences, and projecting more confidence. What hurt the most was the suggestion that I “practice active listening.”As a Deaf woman, that comment was not only ignorant—it was deeply offensive. It made me feel like the HireVue system had completely failed to assess me fairly. Worse, it made clear that the people interpreting the HireVue results didn’t understand the realities of Deaf communication.

My experience reflects a bigger problem: the systemic discrimination embedded in AI-powered hiring tools. These systems were not built for people like me. Native professionals, deaf individuals, and countless others are being unfairly screened out by biased technology that prioritizes data over human understanding.

That’s why the ACLU, the ACLU of Colorado, Public Justice, and Eisenberg & Baum, LLP have filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint charges Intuit and HireVue with violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Real change is needed. Companies must stop using hiring technologies that discriminate against disabled and non-white applicants. They must implement accessible, equitable hiring practices that evaluate people based on their skills, experience, and potential—not on biased algorithms.

AI should never be used as a barrier. It’s time for action, accountability, and justice.

Published April 7, 2025 at 06:33PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/HZrtscP

ACLU: The Human Toll of Trump's Anti-Trans Crusade

The Human Toll of Trump's Anti-Trans Crusade

After President Donald Trump issued an executive order restricting access to gender-affirming medical care for transgender people under 19, many hospitals nationwide abruptly cut off treatment for trans youth. This sent thousands of families scrambling, with some even wondering if they needed to leave the country to protect their family’s future.

If enforced, President Trump’s order will deny transgender youth access to medically-necessary care, like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, even as these same treatments remain readily available to their cisgender peers. The order also intends to cut or reduce federal funding for health care providers who refuse to prioritize the Trump administration’s political preferences over their patients’ medical needs.

"politics and partisanship have no place in patient care and we all deserve the freedom to be ourselves."

At the American Civil Liberties Union, we know that politics and partisanship have no place in patient care and we all deserve the freedom to be ourselves. On February 4th, alongside Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Maryland, we sued the Trump administration to block its discriminatory efforts to limit needed health care. We filed our suit on behalf of transgender young adults and their families, as well as PFLAG and GLMA, two of the nation’s largest organizations supporting LGBTQ+ people and healthcare professionals.

Since his first term, Trump and his administration have carried out a years-long effort to roll back protections for LGBTQ people. Beginning in January, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that remove protections for trans people. His directives include targeting transgender students, banning trans Americans from military service, and giving federal agencies the green light to openly discriminate against their trans employees. These orders align with the extremist vision of Project 2025, a sweeping right-wing agenda that seeks to dismantle civil rights protections, consolidate presidential power, and dehumanize transgender people.

J Matt/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

President Trump “is determined to use every level of government to drive transgender people out of public life,” says Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project.

For Cameron, Gabe, and Robert, three of the five trans young people challenging the Trump administration’s anti-trans agenda, this fight goes beyond the courtroom. It’s about their fundamental right to make deeply personal medical decisions without government interference.

For Cameron, words like “boy” or “girl” were never meaningful. Being seen as nonbinary makes them feel “strong, happy, recognized, and loved.” Before puberty, they worried about how others would treat them based on their clothes and pronouns. Now, as their physical-self matures, Cameron worries about how they see their own body. “The changes feel violating,” they say. “It makes me depressed, stressed, and anxious.”

After seeing a therapist, Cameron’s parents consulted a doctor who first spoke to them about puberty blockers, a temporary pause that gives people time to decide whether to undergo male or female puberty. Getting more time was a relief to Cameron who, after starting treatment at 12, remembers feeling "less stressed and a little more hopeful."

"I do not want to feel like a stranger in my body."

However, Cameron’s appointment for a puberty-blocking implant was abruptly canceled after the Trump administration issued its executive order. Their anxieties came rushing back, resulting in stomach pain, restless sleep, and missed school. Their parents fought to find a new doctor. Though Cameron did finally receive their implant, they fear losing care again. “I do not want to feel like a stranger in my body,” they told the ACLU.

For Gabe, a 14-year-old transgender boy, he hopes gender-affirming medical care will help him look and sound more like himself. Often, when strangers see him in public, they address him using male pronouns. Until he speaks. His voice still does not reflect who he is and causes people to misgender him, which only adds to the anxiety and dysmorphia that began when he started puberty.

“Even when I wasn’t sure why the changes felt wrong, I just knew they were,” Gabe says, reflecting on his experience trying to navigate his changing body.

To treat his dysphoria, Gabe’s parents consulted a doctor who explained how testosterone could help him feel more comfortable in his body. Gabe knew it was the right choice for him. “I want to be in a grown-up male body when I’m older,” he says. “I want the choice to tell people, not to be revealed by my voice.”

Gabe hoped to begin testosterone treatments in March 2025, but the administration’s actions put his plans at risk. Like many trans youth, Gabe now fears that he won’t have the choice to present as he truly is.

Families of trans youth also feel the impact of Trump’s discriminatory order. Rachel, a member of PFLAG, has always prioritized her son Robert’s health and well-being. From a very early age, she knew that Robert was meant to be a boy and that “he would thrive in school and the rest of his life if we let him live that way.”

