When it comes to immigration and public safety, Republican and Democratic platforms have become virtually indistinguishable. Both sides are espousing a narrative that calls for harsher policies, more enforcement, and increased incarceration. Candidates have bought into the idea that to win votes, they must lean into “toughness.”

So how did we get here? Extremist candidates currently control the narrative on both issues and are weaponizing Americans’ fears to win support. These extremist candidates paint a picture of communities under siege and insist the only way to keep families safe is by turning people away who seek safety at the border and putting more people behind bars. They label any candidate who disagrees with this approach as “soft,” “weak,” and “unfit” to address the issues facing our communities.

New ACLU polling shows, however, that despite all the fearmongering in American politics, voters want something completely different. Our survey showed that in battleground states, Congressional districts, and across the nation, when it comes to immigration and public safety voters want solutions that address the root causes of both issues – not calls for more punishment. Our research, coupled with recent surveys from other leading organizations, clearly shows taking a page out of the MAGA playbook is a liability – not a winning strategy.

Here’s what you need to know.

“Tough on crime” and “tough on immigration” policies don’t make us any safer, and instead, only exacerbate many of the underlying issues of both. For instance, inhumane policies that illegally limit who can ask for asylum force vulnerable people to wait in limbo in dangerous conditions for years, leading to further confusion and disorder at the border. Our nation’s overreliance on police and incarceration has disproportionately harmed Black and Brown people, those experiencing addiction and mental health issues, and people who are homeless. It has also perpetuated cycles of harm by saddling people with criminal records that only create additional barriers to success.

Voters understand that more of the same is not the answer, and that it’s past time to tackle the root causes of issues in both areas. Candidates would do well to listen to them, not just to capture votes, but because they’re sound policy solutions.

For more than 100 years, the ACLU has consistently fought for policies that advance justice and safeguard our rights. But this work isn’t easy. Even lawmakers who champion of LGBTQ+ rights, protect abortion access, and safeguard democracy can compromise their principles to support harmful immigration and criminal legal policy bills when they believe it’s the only way to win over voters. Here’s the good news: Our research shows that even though voters are concerned about public safety and immigration, they want real solutions that tackle the root causes of both. Conventional political wisdom that assumes when voters are afraid, candidates must lean into toughness, is wrong. Leading with humanity and justice is more than just the right thing to do – it’s politically advantageous.

Recent polling shows that immigration is a top concern for many voters. Yet more than 73 percent of Americans believe that we should not only provide access to the asylum system for people fleeing persecution and violence, but also a road to citizenship for long-term residents and Dreamers.

Rather than extreme partisan politics or cruelty, voters want candidates who champion real solutions. In surveying voters across six congressional battleground districts, 65 percent agreed that the country needs a balanced approach to immigration that both manages the border and provides a path to citizenship for long-term residents, over the idea that it’s either too dangerous or too costly to open up our country to immigrants. Sixty-eight percent of voters in seven key battleground states similarly favor a balanced approach.

Notably, our research shows that when candidates, regardless of party affiliation, adopt a balanced, solutions-focused approach, they outperform their opponents’ fear-based messages. In a national YouGov survey, voters presented with a Republican candidate using a “balanced approach” message against a Democratic candidate’s “tough-on-immigration” message, chose the Republican candidate by 16 points. Similarly, voters presented with a Democratic candidate using a “balanced approached” message against a Republican tough message, chose the balanced approach message by seven points, while the Democratic “tough-on-immigration” approach lost or tied.

https://infogram.com/1p9zvjx13p1enxf716w5lqmj1zu355jl7l3?live

Although nationwide crime is at historic lows, voters across the political spectrum believe it’s going up — and not just in big cities, but in their own communities. Despite their concerns, voters overwhelmingly want prevention, not punishment. They believe investing in community-based services is the most effective way to foster safety. Nationally, improving access to mental health care as a public safety solution outperforms putting 100,000 more police on the streets by a staggering 26 points.

In some of the toughest Congressional districts across Arizona, California, New Jersey, and Ohio, 59 percent of voters don’t think we can arrest our way out of homelessness, unemployment, and poverty. Instead, they believe investing in services that will treat the root causes of these problems, like affordable housing and job training, is a more effective solution than relying on punishment and incarceration.

https://infogram.com/1p2j150rj636gdb0e0vg7zmnmnhr6nerzjz?live

Whether it’s a Republican or Democrat espousing a “tough on crime” narrative based on fear, they lose to the candidate offering a response focused on solutions. In two New York battleground congressional districts, both currently held by Republicans, we tested two different frames on crime and public safety against a “tough-on-crime” incumbent. The survey found that the challenger offering solutions like affordable housing, mental health, and addiction treatment performed five points better among all voters. Notably, this candidate won undecided voters by 19 points.

With sound proof that voters are eager for real solutions – like those that keep families together, ensure people have access to mental health and addiction treatment, and that invest in solving housing insecurity – there’s no excuse for candidates to fall back on fear.

Our research delivers a clear message for candidates: Voters are hungry for bold, new solutions, not the same old fear-driven tactics. The key to success in 2024’s electoral battlegrounds lies in presenting innovative, solution-focused approaches to immigration and public safety. This research should serve as a wake-up call for candidates who’ve fallen to the idea that to win their elections, they must lean into harsher rhetoric and policies. The opposite is true. Candidates should embrace the electorate’s desire for justice and humanity.

This piece was first published in Slate on 6/21/24.

The U.S. Supreme Court today broke from its recent embrace of gun rights, leaving in place a federal criminal law that makes it a felony for anyone subject to a civil domestic violence restraining order to possess a gun.

As an advocate for survivors of domestic violence, today’s outcome comes as a relief. Indeed, it is the result my organization, the ACLU, asked the court to reach.

Even so, liberals shouldn’t take the decision as cause for great celebration. That’s because, while there is no doubt in my mind that preventing perpetrators of domestic violence from obtaining guns will help prevent further violence, this case was not about whether the respondent should have been able to buy a gun. The question was whether he should be sent to prison for having one.

As a feminist, I care about both gender-based violence and the violence of imprisonment. Gun laws, in particular, have helped to fuel mass incarceration and contributed to disproportionate imprisonment of Black people and other people of color.

Funneling the problem of gender-based violence into the criminal legal system may not sound so bad if the alternative is no response at all. That’s the problem the court faced in United States v. Rahimi. But that’s a false choice, constructed via decades of reliance on criminal legal responses to violence in America’s legislatures, executive branches, and state and federal courts.

The Supreme Court itself has played a part in creating this dilemma. In 2000, for example, the court heard a case brought by a survivor against a college classmate whom she alleged had raped her repeatedly. She was able to sue her attacker because of a novel provision of the Violence Against Women Act that empowered survivors to seek a civil remedy from those who harmed them.

The court, however, made quick work of VAWA’s civil provision, finding that Congress lacked the power to create any such remedy at all. But it left in place criminal provisions carrying lengthy terms of imprisonment. Stripped of its civil provision, the original VAWA became known not as an innovative law but a regressive one—and part of the notorious 1994 crime bill.

A second decision in 2005 doubled down. After her estranged husband violated a restraining order and kidnapped her three kids from her yard, Jessica Lenahan (then Gonzales) contacted police multiple times over 10 hours asking them to help retrieve her children. Police refused, saying there was nothing they could do—until the father arrived at the police station and opened fire. Only then did the police act, killing Lenahan’s husband and finding the children already dead in his truck.

Lenahan sued the police, but she didn’t fare any better in the courts. Looking to history and tradition, the Supreme Court couldn’t find any right to have her restraining order enforced. What it did find was a “well established tradition of police discretion.” This history, the court noted without irony, meant that the state was free to both disregard survivors like Lenahan who asked police for help and bulldoze over survivors who asked the state not to interfere in cases of domestic assault.

Viewed in the context of the court’s history with domestic violence, survivors should think twice before embracing today’s decision as a victory for women. It can be understood not as a departure from the VAWA and Lenahan decisions, but a continuation of them: In all three cases, the only winner was the carceral system.

Our nation’s prioritization of the criminal legal system to the exclusion of all else is particularly troubling given that many people who experience domestic violence opt not to pursue criminal charges, knowing that they may encounter disbelief and hostility from law enforcement or find themselves subject to abuse charges when they report being victimized. Others worry that the criminal legal system will magnify the harms they are experiencing by jeopardizing their family’s economic security or inflicting further violence through incarceration. As feminist legal scholar Aya Gruber has written, hyperfocus on the criminal legal system has “diverted feminist energy and capital away from addressing the underlying conditions that make women, especially marginalized women, vulnerable to personal and state violence.”

But we can advocate for alternate pathways to meaningful safety.

There is not strong evidence to support the deterrent effect of after-the-fact criminal sanctions for gun possession, yet such punishments are where Congress has focused. The civil licensing regime that prohibits selling guns to people in Rahimi’s position, for example, exists only as a piggyback measure off of the underlying criminal law.

As the ACLU pointed out in a friend-of-the-court brief, that add-on has prevented more than 77,000 gun sales since 1998. Congress would be wise to decouple gun sales from criminal law and to focus more on prevention—particularly given the likelihood that the court may soon void other criminal gun laws, with staggering ripple effects on rules governing gun sales.

Other efforts may include imagining new civil remedies for harms once considered exclusively criminal. The civil process, unlike the criminal one, can offer survivors agency: the decision whether and when to seek relief and the option to discontinue the case if that best serves their needs. To ensure equitable access to courts, attorney’s fees and other incentives to represent survivors can be built in.

Reimagining safety is possible, but only if we reject the idea that prison is the best—or the only—way to address domestic violence. Survivors deserve better than what the carceral legal system has left us. We all do.

A freshly pressed tuxedo shirt. A black bowtie and a crisp black tuxedo jacket, topped off by my curly red afro. On that day last fall, I knew I looked good. I felt like myself. I was so excited to take my senior class portrait. It was a rite of passage I’d been looking forward to for a long time.

I think back fondly on the memories I made at Harrison Central High School in Mississippi. I loved playing basketball with the Red Rebelettes, volunteering with the honor societies, or having so much fun with my friends. I take pride in my accomplishments and experiences.

Most of all, I am immensely proud of who I am – a gay woman of color.

I was eager to take my senior portrait for the yearbook and create a keepsake for my friends, family, and high school community to remember me for years to come.

With my school’s approval, my mom and I scheduled my portrait appointment at the local photography studio. When I arrived, the photographer told me that if I wore my tuxedo then my senior portrait would not be included in the yearbook. I was told my school district required girls to wear a drape – a black off-the-shoulder top that mimics the look of a formal gown. Only boys could wear tuxedos.

I was devastated.

Throughout high school I consistently wore traditionally masculine clothing. Wearing masculine clothing is a central part of the way I express my gender and my sexual orientation. I could not believe that based on my sex, I would be forced to either wear a drape, or have my senior portrait excluded from the yearbook.

My mom and I decided that I would not accept this unfair and sexist rule. I held firm and took my senior portrait – a photograph meant to represent me – in my tuxedo.

When my mom contacted Harrison County Superintendent Mitchell King to ask for my portrait to be included in the yearbook, she got an outright rejection. Superintendent King insisted on enforcing the school district’s requirement that girls must wear drapes for their senior portraits.

My mom kept fighting for my rights. She bought a full-page senior ad and included my senior portrait in it. But in late March, a school staff member told my mom that the principal hadn’t approved the use of my portrait in the ad yet.

By this time, I’d attended my senior prom, wearing – you guessed it – a tuxedo. I received nothing but compliments. No one said that my attire violated the dress code. I was utterly confused at this point. What was so wrong about me wearing a tuxedo in my senior portrait?

When I received my yearbook, I discovered that the school district had deleted me from the graduating senior section of the yearbook entirely. Not only did they refuse to use my portrait, they also refused to print my name, academic honors, sports, or activities. They deleted my portrait from the ad my mom paid for in the yearbook. It was as if my time at Harrison Central never happened.

Not being recognized in the yearbook really hurt. When I look at the senior section today, I see all my peers, I see where my name and accomplishments should have been, and yet I am not there. It feels like the school district erased who I am and what I have achieved.

Despite what happened with the yearbook, I was so excited for my graduation ceremony. I was going to graduate with high honors and experience this once-in-a-lifetime event. As the crowd waited for the seniors to walk the stage, the school played a slideshow with portraits of each member of the graduating class. My family eagerly waited to see my portrait, but it never came. The slideshow skipped right past me.

While I have happy memories of celebrating with my family, it still hurts that the school excluded my portrait from the graduation ceremony. But I won’t let the school – or anyone – stop me from choosing to be myself. The school has no right to try to shame me or erase me or my pride. I am looking ahead to brighter times, starting with playing basketball and studying sports management in college.

I am also committed to ensuring that the next student who shows up at the portrait studio is free to choose a tuxedo or a drape for their senior portrait based on who they are, not who the school thinks they should be. That’s why I joined other Harrison County students in fighting back against the School District’s discriminatory actions by filing a Title IX complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. No student should be forced to conform to rigid sex stereotypes to take part in high school, let alone at capstone events like the yearbook and graduation.

You only graduate from high school once. Together with the ACLU and the community that supports my authentic self-expression, we won’t let schools silence, exclude, or erase us for taking pride in who we are and daring to be ourselves.

Donald Trump’s administration initiated a sustained, years-long effort to erase protections for LGBTQ people. This included an effort to “define ‘transgender’ out of existence,” erode protections for transgender students and workers, and weaken access to gender-affirming health care that most transgender people already struggled to access.

While President Joe Biden’s administration reversed much of the Trump-era abuses, just last month on the campaign trail, Trump vowed to dismantle a new Biden administration policy that will offer protections for transgender students under Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

The ACLU is prepared to defend the LGBTQ community, including transgender individuals, from a second Trump administration’s anticipated attempts to weaponize federal law against them. Learn more in our breakdown:

The Facts: Trump has promised that, if reelected, his administration will rescind federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and will assert that federal civil rights laws don’t cover anti-LGBTQ discrimination. In addition to rolling back existing protections, a second Trump administration will proactively mandate discrimination by the federal government wherever it can. Lastly, and perhaps most ominously, if Trump returns to the White House, we expect his administration to use federal law – including laws meant to safeguard civil rights – as a cudgel to override critical state-level protections for transgender students and to force state and local governments, as well as private organizations, to allow or even perpetuate discrimination

Why It Matters: A second Trump administration would strip LGBTQ people of protections against discrimination in many contexts, including employment, housing, education, health care, and a range of federal government programs. The Trump administration’s proposed policies would ban transgender people from serving openly in the armed forces and block gender-affirming medical care for transgender people enrolled in federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare. The effects of these cruel – and unconstitutional – discrimination efforts would be devastating, as thousands of transgender people would immediately lose access to needed medical care and the right to live freely without fear. In essence, a potential second Trump administration would seek to erase transgender people from public life entirely by using federal laws – including obscenity laws – to criminalize gender nonconformity.

How We Got Here: The Trump administration was openly hostile toward the LGBTQ community and vehemently opposed the Equality Act, which would have ensured that existing civil rights protections cover sexual orientation and gender identity in the way that they already do for race, disability, veteran status, and more. The Trump administration also blocked basic job protections for LGBTQ people, insisting that employers should be free to fire workers for their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration also eliminated nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people established under the Affordable Care Act.

