ACLU: How “Stay-or-Pay” Contracts Are Used to Abuse Immigrant Workers

How “Stay-or-Pay” Contracts Are Used to Abuse Immigrant Workers

Shiny Lal is a nurse who came to the U.S. from India at the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic. In a new country facing an unprecedented virus, she dedicated herself to the difficult, dangerous work of front-line caregiving to create a better life for her family. But it wasn’t long before her American dream turned into a nightmare. Her employer, MedPro Healthcare Staffing, is among the growing number of companies that force employees to sign “stay-or-pay” contracts. These agreements impose exorbitant fees – routinely in the tens of thousands of dollars – under the guise of recouping training and relocation expenses if a worker leaves their job too soon. In Shiny’s case, the penalty – up to $40,000 plus MedPro’s enforcement costs – was triggered if she spent fewer than three years working for the company.

MedPro placed Shiny in a small-town hospital in Kentucky where she was underpaid and struggled with an abusive supervisor. Shiny begged MedPro for a reassignment, but nothing changed. After enduring months of unbearable working conditions, Shiny resigned, hoping for a fresh start. But MedPro came after her, as it has pursued other former employees. MedPro filed a complaint against Shiny with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the world’s largest private dispute resolution company. Without hearing Shiny’s side of the story, the AAA arbitrator rubber-stamped MedPro’s request for almost $36,000 in damages and penalties. Shiny only learned about the ruling many months later when MedPro sued to collect the judgment.

A photo of Shiny Lal.

Shiny is far from the only one who has faced the devastating impact of stay-or-pay contracts. According to one estimate, employers use these contracts in an array of fields, including health care, trucking, education, and aviation. Combined, these industries employ 52 million people, or one-third of all U.S. workers. Employers typically use arbitration, a dispute resolution process where a private third party makes a binding decision on a dispute between two parties, to enforce these agreements, which the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, and several courts have been found to violate federal and state labor statutes and human trafficking laws.

Women – particularly immigrant women – and workers of color disproportionately hold the low-wage jobs where stay-or-pay contracts are most common, and disproportionately suffer the consequences of what is both a workers’ rights issue and a civil rights issue. Indeed, it isn’t an overstatement to call stay-or-pay contracts a form of indentured servitude where workers are forced to remain in substandard working conditions unless they are willing to risk financial ruin.

Today, the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and Towards Justice, along with 12 organizations called on the AAA to stop helping abusive employers enforce stay-or-pay contracts against their workers by refusing to accept such cases.

To understand just how harmful these contracts can be, the ACLU recently spoke with Shiny about her experience fighting the AAA ruling to free herself from this abusive contract and so she can return to the care-work that brought her to the states. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

ACLU: What inspired you to pursue a nursing career in the U.S.? What was your experience like moving and adapting to life here?

SHINY: I first filed to come to the U.S. in 2007 and had to wait 14 years for my application to be approved. It was a long-term dream of mine to be a nurse in a foreign country that had more modern equipment and better facilities. When I did calculations to convert my salary in dollars to rupees, it looked like I would be making good money. My husband, my children and I left everything we had in India to chase the American dream.

MedPro placed me at a hospital that was very remote and had no public transportation. I didn’t have a car or a driver’s license and I had to walk two miles in either direction to work and depend on neighbors to bring us groceries. Eventually I found a better apartment and purchased a second-hand car, but those expenses took up a lot of my salary. My husband couldn’t find a job, and my daughter couldn’t attend college because no one could travel anywhere. It was isolating and scary.

I asked for a different placement where I could have more resources and community, but MedPro knew they didn’t have to accommodate me because leaving the job could ruin me.

ACLU: Before signing, what was your understanding of the “stay or pay” contracts?

SHINY: I knew there would be a penalty for leaving my MedPro job before I’d worked there for three years, but I never imagined I would leave. I thought those three years would go by fast, and that life in the U.S. would be much better than it had been in India. It was only once it was too late that I understood how the contract opened me up to being mistreated by my employer and kept me stuck in a situation that I didn’t feel like I could get out of.

"It was only once it was too late that I understood how the contract opened me up to being mistreated by my employer and kept me stuck in a situation that I didn’t feel like I could get out of."