At nine, Robert was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Rachel made sure he received the care he needed. Under medical guidance, he began puberty blockers to prevent changes that would conflict with his identity. By 14, after years of therapy and careful consideration, he started testosterone. “As his mother, I agreed with his doctors that Robert would benefit from going through puberty alongside his peers,” Rachel says.

Robert is 16 now and is “healthy, social, and thriving.” But on January 29th, Rachel received a call: Robert’s appointment, a routine check-up for his hormone therapy, was canceled. “I am devastated that the president has sought to prevent my child from accessing the health care that allows him to be his true self,” Rachel says.

Without testosterone, Rachel fears that Robert will face severe distress. “This is a child who has told me since age two that he is a boy,” she says. “He is now a young man. It would be alarming for him to suddenly develop a woman’s body.”

Cameron, Robert, Gabe, and so many families like theirs see President Trump’s assault on their rights for what it is: an overreach of presidential power to deny them the health care that serves as the foundation of their lives and their future. At the ACLU, we refuse to let politics dictate who can and cannot receive essential healthcare, but our fight is about more than policy. Like all of us, trans youth deserve to grow up with the care and support they need. We will not stop fighting until their rights are protected.

Published April 4, 2025 at 12:08AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EPvmBxH

ACLU: The Human Toll of Trump's Anti-Trans Crusade

The Human Toll of Trump's Anti-Trans Crusade

After President Donald Trump issued an executive order restricting access to gender-affirming medical care for transgender people under 19, many hospitals nationwide abruptly cut off treatment for trans youth. This sent thousands of families scrambling, with some even wondering if they needed to leave the country to protect their family’s future.

If enforced, President Trump’s order will deny transgender youth access to medically-necessary care, like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, even as these same treatments remain readily available to their cisgender peers. The order also intends to cut or reduce federal funding for health care providers who refuse to prioritize the Trump administration’s political preferences over their patients’ medical needs.

"politics and partisanship have no place in patient care and we all deserve the freedom to be ourselves."

At the American Civil Liberties Union, we know that politics and partisanship have no place in patient care and we all deserve the freedom to be ourselves. On February 4th, alongside Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Maryland, we sued the Trump administration to block its discriminatory efforts to limit needed health care. We filed our suit on behalf of transgender young adults and their families, as well as PFLAG and GLMA, two of the nation’s largest organizations supporting LGBTQ+ people and healthcare professionals.

Since his first term, Trump and his administration have carried out a years-long effort to roll back protections for LGBTQ people. Beginning in January, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that remove protections for trans people. His directives include targeting transgender students, banning trans Americans from military service, and giving federal agencies the green light to openly discriminate against their trans employees. These orders align with the extremist vision of Project 2025, a sweeping right-wing agenda that seeks to dismantle civil rights protections, consolidate presidential power, and dehumanize transgender people.

J Matt/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

President Trump “is determined to use every level of government to drive transgender people out of public life,” says Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project.

For Cameron, Gabe, and Robert, three of the five trans young people challenging the Trump administration’s anti-trans agenda, this fight goes beyond the courtroom. It’s about their fundamental right to make deeply personal medical decisions without government interference.

For Cameron, words like “boy” or “girl” were never meaningful. Being seen as nonbinary makes them feel “strong, happy, recognized, and loved.” Before puberty, they worried about how others would treat them based on their clothes and pronouns. Now, as their physical-self matures, Cameron worries about how they see their own body. “The changes feel violating,” they say. “It makes me depressed, stressed, and anxious.”

After seeing a therapist, Cameron’s parents consulted a doctor who first spoke to them about puberty blockers, a temporary pause that gives people time to decide whether to undergo male or female puberty. Getting more time was a relief to Cameron who, after starting treatment at 12, remembers feeling "less stressed and a little more hopeful."

"I do not want to feel like a stranger in my body."

However, Cameron’s appointment for a puberty-blocking implant was abruptly canceled after the Trump administration issued its executive order. Their anxieties came rushing back, resulting in stomach pain, restless sleep, and missed school. Their parents fought to find a new doctor. Though Cameron did finally receive their implant, they fear losing care again. “I do not want to feel like a stranger in my body,” they told the ACLU.

For Gabe, a 14-year-old transgender boy, he hopes gender-affirming medical care will help him look and sound more like himself. Often, when strangers see him in public, they address him using male pronouns. Until he speaks. His voice still does not reflect who he is and causes people to misgender him, which only adds to the anxiety and dysmorphia that began when he started puberty.

“Even when I wasn’t sure why the changes felt wrong, I just knew they were,” Gabe says, reflecting on his experience trying to navigate his changing body.

To treat his dysphoria, Gabe’s parents consulted a doctor who explained how testosterone could help him feel more comfortable in his body. Gabe knew it was the right choice for him. “I want to be in a grown-up male body when I’m older,” he says. “I want the choice to tell people, not to be revealed by my voice.”

Gabe hoped to begin testosterone treatments in March 2025, but the administration’s actions put his plans at risk. Like many trans youth, Gabe now fears that he won’t have the choice to present as he truly is.

Families of trans youth also feel the impact of Trump’s discriminatory order. Rachel, a member of PFLAG, has always prioritized her son Robert’s health and well-being. From a very early age, she knew that Robert was meant to be a boy and that “he would thrive in school and the rest of his life if we let him live that way.”