Critically, the Trump administration had an enormous impact on the courts, including the Supreme Court. Getting courts to understand the experience of transgender people and the impact of discriminatory policies on their lives was difficult even before Trump reshaped the judiciary. It is that much harder today because of the viewpoints of the judges and justices Trump appointed to the federal courts and Supreme Court.

Our Roadmap: Should a second Trump administration take office, the ACLU will use the courts to affirm that LGBTQ people are protected from discrimination under federal law, to invalidate policies mandating discrimination across the federal government, and to shut down Trump’s expected efforts to weaponize the Constitution and federal laws to require discrimination against LGBTQ people by state and local governments and private entities.

Litigation is not our only pathway to push back against anti-LGBTQ policies. Congress can, and must, use the power of the purse and its oversight and investigative authorities to constrain a second Trump administration’s extreme anti-LGBTQ agenda. The ACLU will aggressively lobby members of Congress who support the transgender community to use the appropriations process, in particular, to hinder Trump’s ability to mandate anti-trans discrimination and weaponize federal law against LGBTQ rights.

The ACLU also has a comprehensive state-level plan of attack. We will advocate for states and school boards to protect LGBTQ students by enacting guidance regarding updating student names and pronouns, and by creating inclusive rules on gender-based activities, best practices for school records, and ways to support transgender students living under a federal government that discriminates against them. We’ll also urge states to support policies that prevent their governments from being complicit in a second Trump administration’s efforts to attack the legitimacy of transgender people in our world. Lastly, we will mobilize public support on behalf of vulnerable children and youth to deter further draconian policies and help reshape the political narrative around transgender justice.

What Our Experts Say: “We have seen the disastrous consequences of a hateful campaign targeting LGBTQ people and their families with discriminatory laws, forcing many from their home states and denying many more the freedom to get the health care they need to live their lives openly, and even to decide what name to go by. We are determined to use every tool at our disposal to oppose any attempt to deny LGBTQ people the freedom to live and love freely and openly.” – Mike Zamore, national director for policy & government affairs

“For four years, President Trump and his administration left no stone unturned in their effort to attack the right of LGBTQ people to live and work as who we are. We fully expect a second Trump administration to go further, weaponizing federal law to override state level protections and mandate discrimination by schools and health care providers nationwide. Regardless of the election’s outcome, we stand ready to fight to uphold the fundamental freedom we are guaranteed by the Constitution to live our lives as we choose.” – James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.

What You Can Do Today: As wave after wave of extreme measures to criminalize and strip trans people of rights and safety continue, the time to act is now. Tell your members of Congress to protect trans people from discrimination today.

Sign up now to receive key issue memos as they’re released — and breaking alerts for all our work for civil liberties.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump has promised to pursue even more extreme anti-immigrant policies if he wins a second term. These policies would disregard fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law to devastate immigrant communities and erode freedoms for all Americans.

The ACLU is prepared to hold our executive branch to account. Just this week, we announced that we’ll challenge the Biden administration’s executive actions to illegally restrict people’s right to seek asylum – just as we previously challenged Trump’s actions. If Trump is reelected, we will continue to push to protect people and their rights against unlawful overreach. Learn more in our breakdown:

Trump On Immigration

The Facts: If reelected, Trump has promised to use totalitarian tactics to carry out the largest mass detention and deportation program in the nation’s history. Experience from smaller-scale detention sweeps shows that his proposed policies will lead to people being stopped, arrested, or detained simply because they “look foreign,” and his program will necessarily entail numerous other legal violations as well. Trump and his supporters also seek to dismantle our asylum system – creating more chaos at the border — and attack families by ending birthright citizenship and depriving undocumented children of their right to a public education. Trump has also vowed to reinstate family separation at the border – a cruel policy the ACLU blocked during his presidency.

Why It Matters: While many of the immigration policies we saw during Trump’s presidency were halted or delayed through litigation, the immigration policies we’ll likely see during a second Trump administration are far crueler, more extreme, and more fundamentally damaging to core rights and freedoms than any in living memory. If Trump is reelected, his plan to deport millions of people a year and severely restrict legal immigration will violate key legal protections – including our right to due process – and make xenophobia and racism the touchstones of American immigration policy. Simply put, these policies would harm all of us by tearing apart immigrant families, communities, and the fabric of American society.

How We Got Here: There’s no doubt that a second Trump administration will pick up and expand the anti-immigrant campaign it began in 2016. During his first term, the Trump administration instituted a Muslim ban, tried to deport Dreamers and others with temporary legal protection, separated families seeking asylum, and fought to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Our Roadmap: Through coordinated action at all levels and branches of government, we’re prepared to fight the Trump administration’s attack on immigrant rights. We’ll call on legislators to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting mass deportations and pass measures to begin shrinking the ICE detention machine. We’ll also work with states and localities to build a civil rights firewall to protect residents to the full extent possible and ensure that a Trump administration can’t hijack state resources to carry out its draconian policies. And, if Trump sends a bill to Congress that effectively ends asylum, we’re prepared to mobilize our supporters nationwide to stop it because we know that a strong majority of voters support the U.S. asylum system.

In addition to working for policy change at every government level, we’re prepared to litigate cases to protect people’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other legal provisions, against the mass deportation program. We’ll use the full power of the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent to protect birthright citizenship and ensure immigrant children have equal access to education. Lastly, should a second Trump administration try to bring back family separation at the border, we’ll take them to court for violating our settlement agreement.

What Our Experts Say: “These policies have no place in a democracy that protects or respects civil liberties and the rule of law. From the courts to the halls of Congress, we will use every tool at our disposal, including litigation, to defend the rights of immigrants and protect all members of our communities from the widespread damage these policies would cause.” – Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project

“Xenophobia and racism would become the touchstones of American immigration policy under a second Trump administration, if he is re-elected. That’s why we must begin mobilizing with local and state governments now to protect communities nationwide from extreme anti-immigrant policies.” – Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the ACLU

What You Can Do Today: ICE detention is known for abuse, pervasive medical neglect, and complete disregard for the dignity of people in its custody. Needlessly locking up people seeking a better life does nothing to make our communities safer. Take action now: Tell your congress member to support cuts for ICE detention capacity.

Sign up now to receive key issue memos as they’re released — and breaking alerts for all our work for civil liberties.

div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardTHIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN TRANSLATED INTO AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE/h3 /div pa href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D0g-nVqiBcPlay the video/a/p img width=1110 height=740 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b.jpg class=attachment-16x9_1400 size-16x9_1400 alt=A closeup of an American Sign Language interpreter#039;s hands as they sign. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b.jpg 1110w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b-768x512.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b-400x267.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b-600x400.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b-800x533.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/american-sign-language-interpreter-signing-b-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / pA five-year effort to get equal access for deaf and hard-of-hearing people on parole and probation in Georgia has ended in victory. The American Civil Liberties Union and our legal partners reached a a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/settlement-agreement-cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervisiongroundbreaking settlement/a that requires the Georgia agency responsible for supervising people on probation and parole – the Georgia Department of Community Supervision or “GDCS” – to dismantle the discriminatory hurdles that make it harder for deaf and hard-of-hearing people to avoid prison and live safely in their communities. We hope that other states look to this agreement when determining what is required for their supervision agencies to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act./p pFor years, our clients lived in constant fear of reincarceration. Supervision officers often held important meetings with people who used American Sign Language (ASL), but failed to provide ASL interpreters or other needed accommodations. They “explained” the rules of supervision to people who could not hear or understand these rules, but who nonetheless risked prison or jail if they didn’t follow them./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/for-people-with-disabilities-on-parole-and-probation-accessible-communication-is-essential target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7-768x402.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7-400x209.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7-600x314.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7-800x419.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/e067fc19bbc6b7aed77be8129845b4e7-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/for-people-with-disabilities-on-parole-and-probation-accessible-communication-is-essential target=_blank For People with Disabilities on Parole and Probation, Accessible Communication is Essential /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/for-people-with-disabilities-on-parole-and-probation-accessible-communication-is-essential target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOur clients were repeatedly denied sign language interpretation necessary to understand the conditions of their release. They paid the price with.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/for-people-with-disabilities-on-parole-and-probation-accessible-communication-is-essential target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pTwo of our clients had this exact fear realized when ineffective communication resulted in them a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/for-people-with-disabilities-on-parole-and-probation-accessible-communication-is-essentialbeing incarcerated while/a the case was ongoing. Supervision officers also failed to take disability into account in other ways, too. They knocked on the doors of individuals they knew were deaf, and then accused them of failing to cooperate when they didn’t answer a knock at the door that they couldn’t hear./p pOur clients’ heroic and sustained efforts have helped to guarantee equal rights for all deaf and hard-of-hearing people on supervision in Georgia. Starting now, each current and future deaf and hard-of-hearing person on supervision in Georgia will undergo a communication assessment that will allow the state to create a communication plan that considers the range of situations a deaf or hard-of-hearing person may experience while on supervision, and the types of accommodations they may need./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/language-access-is-a-civil-right-for-both-children-and-adults target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b-768x402.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b-400x209.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b-600x314.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b-800x419.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/9636b5e3f45539ce55fb7cedd041ff4b-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/language-access-is-a-civil-right-for-both-children-and-adults target=_blank Language Access is a Civil Right, For Both Children and Adults /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/language-access-is-a-civil-right-for-both-children-and-adults target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWhy the ACLU supports the right of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children to access language./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/language-access-is-a-civil-right-for-both-children-and-adults target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pImportantly, GDCS has agreed to provide Deaf interpreters for people who need them. Deaf interpreters are sign language interpreters who are also deaf. A Deaf interpreter will work with a hearing ASL interpreter to provide effective communication, especially for deaf adults who have experienced a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/language-access-is-a-civil-right-for-both-children-and-adultslanguage deprivation/a — a neurodevelopmental disorder with negative and long-lasting effects on the deaf adult’s language, cognitive, and socioemotional development. Long periods of incarceration with no ability to communicate with other people who know ASL can compound the effects of language deprivation. Hearing-sign language interpreters alone are typically unable to bridge the communication gap between deaf adults with language deprivation and their supervision officers. This communication gap can often lead to serious and preventable misunderstandings between the deaf person and the supervision officer that a Deaf interpreter could solve./p pFor example, in one instance a probation officer relied on a single, hearing interpreter — present on a computer — to explain a form with confusing conditions to a client. The client struggled to understand the interpreter and asked to take a photo of the form so he could ask the ACLU’s legal team to provide a Deaf interpreter to translate the form in a way he understood. Had the ACLU not stepped in to secure a Deaf interpreter, our client would not have fully understood what the form said, nor would he have been able to ask several clarifying questions, and would have risked reincarceration. This settlement ensures that any use of video interpretation, known as VRI, is clear, not relegated to a small cell phone screen, and that supervisees actually understand the directions being given./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/settlement-agreement target=_blank tabindex=-1 /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/settlement-agreement target=_blank NOTICE TO THE CLASS: COBB V. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION › Settlement Agreement /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/settlement-agreement target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThis is the ASL translation and plain language version of Cobb v Georgia Department of Community Supervision Settlement Agreement./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/settlement-agreement target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pGDCS will also now provide better accommodations for deaf or hard-of-hearing clients who cannot read and write English. Historically, the agency provided critical information about supervision only in writing. With this a href=https://www.aclu.org/cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/settlement-agreementsettlement/a, a lack of fluency in reading or writing English will no longer be a barrier to successfully completing supervision. If the deaf or hard-of-hearing person cannot understand written documents due to their disability, GDCS has agreed to use appropriate accommodations and provide the written information in another accessible format. This will help prevent future incidents of confusion when people receive documents with important instructions that they do not understand. We have also produced a href=https://www.aclu.org/cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/georgia-department-of-community-supervision-ada-policyASL and plain language translations of the new ADA Policy/a so that signers and those with limited literacy can access the ADA policy at any time./p pMany people on supervision in Georgia are required to complete programs or classes as a condition of their supervision, but, in the past, the sponsors of many of these programs have refused to provide ASL interpreters and other necessary accommodations to our clients. GDCS will now require that the providers of any classes or programs required for people on supervision, comply with federal disability laws by providing necessary accommodations, such as interpreters, for effective communication./p pWhile we’ve won this fight in Georgia, the work is not yet done. Every parole and probation department in the country has the obligation under federal disability laws to provide not only effective communication to deaf and hard-of-hearing people, but also any a href=https://www.aclu.org/publications/reducing-barriers-a-guide-to-obtaining-reasonable-accommodations-for-people-with-disabilities-on-supervisionreasonable accommodations/a that people with disabilities need to have an equal opportunity to successfully complete supervision. In reality, probation and parole departments regularly fail to determine whether their people with disabilities need accommodations, let alone provide those accommodations./p pRight now, we’re a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/class-action-lawsuit-challenges-discriminatory-post-conviction-supervision-system-in-washington-d-cchallenging this failure/a in Washington, D.C., where people with mental health disabilities are nearly twice as likely to face reincarceration or other punishment for “technical violations,” or minor rule violations like missing an appointment with a supervision officer. And in Georgia, we now begin a four-year period of monitoring the state’s compliance with the agreement. As part of that monitoring, GDCS will provide us with documentation to show that they are complying with the agreement and providing effective communication. If they violate it, we’ll see them back in court./p

