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

ACLU: Trump’s Attack on the Department of Education, Explained

Trump’s Attack on the Department of Education, Explained

This week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a statement saying it would cut nearly 50 percent of the department's workforce. These new layoffs occur at a moment when President Donald Trump has vowed to eliminate the ED and withhold funding from any other entity that incorporates diversity, equity and inclusion in educational practices and environments pursuant to civil rights laws. This move is part of the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the ED and repeal the federal government’s core responsibility of ensuring equal educational opportunity for all.

This reckless action strips students of vital resources and tears down statutorily-mandated functions that are essential to addressing racial and economic inequality in education. It also threatens decades of bipartisan progress toward educational fairness and reverses the commitment of previous administrations — Republican and Democrat alike — to ensure equal access to education. As the Supreme Court unanimously recognized in Brown v. Board of Education, public education “is the very foundation of good citizenship.”

How Will These Cuts Affect Students’ Civil Rights?

The ED reportedly terminated all staff in seven of the Office of Civil Rights’ (OCR) 12 regional offices. Gutting the OCR severely weakens federal civil rights enforcement, leaving millions of students without crucial protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry sex, gender, disability, and age. It also suppresses students’ ability to seek justice when their rights are violated and allows discriminatory practices, including uneven and unfair targeting of students of color for school discipline, inequitable access to advanced coursework, the refusal to provide accommodations to students with disabilities, and discrimination against students with limited English proficiency or English learner status to persist unchecked.

By stripping ED of staff and resources, key federal grant programs are also at risk, including Title I funding, which provides critical support to schools serving low-income communities, and other federal student loan programs. Abandoning the long-standing federal commitment to ensuring that schools with the greatest needs receive additional resources will disproportionately harm students of color and exacerbate racial inequities in education.

Trump’s plans also threaten protections and funding provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees that children with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education. Without these protections, millions of students who rely on IDEA for necessary accommodations, such as specialized instruction and assistive technology, are at risk of losing access to the education they are legally entitled to receive.

How Does a Diminished ED Impact the Future of Education?

Without the ED, the federal government’s capacity to collect data is eviscerated, which is an essential resource for identifying and addressing disparities in education. Without this oversight, school districts won’t be held accountable for unjustified racial and disability disparities in discipline, academic performance, and access to resources. Policies based on data, which have helped reduce discriminatory discipline practices and promote equity for marginalized students, are now at risk.

The ED is also statutorily-mandated to enforce national student privacy laws and to provide students and parents an avenue to challenge abuses of their privacy. Without those protections, information about students’ grades, discipline, medical history and families’ income may be used for purposes they never agreed to — and even being weaponized in President Trump’s deportation machine.

How Can We Push Back on These Attacks?

For more than a century, the ACLU has been at the forefront of the fight for educational equity, including arguing in Brown v. Board that “segregation and equality cannot coexist. That which is unequal in fact cannot be equal in law.” Today, the educational landscape still denies marginalized students access to quality learning environments, undermining the very principles that Brown sought to establish.

Attacks on the ED are an attack on the progress we have made to advance educational equity. The ACLU is calling on Congress to act immediately to restore the federal government’s role in enforcing civil rights, maintaining transparency through data collection, and ensuring that students in low-income communities are not left behind.

Published March 14, 2025 at 09:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/q1tFx0f

ACLU: Trump’s Attack on the Department of Education, Explained

Trump’s Attack on the Department of Education, Explained

This week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a statement saying it would cut nearly 50 percent of the department's workforce. These new layoffs occur at a moment when President Donald Trump has vowed to eliminate the ED and withhold funding from any other entity that incorporates diversity, equity and inclusion in educational practices and environments pursuant to civil rights laws. This move is part of the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the ED and repeal the federal government’s core responsibility of ensuring equal educational opportunity for all.

This reckless action strips students of vital resources and tears down statutorily-mandated functions that are essential to addressing racial and economic inequality in education. It also threatens decades of bipartisan progress toward educational fairness and reverses the commitment of previous administrations — Republican and Democrat alike — to ensure equal access to education. As the Supreme Court unanimously recognized in Brown v. Board of Education, public education “is the very foundation of good citizenship.”

How Will These Cuts Affect Students’ Civil Rights?