At nine, Robert was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Rachel made sure he received the care he needed. Under medical guidance, he began puberty blockers to prevent changes that would conflict with his identity. By 14, after years of therapy and careful consideration, he started testosterone. “As his mother, I agreed with his doctors that Robert would benefit from going through puberty alongside his peers,” Rachel says.

Robert is 16 now and is “healthy, social, and thriving.” But on January 29th, Rachel received a call: Robert’s appointment, a routine check-up for his hormone therapy, was canceled. “I am devastated that the president has sought to prevent my child from accessing the health care that allows him to be his true self,” Rachel says.

Without testosterone, Rachel fears that Robert will face severe distress. “This is a child who has told me since age two that he is a boy,” she says. “He is now a young man. It would be alarming for him to suddenly develop a woman’s body.”

Cameron, Robert, Gabe, and so many families like theirs see President Trump’s assault on their rights for what it is: an overreach of presidential power to deny them the health care that serves as the foundation of their lives and their future. At the ACLU, we refuse to let politics dictate who can and cannot receive essential healthcare, but our fight is about more than policy. Like all of us, trans youth deserve to grow up with the care and support they need. We will not stop fighting until their rights are protected.

Published April 3, 2025 at 07:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/MX4Wj6f

ACLU: Five State and Local Entities Safeguarding Our Civil Rights

Five State and Local Entities Safeguarding Our Civil Rights

State and local officials play direct and crucial roles in shaping and safeguarding our civil rights and civil liberties, especially amid the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks. These offices and officials – governors, state legislatures, attorneys general, and mayors – influence countless parts of our daily lives but, most importantly, their decisions can determine voter access, life-saving healthcare, gender-affirming care, and other vital rights the Trump administration has threatened.

Below, we break down the offices and officials who can – and must – uphold our rights.

How Can Governors Combat Trump?

Governors sign bills into law, determine law enforcement priorities, and develop state budgets, all of which directly impact our civil rights. For example, they can enact laws that either protect or ban abortion, and advance or hinder voting rights. Governors also wield influence over the criminal justice system. They supervise state law enforcement agencies, appoint corrections officials, and can advocate for policies to reduce mass incarceration, address racial disparities in our justice system, and keep communities safe.

As part of the ACLU’s Firewall for Freedom campaign, we are asking governors to direct state agencies not to voluntarily share private information or otherwise collaborate with federal law enforcement seeking to violate civil rights and civil liberties. This doesn’t end with law enforcement — officials must safeguard student data, stop collecting information that could be weaponized against our communities, and enact policies to ensure students do not suffer discrimination and harassment at school.

What Role Do Attorneys General Play in Protecting Our Rights?

Attorneys general serve as the guardian for legal rights in the state, which covers all kinds of freedoms for millions of people. We’ve asked attorney generals to issue guidance addressing our firewall asks — but that’s just one step they can take.

As many states strengthen their anti-discrimination laws, attorneys general can proactively issue guidance affirming these protections against Trump administration threats. Their guidance can help protect undocumented communities, LGBTQ individuals, and protesters from politics that target them for discrimination or harassment. They can also challenge voter suppression laws in court and enforce protections for abortion providers. Already, a number of attorneys general have filed cases challenging Trump administration executive orders that roll back civil rights protections and threaten local resources that communities rely upon.

Why Are State Legislatures Critical to Our Rule of Law?

State legislatures write and pass laws that directly impact our freedoms. Most urgently, they must pass privacy laws to bar corporations and law enforcement from using unchecked data collection to track sensitive activities like seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care. Meaningful legislation — often called SHIELD laws — limit the data that companies can collect and share, reducing the risk of surveillance, discrimination, and exploitation of personal information.

State legislatures also must establish election laws that can make it easier for us to vote. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, these legislatures have the power to protect abortion in their state. Their authority also extends to criminal justice reform in defining crime, response procedures, and sentencing. They must also limit cooperation with federal authorities’ immigration policy, and codify legal protections for LGBTQ individuals.

What Do State Treasurers and Others Do to Safeguard our Rights?

State Treasurers, comptrollers and controllers oversee the fiscal health of each state and hold authority over crucial financial decision making. They also do crucial work to keep legislatures informed about the true impact of federal decisions on resources to the state.

With federal funding under threat by the Trump administration — often coupled with disinformation about how state and local agencies are actually using those funds — state treasurers will play a crucial role to speak to the devastating impacts of rolling back funding authorized by Congress. These fiscal leaders will also play a truth telling role when faced with any sweeping mischaracterizations of the lifesaving and essential community programs that our federal money protects.

How Do Mayors Fight Trump Administration Abuses?

Similar to governors, mayors have direct authority over city policies, law enforcement, and social programs. They play a crucial role in reproductive rights by allocating funding to support clinics and protecting patients from government harassment. Mayors oversee local police departments, set public safety policies, and promote community-based policing reforms. Many mayors also shape immigration policies within their cities, able to enact sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal deportation efforts.

Why Are School Boards Vital to Students’ Rights?

School boards are instrumental in defining policies that impact students and parents’ civil rights . They promote civic education, sex education, and block efforts to ban books and censor teachers. When school boards implement restorative justice programs, they support criminal justice system reform and reduce punitive measures that disproportionately affect students of color. Additionally, school boards establish policies – such as anti-bullying protections and access to inclusive facilities — to support LGBTQ students.

