In a moment when hostile state legislators have used unlawful redistricting efforts and discriminatory voting laws to attack our electoral systems, Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has committed to protecting our democracy.

On the campaign trail, Harris has promised to push for passage of essential federal voting rights protections, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (JLVRAA), the Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA), and the Native American Voting Rights Act (NAVRA). If elected, Harris has the opportunity to build on the Biden-Harris administration’s record of championing measures that increase voting access. The ACLU is determined to hold a Harris-Walz administration accountable for promoting fair representation, preventing discriminatory voting laws, and strengthening our democracy for years to come.

Learn more in our breakdown.

The Facts: A Harris-Walz administration must advocate for federal legislation to protect voting rights, specifically passage of the JLVRAA, the NAVRA and provisions of the FTVA. The JLVRAA would restore the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 to its fullest strength and undo the harm created by Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court struck down the VRA’s core “preclearance” requirement that mandated jurisdictions with long records of racially-discriminatory voting practices seek federal approval before altering their voting laws and practices. The FTVA, if passed, would establish essential voting-access provisions that make it easier for everyone to register and cast their ballots; help safeguard against partisan and racial gerrymandering; increase protections for marginalized voters like those with disabilities and those with prior felony convictions; and establish other much-needed national standards for federal elections. Lastly, the NAVRA is essential to protect Indigenous communities from discriminatory voting practices and address the unique barriers to voting that Native people face.

While the passage of such federal legislation ultimately depends on Congress, if elected Harris is responsible for demanding that Congress act swiftly and boldly. A Harris presidency must also continue to robustly implement Executive Order 14019 on Promoting Access to Voting, which encourages federal agencies to provide nonpartisan voter registration opportunities for all eligible citizens. While the Biden-Harris administration has made laudable strides in implementing this executive order, a Harris-Walz administration must push the federal government to move even quicker to enforce the order’s provisions to the fullest.

In addition, a Harris-Walz administration must advocate for a useful, accurate, and fair census in 2030. This census will determine the allocation of seats in Congress as well as the distribution of billions in public funding until 204o. A Harris-Walz administration should ensure that the Census Bureau is equipped with the tools and resources needed to execute a successful count in 2030, and protected from efforts to manipulate the census.

Why It Matters: The right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. We are counting on a Harris presidency to build on the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to protect and expand voting access, ensure an accurate census, and shore up faith in and the strength of our democracy. The presidency’s influence can reinvigorate the effort to restore and fortify federal voting rights legislation that will protect the right to vote for years. A Harris-Walz administration can also demonstrate how every level of government can act now to increase access to voter registration and education.

How We Got Here: For years, pro-voting rights work has been stymied by a divided Congress or has been thwarted by partisan efforts to manipulate electoral systems to disenfranchise entire populations of voters, particularly voters of color.

As vice president, Harris has been the face of the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to expand voting rights, including launching new efforts across federal agencies to offer nonpartisan voter registration opportunities. Harris has also championed efforts to advance critical voting legislation that has been repeatedly introduced across multiple congressional sessions, including the JLVRAA, the NAVRA, and the FTVA.

Our Roadmap: After Donald Trump pushed the “Big Lie“ that the 2020 election was fraudulent, a wave of state-based voter suppression bills were introduced in response to victories by candidates who support civil rights and civil liberties, and who were elected by diverse constituencies. The ACLU challenged many of these laws and, today, we stand ready to go back to court to take on new suppressive laws, policies, and practices that could follow a Harris win. In addition to filing our own lawsuits, we will call on the Department of Justice under a Harris-Walz administration to enforce federal statutory protections of the right to vote to the fullest.

Additionally, the ACLU will work with our partners to pass critical voting rights legislation. Under a Harris presidency, we will continue to testify in support of the JLVRAA, lobby and brief Congress members about the bill’s importance, and educate constituencies on the bill’s impact on voters of color. So that the JLVRAA and other critical voting rights legislation are not blocked in the Senate, the ACLU will double down on its coordinated effort to reform the filibuster.

Lastly, during a potential Harris presidency, the ACLU will continue pressing state and local officials to leverage every available tool to increase access to voting, including by expanding same-day registration, automatic voter registration, and early and mail voting. If elected, Harris must continue efforts to end the denial of equal representation to Washington D.C. residents, and correct the longstanding voting rights injustices people living in U.S. territories face. Finally, as we have in the past, we will engage our organizers and members in a public education campaign on the impact of the census in everyday life and the importance of counting every person, laying the groundwork for the most accurate census in 2030.

What Our Experts Say: “Expanding voting rights is crucial to ensuring every citizen's voice is heard in our democracy. Vice President Harris has promised to address long-standing challenges and enhance access to the ballot for all eligible voters. If she is elected, we will use every tool at our disposal, including litigation, to hold her to these commitments and protect and advance voting rights and fair representation at every level of government.” — Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project

What You Can Do Today: As the election approaches, discriminatory election practices continue to impact voters of color, highlighted by a surge in anti-voter measures in recent years. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is a crucial step towards ensuring fair and inclusive elections. Add your name to our petition urging Congress to support this vital legislation.