pThe Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including gun control, free speech online, race-based discrimination in voting, reproductive rights, presidential immunity from criminal accountability, and more./p pThe ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. The court will decide all its cases by the beginning of July. Here are eight undecided cases to watch, and what they mean for the future of our civil liberties./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markReproductive freedom: Protections for medication abortion and access to abortion during medical emergencies /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardFDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/h3 /div pbThe Facts:/b Anti-abortion doctors, who do not prescribe medication abortion, are asking the Supreme Court to force the Food amp; Drug Administration (FDA) to impose severe restrictions on mifepristone – a safe and effective medication used in this country in most abortions and for miscarriage management – in every state, even where abortion is protected by state law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe FDA approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago, finding that it is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Since its approval, more than 5 million people in the U.S. have used this medication. Our brief argued that the two lower courts – a district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – relied on junk science and discredited witnesses to override the FDA’s expert decision to eliminate medically-unnecessary restrictions on an essential medication with a stronger safety record than Tylenol. We urged the Supreme Court to protect access to medication abortion and reverse the lower courts’ rulings./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe American Civil Liberties Union joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Today, with abortion access already severely restricted, the ability to get medication-abortion care using mifepristone is more important than ever. If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, individuals would be blocked from filling mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order pharmacies, forcing many to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill they can safely receive through the mail. Healthcare professionals with specialized training, like advanced practice clinicians, would also be prohibited from prescribing mifepristone, further limiting where patients can access this critical medication. The American Cancer Society and other leading patient advocacy groups are also sounding the alarm that overturning the FDA’s decision would upend drug innovation and research, with consequences well beyond reproductive health care./p pbThe Last Word: /b“As this case shows, overturningi Roe v. Wade /iwasn’t the end goal for extremists. In addition to targeting nationwide-access to mifepristone, politicians in some states have already moved on to attack birth control and IVF. We need to take these extremists seriously when they show us they’re coming for every aspect of our reproductive lives.” – emJennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project./em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardIdaho amp; Moyle et. al v. US/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIdaho politicians want the power to disregard the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations, including abortion where that is the appropriate stabilizing treatment. If the state prevails, it would jail doctors for providing pregnant patients with the necessary emergency care required under this federal law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining that the law requires hospitals to provide whatever emergency care is required; there is no carve-out for patients who need an abortion to stabilize an emergency condition. All three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletIdaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Because Idaho#8217;s current abortion ban prohibits providing the emergency care required under EMTALA, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing necessary emergency care to a pregnant patient or facing criminal prosecution from the state. Depending on how the court rules, medical providers and patients in several other states with extreme abortion bans could find themselves in a similar position./p pbThe Last Word: /b“If these politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, and we fear a ripple effect across the country.” – emAlexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markFree speech: Government authority over online and political speech /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNational Rifle Association v. Vullo /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2018, Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, in coordination with then-Mayor Andrew Cuomo, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the National Rifle Association (NRA) because she and Cuomo disagreed with its pro-gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo’s alleged efforts to blacklist the NRA penalized it for its political advocacy, in violation of the First Amendment./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU, representing the NRA at the Supreme Court, argued that any government attempt to blacklist an advocacy group and deny it financial services because of its viewpoint violates the right to free speech. Our brief urges the court to apply the precedent it set in 1963 in iBantam Books v. Sullivan/i, which established that even informal, indirect efforts to censor speech violate the First Amendment./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank National Rifle Association v. Vullo /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOn January 9th, 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union filed its opening brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhile the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, this case is about securing basic First Amendment rights for all advocacy organizations. If New York State is allowed to blacklist the NRA, then Oklahoma could similarly penalize criminal justice reformers advocating for bail reform, and Texas could target climate change organizations advancing the view that all fossil fuel extraction must end. The ACLU itself could be targeted for its advocacy./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-768x402.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-400x209.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-600x314.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-800x419.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court? /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe ACLU has always stood up for free speech – no matter the speaker./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbThe Last Word: /b“The right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see. It’s a principle the ACLU has defended for more than 100 years, and one we will continue to protect from government censorship of all kinds, whether we agree or disagree with the views of those being targeted.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bMotivated by a perception that social media platforms disproportionately silence conservative voices, Florida and Texas passed laws that give the government authority to regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube curate content posted on their sites./p pbOur Argument: /bIn a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and the ACLU of Texas argued that the First Amendment right to speak includes the right to choose what to publish and how to prioritize what is published. The government’s desire to have private speakers, like social media companies, distribute more conservative viewpoints–or any specific viewpoints–is not a permissible basis for state control of what content appears on privately-owned platforms./p pbWhy it Matters:/b If these laws are allowed to stand, platforms may fear liability and decide to publish nothing at all, effectively eliminating the internet’s function as a modern public square. Or, in an attempt to comply with government regulations, social media companies may be forced to publish a lot more distracting and unwanted content. For example, under the Texas law, which requires “viewpoint neutrality,” a platform that publishes posts about suicide prevention would also have to publish posts directing readers to websites that encourage suicide. ./p pbThe Last Word: /b“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to choose what to host, display, and publish. The Supreme Court has recognized that right for everyone from booksellers to newspapers to cable companies, and this case should make clear that the same is true for social media platforms.” — emVera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, amp; Technology Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markVoting rights: Racial gerrymandering and the fight for fair maps /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardAlexander v. South Carolina NAACP/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2022, South Carolina adopted a racially-gerrymandered congressional map. The state legislature singled out Black communities, “cracking” predominantly Black communities and neighborhoods across two districts to reduce their electoral influence in the state’s first congressional district./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners sued on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP and an affected voter to challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map. We argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest, which the state failed to provide./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1000 height=667 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg 1000w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-768x512.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-400x267.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-600x400.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-800x534.jpg 800w sizes=(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge) /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletSouth Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bThis racially-gerrymandered congressional map deprives Black South Carolinians the political representation they deserve in all but one of seven districts, limiting the power and influence of more than a quarter of the state’s population just before the 2024 election./p pbThe Last Word: /b“South Carolina’s failure to rectify its racially-gerrymandered congressional map blatantly disregards the voices and the rights of Black voters. The ACLU is determined to fight back until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.” – emAdriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markGender justice: Denying guns to persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardUnited States v. Rahimi /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bZackey Rahimi was convicted under a federal law that forbids individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms./p pbOur Argument: /bThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns. It invalidated the federal gun law because it found no historical analogues in the 1700s or 1800s that prohibited those subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. The ACLU argued that the Fifth Circuit’s analysis is a misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in iNew York State Rifle amp; Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen/i because it effectively required a “historical twin” law in order to uphold a law today. There were no identical laws at the time of the Framing because there were no domestic violence protective orders then, but that should not be a basis for invalidating the laws today. We also argued that imposing time-limited firearms restrictions based on civil restraining orders is a critical tool for protecting those who have experienced domestic violence and face a threat of further violence./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank United States v. Rahimi /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWhether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bIf the Fifth Circuit’s rationale is affirmed, then governments would lose the ability to prohibit gun possession by persons subject to restraining orders — and presumably even to run pre-acquisition background checks, which have stopped more than 77,000 purchases of weapons by individuals subject to domestic violence orders in the 25 years that the federal law has been in place. This “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment not only hinders our ability to protect individuals against newly recognized threats, but also tethers the authority to regulate gun possession to periods when governments disregarded many forms of violence directed against women, Black people, Indigenous people, and others./p pbThe Last Word:/b “It would be a radical mistake to allow historical wrongs to defeat efforts today to protect women and other survivors of domestic abuse. The Supreme Court should affirm that the government can enact laws aimed at preventing intimate partner violence, consistent with the Second Amendment.” –em Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markCriminal justice: Eighth-Amendment protections for unhoused persons accused of sleeping in public when they have nowhere else to go /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bGrants Pass, Oregon, enacted ordinances that make it illegal for people, including unhoused persons with no access to shelter, to sleep outside in public using a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard sheet to lie on. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no other choice violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment./p pbOur Argument: /bIn Oregon, and elsewhere in the United States, the population of unhoused persons often exceeds the number of shelter beds available, forcing many to sleep on the streets or in parks. The ACLU and 19 state affiliates submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it is cruel and unusual to punish unhoused people for the essential life-sustaining activity of sleeping outside when they lack access to any alternative shelter./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank City of Grants Pass v. Johnson /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhen applied to people with nowhere else to go, fines and arrests for sleeping outside serve no purpose and are plainly disproportionately punitive. Arresting and fining unhoused people for sleeping in public only exacerbates cycles of homelessness and mass incarceration./p pbThe Last Word: /b“There is no punishment that fits the ‘crime’ of being forced to sleep outside. Instead of saddling people with fines, jail time, and criminal records, cities should focus on proven solutions, like affordable housing, accessible and voluntary services, and eviction protections.” – emScout Katovich, staff attorney with the ACLU Trone Center for Justice and Equality/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markDemocracy: Presidential immunity from prosecution for criminal acts after leaving office /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardTrump v. United States/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bFormer President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to rule that he cannot be held criminally liable for any official acts as president, even after leaving office, and even where the crimes concern efforts to resist the peaceful transition of power after an election. This claim runs contrary to fundamental principles of constitutional accountability, and decades of precedent./p pbOur Argument: /bOur friend-of-the-court brief argues that former President Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, and that the Constitution and long-established Supreme Court precedent support the principle that in our democracy, nobody is above the law — even the president. Our brief warns that there are “few propositions more dangerous” in a democracy than the notion that an elected head of state has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank Trump v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bNo other president has asserted that presidents can never be prosecuted for official acts that violate criminal law. The president’s accountability to the law is an integral part of the separation of powers and the rule of law. If the President is free, as Trump’s legal counsel argued, to order the assassination of his political opponents and escape all criminal accountability even after he leaves office, both of these fundamental principles of our system would have a fatal Achilles’ heel./p pbThe Last Word: /b“The United States does not have a king, and former presidents have no claim to being above the law. A functioning democracy depends on our ability to critically reckon with the troubling actions of government officials and hold them accountable.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director /em/p

pNyynkpao Banyee remembers vividly the first time he saw the United States. He was six years old, flying high above New York City. “If I close my eyes right now, I go back to seeing, just being above New York and seeing those lights for the first time. It was nighttime. And there was snow. I remember seeing that for the first time, just a little bit, but it was beautiful,” he recalled recently./p pMr. Banyee, his mother and younger brother came to the U.S. in 2004 as refugees fleeing the civil war in Côte D’Ivoire. His father died in Côte D’Ivoire shortly after the family arrived in the States. They resettled first in rural Pennsylvania, then moved to Philadelphia and later became lawful permanent residents. When he was about 17, the family moved to North Dakota, where he has been living for nearly a decade and now lives with his mother and his two younger half-siblings. His mother’s two sisters live nearby, as does his brother./p pAn inquisitive and observant child, Mr. Banyee was fascinated by drawing and comic books. Today, at 26, he is a restaurant-worker who aims to use that creativity to turn his interest in music into a career. He has ambitious plans for building up his own business. He supports his family, although he says his family is really his support system, especially his mother. “Me and my siblings talk about this among ourselves: we’ve never seen a woman or a person as strong as our mother,” he said./p pA dark shadow hangs over Mr. Banyee’s bright future. He’s facing the possible loss of his liberty – deportation to a country he has never been back to since he fled as a child refugee and permanent separation from his family and the only home he’s ever known./p div class=mb-8 wp-pullquote standard div class= wp-pullquote-inner p#8220;I Just Couldn’t Allow Myself to Be Defeated#8221;/p /div /div pIn 2017, when he was just 19, Mr. Banyee was arrested for robbery and later sentenced to four years in prison. He experienced a lot of fear upon being incarcerated but was inspired to turn over a new leaf. “A lot of different things kept me motivated, but I would say primarily, from the core, it was my family,” he said./p pWhile incarcerated, Mr. Banyee worked on himself and was motivated to learn as much as he could.He read an enormous selection of novels, finance books, magazines, and worked in the prison. His favorite job was working in the library. He voluntarily completed numerous programs in peer support, mental wellness, and practical skills like budgeting and CPR./p p“I just got into learning, learning, learning. I just couldn’t allow myself to be defeated [by the system].”/p pHe wrote letters to his family and sent them the poems he’d written. He wrote so much his family couldn’t keep up. Although his family wanted to visit him as much as possible, he wanted to spare them the burden of driving the long distance from their home to the prison, and the emotional toll of seeing him in prison. They still talked on the phone frequently./p pAfter spending years working on himself, Mr. Banyee’s release date was finally approaching: March 31, 2021. He was expecting to go home, but when March 31 came, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were waiting for him at the prison. They took him into custody, and he was transferred from North Dakota to a Minnesota jail./p p“I couldn’t believe it,” Mr. Banyee said. “I’ve been [in the U.S.] my entire life. I had no idea – no clue – what ICE was and what this department was capable of, or what in the world was going on.” He called his mother from the jail to tell her he was in detention again – not for a criminal reason, but because of immigration./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThe Unjust System of Mandatory Immigration Detention /h2 /div pWhy was Mr. Banyee taken into immigration detention the moment he was released from prison?/p pIt was because of a law that Congress passed in 1996 that requires the mandatory detention of noncitizens facing possible deportation for criminal conduct. Under this law, ICE can detain noncitizens slated for deportation for a range of criminal convictions, including convictions for nonviolent, minor, or old offenses, and even if the noncitizens have already served their time and are a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/nielsen-v-preaplong rehabilitated./a While their deportation cases are pending – a process that can take years – noncitizens could sit behind bars indefinitely, without the right to a bond hearing, even if they pose no danger or flight risk./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/nielsen-v-preap target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ccd40eb636771df4582a1631f217cb88.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ccd40eb636771df4582a1631f217cb88.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ccd40eb636771df4582a1631f217cb88-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ccd40eb636771df4582a1631f217cb88-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/nielsen-v-preap target=_blank Nielsen v. Preap /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/nielsen-v-preap target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWhether the government can require that certain people are detained for the duration of their deportation proceedings — without a hearing —.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/nielsen-v-preap target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pSince the mandatory detention law was enacted in 1996, the ACLU has taken the lead in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/jennings-v-rodriguezchallenging/a it in the courts. My Khanh Ngo, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project (IRP), said immigration detention is not supposed to be about punishment. The only legitimate government interests in immigration detention are if a person poses a flight risk or a danger to the public. But the mandatory detention statute allows the government to detain a person without showing why it’s necessary – violating a basic principle of due process. Ngo recently appeared as counsel for Mr. Banyee before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where she a href=http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2024/2/222252.MP3argued/a that the mandatory detention statute was unconstitutionally applied to him./p p“The problem with mandatory detention is that there is no individualized consideration,” Ngo said, “Our argument has always been the government needs to bear the burden of showing this person needs to be detained either by [showing they’re a] flight risk or danger.”/p pAfter nearly 13 months in detention, Mr. Banyee and his volunteer immigration counsel, the Advocates for Human Rights (AHR), won a habeas petition – a request to a court or judge to determine whether a person#8217;s detainment is legal or just – and was granted a bond hearing. An immigration judge released him on bond in April 2022. He had been incarcerated for over five years, four for the criminal conviction, and one for mandatory immigration detention./p pHis family and friends celebrated his release with a big feast. Every moment of freedom has been special. “I had five years taken away from a lot of our time together,” Mr. Banyee said of his family. “I’m trying to spend as much time with them.”/p pToday, the federal government is appealing Mr. Banyee’s habeas decision, arguing that it has a right to detain him with no limit, as long as his deportation case is proceeding. The ACLU has joined AHR to defend the habeas grant, supporting Mr. Banyee’s right to have a bond hearing and be free while he challenges his deportation case./p pMandatory detention significantly impacts a person’s ability to defend against deportation and win relief to which they might be entitled. Even though immigration detention is not supposed to be a punishment, people are often detained in criminal detention settings and subject to the same rules and limitations as people who are incarcerated./p pNgo explains there is no right to government-appointed immigration counsel, so a person in immigration detention is much less likely to be represented because they can’t work and are less likely to be able to afford a lawyer. People in immigration detention also have limited phone or email access and limited language services, preventing them from engaging with the outside world, including legal services. Often, they are isolated and unable to gather evidence to defend themselves./p pThe United States’ immigration detention system is the largest in the world, Ngo notes. “The conditions of immigration detention are so horrific,” she said. “No other country holds this many immigrants to try to deport them.”/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardA Mistake Shouldn’t Mean Exile /h2 /div pLike many noncitizens, Mr. Banyee has deep roots in the U.S. and has already served his time for crimes he committed. Yet, he and many others are again deprived of their liberty through mandatory immigration detention, and face the possibility of deportation./p pSome, like Mr. Banyee, are arrested immediately after their term of incarceration ends. Others are arrested years after they complete any sentence for their convictions, even though they have reintegrated into their communities and have not had any legal troubles. For many, it feels like double punishment./p p“You shouldn’t be defined by one thing that took place in your history, and that shouldn’t consign you to a life of permanent banishment from the United States,” Ngo said./p pMr. Banyee has had significant success defending against deportation in his immigration court proceedings. An immigration judge and three members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have determined that he deserves cancellation of removal, meaning that if he wins his case, he can keep his lawful permanent resident status and one day become a U.S. citizen. His immigration case is currently on appeal for the second time, before the BIA, where it can take years to resolve. At the same time, he is waiting for the Eight Circuit to decide if he can remain free on bond while he awaits a decision on the deportation case./p p“Everybody makes mistakes,” Mr. Banyee said. “In my case, [I] served time, [I] actually went through the process of giving back that adhered to the principles of the society.” He feels deportation would be an extreme consequence for people, like him, who arrived in the U.S. as children, whose lives are here, and who have already served their time for past mistakes./p pMr. Banyee wants to stay in the U.S., with his family, in the country he calls home. The U.S. is the country that has molded him, that has provided him security and allowed him to have ambitious dreams while supporting his family. “I’m willing to put in the work,” he said, “just to be allowed to live that dream.”/p