Right now, the ACLU’s nationwide affiliates are asking their governors, attorneys general, mayors and other state and local officials to say no to Trump’s radical agenda. To support their work, the ACLU has a playbook primed to defend our fundamental freedoms, which includes comprehensive and necessary tools across reproductive rights, immigration, free speech, and more to uphold our rights in the states where we live.

Want to take action alongside your officials? Our volunteer teams help mobilize and organize communities all across the country in defense of our civil liberties by making calls, sending texts, or writing letters

Published March 25, 2025 at 10:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Zjtv7Oz

ACLU: Five State and Local Entities Safeguarding Our Civil Rights

Five State and Local Entities Safeguarding Our Civil Rights

State and local officials play direct and crucial roles in shaping and safeguarding our civil rights and civil liberties, especially amid the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks. These offices and officials – governors, state legislatures, attorneys general, and mayors – influence countless parts of our daily lives but, most importantly, their decisions can determine voter access, life-saving healthcare, gender-affirming care, and other vital rights the Trump administration has threatened.

Below, we break down the offices and officials who can – and must – uphold our rights.

How Can Governors Combat Trump?

Governors sign bills into law, determine law enforcement priorities, and develop state budgets, all of which directly impact our civil rights. For example, they can enact laws that either protect or ban abortion, and advance or hinder voting rights. Governors also wield influence over the criminal justice system. They supervise state law enforcement agencies, appoint corrections officials, and can advocate for policies to reduce mass incarceration, address racial disparities in our justice system, and keep communities safe.

As part of the ACLU’s Firewall for Freedom campaign, we are asking governors to direct state agencies not to voluntarily share private information or otherwise collaborate with federal law enforcement seeking to violate civil rights and civil liberties. This doesn’t end with law enforcement — officials must safeguard student data, stop collecting information that could be weaponized against our communities, and enact policies to ensure students do not suffer discrimination and harassment at school.

What Role Do Attorneys General Play in Protecting Our Rights?

Attorneys general serve as the guardian for legal rights in the state, which covers all kinds of freedoms for millions of people. We’ve asked attorney generals to issue guidance addressing our firewall asks — but that’s just one step they can take.

As many states strengthen their anti-discrimination laws, attorneys general can proactively issue guidance affirming these protections against Trump administration threats. Their guidance can help protect undocumented communities, LGBTQ individuals, and protesters from politics that target them for discrimination or harassment. They can also challenge voter suppression laws in court and enforce protections for abortion providers. Already, a number of attorneys general have filed cases challenging Trump administration executive orders that roll back civil rights protections and threaten local resources that communities rely upon.

Why Are State Legislatures Critical to Our Rule of Law?

State legislatures write and pass laws that directly impact our freedoms. Most urgently, they must pass privacy laws to bar corporations and law enforcement from using unchecked data collection to track sensitive activities like seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care. Meaningful legislation — often called SHIELD laws — limit the data that companies can collect and share, reducing the risk of surveillance, discrimination, and exploitation of personal information.

State legislatures also must establish election laws that can make it easier for us to vote. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, these legislatures have the power to protect abortion in their state. Their authority also extends to criminal justice reform in defining crime, response procedures, and sentencing. They must also limit cooperation with federal authorities’ immigration policy, and codify legal protections for LGBTQ individuals.

What Do State Treasurers and Others Do to Safeguard our Rights?

State Treasurers, comptrollers and controllers oversee the fiscal health of each state and hold authority over crucial financial decision making. They also do crucial work to keep legislatures informed about the true impact of federal decisions on resources to the state.

With federal funding under threat by the Trump administration — often coupled with disinformation about how state and local agencies are actually using those funds — state treasurers will play a crucial role to speak to the devastating impacts of rolling back funding authorized by Congress. These fiscal leaders will also play a truth telling role when faced with any sweeping mischaracterizations of the lifesaving and essential community programs that our federal money protects.

How Do Mayors Fight Trump Administration Abuses?

Similar to governors, mayors have direct authority over city policies, law enforcement, and social programs. They play a crucial role in reproductive rights by allocating funding to support clinics and protecting patients from government harassment. Mayors oversee local police departments, set public safety policies, and promote community-based policing reforms. Many mayors also shape immigration policies within their cities, able to enact sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal deportation efforts.

Why Are School Boards Vital to Students’ Rights?

School boards are instrumental in defining policies that impact students and parents’ civil rights . They promote civic education, sex education, and block efforts to ban books and censor teachers. When school boards implement restorative justice programs, they support criminal justice system reform and reduce punitive measures that disproportionately affect students of color. Additionally, school boards establish policies – such as anti-bullying protections and access to inclusive facilities — to support LGBTQ students.

Right now, the ACLU’s nationwide affiliates are asking their governors, attorneys general, mayors and other state and local officials to say no to Trump’s radical agenda. To support their work, the ACLU has a playbook primed to defend our fundamental freedoms, which includes comprehensive and necessary tools across reproductive rights, immigration, free speech, and more to uphold our rights in the states where we live.