ACLU: How was your job with MedPro different from your expectations?

SHINY: MedPro contracted me to the hospital as a travel nurse, who often gets the hardest assignments in exchange for higher pay, so I was expected to deal with the most difficult patients. But I was earning less than the other staff nurses, not more, and had a hard time adjusting to a new medical system without any sort of guidance.

Soon after I started working, my supervisor began to treat me worse than other nurses, refusing to train me and blaming me for mistakes I hadn’t made. MedPro kept promising that I could switch supervisors, but nothing changed.

ACLU: What ultimately led you to resign your position with MedPro?

SHINY: After several weeks of repeated complaints, I was just told to quit. For a few months, I was forced to survive on a stipend of $350 per week while I waited for another placement, which was so low that I had to start borrowing money from friends to meet my family’s most basic needs. My husband ended up getting ill and had to return to India to receive care, leaving me alone with our two children. Looking back, I can’t imagine how I got through that time. I didn’t know what to do and nobody was there to help me.

After a few months, MedPro placed me at another job, but my debts were piling up. I would be in debt whether I stayed or quit, but if I found a new job with better pay, at least I could start to work my way out of it. So I gave notice to MedPro that I was resigning.

ACLU: How did you feel when you first found out about the AAA arbitration proceedings and the amount you were being asked to pay?

SHINY: After I gave notice, MedPro demanded that I pay them $26,666.68. I was shocked by how high that amount was, especially knowing how much money they had already made off my work. They were charging the hospital $150 an hour, and I was only earning $27 of that. I tried to negotiate, offering to pay $10,000, but they refused anything less than the full amount.

After I realized that I wasn’t getting anywhere, I stopped responding to their emails. I didn’t have the money to pay them and I didn’t have the money to pay a lawyer to represent me against them, so it felt like there was nothing I could do.

ACLU: What happens next with your case?

SHINY: Although I wasn’t aware that the arbitration was happening, the arbitrator entered an award against me for $36,592.87. This amount included $12,000 in damages paid to MedPro for the recruiter who I worked with in India, more than $20,000 for my orientation, and around $6,500 for something called “cost of capital,” prorated based on how much time I worked. It also included around $6,500 in interest and $3,500 to cover MedPro’s attorney fees. .

For a year after the award, I didn’t hear anything from MedPro, but in October 2024 I was served with a lawsuit they filed to get a court to confirm the arbitration award. The nonprofit Towards Justice had helped me file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, but I’m still waiting for a resolution, and I can’t afford a lawyer to defend me against MedPro’s case in court. I am scared that MedPro will get a judgment against me, and I feel hopeless about defending myself.

ACLU: How has this contract and lawsuit impacted your life?

SHINY: I’ve found a new job in a totally different environment that’s much more relaxed and supportive, and I’m finally able to live the life I came here for. My husband’s health improved and he was able to move back to the United States, so my family has been reunited. But I still have the lawsuit hanging over my head, and paying the debt is still impossible. I don’t want all of the work I’ve done towards the American Dream to fall apart. I didn’t understand how easy it was to take away my rights, and how powerless I would be to provide for my family.

Published January 13, 2025 at 05:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/iIFcLUm

ACLU: We're Fighting Back Against Efforts to Intimidate Professors into Silence

We're Fighting Back Against Efforts to Intimidate Professors into Silence

Last Spring, protests related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict engulfed universities across the country, with students and faculty weighing in on both sides of the issue. The ACLU expressed its strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses.

During student protests at Columbia University in April 2024, the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors (Columbia-AAUP), an organization of Columbia University faculty, issued a public statement condemning the school’s punitive response to students protesting the war in Gaza. The statement minced no words, describing then-President Minouche Shafik’s unilateral decision to authorize the NYPD to arrest student protestors as “a grotesque violation of norms of shared governance.” It described Shafik as “inaugurating a new era at Columbia,” marked by “repressed speech, political restrictions on academic inquiry, and punitive discipline against the University’s own students and faculty.” Columbia-AAUP, whose mission is to protect academic freedom and advocate for faculty and students, pledged to provide “continued support for our students’ right to protest and to speak freely, and for our colleagues’ right to teach and to write freely within their domains of expertise.”