pMany of us will celebrate Mother’s Day over the weekend by remembering or being present with women who raised us, or with our families. But for the a href=https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024women.htmlmore than 190,000 women incarcerated in the United States this weekend/a, there will be no celebration./p pClose to a href=https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2023/05/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls-1.pdf60 percent/a of these women serving prison sentences were the primary caregiver of their minor children before sentencing. All too often, a prison sentence tears them from their family connections and contact with their children, while severing their children from a vital source of emotional and financial support. State women’s prisons are often located in rural areas, with limited modes of transportation, and families struggle to visit./p pAs a result, families have very few in-person visits, and must rely on postal mail, or pay inflated prices for telephone calls and video contacts. Compounding the lack of connection, women in many state prisons cannot even hold in their hands and cherish a card or drawing sent by their children. Many prisons a href=https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/pennsylvania-prison-scanned-mail-smart-communications.htmlhave done away with real mail/a, and now use vendors to intercept, scan, and destroy all postal mail, delivering poor quality printouts of the original letter to the incarcerated recipients weeks later for a fee./p pIn addition to women sentenced to prison, more than a href=https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/cj0519st.pdf#page=462.4 million women/a spend at least one day in jail each year, and a href=https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/overlooked-women-and-jails-report-updated.pdf80 percent of them/a are mothers of children under the age of 18. And more than 60 percent of women in our nation’s jails are presumed innocent and awaiting trial, a href=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-profit-shapes-bail-bond-systemjailed due to poverty and an inability to purchase their freedom/a by posting bail./p pChildren with mothers incarcerated in local jails often fare no better than those whose mothers are in state prisons: Some jails have a class=Hyperlink SCXW228476086 BCX0 href=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/us/jail-visits-ban-michigan-lawsuit.html target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenercompletely banned in-person visitation/a to require all visits be done by paid video, not because of COVID, but to boost their bottom line. A a class=Hyperlink SCXW228476086 BCX0 href=https://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/report.html target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopener2015 study/a found that 74 percent of jails had banned in-person visits after putting video visits into place. Even when women are able to have in-person visits with their children, jail visits are often done through a plexiglass barrier. Women cannot hold, hug, touch, or kiss their children./p pAlthough many more men are incarcerated than women in the U.S., women’s rate of incarceration has grown a href=https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women_overtime.htmltwice that of men in the past 40 years/a. Since 2009, while the overall number of people in prisons and jails has decreased, a href=https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women_overtime.htmlwomen have fared worse than men in 35 states/a. Women and families of color are disproportionately affected by this increase. Black and Native American / Alaska Native women are a href=http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/p22st.pdfincarcerated at double their share of the population of women in the United States. /a/p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/issues/prisoners-rights/women-prison target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9be40077d72d6d19f05757087e5331e2.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9be40077d72d6d19f05757087e5331e2.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9be40077d72d6d19f05757087e5331e2-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9be40077d72d6d19f05757087e5331e2-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/issues/prisoners-rights/women-prison target=_blank Women in Prison /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/issues/prisoners-rights/women-prison target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/issues/prisoners-rights/women-prison target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pWomen often become entangled with the criminal legal system due to trying to cope with poverty, limited access to child care, underemployment or unemployment, unstable housing, and physical and mental health challenges. They get thrown into a legal system that criminalizes survival behaviors such as selling drugs or sex work, and policies that charge and arrest persons for being present when crimes are committed by others, “aiding and abetting” others, or fighting back against domestic violence. Aa href=https://survivedandpunished.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SP_ResearchAcrossWalls_FINAL-compressedfordigital.pdf study in California found/a that 93 percent of women incarcerated in state prison for a homicide of a partner were abused by the person they killed, and in two-thirds of those cases, the homicide occurred while attempting to protect themselves or their children./p pIncarcerated women have high rates of histories of physical and sexual abuse, trauma, and mental health and substance use disorders. While incarcerated, a href=https://www.ktvu.com/news/u-s-senators-call-fci-dublin-transfer-of-women-appallingwomen are more likely than incarcerated men/a to face a href=https://thehill.com/opinion/4648109-feds-close-prison-dubbed-the-rape-club-but-accountability-is-needed/sexual abuse or harassment/a by correctional staff, and they experience serious psychological distress due to incarceration and the conditions in prisons. a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/jensen-v-thornellTreatment in prisons/a or jails for mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and trauma is often nonexistent. Health care for physical medical conditions or pregnancy often is limited at best: Last year, through our a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/jensen-v-thornelllawsuit/a, we learned the Arizona Department of Corrections was a href=https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2023/01/02/arizona-inducing-labor-of-pregnant-prisoners-against-their-will/69768038007/inducing the labor/a of pregnant incarcerated people against their will. This came after we a href=https://kjzz.org/content/951486/pregnant-women-arizona-prison-suffering-miscarriages-giving-birth-alonedocumented inadequate prenatal and postpartum care/a of women in Arizona prisons in 2019, including a woman with serious mental illness who gave birth alone, in the toilet of her cell, at a maximum custody unit./p pSo what can we do to honor incarcerated women and families? First, we can financially support the incredible work of community-based bail funds that help free mothers and bring them home to their children and families. Second, we can support criminal legal reform policies to stop mass incarceration./p pThe a href=https://www.nationalbailout.org/National Bail Out/a is a Black-led and Black-centered collective of organizers and advocates who are working to abolish pretrial detention and mass incarceration. They have coordinated with a variety of other groups, including a href=https://southernersonnewground.org/our-work/freefromfear/black-mamas-bail-out-action/Southerners on New Ground (SONG)/a, to create the tactical mass bail out of #FreeBlackMamas to acknowledge the reality that incarceration of women disproportionately affects Black women. They work with partner organizations to post bail for incarcerated women year-round, but especially before Mother’s Day. This year, instead of (or in addition to) sending flowers to your favorite mothers, you can donate to a href=https://www.nationalbailout.org/partnersNational Bail Out or the 18 Black-led organizations they are working with across the country/a to help #FreeBlackMamas./p pWe also need to address the root causes of the incarceration of women in this country, which is often due to poverty. While drug or property offenses account for about half of the charges for which women are incarcerated, policies must also focus on reducing a href=https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article272572946.htmlso-called “violent” offenses/a that women commit often in response to violence and abuse./p pWhen we incarcerate women, we are causing irreparable damage to them, their families, and all of our communities./p

pIn 2023, Kansas enacted a law attempting to define “transgender” out of existence by restricting the definition of a “woman” to the biological function of producing ova. Not only does this definition negate the experiences of trans women and girls, but it also excludes entire categories of women who are not transgender, such as post-menopausal women, women experiencing reproductive challenges, and intersex women./p pDespite being passed under the dubious title “Women’s Bill of Rights,” this law has not been used to create any new protections for women, nor improve support for women’s initiatives or resources. Instead, the law has been used to incite fear among transgender Kansans and limit their ability to live freely in our state./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/kansas-v-harper target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/lgbtq-issue-image.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt=LGBTQ issue image decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/lgbtq-issue-image.jpg 700w, https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/lgbtq-issue-image-400x200.jpg 400w, https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/lgbtq-issue-image-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/kansas-v-harper target=_blank Kansas v. Harper /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/kansas-v-harper target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletFive transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver’s licenses with a.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/kansas-v-harper target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pKansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has claimed the new law restricts trans Kansans from updating the gender marker on their state IDs. For years, Kansas had allowed transgender residents and those born here to change the gender marker on their driver’s licenses and birth certificates. Despite having these affirming policies without any identified administrative, public safety, or other concerns, the attorney general took to the courts to pressure state agencies into removing these policies./p pIn response, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment announced a policy change banning trans Kansans from updating the gender marker on their birth certificates. The Kansas Department of Revenue, which issues driver’s licenses, declined to change its policy — prompting Kobach to sue KDOR to force a policy change in ia href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/kansas-v-harperKansas v. Harper/a./i/p pThe a href=https://www.aclukansas.org/enACLU of Kansas/a, along with ACLU’s LGBTQ amp; HIV Project and local partners, intervened in that lawsuit on behalf of five transgender Kansans to assert their right to a driver’s license that does not forcibly out them. Unfortunately, three days after the suit was filed and prior to our intervention, the judge issued a temporary order blocking trans Kansans from changing their license’s gender marker. The order, which remains in force, also requires a previously changed gender marker to revert back to the inaccurate marker when the license expires or is amended in the future./p pThis means trans people are not currently able to access accurate and affirming state identity documents in Kansas. Having an ID that reflects a trans person’s lived identity is crucial to their safety, privacy, and bodily autonomy. The research shows that lack of access to an affirming ID harms trans people, making them vulnerable to forced outing and increasing their chances of experiencing discrimination, harassment, and violence./p pThe ACLU of Kansas is going to keep fighting in iKansas v. Harper /ias long as necessary. But we also understand that trans people cannot wait months (or years) for a ruling from the courts affirming their basic constitutional rights. They must use their IDs in daily life for countless reasons, from picking up mail to purchasing items at the store. That’s why we began to partner with local LGBTQ advocates to uplift an alternative option for trans Kansans — gender-affirming ifederal/i IDs, like passport cards and passport booklets./p pTrans people can self-attest their gender when applying for a federal ID, meaning they do not need a state ID that verifies their selected gender. For trans Kansans, this means they can still obtain a federal ID that reflects the gender they live as. The ACLU of Kansas and our community partners are thrilled that despite legislative and political attacks on trans Kansans, we are still able to support our community and reduce the harm flowing from anti-trans policies in our state./p pThe ACLU of Kansas has hosted numerous Know Your Rights events and Federal ID Clinics to provide resources and reassurance to trans Kansans. People who come to these events have been relieved and overwhelmed by the community support they experience. In the face of discriminatory laws trying to erase their existence, trans Kansans are coming together to share information and support each other. The power of community persists./p pIn the wake of nationwide anti-trans legislation and rhetoric over the past few years, events where trans Kansans can come together are even more important. In a rural state like Kansas where people can feel isolated, these events are not only an opportunity for people to access the assistance they need, but they also allow folks to connect and share in their pain and in their joy. One mother I met at a virtual event was ecstatic to know she could get her child a gender-affirming federal ID before they started college. She feared that her child would not be able to enroll for college with the correct name and gender marker because of the new anti-trans law./p pDespite efforts by anti-trans extremists to try to deny our humanity, to isolate us, trans Kansans are not going anywhere. Thousands of trans people call Kansas home, and we will remain. We will continue to define our own lives, support each other, and build power. These laws may have produced a wide unknown but the power of our community is deeply rooted./p

pToday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its a href=https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-07527/implementation-of-the-pregnant-workers-fairness-actfinal regulations/a implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The landmark statute mandating “reasonable accommodation” of workers’ pregnancy-related needs went into effect last summer, but the regulations explain the PWFA’s protections in more detail, providing additional guidance to workers, employers, and the courts so that the full force of the law is given effect./p pThat’s great news for workers like:/p ul lia href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/kimberlie-michelle-durham-v-ruralmetro-corporationMichelle Durham/a, an Alabama Emergency Medical Technician forced onto unpaid leave during pregnancy because her employer refused to honor her doctor’s directive that she not lift heavy stretchers and patients;/li lia href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/att-mobility-fired-me-being-pregnant#:~:text=AT%26T%20Mobility's%20so%2Dcalled%20%E2%80%9Cno,Disabilities%20Act%2C%20and%20the%20FMLA.Katia Hills/a, a retail worker from Indiana fired for absenteeism due to severe “morning sickness” and doctor’s visits; and/li lia href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/panattoni-v-village-frankfortJennifer Panattoni/a, a police officer from Illinois forced to take leave without pay when she was denied temporary reassignment to a desk job./li /ul pMichelle, Katia, and Jennifer aren’t alone; millions of people, especially Black and Brown women at greatest risk of maternal morbidity and mortality, labor in strenuous jobs that could be dangerous during pregnancy – like health care, retail, and law enforcement – yet are routinely denied the temporary modifications they need to stay healthy. One study estimated that 250,000 people annually don’t get the accommodations they need, putting them at risk for miscarriage and other poor health outcomes on the one hand, and job loss on the other./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardSo what did Congress intend the PWFA to accomplish?/h2 /div pAs the first federal statute enacted in 45 years to protect on-the-job rights of pregnant workers, Congress passed the PWFA to fill a significant gap in existing law when it comes to accommodations – those temporary on-the-job modifications that a person may need to maintain their health or the health of their pregnancy. These changes can be minor – such as a slightly later start time to account for “morning sickness” or more frequent breaks for workers who spend long shifts on their feet – or more significant, such as suspension of risky duties, like repeated heavy lifting or exposure to toxins./p pAlthough workers with disabilities have been entitled to such changes for more than 30 years under the Americans with Disabilities Act, pregnant workers have lacked similarly explicit protections. The PWFA eliminates the Hobson’s Choice faced by pregnant workers – i.e., continue working under unsafe conditions or leave the job altogether – by requiring employers to accommodate workers with limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. Given the statute’s obvious benefits to workers and their families alike, it’s no wonder that the PWFA was enacted with exceptionally broad bipartisan cooperation that is virtually unheard of in today’s Congress, and with supporters as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the American Civil Liberties Union, my employer./p pWhen the EEOC issued a draft version of its PWFA regulations last August, a small but noisy group raised the alarm that the agency had gone rogue. Why? The EEOC specifically stated that “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” includes abortion, so that time off for abortion care – like time off for other doctor’s visits and medical procedures – is a “reasonable accommodation” required by the new statute. Critics contended that such a requirement improperly forces employers to somehow participate in their employees’ abortion decisions, which they claimed is unfair to employers that object to abortion on religious grounds./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/the-historic-new-law-protecting-fairness-for-pregnant-workers target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/5ddb12929c46917407ae0ce9e9c04f02-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/the-historic-new-law-protecting-fairness-for-pregnant-workers target=_blank The Historic New Law Protecting Fairness for Pregnant Workers /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/the-historic-new-law-protecting-fairness-for-pregnant-workers target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletAfter a decade of advocacy, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is going into effect. /p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/the-historic-new-law-protecting-fairness-for-pregnant-workers target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pSuch objections are likely to reemerge now that the EEOC’s final regulations are out, because abortion remains among the list of reasons entitling workers to reasonable accommodation. But while the EEOC’s noisy critics paint the agency as radical, it is they who push a fringe view – one that disregards nearly half a century of legal history. In 1978, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a law protecting workers from discrimination based on “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” At the time, Congress made clear that it considered abortion to fall within that definition – meaning that firing or refusing to hire someone because they have had an abortion is unlawful discrimination. In 1979, the EEOC issued guidelines consistent with that interpretation and reaffirmed those directives in 2015, while in the four and a half decades since the PDA’s passage, numerous courts have reached the same conclusion: discrimination based on abortion is discrimination based on “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The phrase also has been interpreted by judges to cover a wide range of pre- and post-partum reproductive needs, including the use of contraceptives, infertility treatment, and lactation. At the same time, the PDA makes clear that employers are not required to cover abortion in their health plans, and subsequent court cases have not disturbed that provision. When Congress copied and pasted “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” from the PDA into the PWFA, all of that interpretive precedent came with it. The EEOC’s new regulations simply implement the law Congress actually passed./p pWhen it comes to the rights of religious employers, abortion opponents also get an “F” in history. While such entities long have enjoyed certain narrow exemptions from our discrimination laws – and the PWFA does nothing to disturb such precedent – courts repeatedly have refused to grant religious employers wholesale immunity from these statutes. Indeed, Congress irejected /ian amendment that would have exempted religious employers from the PWFA’s reach altogether. The EEOC regulations rightly also refuse to rubber-stamp discrimination in the name of religion, instead providing careful, case-by-case consideration to instances where a religious employer objects to an employee’s need for accommodation under the PWFA, if any happen to arise./p pSadly, since 2022’s ruling in a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/a-year-without-roeiDobbs/i iv. Jackson Women’s Health Organization/i/a overturning iRoe v. Wade/i, the time off of work that is necessary to get an abortion has increased exponentially. At last count, more than 20 states have either banned or severely restricted abortion. As a result, a sizable share of the U.S. population – millions of people – are now faced with the prospect of traveling hundreds of miles to even access this critically important healthcare. To name just one example, in Texas, where a near-total ban is in place, the average one-way trip for abortion has ballooned a href=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2798215by more than eight hours/a – an increase of a full./p pThe PWFA is historic, but not because it applies to abortion. Employers already are prohibited from taking adverse action against workers who have abortions. The PWFA simply bars them from punishing people for taking time away from the job to obtain abortion care – or any other reproductive health care. No one should have to risk their paycheck to get the medical care they need – and thanks to the PWFA, they don’t./p pemThis a class=Hyperlink SCXW187589113 BCX0 href=https://msmagazine.com/2024/04/15/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-women-abortion/ target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenerpiece /awas first published in a class=Hyperlink SCXW187589113 BCX0 href=https://msmagazine.com/ target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenerMs. Magazine/a on 4/15/24/em/p