The ED reportedly terminated all staff in seven of the Office of Civil Rights’ (OCR) 12 regional offices. Gutting the OCR severely weakens federal civil rights enforcement, leaving millions of students without crucial protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry sex, gender, disability, and age. It also suppresses students’ ability to seek justice when their rights are violated and allows discriminatory practices, including uneven and unfair targeting of students of color for school discipline, inequitable access to advanced coursework, the refusal to provide accommodations to students with disabilities, and discrimination against students with limited English proficiency or English learner status to persist unchecked.

By stripping ED of staff and resources, key federal grant programs are also at risk, including Title I funding, which provides critical support to schools serving low-income communities, and other federal student loan programs. Abandoning the long-standing federal commitment to ensuring that schools with the greatest needs receive additional resources will disproportionately harm students of color and exacerbate racial inequities in education.

Trump’s plans also threaten protections and funding provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees that children with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education. Without these protections, millions of students who rely on IDEA for necessary accommodations, such as specialized instruction and assistive technology, are at risk of losing access to the education they are legally entitled to receive.

How Does a Diminished ED Impact the Future of Education?

Without the ED, the federal government’s capacity to collect data is eviscerated, which is an essential resource for identifying and addressing disparities in education. Without this oversight, school districts won’t be held accountable for unjustified racial and disability disparities in discipline, academic performance, and access to resources. Policies based on data, which have helped reduce discriminatory discipline practices and promote equity for marginalized students, are now at risk.

The ED is also statutorily-mandated to enforce national student privacy laws and to provide students and parents an avenue to challenge abuses of their privacy. Without those protections, information about students’ grades, discipline, medical history and families’ income may be used for purposes they never agreed to — and even being weaponized in President Trump’s deportation machine.

How Can We Push Back on These Attacks?

For more than a century, the ACLU has been at the forefront of the fight for educational equity, including arguing in Brown v. Board that “segregation and equality cannot coexist. That which is unequal in fact cannot be equal in law.” Today, the educational landscape still denies marginalized students access to quality learning environments, undermining the very principles that Brown sought to establish.

Attacks on the ED are an attack on the progress we have made to advance educational equity. The ACLU is calling on Congress to act immediately to restore the federal government’s role in enforcing civil rights, maintaining transparency through data collection, and ensuring that students in low-income communities are not left behind.

Published March 14, 2025 at 04:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/zt6bUrp

ACLU: Singled Out for Speaking Up: How UCSC Seized My Digital Life After I Joined a Lawsuit Against Them

Singled Out for Speaking Up: How UCSC Seized My Digital Life After I Joined a Lawsuit Against Them

When I was a little girl, my family visited the Santa Cruz boardwalk and nearby beach. It felt familiar and safe to return here for college.

My freshman year at UCSC was great. I joined woodshop, made friends, hiked, and worked at a children’s museum. I maintained good grades while working towards a double major in environmental studies and biology. I was just a regular, happy college student.

Everything changed once the genocide in Gaza started, however. I couldn’t look away from what was happening. I joined fellow students in protesting, I attended UC Regents meetings, and I organized. I was hoping to see action from the school in solidarity with Palestine. Or, at the very least, I wanted the school to acknowledge what I and my fellow students were saying about the war.

But numerous students, including myself, faced harsh punishment for this protest activity and were banned from campus for up to two weeks at the end of the quarter, when finals were happening. Following these events, I joined a civil rights lawsuit challenging the University’s treatment of protesters.

Just 15 days after joining the lawsuit, campus police seized my phone during an early morning fire drill in my building. I was outside, still in my pajamas, when two UCSC officers approached me. They asked for my name and to confirm that I was a Resident Assistant. Then, they stated that they had a warrant for my phone. I asked to see the warrant, but they refused, demanding I hand over my phone first. I gave them my phone, and they showed me the warrant.

Right up front, the warrant had a screenshot of me doing an interview with a local TV station about my lawsuit against UCSC for how they treated me and other protesting students last spring. This was startling because the school has my student ID and could have used that picture instead.

A few other RAs checked on me after the police left. I borrowed a phone and called my sister, who contacted a friend, who reached out to my professor, who told my lawyers what had happened.