Want to take action alongside your officials? Our volunteer teams help mobilize and organize communities all across the country in defense of our civil liberties by making calls, sending texts, or writing letters

Published March 25, 2025 at 05:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/K4bNi5Y

ACLU: Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’ Marks Continued Fight for Voting Rights

Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’ Marks Continued Fight for Voting Rights

Sixty years ago, on March 7, 1965, hundreds of civil rights activists, also known as foot soldiers, marched from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to fight for the right to vote for Black people. As they marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Alabama State Troopers brutally beat them. The violence these activists endured became synonymous with the struggle for Black enfranchisement.

The Edmund Pettus Bridge march, alongside three other marches in Alabama, helped Congress recognize the urgency with which it must pass voting rights legislation. Mere weeks after the Edmund Pettus march, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was presented to Congress on March 17, 1965. President Johnson signed the bill into law on August 6, 1965.

Since 1965, voting rights advocates have gathered in Alabama annually for the Selma Jubilee to mark the anniversary by marching the Edmund Pettus Bridge in remembrance. This was the first year the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored the Selma Jubilee, and I was lucky enough to travel to Alabama to witness the march firsthand.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

Early that morning, we gathered at the historic Brown AME chapel, which played a large role in the civil rights movement. Activists would gather here to plan protests and civil rights efforts, and this church was the original meeting place before the march.

On the steps of the chapel before the march to Selma, speakers from voting rights groups nationwide recognized the original marchers, also known as foot soldiers, while contextualizing the current state of voting rights.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

Yasmin Cader, the director of the ACLU Trone Center for Justice, kicked us off by reminding us how the current fights for voting rights and racial justice are intertwined.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

We began to march toward Edmund Pettus Bridge, led by the ACLU of Alabama, holding signs and singing protest songs. The energy in the crowd was electric. While we are all different, we gathered in Selma because of our shared belief in the enduring power of justice.

As we approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, everyone moved back to ensure the foot soldiers had the chance to cross the bridge first. Watching them march, I was struck by the history of the moment. These brave people were willing to risk everything for the right to participate in democracy.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

As I marched across the bridge, I reflected on how we still have work to do to ensure that we live up to the promise of the Voting Rights Act. While the methods may change, the right to vote is still under attack nationwide. We’re fighting in court to ensure that states like Louisanna maintain voting districts that give black voters equal representation, and politicians are trying to pass bills like the SAVE Act that would make it more difficult to vote.

We honor the foot soldiers by continuing their fight.

Published March 24, 2025 at 04:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/I1TXcrE

ACLU: Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’ Marks Continued Fight for Voting Rights

Anniversary of ‘Bloody Sunday’ Marks Continued Fight for Voting Rights

Sixty years ago, on March 7, 1965, hundreds of civil rights activists, also known as foot soldiers, marched from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to fight for the right to vote for Black people. As they marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Alabama State Troopers brutally beat them. The violence these activists endured became synonymous with the struggle for Black enfranchisement.

The Edmund Pettus Bridge march, alongside three other marches in Alabama, helped Congress recognize the urgency with which it must pass voting rights legislation. Mere weeks after the Edmund Pettus march, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was presented to Congress on March 17, 1965. President Johnson signed the bill into law on August 6, 1965.

Since 1965, voting rights advocates have gathered in Alabama annually for the Selma Jubilee to mark the anniversary by marching the Edmund Pettus Bridge in remembrance. This was the first year the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored the Selma Jubilee, and I was lucky enough to travel to Alabama to witness the march firsthand.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

Early that morning, we gathered at the historic Brown AME chapel, which played a large role in the civil rights movement. Activists would gather here to plan protests and civil rights efforts, and this church was the original meeting place before the march.

On the steps of the chapel before the march to Selma, speakers from voting rights groups nationwide recognized the original marchers, also known as foot soldiers, while contextualizing the current state of voting rights.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

Yasmin Cader, the director of the ACLU Trone Center for Justice, kicked us off by reminding us how the current fights for voting rights and racial justice are intertwined.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

We began to march toward Edmund Pettus Bridge, led by the ACLU of Alabama, holding signs and singing protest songs. The energy in the crowd was electric. While we are all different, we gathered in Selma because of our shared belief in the enduring power of justice.

As we approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, everyone moved back to ensure the foot soldiers had the chance to cross the bridge first. Watching them march, I was struck by the history of the moment. These brave people were willing to risk everything for the right to participate in democracy.

Credit: Lynsey Weatherspoon

As I marched across the bridge, I reflected on how we still have work to do to ensure that we live up to the promise of the Voting Rights Act. While the methods may change, the right to vote is still under attack nationwide. We’re fighting in court to ensure that states like Louisanna maintain voting districts that give black voters equal representation, and politicians are trying to pass bills like the SAVE Act that would make it more difficult to vote.

We honor the foot soldiers by continuing their fight.

Published March 24, 2025 at 10:29PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/IzbTRil

ACLU: Trump's Attempt to Deride NLRB Won't Stop Power of Collective Actions

Trump's Attempt to Deride NLRB Won't Stop Power of Collective Actions

On March 6, a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump illegally fired former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) chair Gwynne Wilcox. The judge ordered that she be restored and allowed to fulfill her duties as a duly-appointed member of the NLRB. With its quorum now re-established, the NLRB can resume its mission enforcing workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). President Trump has opposed this important work, as shown by his email purporting to fire Wilcox, who is the only Black woman to ever serve on the NLRB.