pEvery year, thousands of asylum seekers from diverse corners of the world seek refuge in the United States. Many — like Indigenous people from Latin America and Africa — are fleeing persecution based on the languages they speak and their cultural, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. Their ability to access the asylum system has life-or-death consequences. Yet our government cuts off access to asylum and other fundamental rights based on language barriers alone./p pThe federal government has a responsibility to ensure people with limited English proficiency (LEP) can reasonably access its services. Failure to do so discriminates by excluding LEP people from federal programs. This infringes on LEP individuals’ constitutional due process and equal protection rights, as well as well-established language rights enshrined in federal law. Nevertheless, the government routinely denies asylum seekers critical language access throughout the asylum process./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/petition-for-rulemaking-interpreters-for-affirmative-asylum-interviews target=_blank tabindex=-1 /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/petition-for-rulemaking-interpreters-for-affirmative-asylum-interviews target=_blank Petition for Rulemaking: Interpreters for Affirmative Asylum Interviews /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/petition-for-rulemaking-interpreters-for-affirmative-asylum-interviews target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/petition-for-rulemaking-interpreters-for-affirmative-asylum-interviews target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markLanguage Barriers Cut Off Access to Asylum, Cause Prolonged Detention, and Lead to Wrongful Deportations/h2 /div pStarting even outside the United States, anyone seeking asylum at the border generally must use the CBPOne app to obtain an elusive appointment. Beyond well-documented problems with accessibility, appointment shortages, racist facial recognition bugs, and other technical issues, the app is only available in English, Spanish, or Haitian Creole, with limited Russian and Portuguese features. Thousands of asylum seekers who speak other languages are a href=https://castro.house.gov/imo/media/doc/03212024lettertodhsenglish.pdfleft out/a, with dangerous a href=https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Asylum-Ban-Harms-Factsheet-formatted.pdfconsequences/a for those stranded in waiting./p pLanguage access problems continue once LEP individuals finally enter the United States for asylum screening. The government a href=https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/Language-Access-in-Credible-Fear-Screenings.pdfadmits/a that it struggles to provide interpreters for certain languages, especially rare or Indigenous languages, during screening interviews. As a result, asylum seekers often feel pressured to undergo interviews — which determine whether they can even pursue an asylum claim — in a more common language, even if they don’t speak it proficiently enough to communicate sensitive details of their claim./p pThose who finally get an opportunity to apply for asylum must complete their application — a complicated legal document — entirely in English. For LEP asylum seekers in government detention facilities without translation or interpretation services, that’s a href=https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BS-N6hRly4e4am4iGwoeUYw0CpJgJHrd/view?usp=sharingimpossible/a. Appallingly, immigration judges have a href=https://thegrio.com/2024/03/20/congress-asks-biden-harris-admin-to-address-discrimination-against-black-mauritanians-at-border/#:~:text=Politics-,Congress%20asks%20Biden%2DHarris%20admin%20to%20address%20discrimination%20against%20Black,practices%20that%ordered/a LEP asylum seekers to be returned to the countries they fled, simply because they could not fill out their asylum application in English, even when no language services were available. Moreover, immigration courts can’t find adequate interpreters for a href=https://clarke.house.gov/clarke-leads-letter-to-dhs-and-ice-urging-release-of-detained-mauritanian-asylum-seekers-and-justice-for-rare-language-speakers/certain languages/a, leading to unnecessary and prolonged detention. Often, people are faced with an impossible choice: proceed in languages they don’t fully understand (and risk being denied protection) or give up. Effectively, the government blocks LEP people from presenting their asylum claims merely because of the language they speak — not because they lack a meritorious claim./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markThe Government Already Has Interpreters Available. Yet It Still Requires Affirmative Asylum Seekers to Find Their Own./h2 /div pAffirmative asylum interviews are another glaring example of the government’s discrimination against LEP asylum seekers. Affirmative asylum interviews are a critical step in the asylum process — they are the only opportunity for someone to sit down with an asylum officer and explain their fear of persecution outside of the removal process. But for decades, the government has required LEP applicants to provide their own interpreters during these interviews. This puts a substantial logistical and financial burden on LEP asylum seekers, many of whom have limited financial means, and imposes an even greater burden on those who speak rare languages with only a handful of interpreters available across the country. LEP applicants who can’t find interpreters face delays or, worse, referral to removal proceedings./p pFinancial constraints force many applicants to use friends or family members to interpret. Serious ethical and practical concerns follow. Applicants may hesitate to share the full scope of their trauma or asylum claim with loved ones; untrained interpreters may lack an understanding of professional norms of confidentiality and conduct for interpretation or may struggle to accurately translate technical legal terminology. Inaccurate interpretation prevents applicants from fully presenting their claims, and can cause erroneous credibility findings./p pThe interpreter requirement is also inefficient and illogical. The government already contracts professional interpreters who monitor the quality of applicant-provided interpreters during interviews. That’s right: the government already pays for interpreters to participate in these interviews. It has a href=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/23/2020-21073/asylum-interview-interpreter-requirement-modification-due-to-covid-19stated/a on a href=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/16/2022-05636/asylum-interview-interpreter-requirement-modification-due-to-covid-19multiple/a a href=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/17/2023-05572/asylum-interview-interpreter-requirement-modification-due-to-covid-19occasions/a that these contract monitors can provide more efficient interpretation at no additional cost. But asylum officers regularly reschedule interviews when applicants fail to bring an interpreter, even though the government’s interpreter is already present./p pDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the government temporarily permitted applicants to use contract monitors as interpreters during asylum interviews. But the government recently and abruptly a href=https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/affirmative-asylum-applicants-must-provide-interpreters-starting-sept-13ended/a this policy without explanation, once again requiring applicants to bring their own interpreters. Now, more than ever, the government faces an unprecedented backlog of affirmative asylum cases with an outdated, inefficient, and discriminatory interpreter rule./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markThe Government Should Abandon Its Outdated and Discriminatory Rule/h2 /div pThe ACLU is fighting back. Along with 52 organizations from across the country, a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/petition-for-rulemaking-interpreters-for-affirmative-asylum-interviewswe are petitioning/a the government to abandon its illogical and discriminatory rule requiring applicants to bring their own interpreters. Our ask is simple and common sense: change the regulation and permit asylum applicants to use the government-funded interpreters already present during asylum interviews at the applicant’s discretion. This will ensure that LEP asylum seekers have a meaningful opportunity to present their asylum claims and make one small but significant step toward bridging the gaps in language access in our asylum system./p

State legislation can have an immense impact on your civil rights, for better or for worse. And even though state lawmakers are tasked with determining which bills get turned into laws, you hold a lot of power to make these decisions because you elect candidates into office. Take this quiz to learn about lawmaking at the state level, and how you can play a part in this process at the ballot box.

Click to see Quiz

Across the country, our affiliates are challenging discriminatory policies and practices that disproportionately affect women, and particularly women of color. From housing discrimination in Illinois, to inhumane treatment of incarcerated pregnant individuals in North Carolina, and discriminatory dress codes in Texas schools, the ACLU and its affiliates are at the forefront of legal and advocacy efforts that promote gender equality and justice for all.

Here are three ways our affiliates are stepping up:

The ACLU of Illinois recently joined with national and local advocates, including the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, to challenge the “No-Evictions” policies of two large landlords — Hunter Properties and Oak Park Apartments — in Cook County, Illinois. These policies automatically reject rental housing applicants who have had any prior connection to an eviction case. The effect is to shut out families from housing opportunities, even when the eviction case was dismissed or filed years ago. Such policies have a discriminatory effect on Black renters, and especially Black women. Analysis of data from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office found that Black women accounted for approximately 33 percent of those served with an eviction case or evicted, despite making up just 22 percent of all renters in Cook County. Black renters in general faced nearly triple the likelihood of experiencing an eviction case than non-Black renters.

The lawsuit filed against Hunter Properties, and the civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development against Oak Park Apartments, argue their respective “No-Evictions” policies have a disparate impact on Black renters, especially Black women renters, that violate the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The complaint against Oak Park Apartments also asserts that its policy perpetuates and reinforces residential segregation in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The two filings are among the first in the nation to challenge landlords’ eviction screening policies as discriminatory.

In 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly finally passed a statewide law banning correctional officers, sheriffs, and other prison staff from shackling incarcerated people during critical periods of their pregnancy and postpartum journey. The law, HB 608, also known as Dignity for Women Who are Incarcerated, came after years of advocacy by the ACLU of North Carolina and several other partner organizations, including Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and SisterSong.

A pivotal factor in the bill’s passage was an OB-GYN’s moving account of delivering a baby to a shackled woman in custody. Labor and childbirth are already intense and vulnerable experiences, and the use of restraints can exacerbate the physical and emotional pain of the mother. This story deeply resonated, even with resistant sheriffs, ultimately propelling the legislation forward.

Despite the passage of this legislation, challenges persist. Recent revelations suggest some North Carolina prisons and jails have not been in compliance with the law. Undeterred, the ACLU of North Carolina is initiating a comprehensive awareness and compliance campaign, and will be filing public record requests with the jails in all 100 counties in North Carolina, coordinating legal education seminars for the criminal defense bar and developing content on the importance of reproductive justice and the need to uphold the rights of incarcerated individuals. With these efforts, the ACLU-NC aims to ensure adherence to the law and foster a deeper appreciation for upholding the dignity of pregnant people in prison and jails.

More than half of Texas public K-12 school districts still have discriminatory dress codes and grooming policies. The ACLU of Texas has uncovered alarming disparities in school dress codes, revealing a trend of discrimination against students based on gender, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ identity, religion, disability, and socioeconomic background. The ACLU of Texas recently published a new report that reviews policies from 97 percent of Texas school districts and highlights pervasive inequalities within them.

Some of the survey’s major findings include:

• More than 80 percent of districts enforce vague and subjective hair standards, which could lead to disproportionately penalizing Black students.
• 53 percent of districts uphold dress codes rooted in outdated gender norms, such as boys-only hair length policies and girls-only sleeve length policies.
• More than 80 percent of districts prohibit head coverings without explicitly noting or explaining the religious exemptions mandated by law, harming students of diverse faith backgrounds.
• Nearly 80 percent of districts penalize students for wearing worn or improperly sized clothing, disproportionately impacting economically disadvantaged students.

In light of these disparities, the ACLU of Texas is taking action to challenge discriminatory dress codes and foster inclusive classroom environments. They’re sending the report to every district in the state to equip students, families, educators, and policymakers with knowledge that can help identify the harms of — and solutions to — discriminatory dress code policies. The report provides advocacy tools for community members and a roadmap for school districts, outlining recommendations like removing discriminatory dress code language, establishing fair enforcement practices, and providing clear and specific dress code guidelines. The ACLU of Texas is actively working in the courts and communities to push for more inclusive dress codes.

If you’ve faced or witnessed dress code discrimination, you can share your experience to continue this advocacy.

No student should ever be punished for being who they are. Instead of discriminating against young people, we should be preparing them for their futures.

State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.

With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.

With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.

Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a ​​bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.

Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.

The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.

The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.

There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.

But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.

The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.

Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.