I never imagined campus police could seize a student’s phone—accessing photos, internet searches, messages, and personal data dating back many years. But after the pro-Palestine protests last spring, people were being punished and kicked off campus. There was this looming question in the organizing community: Who’s next?

The timing between when I filed the lawsuit against UCSC, naming the UCSC Chief of Police as a defendant, and when the UCSC police seized my phone makes me feel like the two events are connected. It was just over two weeks. And the fact that the police’s warrant included that picture of me giving the interview about the civil rights case feels like the school was motivated to punish me for having spoken up.  It’s also troubling because the search warrant gives the UCSC police access to my privileged communications with my lawyers in my civil rights case against UCSC.

The weeks after the UCSC police confiscated my phone were extremely challenging and it was hard to keep up with my studies and work. The phone had been a gift from my father, and I couldn’t afford to replace it. It was a beautiful blue color, brand new, and I loved it so much.

The feeling of violation continues to feel overwhelming—strangers now have access to everything, from my random casual conversations to incredibly intimate family exchanges. I thought I could get back to my studies after the challenges of last spring when I was excluded from campus after the protests. But having my phone seized right at the start of the year has really set me back. Now, I’m just trying to hold on, and it’s hard.

Published March 7, 2025 at 11:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/k4wyGe2

ACLU: Singled Out for Speaking Up: How UCSC Seized My Digital Life After I Joined a Lawsuit Against Them

Singled Out for Speaking Up: How UCSC Seized My Digital Life After I Joined a Lawsuit Against Them

When I was a little girl, my family visited the Santa Cruz boardwalk and nearby beach. It felt familiar and safe to return here for college.

My freshman year at UCSC was great. I joined woodshop, made friends, hiked, and worked at a children’s museum. I maintained good grades while working towards a double major in environmental studies and biology. I was just a regular, happy college student.

Everything changed once the genocide in Gaza started, however. I couldn’t look away from what was happening. I joined fellow students in protesting, I attended UC Regents meetings, and I organized. I was hoping to see action from the school in solidarity with Palestine. Or, at the very least, I wanted the school to acknowledge what I and my fellow students were saying about the war.

But numerous students, including myself, faced harsh punishment for this protest activity and were banned from campus for up to two weeks at the end of the quarter, when finals were happening. Following these events, I joined a civil rights lawsuit challenging the University’s treatment of protesters.

Just 15 days after joining the lawsuit, campus police seized my phone during an early morning fire drill in my building. I was outside, still in my pajamas, when two UCSC officers approached me. They asked for my name and to confirm that I was a Resident Assistant. Then, they stated that they had a warrant for my phone. I asked to see the warrant, but they refused, demanding I hand over my phone first. I gave them my phone, and they showed me the warrant.

Right up front, the warrant had a screenshot of me doing an interview with a local TV station about my lawsuit against UCSC for how they treated me and other protesting students last spring. This was startling because the school has my student ID and could have used that picture instead.

A few other RAs checked on me after the police left. I borrowed a phone and called my sister, who contacted a friend, who reached out to my professor, who told my lawyers what had happened.

I never imagined campus police could seize a student’s phone—accessing photos, internet searches, messages, and personal data dating back many years. But after the pro-Palestine protests last spring, people were being punished and kicked off campus. There was this looming question in the organizing community: Who’s next?

The timing between when I filed the lawsuit against UCSC, naming the UCSC Chief of Police as a defendant, and when the UCSC police seized my phone makes me feel like the two events are connected. It was just over two weeks. And the fact that the police’s warrant included that picture of me giving the interview about the civil rights case feels like the school was motivated to punish me for having spoken up.  It’s also troubling because the search warrant gives the UCSC police access to my privileged communications with my lawyers in my civil rights case against UCSC.

The weeks after the UCSC police confiscated my phone were extremely challenging and it was hard to keep up with my studies and work. The phone had been a gift from my father, and I couldn’t afford to replace it. It was a beautiful blue color, brand new, and I loved it so much.

The feeling of violation continues to feel overwhelming—strangers now have access to everything, from my random casual conversations to incredibly intimate family exchanges. I thought I could get back to my studies after the challenges of last spring when I was excluded from campus after the protests. But having my phone seized right at the start of the year has really set me back. Now, I’m just trying to hold on, and it’s hard.