Two months later, five current and former Columbia students filed a civil lawsuit in New York against Columbia AAUP in response to this and similar statements. The lawsuit names 21 people and organizations — including Columbia students and faculty, student organizations, the UAW, and three members of Congress — who publicly protested the war in Gaza or who made public statements in support of student protestors.

On behalf of Columbia-AAUP, the ACLU and the civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and to order the plaintiffs to pay our client’s legal fees. We argue that the lawsuit is a clear example of a SLAPP, or “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These cases weaponize our legal system to punish and silence constitutionally-protected speech.

SLAPP lawsuits have become a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism—including from whistleblowers, journalists, and political protestors. The real goal of a SLAPP suit is not necessarily to win in court, but to entangle people in expensive litigation, using the prospect of mounting legal fees and a potentially ruinous financial penalty to chill speech. In other words, to bully people into silence.

The plaintiffs claim that because Columbia-AAUP spoke in support of student protestors, it somehow injured them by causing Columbia University to move classes online, restrict campus access, and cancel commencement. The plaintiffs have sued Columbia-AAUP for purported monetary and punitive damages resulting from Columbia University’s actions.

If this feels like a logical leap, that's because it is.

Fortunately, New York State—along with 33 other states and the District of Columbia—has an “anti-SLAPP” law specifically designed to protect those whose speech is targeted by such meritless lawsuits. Under New York’s law, a defendant may quickly move to dismiss a lawsuit based on public speech in connection with any issue of public interest—like a statement from professors about the treatment of student protesters on their campus. In a typical civil lawsuit, the defendant must prove that the case has no legal basis in order to dismiss it at the outset. By contrast, the anti-SLAPP law shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove that there is a “substantial basis” for the claims. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, the court must not only dismiss the case, but also order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees. The purpose of the fee award is to ensure the defendant is not left with a hefty financial burden simply from fighting off a frivolous case and to dissuade others from filing such lawsuits in the future.

Columbia-AAUP’s case is exactly the type of lawsuit anti-SLAPP laws are designed to quickly dismiss and deter. The allegations against Columbia-AAUP focus exclusively on public statements that the faculty organization made in support of students’ rights to free speech and criticizing Columbia’s crackdown, including using the NYPD, on protesting students. These are issues of clear public interest; indeed, they have captured national attention. And it is clear there is no “substantial basis” for holding Columbia-AAUP liable for this speech, when there is no plausible connection between Columbia-AAUP’s words and Columbia University’s reaction to the student protestors.

Throughout American history, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. Columbia University itself has frequently been a site of vibrant student protest, including with respect to the Vietnam War, South African Apartheid, and climate change. In this case, the unnamed plaintiffs are free to disagree with the student protestors’ message and those who defended their rights to free speech, but they cannot hold them legally liable for engaging in the rich tradition of dissent that characterizes American campuses.

At the ACLU, we won’t stand for SLAPP lawsuits that imperil this historic tradition and threaten the First Amendment rights of future generations of students, professors, and activists. New York’s anti-SLAPP law, and the First Amendment, clearly protect Columbia-AAUP’s speech–and we are confident that the court will send a clear message that New York will not allow abuse of the legal system to silence viewpoints simply because some people don’t like them.

Published January 11, 2025 at 01:41AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/CgMBqwb

ACLU: We're Fighting Back Against Efforts to Intimidate Professors into Silence

We're Fighting Back Against Efforts to Intimidate Professors into Silence

Last Spring, protests related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict engulfed universities across the country, with students and faculty weighing in on both sides of the issue. The ACLU expressed its strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses.

During student protests at Columbia University in April 2024, the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors (Columbia-AAUP), an organization of Columbia University faculty, issued a public statement condemning the school’s punitive response to students protesting the war in Gaza. The statement minced no words, describing then-President Minouche Shafik’s unilateral decision to authorize the NYPD to arrest student protestors as “a grotesque violation of norms of shared governance.” It described Shafik as “inaugurating a new era at Columbia,” marked by “repressed speech, political restrictions on academic inquiry, and punitive discipline against the University’s own students and faculty.” Columbia-AAUP, whose mission is to protect academic freedom and advocate for faculty and students, pledged to provide “continued support for our students’ right to protest and to speak freely, and for our colleagues’ right to teach and to write freely within their domains of expertise.”