To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.

pAs a child in New Jersey, I grew up hearing stories of my mother’s flight attendant days in South Korea. A few stuck out to me even at a young age – such as hearing she needed to maintain a certain weight to get into the flight attendant program and that she had to quit her job once she got married. I couldn’t understand why my mother had to quit her dream job, the job that allowed her to travel to Hawaii and Paris, the two places she had always wanted to go since she was little, just because she got married. My mother also told me how women either lied about being married to keep their jobs or were pressured to quit by their superiors if they were public about their marital status or were pregnant. Although airlines across the world have since rolled back official policies restricting marital status and pregnancy for flight attendants in response to federal civil rights laws, many still perpetuate gender discrimination through dress code restrictions and limitations on lactating./p pUnfortunately, what my mother faced as a female flight attendant was common across the globe. The role of women in the airline industry has long been limited to societal constructs of what it means to be “feminine.” Women flight attendants have been hypersexualized through revealing uniforms and advertisements, such as an a href=https://www.jezebel.com/how-flight-attendants-organized-against-their-bosses-to-1830282960infamous ad campaign/a run by a now discontinued airline in which a flight attendant states, “I’m Cheryl; Fly me.” To maintain this public perception of flight attendants as sexually and romantically available, airlines imposed informal and formal restrictions on the height, weight, and age of flight attendants as public imaging and marketing tools. In the 1950s, airlines began to institute mandatory retirement ages for flight attendants, 35 and older, to further reinforce their image of a desirable woman. Flight attendants were fired for getting married or becoming pregnant until the 1970’s./p pNowadays, we see this sexualization in current “female” flight attendant uniform policies – skirt, high heels, tight clothing, low-cut blouses – which are indicative of the longstanding stereotypes of what it means to be a “woman” in the airline industry. Restrictive uniform and grooming policies that reinforce stereotypical categories of “male” or “female” harm people of all genders, particularly women and nonbinary people. This was the case in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/wetherell-v-alaska-airlinesiWetherell v. Alaska Airlines/i/a, in which a a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/gendered-dress-codes-hurt-everyone-especially-non-binary-people-like-menonbinary flight attendant/a was required to adhere to an inflexible uniform policy that forced them to conform to rigid gender stereotypes. In May 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Washington, and the Washington State Attorney General’s Office secured a a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/groundbreaking-consent-decree-requires-alaska-airlines-to-change-discriminatory-gendered-uniform-policyconsent decree/a against Alaska Airlines, requiring the removal of all gendered restrictions from its uniform policy for flight attendants and additional training on gender identity and gender expression./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/wetherell-v-alaska-airlines target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/wetherell-v-alaska-airlines target=_blank Wetherell v. Alaska Airlines /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/wetherell-v-alaska-airlines target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe ACLU and partners represented Justin Wetherell, a flight-attendant and flight-attendant instructor based in Seattle./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/wetherell-v-alaska-airlines target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pDress code restrictions aren’t the only gender discrimination issue that airlines need to work on. New parents in the airline industry need to be able to pump breast milk aboard aircraft during noncritical flight phases. Lactation accommodations are now the norm in many places thanks to landmark legislation including the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act of 2022. The PUMP Act guarantees the right to pump at work and provides federal labor protection for new parents in most industries who want to pump milk during their workday without fear of being fired by their employer. But the PUMP Act excluded flight crews, and as a result, airlines have dragged their feet at implementing basic accommodations, forcing their employees to delay pumping due to their flight schedules, resulting in pain, discomfort, and infections, or to stop breastfeeding earlier than they intended./p pWe have fought to ensure pregnant flight attendants have the right to pump at work. In partnership with the ACLU of Colorado and other organizations, we secured two settlements agreements on behalf of Frontier a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/settlement-reached-frontier-airlines-pregnancy-and-lactation-discrimination-lawsuitflight attendants/a and a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/pilots-reach-settlement-with-frontier-airlines-over-lactation-and-pregnancy-policiespilots/a who had previously been denied pregnancy and breastfeeding accommodations by Frontier. As a result of the settlement, Frontier made important policy changes addressing pregnancy and lactation accommodations on the ground and during flights, including a policy change allowing flight crew to pump breast milk while in the air./p pNow that Frontier is leading the way, other airlines should follow suit. That’s why we a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/letter-to-airlines-breastfeeding-accommodations-for-flight-crewsent a letter/a to 28 airlines urging them to adopt policies expressly permitting flight crews to pump breast milk aboard an aircraft./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/letter-to-airlines-breastfeeding-accommodations-for-flight-crew target=_blank tabindex=-1 /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/letter-to-airlines-breastfeeding-accommodations-for-flight-crew target=_blank Letter to Airlines: Breastfeeding Accommodations for Flight Crew /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/letter-to-airlines-breastfeeding-accommodations-for-flight-crew target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pFor those airlines that don’t follow in Frontier’s footsteps, we need the AIR PUMP Act to expand PUMP’s critical protection to flight crews, making clear that all airlines must provide employees who are lactating with the basic accommodations they need, such as pumping during non-critical phases of the flight. But in the meanwhile, we’re very glad to know that there’s currently a bipartisan effort, in both the House and Senate, to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority to give written guidance to air carriers so that flight crew members will be able to pump without being penalized./p pNo working mother should be forced to choose between their job or nursing their child. We applaud Congress for passing the a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/pump-nursing-mothers-act-explainerPUMP for Nursing Mothers Act,/a and now it’s time to finish the job and stand by working parents in the airline industry./p

pSince the Supreme Court struck down longstanding affirmative action admissions policies this past summer in iSFFA v. Harvard/UNC/i, institutions from a variety of sectors have grappled with how to stay true to their commitments to equal opportunity in light of the court’s ruling. But this week, the Supreme Court did something noteworthy: it refused to hear a challenge to a high school admissions policy designed to eliminate unfair barriers for students of color. In doing so, the justices sent a signal that institutions can continue to find innovative ways to ensure equal opportunity for all within the parameters of their relatively narrow decision on affirmative action./p pThe admissions policy at issue in iCoalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, /iis just that — a thoughtful approach to ensuring that highly qualified students from all backgrounds have a fair shot at getting into Thomas Jefferson High School (TJ), the top public high school in Virginia. Recognizing the importance of a diverse student body, TJ removed arbitrary and unfair barriers to eligible Black, Latine and lower-income students of all races and ethnicities. Instead of relying only on standardized tests, which can exclude well-qualified candidates of color, the new process considers a broad range of factors, including performance on a problem-solving essay. The school also adopted a percentage plan that guarantees seats to the most competitive candidates from all eligible middle schools — not just select “feeder” schools in wealthy neighborhoods. By declining to take up the case, the Supreme Court has effectively let this policy stand./p pAnd earlier this month, the court reinforced that its decision in iSFFA/i was a narrow one, allowing West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy to continue their race-based affirmative action programs, while challenges proceed in the lower courts. Although the court did not explore the constitutionality of these programs, by declining to hear these challenges, it is leaving the door open for institutions to design creative solutions for expanding opportunity and fostering diversity./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/moving-beyond-the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-rulings target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/5b9568cda96c187ab07088cee177a66e-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/moving-beyond-the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-rulings target=_blank Moving Beyond the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Rulings /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/moving-beyond-the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-rulings target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe work to ensure educational opportunities for people of color continues, despite the court’s decision./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/moving-beyond-the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-rulings target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThis mission is more critical now than ever. Discrimination and deep-seated racial inequities that so many educational institutions, businesses, and other entities are working to address remain critical challenges. Since the 1990s, public education in the U.S. has grown a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/amici-curiae-of-the-aclu-aclu-va-in-coalition-for-t-j-v-fairfax-county-school-boardsignificantly imore /i/asegregated by race. Black and Brown students are more likely to attend schools that are doubly segregated: racially isolated and with fewer resources but higher needs. In the employment sector, Black workers face persistent gaps in promotion, pay, and a href=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/racial-wage-gap-starts-as-early-as-16-heres-why.htmlopportunity/a. The a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/business/economy/black-workers-racial-pay-gap.htmlBlack-white wage gap/a was larger in a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/business/economy/black-workers-racial-pay-gap.html2020 than it was in 1970./a Black, Latina, and Native women make less than 65 cents for every dollar earned by a white man, a differential that adds up to a href=https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/EPD-2021-v1.pdfnearly a million dollars lost/a over the course of a woman’s career./p pThis reality was not lost on the Supreme Court. Even in its decision to strike down Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action policies, the court reaffirmed that the pursuit of diversity is a “a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfcommendable goals/a”. In his concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed that schools “can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways.”/p pThat said, under the new legal landscape we face, opening the doors of opportunity will require careful construction, clarity of conviction, and steadfast commitment in the face of a well-resourced movement against progress. In designing programs to foster principles of fairness and equality, institutions need to be mindful that courts will pay more exacting scrutiny to programs that consider an individual’s race. Further, institutions need to be prepared to face highly organized attacks, including “warning” letters and legal challenges blatantly distorting the state of the law. These attacks have created a culture of fear and legal uncertainty specifically intended to coerce institutions into abandoning their commitments to equal opportunity — in some cases, successfully./p pWe cannot let this happen. Proactive efforts to ensure full and equal opportunity are more, not less, urgent in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Institutions should examine their admissions, scholarship and fellowship programs, as well as recruitment and hiring practices, to ensure that they expand pipelines of opportunity for all. Schools, businesses, and others must not shy away from their DEI efforts, offices, and trainings, but instead should double down on the many lawful and effective approaches that remain. Schools and workplaces should take steps to foster a climate in which people of all races and ethnicities belong and can meet their full potential. And institutions must still comply with anti-discrimination laws, including those that prohibit unnecessary barriers to opportunity for people based on race or ethnicity. As the values of diversity and equal opportunity are themselves under attack, we must continue to push even harder for progress. It is not only the right thing to do, but what the law both permits and requires./p

pIn 1987, 15 years after the Women’s Rights Project was established at the ACLU, March was officially designated as Women’s History Month in the United States. This time is for the celebration of the women whose contributions and achievements have shaped our society. Such a celebration may feel painful at this moment, when we are facing the fall of iRoe v. Wade, /ithe Black maternal mortality crisis, as well as ongoing, systemic barriers including the gender wage gap, family policing, lack of affordable housing, and sexual harassment. Yet it is precisely at times like these we need reminders why we still fight – and that we still win. In the perpetual fight for justice and equity, women have not only been essential, but have also consistently led the way. Each March, we must celebrate the progress made, and acknowledge all the work that has been and has yet to be done./p pFor over 50 years, the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project (WRP) has been at the forefront of the fight for gender justice. And just as Women’s History Month continues to evolve each year, our work has expanded and developed, with a focus on taking an intersectional approach. Here are four ways we continue to fight for equality:/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standard1. Challenging Discriminatory Dress Codes /h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=Three individuals holding ACLU branded posters. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/our-voice-is-our-power-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / /figure pThe ACLU has led the way in fighting discriminatory dress codes that reinforce sexist and racist stereotypes in schools and at work. These discriminatory codes target girls, people of color, and members of the LBGTQIA+ community, particularly girls who live at the intersection of those identities. Many students and workers across the county are subject to senseless, sex-based restrictions such as skirts, dresses, and “modest clothing” for women and girls and short hair, pants, and no accessories for men and boys. We successfully a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-from-public-charter-school-seeking-permission-to-violate-students-constitutional-rightschallenged/a a charter school’s “skirts only” rule for girls, which the school adopted based on the belief that every girl is a “fragile vessel.” The school sought to overturn the decision but, in 2023, the Supreme Court left the victory in place. This past year, we also reached a a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/groundbreaking-consent-decree-requires-alaska-airlines-to-change-discriminatory-gendered-uniform-policyhistoric settlement/a with Alaska Airlines to remove all gendered restrictions from its uniform policy for flight attendants./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/dresscodeform target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/a082360125c2d047aa848acb36042cee-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/dresscodeform target=_blank Share Your Story: Dress Code Policies Based on Gender Stereotypes /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/dresscodeform target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWe’d like to hear from you if your school or workplace maintains discriminatory dress and appearance policies./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/dresscodeform target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pAcross the country, we’ve sought to end the enforcement of discriminatory dress codes in a range of other contexts as well. We’ve fought to end discriminatory dress codes in schools that prevent boys and non-binary students from wearing their hair long, which prevents a class=Hyperlink SCXW6015916 BCX0 href=https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/my-sons-hair-is-part-of-a-thousand-year-old-tribal-culture-his-school-called-it-a-fad target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenerNative American and Black students/a, among others, from expressing their cultural and religious traditions. We’ve also worked to end dress codes that a class=Hyperlink SCXW6015916 BCX0 href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/why-im-challenging-my-schools-sexist-dress-code-policies target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenerpenalize student athletes/a on the girls’ cross-country teams for training in weather-appropriate clothing, as well as those that forbid transgender seniors from attending a class=Hyperlink SCXW6015916 BCX0 href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-challenges-mississippi-high-schools-refusal-to-let-transgender-student-wear-dress-to-graduation-ceremony target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenertheir high school graduation/a dressed as themselves./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standard2. Taking on Housing Policies that Blacklist Black and Brown Women/h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=Someone holding a sign saying Stand With Black Women. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/i-stand-with-black-women-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / /figure pIn our fight for housing justice, we have taken on “No-Eviction” policies and other screening policies that disproportionately discriminate against Black renters, particularly Black women. These screening policies block potential renters from housing simply because they are connected to any previous eviction case, even if the case was very old, they ultimately won it, or the legal action against them was unlawfully filed in the first place. Black women are significantly more likely to have eviction cases filed against them by landlords, so these policies in turn impact and destabilize Black women, further perpetuating systemic inequality and segregation. In 2023, we filed a class=Hyperlink SCXW192197316 BCX0 href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/advocates-challenge-discriminatory-eviction-screening-policies-enforced-by-two-cook-county-landlords target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenertwo/a challenges against the use of these screening policies by Chicago-area landlords. These cases were among the first of their kind in the United States and aim to set a precedent for disrupting discriminatory housing practices./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standard3. Advocating for Pregnant and Lactating Workers/h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A group of women wearing t shirts saying Pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / /figure pWe have long been at the forefront of fighting for the rights of pregnant and breastfeeding workers who experience discrimination in the workplace. Over the past few years, the ACLU was a key advocate for the enactment of the a class=Hyperlink SCXW136550188 BCX0 href=http://pregnan/ target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenerPregnan/at Workers Fairness Act and the a class=Hyperlink SCXW136550188 BCX0 href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-senate-passage-pregnant-workers-fairness-act-and-pump-nursing-mothers target=_blank rel=noreferrer noopenerPUMP for Nursing Mothers Act/a. These new landmark laws ensure that millions of pregnant and lactating workers have access to reasonable accommodations that allow them to continue working, instead of forcing them to choose between their paycheck and a healthy pregnancy and nursing period. We continue to litigate on behalf of employees who are denied pregnancy-related accommodations and those discriminated against for being pregnant./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standard4. Fighting the Separation of Black and Brown Families/h2 /div figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1110 height=740 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A sign that says Women#039;s Rights Are Human Rights. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights.jpg 1110w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/womens-rights-are-human-rights-1000x667.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1110px) 100vw, 1110px / /figure pAs part of our work on behalf of families of color who are disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system, we have been a strong voice in raising awareness about the widespread use of automated tools by local governments to determine which families to investigate – tools that often heighten the risk of disintegration for Black and Brown families in the United States. In 2023, the ACLU published a a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/how-policy-hidden-in-an-algorithm-is-threatening-families-in-this-pennsylvania-countyreport/a on the discriminatory effects of Allegheny County’s “Family Screening Tool,” which could disproportionately flag family members who were Black or had disabilities for investigation. The ACLU’s report prompted in-depth reporting from the Associated Press and an investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/the-devil-is-in-the-details-interrogating-values-embedded-in-the-allegheny-family-screening-tool target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1000 height=494 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1339bada98bced1fc0221fb7c78bd574.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1339bada98bced1fc0221fb7c78bd574.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1339bada98bced1fc0221fb7c78bd574-768x379.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1339bada98bced1fc0221fb7c78bd574-400x198.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1339bada98bced1fc0221fb7c78bd574-600x296.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1339bada98bced1fc0221fb7c78bd574-800x395.jpg 800w sizes=(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/the-devil-is-in-the-details-interrogating-values-embedded-in-the-allegheny-family-screening-tool target=_blank The Devil is in the Details: Interrogating Values Embedded in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/the-devil-is-in-the-details-interrogating-values-embedded-in-the-allegheny-family-screening-tool target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWe're examining how algorithmic design choices can function as policy decisions through an audit of a deployed algorithmic tool, the Allegheny Family /p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/the-devil-is-in-the-details-interrogating-values-embedded-in-the-allegheny-family-screening-tool target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pWhile there is still much work ahead of us, our recent victories give us hope for progress toward a more equitable world for everyone, regardless of gender. We will continue the fight for gender justice alongside everyone who has been and continues to be a part of the movement with us./p