This piece was published before Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential election and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to represent the Democratic Party. No significant facts have been changed or added.

Donald Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him is not only a lie—no widespread voter fraud was detected in that election—it’s a lie that breeds public mistrust in our electoral system. Today, he is already casting doubt on the 2024 election, saying he will accept the results “if everything is honest.” The implication is that if Trump loses then the election may not have been honest, and that a free and fair election this November is only one in which he wins.

A second Trump administration will likely perpetuate policies that undermine our electoral systems. As outlined in Project 2025 policies, evidenced on the campaign trail and in interviews, if Trump is reelected, his administration will likely attempt to manipulate the 2030 census to deny representation and federal resources to millions; abuse executive power to suppress voting and interfere with elections; and roll back federal progress on voting access.

In a country that has a long history of voter suppression and continues to struggle with voter turnout, four years of constant attacks on our voting rights risks long-term, pervasive harm. At the ACLU, we’re fighting back. We defeated the Trump administration’s efforts to manipulate our electoral process before, and we’ll use every tool at our disposal to do so again. Learn more in our breakdown:

The Facts: During a second term, not only would Trump seek to intimidate and disenfranchise marginalized voters, he would lay the groundwork to further question election outcomes that are adverse to him and his allies. Trump is likely to deploy the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal agencies to launch bad-faith investigations into voters and election officials, including against those he believes “rigged” the 2020 election. A second Trump administration is also likely to make good on earlier promises to send federal law enforcement to voting locations—a move that would serve just one purpose: to suppress voter turnout by intimidating voters.

Importantly, a second Trump administration would likely attempt to manipulate the 2030 census by adding a citizenship question. Census population counts impact apportionment of representatives, funding, and other resource allocation. Additionally, the Trump administration would also seek to reverse nonpartisan federal efforts to promote and expand access to voting, particularly for marginalized communities. That includes rescinding Executive Order 14019, which focuses on increasing language access, mitigating barriers for individuals with disabilities, and increasing voter education and registration opportunities under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

Why It Matters: A second Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the right to vote will have consequences far beyond the 2024 election. Since the census is conducted every 10 years, manipulation of the census and apportionment will deny millions of voters equal representation and fair resource allocation for at least a decade. Trump’s likely plan to add a citizenship question to exclude noncitizens from apportionment would result in significant undercounting of historically vulnerable or underrepresented populations, specifically Latine and Asian communities and those living in urban areas, which would have reverberating negative impacts on district maps and allocation of funding.

Furthermore, Trump has stated that whether the upcoming election may be challenged is subject to the “fairness of the election” and whether he wins. This rhetoric yet again demonstrates a willingness to potentially abuse executive powers.

How We Got Here: Trump has consistently attempted to manipulate the census to carry out his agenda. Between 2018 and 2020, the ACLU successfully fought off two such attempts. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ACLU-represented plaintiffs, blocking the first Trump administration’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the census. That question would have caused diverse communities in places like California, Illinois, and New York to lose representation and cut their allotted share of billions of dollars in federal funding. In 2020, we sued again to stop the Trump administration from excluding undocumented immigrants from the figures used to apportion seats in Congress. Our lawsuit caused enough delay that the efforts could not be enacted before President Joe Biden took office and rescinded the policy.

Our Roadmap: Should a second Trump administration take office, we are ready to go to court to block efforts to undermine our electoral process. If a second Trump administration uses the president’s authority to empower his allies to perpetuate the false narrative of illegal voting or gathering information that can be weaponized against voters, we’ll pursue litigation to expose the lies. If Trump attempts to solidify his anti-voters efforts by deploying federal law enforcement officers, the National Guard, or other military personnel to intimidate voters or election workers, we’ll again use the courts to protect our right to vote.

We know that Trump’s efforts to remove noncitizens from the census count is blatantly unlawful. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, representatives in Congress are apportioned based on the “whole number of persons in each State.” If Trump attempts to bypass the requirement that all persons be included in the count by purposefully depressing response rates by adding a citizenship question, or by wholly removing noncitizens from the tabulation, we’ll see him in court.

The courts alone, however, won’t be enough. The grave threats that a second Trump presidency poses to democracy demand robust defensive and proactive responses from Congress. Our expert lobbyists will brief lawmakers on the detrimental impact that an inaccurate census count would have on their home state and urge them to act as a barrier against attempts to incorporate a citizenship question or otherwise politicize the census count. The ACLU will also work with Congress to advance legislation essential to protect our democracy, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (JLVRAA), which restores and strengthens the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to prevent racial discrimination in voting, as well as core provisions of the Freedom to Vote Act (FVA), which increases access to the ballot.

We’ll also use our political power and presence in all 50 states to demand that state and local officials implement policies to protect and strengthen voting rights. We will fight to ensure that states provide local election officials with ample and consistent funding every appropriations cycle for updated equipment, election worker training, messaging campaigns to counter mis/disinformation, and measures to ensure election worker security. Finally, we will advocate for states to enact policies barring state and local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal law enforcement in any Trump-directed effort to intimidate voters through their presence at or near polling or ballot return locations.