Two months later, five current and former Columbia students filed a civil lawsuit in New York against Columbia AAUP in response to this and similar statements. The lawsuit names 21 people and organizations — including Columbia students and faculty, student organizations, the UAW, and three members of Congress — who publicly protested the war in Gaza or who made public statements in support of student protestors.

On behalf of Columbia-AAUP, the ACLU and the civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and to order the plaintiffs to pay our client’s legal fees. We argue that the lawsuit is a clear example of a SLAPP, or “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These cases weaponize our legal system to punish and silence constitutionally-protected speech.

SLAPP lawsuits have become a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism—including from whistleblowers, journalists, and political protestors. The real goal of a SLAPP suit is not necessarily to win in court, but to entangle people in expensive litigation, using the prospect of mounting legal fees and a potentially ruinous financial penalty to chill speech. In other words, to bully people into silence.

The plaintiffs claim that because Columbia-AAUP spoke in support of student protestors, it somehow injured them by causing Columbia University to move classes online, restrict campus access, and cancel commencement. The plaintiffs have sued Columbia-AAUP for purported monetary and punitive damages resulting from Columbia University’s actions.

If this feels like a logical leap, that's because it is.

Fortunately, New York State—along with 33 other states and the District of Columbia—has an “anti-SLAPP” law specifically designed to protect those whose speech is targeted by such meritless lawsuits. Under New York’s law, a defendant may quickly move to dismiss a lawsuit based on public speech in connection with any issue of public interest—like a statement from professors about the treatment of student protesters on their campus. In a typical civil lawsuit, the defendant must prove that the case has no legal basis in order to dismiss it at the outset. By contrast, the anti-SLAPP law shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove that there is a “substantial basis” for the claims. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, the court must not only dismiss the case, but also order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees. The purpose of the fee award is to ensure the defendant is not left with a hefty financial burden simply from fighting off a frivolous case and to dissuade others from filing such lawsuits in the future.

Columbia-AAUP’s case is exactly the type of lawsuit anti-SLAPP laws are designed to quickly dismiss and deter. The allegations against Columbia-AAUP focus exclusively on public statements that the faculty organization made in support of students’ rights to free speech and criticizing Columbia’s crackdown, including using the NYPD, on protesting students. These are issues of clear public interest; indeed, they have captured national attention. And it is clear there is no “substantial basis” for holding Columbia-AAUP liable for this speech, when there is no plausible connection between Columbia-AAUP’s words and Columbia University’s reaction to the student protestors.

Throughout American history, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. Columbia University itself has frequently been a site of vibrant student protest, including with respect to the Vietnam War, South African Apartheid, and climate change. In this case, the unnamed plaintiffs are free to disagree with the student protestors’ message and those who defended their rights to free speech, but they cannot hold them legally liable for engaging in the rich tradition of dissent that characterizes American campuses.

At the ACLU, we won’t stand for SLAPP lawsuits that imperil this historic tradition and threaten the First Amendment rights of future generations of students, professors, and activists. New York’s anti-SLAPP law, and the First Amendment, clearly protect Columbia-AAUP’s speech–and we are confident that the court will send a clear message that New York will not allow abuse of the legal system to silence viewpoints simply because some people don’t like them.

Published January 10, 2025 at 08:11PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vhEPBXT

ACLU: Who is Kash Patel?

Who is Kash Patel?

President-elect Donald Trump has stated that he intends to nominate Kash Patel, the right-wing commentator and former intelligence official, to be the next director of the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI). If confirmed, Patel will lead the nation’s chief criminal investigation agency, as well as its substantial surveillance apparatus.

Patel wore a number of hats during the first Trump administration. He worked in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, as a national security advisor and senior counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a deputy assistant to the president on the National Security Council. In the final months of the first Trump administration, he served as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. Since then, Patel has been a frequent contributor on conservative media, including appearing on podcasts hosted by Steve Bannon and Sean Ryan.