In his email, Trump at turns ignored and derided the agency’s work, further undercutting his claims to be pro-worker. As he admitted, his decision to remove Wilcox was because she is pro-worker, as shown in her support for a pro-worker ‘joint employer’ rule, which, as the American Civil Liberties Union has argued, is essential to holding employers accountable for their misdeeds. In his email, Trump did not mention the NLRB’s mission to safeguard workers’ right to collective action or the benefits of holding employers accountable for their treatment of workers. He expressed empathy for employers only, claiming without evidence that Wilcox’s decisions had “improperly cabined employers’ rights to speak on the subject of unionization[.]” Trump may have been alluding to the numerous unfair labor practices for which the NLRB found Tesla liable, including a threat to retaliate, which is not protected by the First Amendment, by Elon Musk when workers at Tesla began unionizing.

Though often overlooked compared to better-known rights, the NLRA-protected “right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” are essential to the causes of racial and economic justice.

The right to engage in collective action to protest working or other conditions is a core human right. It is implicit in the First Amendment right to speech, association, and petition and is codified in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Section 7 of the NLRA. Thanks to Section 7, most private sector workers in the U.S. have the express right to organize and form unions, to bargain collectively, and to engage in other forms of collective action to improve working conditions.

While these rights benefit all workers, low-income workers – disproportionately Black and Hispanic – stand to benefit the most. Unions negotiate for higher wages, improved benefits, reduced income equality, and workplace protections, as the federal government and others have documented.

The NLRB is charged with protecting these rights, which has led in recent years to wins for low-income workers and workers of color. Specifically:

• The NLRB administered the election of Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island, more than 60 percent of whom were Black or Latino, who voted to join the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), a culmination of the first successful organizing drive in Amazon history. The NLRB also went after Amazon after it committed numerous unfair labor practices against ALU.
• The NLRB oversaw the unionization of thousands of Starbucks employees, more than 50 percent of whom identify as a racial or ethnic minority. The NLRBhas consistently prosecuted Starbucks when it has committed unfair labor practices against those workers.
• Since 2021 petitions for union elections at the NLRB have more than doubled. Black workers have higher union membership rates than other racial and ethnic groups and, thus, are most likely to depend on the protections afforded by the NLRA.

Ultimately, if workers are to improve their lot, they must rely on each other. At their core, labor unions are vehicles for collective self-help that, when leveraged wisely, can help workers of all stripes but particularly low-income and other vulnerable workers – who alone can do little to improve their lot – effectuate their demands for better working conditions. Renowned civil rights leaders have recognized their potential. A. Phillip Randolph, who helped organize the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, recognized the potential of unions to help Black workers band together to oppose discrimination. Martin Luther King Jr. spent the last days of his life in Memphis in solidarity with striking sanitation workers seeking better pay and safer working conditions. Pedro Albizu Campos, famed nationalist leader of Puerto Rico, organized sugarcane workers in furtherance of this principle. Unions are a rare institution where people of all backgrounds, and across racial lines, can make common cause in furtherance of mutual aid.

"At their core, labor unions are vehicles for collective self-help that, when leveraged wisely, can help workers of all stripes but particularly low-income and other vulnerable workers..."

The NLRB’s reopening is cause for celebration and a step in the direction of economic and racial justice. Regardless of the NLRB, it’s on workers to organize to see their demands met. As former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (fired in the same email as Wilcox) observed in her outgoing statement: “if the Agency does not fully effectuate its Congressional mandate in the future as we did during my tenure, I expect that workers with assistance from their advocates will take matters into their own hands in order to get well-deserved dignity and respect in the workplace, as well as a fair share of the significant value they add to their employer’s operations.”

Published March 21, 2025 at 11:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Sv7A1Ht

ACLU: Trump's Attempt to Deride NLRB Won't Stop Power of Collective Actions

Trump's Attempt to Deride NLRB Won't Stop Power of Collective Actions

On March 6, a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump illegally fired former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) chair Gwynne Wilcox. The judge ordered that she be restored and allowed to fulfill her duties as a duly-appointed member of the NLRB. With its quorum now re-established, the NLRB can resume its mission enforcing workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). President Trump has opposed this important work, as shown by his email purporting to fire Wilcox, who is the only Black woman to ever serve on the NLRB.

In his email, Trump at turns ignored and derided the agency’s work, further undercutting his claims to be pro-worker. As he admitted, his decision to remove Wilcox was because she is pro-worker, as shown in her support for a pro-worker ‘joint employer’ rule, which, as the American Civil Liberties Union has argued, is essential to holding employers accountable for their misdeeds. In his email, Trump did not mention the NLRB’s mission to safeguard workers’ right to collective action or the benefits of holding employers accountable for their treatment of workers. He expressed empathy for employers only, claiming without evidence that Wilcox’s decisions had “improperly cabined employers’ rights to speak on the subject of unionization[.]” Trump may have been alluding to the numerous unfair labor practices for which the NLRB found Tesla liable, including a threat to retaliate, which is not protected by the First Amendment, by Elon Musk when workers at Tesla began unionizing.

Though often overlooked compared to better-known rights, the NLRA-protected “right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” are essential to the causes of racial and economic justice.