piTwo transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Idaho#8217;s 2023 law, HB 71, which criminalizes gender-affirming medical care for trans youth. Signed by Governor Brad Little, HB 71 prohibits widely accepted treatments for gender dysphoria, despite their endorsement by leading medical organizations like the American Medical Association. In a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and legal firms, plaintiffs argue that the law violates constitutional rights. The law bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and certain surgeries for transgender youth, threatening medical providers with felony charges and up to 10 years in prison. /i/p pi /iiIn February 2024, Idaho filed an application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a partial stay against an injunction currently blocking enforcement of HB 71. Jane Doe, a 17-year-old transgender girl living in Idaho and plaintiff in the case alongside her parents, shares her story. /i/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardAll I Want is to Just Be a Teen /h2 /div pDespite everything, I know I’m lucky. Despite having to watch as politicians in my home state of Idaho and across the country spread lies targeted at transgender youth like me, I know I’m blessed with a family that loves me, friends that support me, and a school that protects my right to be treated like every other student. Despite my governor signing a law threatening to put my doctors in prison just for providing me with medical care I need, I know I’m lucky to have those doctors who, with the support of my parents, have helped me get the hormone therapy I need to address my gender dysphoria, which had been making my life unbearable. And despite needing to join a federal lawsuit against that law that threatens to uproot my entire life and family, I know my parents and my siblings would do anything to protect me no matter what./p pAs a 17-year-old girl, I haven’t even graduated high school. I should be planning for college, hanging out with my friends, and playing video games with my brother. Instead, politicians in my state have forced me to go to court to stop them from denying me the medical care my doctors, my parents, and I all know has saved my life. Now, that fight is at the Supreme Court where the Idaho Attorney General has asked the court to intervene and allow the ban on gender-affirming medical care to go into effect while the case goes forward. I do not want to be doing this. I just want to be a teenager and continue receiving the health care that has made the life I am now living possible./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/poe-v-labrador target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/8edf82b64b3db092af443732c95ebc3d-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/poe-v-labrador target=_blank Poe v. Labrador /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/poe-v-labrador target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletA 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/poe-v-labrador target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pFor as long as I can remember, I knew that something felt off about living as a boy. I have always naturally related to other girls, felt the most like myself around other girls, and had similar interests as other girls. When I was younger, I did not have the words to express my feelings related to my gender identity or being transgender. But I knew it even before I knew the words for it. When I would play “make believe” with my friends, I was always a girl character. When I would play video games, I would always choose a girl avatar. My mom and dad even told me that, when I was little and my mom was pregnant with my younger sibling, I would lie down and place a doll on my stomach and tell them that I wanted to be a mom./p pWhen I started middle school and my body started changing, the sense that something was “off” gradually became a devastating level of distress. My mental health began to deteriorate as the changes to my body made me look more like my older brother and less like the girl I knew myself to be. I avoided anything social and my grades began to fall. There were times that I simply just did not want to exist because the physical changes to my body were trapping me in an existence I knew was causing me immense mental pain./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardFamily, Friends and Community/h2 /div pAt 14, I shared these feelings with my parents who, by then, could tell something was gravely wrong. Without hesitation, they told me they loved me, would always love me, and just wanted me to be happy and healthy no matter what. Soon after, I started “socially transitioning”#8211;I started going by a new name at home and at school and my friends began using feminine pronouns to refer to me. I wore a feminine hairstyle and I started wearing girls’ clothes. I told my mom I wanted to wear makeup and, as part of how she supported me when I asked for her help, she taught me about makeup and how to apply it./p pAll of this helped my gender dysphoria, but I was still experiencing male puberty, which was causing significant physical changes to my body that I could not hide or cover up with makeup or clothes. The changes to my body caused me so much pain that sometimes I wished I did not even exist. My parents took me to see our family doctor, a pediatrician who’s known me all my life./p p“From the moment you were born,” my doctor told me, “my job has been to make sure you’re healthy and happy, and this doesn’t change anything.” She referred us to a specialist with expertise in gender dysphoria and I started seeing a therapist. The specialist evaluated me, including an extensive conversation about my struggles with my gender. He also provided my parents and me information about gender affirming medical care, including the potential risks, and options to preserve fertility. At 15 and with my mom and dad’s support, I started medication that prevented further changes to my body from puberty, causing immediate relief to my anxiety and giving me much-needed hope. A few months later, I started estrogen, which has allowed me to go through puberty consistent with my gender identity./p div class=alignfullwidth mb-8 wp-pullquote div class= wp-pullquote-inner p#8220;It’s hard to overstate how impactful gender-affirming medical care has been for me.#8221;/p /div /div pIt’s hard to overstate how impactful gender-affirming medical care has been for me. Before treatment, I was isolating myself, depressed, anxious, and I regularly felt trapped and scared. I could not see a future for myself. I am so grateful that when I told my parents about what I was experiencing, they listened to me, trusted me, and took me to providers who could give me the gender-affirming health care that I needed to be who I am. Combined with the support of my friends and school, the love and support I’ve received from my family is what every transgender kid needs and deserves./p pAt the start of 2023, the Idaho State Legislature began debating HB 71, a law that would ban my medical care and even threaten to put my doctors in prison for the “crime” of supporting me. It was both terrifying and infuriating to watch as something so important to me and my life was debated by people who obviously didn#8217;t know anything about us. They didn#8217;t seem to care at all about all the testimonies from parents like mine, the expertise of doctors like mine, and the pleas from trans kids like me begging the state not to take away the care that has saved my life and the lives of so many others. When Governor Brad Little signed the law, my parents and I were terrified for our future./p pWhen HB 71 passed, my parents talked to my siblings and me about trying to travel out of state for care or selling our house and leaving Idaho-the only home I#8217;ve ever known. Having to move would mean losing my friends, my family, my home, my community, my school–everything that I have always known./p pI don’t want politicians trying to control my body, my life, and my family’s lives. And I don’t want any other trans kids to be faced with the same. I’m so fortunate to have the support I have-especially when so many trans kids are denied the same opportunity to thrive–and I wake up every day thankful for the love of my parents and my siblings. But if the Supreme Court allows this law to take effect, my family and my doctors understand that this health care is so central to my well-being that not receiving it is not an option. I ask that the Court please help me and my family. Please do not let my health care be taken away./p

pOn January 5, Governor DeWine introduced draft rules that, if implemented, would have resulted in thousands of transgender people in Ohio going without the health care they need, and forcing many to move out of their home state — including my friend, Emma. Due to an outpouring of dissent from the trans community, those proposed rules will not go into effect./p pFor years, politicians across the nation have been pushing legislation that would block critical gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, taking life-saving health care decisions out of the hands of trans people, their doctors, and their families, and putting it in the hands of politicians. Much of this legislation has focused on spreading inaccuracies and stoking fear specifically about care for trans youth. But the Ohio government tried to take it even further. DeWine’s proposed rules were the most extreme regulations on medical treatment for transgender adults anywhere in the United States, and would have prevented children and adults alike from receiving medically-necessary care. These changes were not based in any medical science, and were proposed against the recommendations of every major medical organization in the nation, despite the outcries from the trans community./p pEmma and I are both born and raised Ohioans. We have frequently shared our fear and disappointment in the actions of Ohio’s political leaders and how out of touch they are with the wants and needs of Ohio communities. We were both part of the thousands of people who submitted comments in opposition to the opposed rules, and we both know that this is a victory worth celebrating — but also that these planned attacks against the trans community in Ohio are not in the past. I sat down with Emma to talk through what these proposed bans would have meant for her and her trans community, and how we can continue working to defend trans rights in Ohio and across the nation./p div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--half alignment--right figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1080 height=1316 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A photo of Emma M. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1.jpg 1080w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1-768x936.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1-400x487.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1-600x731.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1-800x975.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot_20240202_153023_Instagram-1-1000x1219.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1080px) 100vw, 1080px / figcaption class=wp-image__caption is-caption mt-3pEmma M./p /figcaption /figure /div pbHanna:/b iHow would the proposed changes to transgender health care access in Ohio have impacted you? How would they have impacted your friends and other trans people in the state?/i/p pbEmma/bbi:/i/b I#8217;ve lived my whole life in Ohio. It#8217;s my home, somewhere I can be myself and be supported by my friends and family. Since the proposed changes were announced, I#8217;ve seen the future I envisioned for myself here change drastically. If trans health care access was restricted for adults, many of us would be forced to move. Friends had told me all the places they#8217;re considering moving to, and others were planning on leaving the country entirely. I know plenty of others, myself included, who want to stay and fight it. It#8217;s hard though. To make it through the day, you have to have some sort of plan about what to do when things get bad. If I am ever forced to [leave], I know I#8217;ll be able to move somewhere and be okay, but not everyone can move; it#8217;s expensive, and it#8217;s daunting to have to find a job somewhere else away from our friends and families./p pbHanna:/b iHow do the limits on health care for trans youth tie into the proposed restrictions for the care you receive? /i/p pbEmma:/b If you#8217;re a trans kid in Ohio, you#8217;re being told that you can#8217;t be who you want to be until you#8217;re an adult. You reach adulthood, and then the state still is trying to put laws in place to limit your access to health care. It#8217;s just cruel because it makes it that much harder to be hopeful as a trans kid. Suicide rates among trans youth are already frighteningly high, and we know how to lower them. This is why we spread mantras like Protect Trans Kids, they#8217;re in an increasingly difficult situation and need support. The proposed changes made me more concerned for trans youth in particular, because I think it would be really difficult to remain hopeful in the face of these extra barriers. You#8217;d have to make it to adulthood, save money not just for the myriad of expenses that are typical for transition, but also to move out of state. To all trans kids, I want you to know that things will get better. It#8217;s up to the rest of us to fight back and make sure we#8217;re providing a future to look forward to for the trans youth of Ohio./p pbHanna:/b iWhat can people do to help, whether they’re in Ohio or wanting to support from afar when these kind of attacks on trans care are introduced by politicians? /i/p pbEmma:/b People can do a couple things to show support. First, check in on your trans friends and family. It#8217;s pretty hard on our mental health when laws like this are proposed or passed, even if they’re eventually defeated, and it#8217;s helpful to know that our loved ones are here for us. It is incredibly stressful thinking about how these changes would impact our access to health care. Outside of that, we need help pushing back on the laws themselves. Show up to protests, submit your feedback online, or call your representatives to let them know how you feel about anti-trans legislation. Right now, trans people are looking to our friends to speak up and speak out. We can#8217;t fight this battle alone. If you can, there are many great organizations worth donating to as well, like the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio, or the TransOhio Emergency Fund, to both push back on harmful legislation and provide trans people with much needed assistance./p div class=wp-audio mb-8 div class=wp-audio__content span class=wp-audio__episode-title is-hidden-tablet is-hidden-desktop is-size-5 is-size-6-mobile The Way Forward for Trans Justice /span div class=wp-audio__metadata columns div class=column span class=wp-audio__episode-title is-hidden-mobile is-size-5 is-size-6-mobileThe Way Forward for Trans Justice/span p class=wp-audio__episode-description line-clamp-3 is-size-6 is-hidden-mobile Last year, states passed a record number of bills restricting health care, athletics, public accommodations, expression, and educational materials for trans people — trans kids, more specifically. With the turn of a new year, the situation continu... /p p class=wp-audio__episode-description line-clamp-5 is-size-7 is-hidden-tablet is-hidden-desktop Last year, states passed a record number of bills restricting health care, athletics, public accommodations, expression, and educational materials for trans people — trans kids, more specifically. With the turn of a new year, the situation continu... /p /div div class=wp-audio__thumbnail-wrapper column img class=wp-audio__thumbnail src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/at-liberty_500x500.jpg alt=Cover artwork for / /div /div /div div class=wp-audio__links is-flex is-align-items-center pl-none pl-4-tablet div class=wp-audio__links-episode is-size-7 has-text-grey has-text-weight-bold p-4 a href=https://www.aclu.org/podcast/the-way-forward-for-trans-justice class=visit-link p-none mb-none no-underline column span class=visit-link__textVisit this episode/spanspan class=icon caret is-dark right / /a /div /div /div pbHanna:/b iWhat would it mean for you and your community if DeWine’s proposed changes to trans health care had taken effect? /i/p pbEmma:/b It would have been devastating, because we#8217;ve fought for this to be our home. It would have been a very clear announcement that we aren#8217;t welcome here, and that legislators will keep trying to push us out. Not everyone can afford to move to the safety of another state. It#8217;s already a struggle for some trans adults to access medical care, largely because of long wait times. I think these proposed changes would have worsened that issue and placed an unfair burden on trans people that would have negatively affected our physical and mental health. I didn’t believe these changes were an accurate representation of what the people of Ohio wanted, and I#8217;m grateful that with enough awareness, people provided the support we needed to shut down these proposals. It was an immeasurable relief that the proposals were changed, thanks to a massive influx of comments from the community. I think there#8217;s more to be done, it#8217;s easy to fall into a false sense of security now that some provisions have been walked back, but the reality is trans youth is still actively affected and trans adults remain a political target. We need to keep this energy, this outpouring of support, to prevent future attempts by the state against trans rights./p pbHanna:/b iHow has access to gender-affirming care affected your quality of life?/i/p pbEmma:/b Unequivocally, I can say gender-affirming care saved my life. It#8217;s difficult for me to explain what it was like before I came out and had access to gender-affirming care. I had been dangerously depressed for a long time and didn#8217;t have hope that things were going to get better. It felt like I was living someone else#8217;s life, where none of the pieces fit. I think from the outside it seemed like I should have been happy. I had a loving family, a great group of friends, and did well in school. The reality was that I was disconnected from it, and tried desperately to hide how hopeless I felt. I was unaware that there were other people like me, and there were resources to help transition. Luckily, I came out and had support from friends and family. I#8217;m truly happy with my life now, and hopeful for my future. Gender-affirming care isn#8217;t just hormones or surgeries, it#8217;s a whole range of things that might not be the same for everyone. For me, the first thing was seeing a therapist who helped me work through my anxieties related to transitioning, then other medical professionals to start hormone replacement therapy. They made sure I was well informed through every step in the process. It lifted that weight off my shoulders, helped me feel at home in my body. Being happy in your body is fundamental, and because of that, I#8217;m able to find joy in things I didn#8217;t before. The reality was that before, hobbies were just a way to distract myself, and now they#8217;re things I choose to pursue for happiness. I#8217;ve picked up softball, reading, music, and even sewing. I attribute the change in my mental health completely to gender-affirming care, it#8217;s helped me to see myself and life in a new light. Gender-affirming care gave me the hope I needed to continue, and I#8217;m thankful everyday for it./p div class=rss-ctadiv class=rss-cta__subtitleWhat you can do:/divdiv class=rss-cta__titleProtect Trans Care Now/diva href=https://action.aclu.org/send-message/protect-trans-care-now class=rss-cta__buttonSend your message/a/div