While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing cabinet nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from the nominees on key concerns.

Given its crucial role in law enforcement and surveillance, the FBI can have a serious impact on civil rights and civil liberties. Consequently, ahead of Patel’s confirmation hearing, we analyze his record and stance on key issues, flagging areas for senators to question the nominee and secure commitments to uphold our rights.

The FBI on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

In the federal government’s law enforcement structure, the FBI is the chief investigatory agency with the broadest authority. This tremendous authority has, at times, led to serious abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. For example, in 1975, the Senate formed the Church Committee in part to investigate wide-ranging FBI abuses, including planting informants in civil rights organizations, surveilling and threatening Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and keeping files on 1 million Americans.

The Church Committee’s shocking findings led to reforms at the FBI, but today it now wields significant investigative and surveillance powers, including under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. Although Section 702 requires the government to direct this surveillance at people outside the U.S., in practice, it ensnares Americans who are communicating with those targets. Notably, targets need not have any connection to criminal activity or terrorism; they can be journalists, human-rights workers, or businesspeople discussing U.S. foreign affairs. After acquiring these communications, FBI agents across the country routinely search for Americans’ communications in their Section 702 databases — again, without a warrant.

Over time, Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool. FBI agents use Section 702 databases to conduct millions of invasive searches for Americans’ communications, including those of protesters, racial justice activists, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, journalists, and even members of Congress. While the number of these warrantless queries has declined in recent years, they’re still happening far too frequently and without the judicial approval the Constitution requires.

Powers like this are even more concerning given President-elect Trump’s expressed desire to investigate and prosecute his perceived “enemies” — journalists, civil servants, and government officials — based on their political views or activities. For example, President-elect Trump has vowed, “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.” He expanded this sentiment to include “all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders, & [sic] country itself!”

On the Record: Patel on Four Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Issues

Patel has made extensive comments on the record that raise significant concerns on crucial civil rights and civil liberties issues, including:

1. Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, “We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!” He has also advocated revoking the security clearances of civil servants who participated in investigations of then-President Trump, describing the list of targets as “massive.”
2. His political allegiance and financial ties to President-elect Trump raise concerns about whether he can maintain the FBI’s traditional and important independence from partisan or political influence. Patel has called himself a member of “Donald Trump’s army,” and described the President-elect as “our juggernaut of justice,” “our leader,” and “our continued warrior in the arena.” He likewise serves on the board of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform, and has been paid $465,000 to consult for the company.
3. He has falsely accused marginalized groups of wrongdoing and attacked their rights. He spread debunked conspiracy theories regarding undocumented people, stating, “What do you bring in all these people here for? . . . I think the Democrats are smart enough to say, well, we got to figure out a new way to rig the election.”
4. He has, however, also highlighted the dangers of certain kinds of overbroad governmental surveillance. He stated, for example, that “the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops” and asserted that Section 702 — the law that allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications — “needs major, major reform — tons,” which is also a longstanding ACLU priority. According to Patel, he would break up the FBI’s intelligence functions and distribute them to other agencies.

Commitments the ACLU Is Urging Senators to Demand at Patel’s Confirmation Hearing

Based on Patel’s record, the ACLU is concerned that he will use the FBI’s authority as a political tool to attack journalists, dissidents, civil society, civil servants, and former officials based on their political views. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Patel:

1. Will you commit to not using the investigative and surveillance powers of the FBI to target journalists, civil servants, political opponents, or other individuals based on their ideology, speech, journalism, or political or religious activity?
2. Do you commit to ensuring that the FBI does not target individuals to any degree based on other protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin and nationality, religious beliefs, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability?
3. Will you commit to resigning from TMTG’s board and cutting other financial ties with the President-elect and his immediate family?
4. The claim that there is widespread voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which is already prohibited under federal and state laws, has been thoroughly debunked. Do you commit to refraining from spreading this disinformation and sowing distrust in our elections?
5. Will you commit to addressing FBI abuse of its surveillance authority and domestic investigative authority? In addressing those abuses, which components of the FBI would you spin out, where would those components then be placed, and how would that reorganization protect civil rights and civil liberties?
6. Do you commit to supporting renewed efforts to address surveillance abuses under Section 702, which is the law that permits the FBI and other agencies to engage in warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications? What policies will you implement at the FBI to address those abuses in the meantime?