What Our Experts Say: “A second Trump term would be catastrophic for every aspect of our elections: from who is counted when it comes to allocating our political power and billions in federal funds, to who is able to cast a ballot, to whether our election administrators can perform their jobs and voters can have their voices heard free from intimidation. He has promised to end our democratic processes, but we are prepared to fight in the courts, the streets, and the halls of Congress to defend our democracy and protect our right to vote.” — Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project

What You Can Do Today: We stand ready to fight back against Trump's attempts to limit the right to vote, but we can't do it without you. Join us as we grow our movement of democracy defenders.

CNN's Joan Biskupic offers a preview of some of what's contained in retired Judge David Tatel's forthcoming book, Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice. Judge Tatel was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bill Clinton, and was a highly regarded member of that court for nearly three decades. Had Al Gore been elected President in 2000, some believe he would have nominated Judge Tatel to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity.

According to Biskupic, Tatel echoes the common (and incorrect) complaint that the Roberts Court has been less respectful of precedent than prior courts. She reports that Tatel charges that the Roberts Court "has 'kicked precedent to the curb' and become 'a tragedy' for civil rights and the rule of law." Assuming that Biskupic's report is accurate (as the book has not yet been released) it is a shame to see Judge Tatel repeat this claim about the Roberts Court and precedent because, as I have shown, the Roberts Court has actually been less prone to overturn precedent than prior courts.  It is one thing to criticize the substance of the Roberts Court's decisions. It is quite different to make demonstrably false claims about the nature of the Court's decisions.

Biskupic's story also confirms what many have long suspected about the Supreme Court's decision in NAMUDNO v. Holder, concerning the Voting Rights Act.

In his book, Tatel wrote that Ginsburg told him about the behind-the-scenes dealings in a 2009 case, known as Northwest Austin v. Holder, that was the forerunner to Shelby County. The 2009 case left the VRA's Section 5 intact, although its reasoning laid the groundwork for future obliteration. (Tatel had authored the lower court opinions in both Northwest Austin and Shelby County.)

When the Supreme Court ruled in 2009, Tatel said, "What I couldn't figure out was why the four liberal justices had joined the Chief's majority opinion. … (T)he unnecessary and irrelevant jabs at Section 5's constitutionality? Why had they gone along with that part of the Chief 's opinion? I suspected I knew the answer, and Justice Ginsburg herself later confirmed my suspicions."

"The justices had initially voted 5–4 to declare Section 5 unconstitutional, but they later worked out a compromise: The majority agreed to sidestep the big question about Section 5's constitutionality, and the would-be dissenters agreed … to sign on to the critique of Section 5," the judge wrote. "With that compromise, the liberal justices had bought Congress time to salvage the keystone of the Civil Rights Movement."

Congress never acted, and Tatel contends the 2009 compromise cost the liberals: "They sure paid a high price: an unrebutted opinion that criticized the VRA and, worse, endorsed a new 'equal sovereignty' doctrine with potentially profound implications," Tatel wrote of the principle that restricted Congress' ability to single out certain states, in this situation because of past discriminatory practices. "The Court's opinion in Northwest Austin thus planted the seeds for Section 5's destruction."

It is certainly true that the NAMUDNO decision "planted the seeds" for the Shelby County holding, in that it flagged the constitutional concerns that underlay the Shelby County decision. But according to this account, there would have been five votes to invalidate Section 5 either way. Thus what NAMUDNO actually accomplished (as some of us have pointed out before) was to give Congress the opportunity to revise Section 5 (and, specifically, to update the statute's obsolete coverage formula) so as to preserve its constitutionality. In other words, a majority of the Court was willing to stay its hand, and refrain from invalidating a federal statute, in the interest of deferring to Congress. That Congress did not avail itself of the opportunity, is not the fault of the Court.

The Biskupic story notes other tidbits from the book, such as how Justice Ginsburg resented the pressure to retire under a Democratic president, and suggests that RBG's death during the Trump Administration likely encouraged Judge Tatel to retire soon after Joseph Biden took office. This Adam Liptak interview with Tatel suggests much the same:

Judge Tatel said his retirement was linked to a lesson he drew from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision to remain on the bench despite calls for her to step down in time to let President Barack Obama name her successor.

"We had dinner here at this table several times," he said. In the book, he described "her annoyance with commentators who were calling for her retirement."

Justice Ginsburg's contributions to the law will endure, he said. "But there's no denying," he wrote, "that her death in office ultimately contributed to Roe's downfall," with Justice Amy Coney Barrett — rushed onto the court by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Republicans — casting the decisive vote to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.

Judge Tatel, now 82, wrote that he had stepped down because he "didn't want to take the chance that my seat might be filled by a president who'd campaigned on picking judges who would fulfill his campaign promises."

But there was more. "I was also tired," he wrote, "of having my work reviewed by a Supreme Court that seemed to hold in such low regard the principles to which I've dedicated my life."

I look forward to reading the book when it is released.

The post Judge David Tatel on the Roberts Court, the Voting Rights Act, and the Notorious RBG appeared first on Reason.com.

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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/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

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

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.