pFirst, Donald Trump and right-wing extremists attacked government trainings on racism and sexism. Then the far right tried to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism. Next, they banned books about BIPOC and LGBTQ lives. Today, the extreme right’s latest attack is aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs./p pIn 2023, the far right introduced at least a href=https://www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts?emailConfirmed=trueamp;supportSignUp=trueamp;supportForgotPassword=trueamp;email=lwatson%40aclu.orgamp;success=trueamp;code=successamp;bc_nonce=7dgurpqns0w1d7cyy44vqy65 bills/a to limit DEI in higher education in 25 states and the U.S. Congress. Eight bills became law. If this assault on our constitutional rights feels familiar, that’s because it is. It was last seen in 2020 when Trump-aligned politicians fought to pass unconstitutional laws aimed at censoring student and faculty speech about race, racism, sex and sexism. The ACLU challenged these laws in three states, but today, anti-DEI efforts are the new frontier in the fight to end the erasure of marginalized communities./p pDEI programs recruit and retain BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other underrepresented faculty and students to repair decades of discriminatory policies and practices that excluded them from higher education. The far right, however, claims that DEI programs universally promote undeserving people who only advance because they a href=https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1742925449465135262check a box/a. Anti-DEI activists like Christopher Rufo consistently frame their attack as a strike against “identity politics,” and have a href=https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416?lang=enweaponized/a the term “DEI#8221; to reference any ideas and policies they disagree with, especially those that address systemic racism or sexism./p pThis attack on DEI is part of a larger a href=https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2023/09/HLC208_Watson.pdfbacklash/a against racial justice efforts that ignited after the 2020 killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. At the time, workplaces, schools, and other institutions announced plans to expand DEI efforts and to incorporate anti-racism principles in their communities. In response, far-right activists, led by Rufo and supported by right-wing think tanks such as The Manhattan Institute, The Claremont Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, went on the offensive./p pLeveraging Fox News and other mainstream media outlets, Rufo and his supporters sought to manufacture hysteria around the inclusion of critical race theory in schools and workplaces. After a 2020 appearance on Fox News where Rufo misrepresented the nature of federal trainings on oppression, white privilege, and intersectionality as indoctrination of critical race theory in our public spaces, Rufo convinced former President Trump to end federal DEI training. Rufo’s goal was to limit discourse, instruction, and research that refuted the false assertion that racism is not real in America – and he succeeded. Just three weeks later, a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/the-trump-administration-is-banning-talk-about-race-and-genderTrump issued Executive Order 13950/a, which banned federal trainings on systemic racism and sexism. This Executive Order served as the template for most of the educational gag orders, or bills introduced to limit instruction on systemic sexism and racism in 40 states, 20 of which are now law./p pThe ACLU has consistently opposed efforts to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism, including in Florida where some of the most egregious attacks on DEI, critical race theory and inclusive education have been mounted. Following the far right’s “anti-wokeism” playbook, in April 2022, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which seeks to ban training or instruction on systemic racism and sexism in workplaces, K-12 schools, and higher education. The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and our co-counsel challenged the law, claiming it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on instructors and students in higher education, and fails to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. A federal judge has blocked it from being enforced in public universities across the state./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank Lessons Learned from Our Classroom Censorship Win Against Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletHere’s what the judge’s order could mean for challenges to censorship efforts nationwide./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pInstead of ceasing to censor free speech, the far right pivoted to target DEI programs. For example, Florida passed Senate Bill 266 in April 2023. This law would expand the Stop W.O.K.E. Act’s prohibition on training and instruction on racism and sexism, seeking to eliminate DEI programs and heavily restrict certain college majors related to DEI. Just last month, the Florida State Board of Education moved forward with regulations to limit the use of public funds for DEI efforts in Florida’s 28 state colleges. The State Board also replaced the Principles of Sociology course, which was previously required, with an American History course to avoid “radical woke ideologies.”/p pLed by the same far-right leaders, including Rufo and various think-tanks, these anti-DEI efforts utilize the same methods as the attack on critical race theory. They represent yet another attempt to re-whitewash America’s history of racial subjugation, and to reverse efforts to pursue racial justice—or any progress at all. Anti-DEI rhetoric has been used to a href=https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1742925449465135262invalidate/a immunological research supporting the COVID-19 vaccine, conclusions by economists on mass migration, and even the January 6 insurrection. But these false claims are not what DEI is about. By definition equity means levelling the playing field so qualified people from underrepresented backgrounds have a fair chance to succeed. We cannot let a loud fringe movement convince us otherwise./p pIn its attacks on DEI, the far right undermines not only racial justice efforts, but also violates our right to free speech and free association. Today, the ACLU is determined to push back on anti-DEI efforts just as we fought efforts to censor instruction on systemic racism and sexism from schools./p div class=rss-cta__titleWe need you with us to keep fighting/diva href=https://action.aclu.org/give/now class=rss-cta__buttonDonate today/a/div

pLast year, the Supreme Court overturned its prior holdings on affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions practices in most colleges and universities and, consequently, restricting the ability of schools to address systemic racial inequalities that persist in higher education. But the court’s decision was left with one exception: military service academies. Now, the same group that brought to the Supreme Court the case that overturned affirmative action, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), is suing the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point, alleging in two separate lawsuits that the military academies’ use of race in their admissions processes is unconstitutional./p pAffirmative action at service academies is essential for confronting our military’s discriminatory history, which continues to impact service members of color. The ACLU, the ACLU of Maryland, and NYCLU, along with our partners NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Association of Black Military Women, filed two amicus briefs in a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/amici-curiae-of-the-aclu-and-nyclu-students-for-fair-admissions-v-the-u-s-military-academy-at-west-point-et-alNew York /aand a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/amici-curiae-of-the-aclu-and-aclu-md-for-students-for-fair-admissions-v-the-u-s-naval-academy-et-alMaryland/a in support of affirmative action, highlighting the experiences of people of color, specifically the unique experience of Black women in the military./p pWe recently spoke with three veterans who are members of the National Association of Black Military Women. They shared insight into their personal experiences and challenges within the military — from facing unachievable uniform requirements to highlighting the importance of representation. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardNavy Veteran Sheena Todd - 2010 - 2015/h2 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--half alignment--left figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=467 height=640 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IMG_4133.jpeg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A photo of Sheena Todd. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IMG_4133.jpeg 467w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IMG_4133-400x548.jpeg 400w sizes=(max-width: 467px) 100vw, 467px / /figure /div pbACLU: /bCould you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?/p pbVeteran Todd:/b I was working a few jobs, going to school, and times were tough. This was a way to get out of Detroit and also do something really amazing and scary. It was very important for me to take some time to find myself, grow up a little bit, explore the world, and see what the American dream was about. I#8217;ve always been in jobs that were geared towards service. For me, it was just important to learn to take care of myself and then taking care of others just came naturally./p pbACLU:/b How important is it to have military leadership that represents the diversity of service members?/p div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--half alignment--right figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1985 height=3000 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-scaled.jpeg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A photo of Sheena Todd. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-scaled.jpeg 1985w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-768x1160.jpeg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-1017x1536.jpeg 1017w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-1355x2048.jpeg 1355w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-400x604.jpeg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-600x907.jpeg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-800x1209.jpeg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-1000x1511.jpeg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-1200x1813.jpeg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-1400x2115.jpeg 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image1-1600x2418.jpeg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 1985px) 100vw, 1985px / /figure /div pbVeteran Todd: /bHaving a role model, mentorship, and someone who is culturally competent of what African Americans go through, while also allowing others to get some exposure to that type of leadership, is important in addressing discrimination. It definitely affects morale and the cohesion of the group to walk into a room and look around, and no one looks like you at your job, at a hearing, or at a base. It’s also super important when you think about retention and recruitment. If I am not comfortable or I#8217;m not in a place where I feel like I#8217;m in alignment with who I#8217;m surrounded by, it#8217;s really tough. You don#8217;t feel accepted, welcomed, or valued. The other part of this is seeing what’s possible, and being able to learn from each other and what their experiences were. Seeing those positive examples and building credibility and trust with people that are not like you – that exposure opens up your mindb. /b/p pbACLU: /bThe military imposes certain uniform requirements that can disproportionately impact people of color. Did the uniform requirements affect your time in the military?/p pbVeteran Todd: /bThat was a big deal for me in the military. When it came to uniforms, the regulations were not put in place for us. It was put in place for people with hair that could conform to those regulations. Our hair doesn#8217;t do that. We have to do a little more extra. I was the yeoman that kept instructions in my pocket because they were up for interpretation. I used to get stopped all the time about my hair. There was this one time where I was actually put at attention by a superior. He said I was distracting the sailors and needed to do something about myself. I didn’t have any makeup on, my hair was natural, and I had on overalls and big boots, so I didn’t know what he wanted me to change. I looked around at every other Black girl on that ship; their hair was shaved off. Then I looked at some of our counterparts who had flipped up hair and all this extra stuff. Were they getting pulled to the side? Absolutely not. I#8217;m really glad that they began to change some of those regulations./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardRetired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant Sebrena L. Flagg-Briggs - 1986 - 2021/h2 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--half alignment--left figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=1638 height=2048 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A photo of Sebrena L. Flagg-Briggs. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement.jpg 1638w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-768x960.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-1229x1536.jpg 1229w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-400x500.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-600x750.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-800x1000.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-1000x1250.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-1200x1500.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-1400x1750.jpg 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flaggs-Briggs-Last-Photo-Before-Retirement-1600x2000.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 1638px) 100vw, 1638px / /figure /div pbACLU: /bCould you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?/p pbRetired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: /bIt was rewarding. It was awesome and it was tough. I joined the military because I wanted to do more for my community. I felt the need to serve others and in my mind, the best way was to serve my country. I would be serving everybody by joining the military./p pbACLU:/b Our amicus highlights that people of color collectively make up as much as 37 percent of the enlisted ranks, but only 14.8 percent of the highest pay grade officers. How do you think this affects the experiences of service members of color?/p pbRetired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs/b: When I first came into the military, there was no one that looked like me in a lot of the rooms that I entered. When you don#8217;t see people in the room that represent you, you don#8217;t feel heard. They don#8217;t understand where we’re coming from or how it makes us feel to not see someone that looks like us in higher rank positions. How can they decide uniform policies like how my hair should be, or how the makeup fits my face, or what color is my natural hair color? Those things came up a lot in the military. It affects morale, and it affects people wanting to join./p div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--half alignment--right figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=2000 height=2328 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A younger photo of Sebrena L. Flagg-Briggs in service. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986.jpg 2000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-768x894.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-1320x1536.jpg 1320w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-1759x2048.jpg 1759w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-400x466.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-600x698.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-800x931.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-1000x1164.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-1200x1397.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-1400x1630.jpg 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Flagg-Briggs-1986-1600x1862.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px / /figure /div pI was very heavy on joining an organization that promoted diversity because I thought it was important that men, women, Black, white, different nationalities be represented. It gave me a greater understanding of their perspective, and I was able to share my perspective. We were able to gather our thoughts, our differences, and come up with a common solution that would make everybody feel included./p pbACLU: /bDisciplinary hearings affecting service members are reviewed by the military’s own judge panel. How important is it to have leadership that represents the diversity of service members and understands different upbringings?/p pbRetired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs/b: That is extremely important. Sometimes when the decisions are made, it perpetuates in your mind that there’s no way they understand who I am or what I represent, because that opinion doesn#8217;t sound like it is for me. There have been examples where there was one type of solution or punishment that was going to be put upon a person and because I was in the room, I helped them understand that it wasn#8217;t as they saw it. The relief that they got from having me in the room was astounding. Many times I was the only woman of color or the only person of color in the room, and I was always opinionated and spoke for folk that were on the line. That was truly important during my 35 years of service. Rising to the rank of Chief, it made me more aware. It helped me help others to understand why it#8217;s important to get in the room, earn more rank, so that we can be better understood, and we could share our experiences and other folks would understand as well./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardMarine Corps Veteran Marnisha Mintlow - 1997 - 2001/h2 /div div class=wp-sizing-container sizing--half alignment--left figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=871 height=1024 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image_picker_7A803C1D-2D61-4582-9E72-ACA27735790C-36649-00000901EE79E7CE-photo-processed.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A photo of Marnisha Mintlow. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image_picker_7A803C1D-2D61-4582-9E72-ACA27735790C-36649-00000901EE79E7CE-photo-processed.jpg 871w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image_picker_7A803C1D-2D61-4582-9E72-ACA27735790C-36649-00000901EE79E7CE-photo-processed-768x903.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image_picker_7A803C1D-2D61-4582-9E72-ACA27735790C-36649-00000901EE79E7CE-photo-processed-400x470.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image_picker_7A803C1D-2D61-4582-9E72-ACA27735790C-36649-00000901EE79E7CE-photo-processed-600x705.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image_picker_7A803C1D-2D61-4582-9E72-ACA27735790C-36649-00000901EE79E7CE-photo-processed-800x941.jpg 800w sizes=(max-width: 871px) 100vw, 871px / /figure /div pbACLU: /bCould you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?/p pbVeteran Mintlow: /bWhen I joined, it was about me getting money for school. But as you’re gaining education and knowledge of what this branch has gone through, the wars it has fought and won for our country, and you built a relationship with the branch, you learn the importance. So then it becomes, I served my country, I did my part, I put my life on the line./p pbACLU: /bThe military imposes certain uniform requirements that can disproportionately impact people of color. Did the uniform requirements affect your time in the military?/p pbVeteran Mintlow:/b It wasn#8217;t necessarily uniforms that were my issue. It was the weight requirement. Once you hit the maximum weight requirement, they will do what#8217;s called a body fat measurement. When they do that for women, they measure our necks, our waists, and hips. I still believe that is not a fair measurement for women of color. In my culture and as a Black woman, the widest part of my body is my hips, and there is nothing I can do about it. There are some things that we cannot fix, and to have that held against me, it negatively impacted my military career. I was at a point in my career where I was supposed to get a meritorious promotion, but did not get it because I was considered overweight by their metrics./p pbACLU: /bWhy is it important to have representation in the military?/p pbVeteran Mintlow:/b It#8217;s important to have a diverse population amongst enlisted members and officers so that people who are not in the military have an opportunity to see themselves in the military. When I wasn#8217;t in the military, every person I saw in the Marine Corps was a man. So while I was at my recruiter#8217;s office, they had a poster on the wall of a Black woman in a blue dress, and I said, I need to see her in real life. When I went to the Military Entrance Processing Station, which is where you do your swearing in and you sign all your paperwork, I met a Black woman. She was my visual. I knew I could do this because she looked like me and she did it. It#8217;s very important to have those role models and those mentors in real life. When we see people who are like us, doing these things, it gives us the initiative, the drive, and the inspiration to know that we can do those things, too./p div class=rss-cta__titleWe need you with us to keep fighting/diva href=https://action.aclu.org/give/now class=rss-cta__buttonDonate today/a/div