Published January 8, 2025 at 06:47PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/mnqzjI0

ACLU: Who is Kash Patel?

Who is Kash Patel?

President-elect Donald Trump has stated that he intends to nominate Kash Patel, the right-wing commentator and former intelligence official, to be the next director of the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI). If confirmed, Patel will lead the nation’s chief criminal investigation agency, as well as its substantial surveillance apparatus.

Patel wore a number of hats during the first Trump administration. He worked in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, as a national security advisor and senior counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a deputy assistant to the president on the National Security Council. In the final months of the first Trump administration, he served as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. Since then, Patel has been a frequent contributor on conservative media, including appearing on podcasts hosted by Steve Bannon and Sean Ryan.

While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing cabinet nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from the nominees on key concerns.

The FBI can have a serious impact on civil rights and civil liberties, given its crucial role in law enforcement and surveillance. Consequently, ahead of Patel’s confirmation hearing, we analyze his record and stance on key issues, flagging areas for senators to question the nominee and secure commitments to uphold our rights.

The FBI on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

In the federal government’s law enforcement structure, the FBI is the chief investigatory agency with the broadest authority. This tremendous authority has, at times, led to serious abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. For example, in 1975, the Senate formed the Church Committee in part to investigate wide-ranging FBI abuses, including planting informants in civil rights organizations, surveilling and threatening Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and keeping files on 1 million Americans.

The Church Committee’s shocking findings led to reforms at the FBI, but today it now wields significant investigative and surveillance powers, including under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. Although Section 702 requires the government to direct this surveillance at people outside the U.S., in practice, it ensnares Americans who are communicating with those targets. Notably, targets need not have any connection to criminal activity or terrorism; they can be journalists, human-rights workers, or businesspeople discussing U.S. foreign affairs. After acquiring these communications, FBI agents across the country routinely search for Americans’ communications in their Section 702 databases — again, without a warrant.

Over time, Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool. FBI agents use Section 702 databases to conduct millions of invasive searches for Americans’ communications, including those of protesters, racial justice activists, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, journalists, and even members of Congress. While the number of these warrantless queries has declined in recent years, they’re still happening far too frequently and without the judicial approval the Constitution requires.

Powers like this are even more concerning given President-elect Trump’s expressed desire to investigate and prosecute his perceived “enemies” — journalists, civil servants, and government officials — based on their political views or activities. For example, President-elect Trump has vowed, “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.” He expanded this sentiment to include “all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders, & [sic] country itself!”

On the Record: Patel on Four Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Issues

Patel has made extensive comments on the record that raise significant concerns on crucial civil rights and civil liberties issues, including:

1. Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, “We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!” He has also advocated revoking the security clearances of civil servants who participated in investigations of then-President Trump, describing the list of targets as “massive.”
2. His political allegiance and financial ties to President-elect Trump raise concerns about whether he can maintain the FBI’s traditional and important independence from partisan or political influence. Patel has called himself a member of “Donald Trump’s army,” and described the President-elect as “our juggernaut of justice,” “our leader,” and “our continued warrior in the arena.” He likewise serves on the board of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform, and has been paid $465,000 to consult for the company.
3. He has falsely accused marginalized groups of wrongdoing and attacked their rights. He spread debunked conspiracy theories regarding undocumented people, stating, “What do you bring in all these people here for? . . . I think the Democrats are smart enough to say, well, we got to figure out a new way to rig the election.”
4. He has, however, also highlighted the dangers of certain kinds of overbroad governmental surveillance. He stated, for example, that “the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops” and asserted that Section 702 — the law that allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications — “needs major, major reform — tons,” which is also a longstanding ACLU priority. According to Patel, he would break up the FBI’s intelligence functions and distribute them to other agencies.