The right to engage in collective action to protest working or other conditions is a core human right. It is implicit in the First Amendment right to speech, association, and petition and is codified in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Section 7 of the NLRA. Thanks to Section 7, most private sector workers in the U.S. have the express right to organize and form unions, to bargain collectively, and to engage in other forms of collective action to improve working conditions.

While these rights benefit all workers, low-income workers – disproportionately Black and Hispanic – stand to benefit the most. Unions negotiate for higher wages, improved benefits, reduced income equality, and workplace protections, as the federal government and others have documented.

The NLRB is charged with protecting these rights, which has led in recent years to wins for low-income workers and workers of color. Specifically:

• The NLRB administered the election of Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island, more than 60 percent of whom were Black or Latino, who voted to join the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), a culmination of the first successful organizing drive in Amazon history. The NLRB also went after Amazon after it committed numerous unfair labor practices against ALU.
• The NLRB oversaw the unionization of thousands of Starbucks employees, more than 50 percent of whom identify as a racial or ethnic minority. The NLRBhas consistently prosecuted Starbucks when it has committed unfair labor practices against those workers.
• Since 2021 petitions for union elections at the NLRB have more than doubled. Black workers have higher union membership rates than other racial and ethnic groups and, thus, are most likely to depend on the protections afforded by the NLRA.

Ultimately, if workers are to improve their lot, they must rely on each other. At their core, labor unions are vehicles for collective self-help that, when leveraged wisely, can help workers of all stripes but particularly low-income and other vulnerable workers – who alone can do little to improve their lot – effectuate their demands for better working conditions. Renowned civil rights leaders have recognized their potential. A. Phillip Randolph, who helped organize the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, recognized the potential of unions to help Black workers band together to oppose discrimination. Martin Luther King Jr. spent the last days of his life in Memphis in solidarity with striking sanitation workers seeking better pay and safer working conditions. Pedro Albizu Campos, famed nationalist leader of Puerto Rico, organized sugarcane workers in furtherance of this principle. Unions are a rare institution where people of all backgrounds, and across racial lines, can make common cause in furtherance of mutual aid.

"At their core, labor unions are vehicles for collective self-help that, when leveraged wisely, can help workers of all stripes but particularly low-income and other vulnerable workers..."

The NLRB’s reopening is cause for celebration and a step in the direction of economic and racial justice. Regardless of the NLRB, it’s on workers to organize to see their demands met. As former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (fired in the same email as Wilcox) observed in her outgoing statement: “if the Agency does not fully effectuate its Congressional mandate in the future as we did during my tenure, I expect that workers with assistance from their advocates will take matters into their own hands in order to get well-deserved dignity and respect in the workplace, as well as a fair share of the significant value they add to their employer’s operations.”

Published March 21, 2025 at 06:07PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/DaBkQe0

ACLU: A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia

A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia

This piece originally appeared in The New York Review of Books.

We write as constitutional scholars—some liberal and some conservative—who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.

The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled “harassment.” Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.

Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies—including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years”—as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”

Under Title VI, the government may not cut off funds until it has conducted a

• program-by-program evaluation of the alleged violations;
• provided recipients with notice and “an opportunity for hearing”;
• limited any funding cutoff “to the particular program, or part thereof, in which… noncompliance has been…found”; and
• submitted a report explaining its actions to the relevant committees in Congress at least thirty days before any funds can be stopped.

These requirements aim to ensure that any withdrawal of funds is based on genuine misbehavior on the university’s part—on illegal toleration of discriminatory conduct, not just on allowance of First Amendment–protected expression. The requirements aim to make clear to recipients of federal funds just what behavior can form the basis for sanctions. And each of the requirements aims to make sure that the sanction fits the offense.

Yet here the sanction was imposed without any agency or court finding that Columbia violated Title VI in its response to antisemitic harassment or discrimination. Even to the extent that some protesters’ behavior amounted to illegal harassment of Jewish students, no agency and no court has concluded that Columbia illegally failed to reasonably respond to such discriminatory behavior—much less failed to act at a level justifying withdrawal of nearly half a billion dollars in funds. The government’s action therefore risks deterring and suppressing constitutionally protected speech—not just illegal discriminatory conduct.

And this danger extends beyond universities. The safeguards and limits that the administration has ignored are designed to protect all recipients of federal funding from unwarranted or excessive sanctions. They protect recipients of federal funding across the ideological spectrum, including K-12 schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and business and agricultural initiatives. The administration’s failure to honor the Title VI safeguards creates a dangerous precedent for every recipient of federal financial assistance.

---

The following individuals contributed to this letter:

Steven G. Calabresi
Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Law School

Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School

Richard Epstein
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law

Owen Fiss
Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale Law School

Aziz Huq
Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Pamela Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, Stanford Law School

Randall Kennedy
Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Genevieve Lakier
Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School

Michael McConnell
Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

Michael Paulsen
Distinguished University Chair and Professor, St. Thomas Law School

Robert Post
Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School

David Rabban
Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail, and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School

Geoffrey R. Stone
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Nadine Strossen
John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School

Keith Whittington
David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School

Published March 20, 2025 at 11:53PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/PqKbVS4

ACLU: A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia

A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia

This piece originally appeared in The New York Review.

We write as constitutional scholars—some liberal and some conservative—who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.

The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled “harassment.” Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.

Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies—including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years”—as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”

Under Title VI, the government may not cut off funds until it has conducted a

• program-by-program evaluation of the alleged violations;
• provided recipients with notice and “an opportunity for hearing”;
• limited any funding cutoff “to the particular program, or part thereof, in which… noncompliance has been…found”; and
• submitted a report explaining its actions to the relevant committees in Congress at least thirty days before any funds can be stopped.

These requirements aim to ensure that any withdrawal of funds is based on genuine misbehavior on the university’s part—on illegal toleration of discriminatory conduct, not just on allowance of First Amendment–protected expression. The requirements aim to make clear to recipients of federal funds just what behavior can form the basis for sanctions. And each of the requirements aims to make sure that the sanction fits the offense.

Yet here the sanction was imposed without any agency or court finding that Columbia violated Title VI in its response to antisemitic harassment or discrimination. Even to the extent that some protesters’ behavior amounted to illegal harassment of Jewish students, no agency and no court has concluded that Columbia illegally failed to reasonably respond to such discriminatory behavior—much less failed to act at a level justifying withdrawal of nearly half a billion dollars in funds. The government’s action therefore risks deterring and suppressing constitutionally protected speech—not just illegal discriminatory conduct.

And this danger extends beyond universities. The safeguards and limits that the administration has ignored are designed to protect all recipients of federal funding from unwarranted or excessive sanctions. They protect recipients of federal funding across the ideological spectrum, including K-12 schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and business and agricultural initiatives. The administration’s failure to honor the Title VI safeguards creates a dangerous precedent for every recipient of federal financial assistance.

---

The following individuals contributed to this letter:

Steven G. Calabresi
Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Law School

Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School

Richard Epstein
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law

Owen Fiss
Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale Law School

Aziz Huq
Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Pamela Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, Stanford Law School

Randall Kennedy
Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Genevieve Lakier
Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School

Michael McConnell
Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

Michael Paulsen
Distinguished University Chair and Professor, St. Thomas Law School

Robert Post
Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School

David Rabban
Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail, and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School

Geoffrey R. Stone
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Nadine Strossen
John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School

Keith Whittington
David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School

Published March 20, 2025 at 06:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3c8PRaB

ACLU: A Letter From Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil

A Letter From Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil

Earlier this month, recent graduate, activist, soon-to-be father, and legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, was arrested and detained in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) transferred him to a Louisiana detention facility 1,400 miles away from his home and his family.

Following his illegal arrest, a team of lawyers, including Amy Greer from Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and CLEAR secured a court order to block his deportation. Since then, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University (NYU) School of Law have joined his legal team. His lawyers are arguing that his detention violates his constitutional rights, including free speech and due process, and goes beyond the government’s legal authority.

Below, read a letter Khalil dictated over the phone from Immigrations and Customs (ICE) detention in Louisiana – his first public statement since his arrest.

---

My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.

Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn’t the Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his family an ocean away. It isn’t the 21-year-old detainee I met, who stepped foot in this country at age nine, only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities.

"Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities."

On March 8, I was taken by DHS agents who refused to provide a warrant, and accosted my wife and me as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern was for Noor’s safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours — I did not know the cause of my arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January’s ceasefire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle for their complete freedom.

I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use of administrative detention — imprisonment without trial or charge — to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the U.S. has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand U.S. laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

"I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear."

While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents Shafik, Armstrong, and Dean Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the U.S. government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns — based on racism and disinformation — to go unchecked.

Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration's latest threats. My arrest, the expulsion or suspension of at least 22 Columbia students — some stripped of their B.A. degrees just weeks before graduation — and the expulsion of SWC President Grant Miner on the eve of contract negotiations, are clear examples.

If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice.

"Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice."

The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.

Published March 20, 2025 at 08:07PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/pPMiuOn

ACLU: A Letter From Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil

A Letter From Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil

Earlier this month, recent graduate, activist, soon-to-be father, and legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, was arrested and detained in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) transferred him to a Louisiana detention facility 1,400 miles away from his home and his family.

Following his illegal arrest, a team of lawyers, including Amy Greer from Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and CLEAR secured a court order to block his deportation. Since then, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University (NYU) School of Law have joined his legal team. His lawyers are arguing that his detention violates his constitutional rights, including free speech and due process, and goes beyond the government’s legal authority.

Below, read a letter Khalil dictated over the phone from Immigrations and Customs (ICE) detention in Louisiana – his first public statement since his arrest.

---

My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.

Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn’t the Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his family an ocean away. It isn’t the 21-year-old detainee I met, who stepped foot in this country at age nine, only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities.

"Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities."

On March 8, I was taken by DHS agents who refused to provide a warrant, and accosted my wife and me as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern was for Noor’s safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours — I did not know the cause of my arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January’s ceasefire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle for their complete freedom.

I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use of administrative detention — imprisonment without trial or charge — to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the U.S. has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand U.S. laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

"I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear."

While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents Shafik, Armstrong, and Dean Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the U.S. government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns — based on racism and disinformation — to go unchecked.

Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration's latest threats. My arrest, the expulsion or suspension of at least 22 Columbia students — some stripped of their B.A. degrees just weeks before graduation — and the expulsion of SWC President Grant Miner on the eve of contract negotiations, are clear examples.

If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice.

"Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice."

The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.

Published March 20, 2025 at 02:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ca0HPsV