( at the .)
On Saturday to voice their opposition to S.B. 1070. On the local news later that evening, a mom who participated in the march pushing a stroller with one of her two U.S. citizen children said, "I'm doing this for them. So they know what their country is really about."
The Arizona law that passed the state legislature in April criminalizes immigrants who are "unlawfully present" in the United States. This is the most extreme law ever passed by a state to address immigration, the regulation of which is primarily a federal responsibility. S.B. 1070 requires local police to demand papers proving citizenship or immigration status from people they stop if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country unlawfully.
The ACLU, together with the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and other civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit challenging S.B. 1070. A motion for a preliminary injunction will be filed in the coming weeks with the goal of stopping the law from going into effect on July 29, 2010.
Already, the ACLU of Arizona and our community partners throughout the state are receiving calls on a daily basis from frantic parents, caregivers, religious workers, volunteers, teachers and even state agencies about their rights and obligations under this law. Unfortunately, it is not an overstatement to say that there is a great deal of fear and panic in immigrant and minority communities in Arizona. Since the signing of S.B. 1070, parents have reported that they are afraid to keep their kids in public schools because of the possibility that they or their kids could be reported to immigration authorities. Families have decided to leave the state entirely because they cannot live under constant threat and suspicion. Without even going into effect, this law has already eroded public trust in law enforcement, compromised crime victims' and witnesses' willingness to come forward, emboldened hate groups and created a heightened climate of discrimination and fear.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include a number of social and legal service providers, churches, ethnic associations, labor unions and individuals who would be negatively impacted by S.B. 1070. They are men, women and children who are afraid that if the law were to go into effect they would be at risk of being questioned, arrested and jailed by local police. In many of these cases however, what is even more powerful than their fear of being arrested is the fear of being separated from family and community, and being stripped of their safety and well-being.
Two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are women and residents of Phoenix, Arizona. Both have endured severe abuse and violence and are seeking protection in the United States. But since the passage of S.B. 1070, they are afraid of potential encounters with law enforcement because of their ethnic appearance and limited or accented English. They are afraid that they could be arrested and prosecuted under the law because they do not carry one of the enumerated "registration documents."
One of the women is of South Asian descent and speaks very limited English. She was kidnapped, sexually abused, and physically assaulted in her home country. Now in Arizona, she is applying for asylum with immigration authorities, a process that can take up to several years. Another plaintiff is a Haitian woman who was granted permission to remain in the United States pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act after suffering abuse at the hands of her father. As these women try to piece their lives back together, one of their greatest fears is that they may be caught up by the new law and thrown into a process that would require them to relive the trauma they survived.
Laws like S.B. 1070 are written and promoted to create fear in immigrant communities and spread divisiveness across our nation. It is another tool that will be used to separate families by subjecting more and more people to the state's jails and federal detention centers. It is a tool that will be used to measure the number of deportations from Arizona, without any regard for due process, fairness or justice. Laws like S.B. 1070 that create an assault on a class of people based on their heritage or appearance are not rooted in fundamental American values. Perhaps the voices of the marchers from this weekend and the stories of the plaintiffs in the litigation should remind us that constitutional and human rights apply to all people, regardless of their immigration status, even in Arizona.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.