Commitments the ACLU Is Urging Senators to Demand at Patel’s Confirmation Hearing

Based on Patel’s record, the ACLU is concerned that he will use the FBI’s authority as a political tool to attack journalists, dissidents, civil society, civil servants, and former officials based on their political views. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Patel:

1. Will you commit to not using the investigative and surveillance powers of the FBI to target journalists, civil servants, political opponents, or other individuals based on their ideology, speech, journalism, or political or religious activity?
2. Do you commit to ensuring that the FBI does not target individuals to any degree based on other protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin and nationality, religious beliefs, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability?
3. Will you commit to resigning from TMTG’s board and cutting other financial ties with the President-elect and his immediate family?
4. The claim that there is widespread voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which is already prohibited under federal and state laws, has been thoroughly debunked. Do you commit to refraining from spreading this disinformation and sowing distrust in our elections?
5. Will you commit to addressing FBI abuse of its surveillance authority and domestic investigative authority? In addressing those abuses, which components of the FBI would you spin out, where would those components then be placed, and how would that reorganization protect civil rights and civil liberties?
6. Do you commit to supporting renewed efforts to address surveillance abuses under Section 702, which is the law that permits the FBI and other agencies to engage in warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications? What policies will you implement at the FBI to address those abuses in the meantime?

Published January 9, 2025 at 12:17AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/wtXQZA6

ACLU: "I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

"I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

*Jean Paul is a pseudonym. All names have been changed to protect those identified in this story.

I hail from Cameroon, a beautiful country tucked away in Central Africa that’s sometimes called “Africa in miniature” for its diverse geography, culture, food, and languages. Sadly, since 2016, this diversity has also contributed to conflict between the majority Francophone population and the Anglophone minority — folks including me and my family.

Growing up in Cameroon, I wanted to be a doctor and help people. As a student, I joined other fellow students in peacefully protesting the government’s marginalization of Anglophone Cameroonians. I was arrested for my efforts. The police broke into my house in the middle of the night and took me to a prison where they held me for weeks and tortured me. I was beaten and kicked, my legs were broken and I could not stand. I ate only when my cellmate’s family brought him food, which he shared with me. Cut off from my family, filled with fear and pain, I thought that death was imminent. In fact, I welcomed death as the only escape from this torture.

Thankfully, one day a guard at the prison helped me escape and connected me with my aunt. I felt immense relief, but knew little of the new struggle that awaited me. I was still in danger in the Francophone part of Cameroon, so my family put me on a plane to Ecuador. From Ecuador, I went to Colombia where I connected with other Cameroonians and together we decided to travel to the U.S. on foot and ask for asylum.

Making this journey meant crossing the treacherous Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama. For four days I walked through the jungle without food or water. We saw dead bodies in the road, we saw bodies floating in the river of those who had drowned. I, too, nearly drowned, but no one noticed. When you’re in the water drowning people don’t know you're drowning. I thought I might not make it, that death might be my only release, but thank God there was one man who stayed with me when I was struggling. When I had to stop and sit, he would stay. I am so thankful he didn’t abandon me, because anyone who stayed behind lost their life. Families would have to leave behind their loved ones who passed away and continue their journey. Sometimes, they would have to drink water from the very river that people drowned in.

Eventually we made it across Panama, and the rest of Central America, through Mexico all the way to the border city of Tijuana. Then-President Donald Trump’s immigration policies meant that we had to wait months before crossing the border to seek asylum. When it was finally our turn to enter the U.S., Mexican officials handed us over to the U.S. Border Patrol. Those agents processed us and immediately we were detained.

I was sent to a detention center in Southern California, where I stayed for nine months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody waiting for my case to be heard. During my stay there, some of the ICE officers treated us like animals. We slept in bunk beds, and sometimes people sleeping on the top bunk would fall off. The food we ate was terrible; you didn’t eat adequately unless you had family members sending you extra money to buy food. No matter how much we complained about the conditions, most ICE officers didn’t listen to us. They said, “if you don’t like it here, go back to your country.”

After nine months in detention, I was allowed to leave and continue my long journey to attain asylum. I stayed in Southern California, where, today, I’ve built my life. I bought a car and found work as a rideshare driver. I recently graduated from college with a master’s degree. I’ve come to love my newfound home in Southern California. I love trying new restaurants. I’ve even taken up surfing in my spare time. I still try to help people where I can; I’ve helped deliver food to community-run food banks during the pandemic and have served as a volunteer translator for other Cameroonian asylum seekers over the years.