Published March 7, 2025 at 06:07PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/b4eDU6N

ACLU: Rights of Federal Employees with Disabilities, Explained

Rights of Federal Employees with Disabilities, Explained

As part of President Donald Trump’s attempt to remake the federal workforce, several directives have been issued to terminate recently hired employees and gut entire agencies. Many federal workers have also been urged to resign under the premise that they will be paid through September 2025.

The federal workforce includes hundreds of thousands of well-qualified disabled employees who work at all levels of the federal government. Some disabled employees receive accommodations in the workplace, including an elevated desk that a wheelchair can fit under, interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing employees, or screen readers for people who are blind or low vision.

The entire federal workforce is facing unprecedented fear and uncertainty, but disabled workers face additional struggles as executive orders and damaging rhetoric question their right to receive needed accommodations. At the ACLU, we know that directives from the Trump administration do not change the law. It is still illegal to discriminate against a federal employee because of a disability and the federal government is still required to provide reasonable accommodations that do not cause undue hardship.

Play the video

ASL Interpretation of Rights of Federal Employees with Disabilities, Explained video

What Are My Rights as a Federal Government Employee with a Disability?

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination based on disability, specifically in hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, or other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It also requires that, unless it would be an undue hardship, agencies must provide reasonable accommodations for the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability.

Do the Trump Administration’s Policies and Orders Change the Law on Disability Discrimination or Reasonable Accommodation?

No, the new orders and policies cannot change the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, which a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) acknowledges. OPM states that “agencies should not terminate or prohibit accessibility or disability-related accommodations, assistance, or other programs that are required by [the Rehabilitation Act] or related laws.”

Can Federal Agencies Review or Change My Accommodations?

Reviewing an accommodation is permitted, but a reasonable accommodation should not be changed unless an accommodation is no longer necessary, the original accommodation is no longer effective for the employee, or another reasonable and effective accommodation exists.

Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to bring federal workers back into offices for in-person work, if working remotely is needed as a disability accommodation, the employer must still provide it. OPM recognizes this in another memo, writing that federal agencies should require in-person work unless remote work is “due to a disability [or] qualifying medical condition.”

Can I Be Pressured to Return to In-Person Work or Quit? Can I Be Targeted for Layoffs Because of a Disability? Can They Ask for Medical Documentation for an Accommodation?

Being pressured by supervisors or co-workers to quit or return to work in-person despite an approved accommodation may be illegal workplace harassment, retaliation for requesting an accommodation, or illegal interference with your right to seek an accommodation. It would also be illegal disability discrimination to target federal employees for layoffs based on their disabilities or need for accommodations.

Similarly, an employer should only ask for medical documentation if the disability or the need for the accommodation is not known or obvious. Such requests are normally made at the time of the original accommodation request. Further documentation may be requested if the disability is one that changes over time. When the employer has a good reason for seeking more documentation, the employer should only ask for reasonable documentation about the disability and about its functional limitations that require reasonable accommodation. Employers must treat any such health information as a confidential medical record.

What Should I Do if I Think My Federal Employer is Violating My Rights? How Can I Learn More?

If you can’t work it out directly with your employer, employees can file a complaint. There are very short deadlines to complain, and you should assume they cannot be extended.

The first step in the complaint process is to make and document an informal complaint with your agency’s Equal Opportunity Employment officer. This must be done within 45 days of the date of the failure to accommodate or other discrimination. But there are also deadlines for each step after that. The full complaint process is summarized in the Overview of Federal Sector EEO Complaint Process on the EEOC website.

It is illegal to retaliate against an employee for making a complaint of discrimination, including a complaint about the failure to accommodate. You should file a separate complaint about any retaliation. There is more information about your rights on the EEOC website. You might start by looking at the EEOC Disability-Related Resources. If you are worried that the information there may have recently changed or may no longer be accurate, you may want to consult a lawyer.

Disabled people belong in the federal workforce and in every part of the political, civic, and economic life of our communities. Donald Trump can’t undo that by fiat – and he hasn’t.

This blog includes excerpts from a frequently asked questions resource prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. The full resource, including a list of lawyers who can help answer questions on disability discrimination, can be found here in English and here in American Sign Language.

Published March 7, 2025 at 01:52AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/DO1PBf4