Now, my only dream is to have a successful life here in the U.S. I just want to get a good job and open a business that I can use to help other people and employ them. Living in Southern California, I see a lot of immigrants who struggle, and I’ve had a lot of people help me and support me a lot. I pray that I’ll win my asylum case so I can help work towards a world where everyone has equal opportunity to live and work freely.

Published January 8, 2025 at 05:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/NDtr5Ig

ACLU: "I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

"I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

*Jean Paul is a pseudonym. All names have been changed to protect those identified in this story.

I hail from Cameroon, a beautiful country tucked away in Central Africa that’s sometimes called “Africa in miniature” for its diverse geography, culture, food, and languages. Sadly, since 2016, this diversity has also contributed to conflict between the majority Francophone population and the Anglophone minority — folks including me and my family.

Growing up in Cameroon, I wanted to be a doctor and help people. As a student, I joined other fellow students in peacefully protesting the government’s marginalization of Anglophone Cameroonians. I was arrested for my efforts. The police broke into my house in the middle of the night and took me to a prison where they held me for weeks and tortured me. I was beaten and kicked, my legs were broken and I could not stand. I ate only when my cellmate’s family brought him food, which he shared with me. Cut off from my family, filled with fear and pain, I thought that death was imminent. In fact, I welcomed death as the only escape from this torture.

Thankfully, one day a guard at the prison helped me escape and connected me with my aunt. I felt immense relief, but knew little of the new struggle that awaited me. I was still in danger in the Francophone part of Cameroon, so my family put me on a plane to Ecuador. From Ecuador, I went to Colombia where I connected with other Cameroonians and together we decided to travel to the U.S. on foot and ask for asylum.

Making this journey meant crossing the treacherous Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama. For four days I walked through the jungle without food or water. We saw dead bodies in the road, we saw bodies floating in the river of those who had drowned. I, too, nearly drowned, but no one noticed. When you’re in the water drowning people don’t know you're drowning. I thought I might not make it, that death might be my only release, but thank God there was one man who stayed with me when I was struggling. When I had to stop and sit, he would stay. I am so thankful he didn’t abandon me, because anyone who stayed behind lost their life. Families would have to leave behind their loved ones who passed away and continue their journey. Sometimes, they would have to drink water from the very river that people drowned in.

Eventually we made it across Panama, and the rest of Central America, through Mexico all the way to the border city of Tijuana. Then-President Donald Trump’s immigration policies meant that we had to wait months before crossing the border to seek asylum. When it was finally our turn to enter the U.S., Mexican officials handed us over to the U.S. Border Patrol. Those agents processed us and immediately we were detained.

I was sent to a detention center in Southern California, where I stayed for nine months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody waiting for my case to be heard. During my stay there, some of the ICE officers treated us like animals. We slept in bunk beds, and sometimes people sleeping on the top bunk would fall off. The food we ate was terrible; you didn’t eat adequately unless you had family members sending you extra money to buy food. No matter how much we complained about the conditions, most ICE officers didn’t listen to us. They said, “if you don’t like it here, go back to your country.”

After nine months in detention, I was allowed to leave and continue my long journey to attain asylum. I stayed in Southern California, where, today, I’ve built my life. I bought a car and found work as a rideshare driver. I recently graduated from college with a master’s degree. I’ve come to love my newfound home in Southern California. I love trying new restaurants. I’ve even taken up surfing in my spare time. I still try to help people where I can; I’ve helped deliver food to community-run food banks during the pandemic and have served as a volunteer translator for other Cameroonian asylum seekers over the years.

Now, my only dream is to have a successful life here in the U.S. I just want to get a good job and open a business that I can use to help other people and employ them. Living in Southern California, I see a lot of immigrants who struggle, and I’ve had a lot of people help me and support me a lot. I pray that I’ll win my asylum case so I can help work towards a world where everyone has equal opportunity to live and work freely.

Published January 8, 2025 at 10:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/F7wqAKj