After months of preparation and anticipation, on Wednesday we had our first opportunity to hear from the members of the Committee on their specific interests and questions about the US compliance, or lack thereof, with the requirements of the Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Racial Discrimination. It was a wonderful feeling for the 129 of us from the US delegation to finally have the direct attention of about 8 members of the Commission, and to able to answer some of their questions and address them on our particular areas of concern.
Perhaps because my home state, Texas, is known both nationally and internationally for our unapologetic endorsement and frequent application of the death penalty, I was given the opportunity to briefly address the members on the intersection of race and capital punishment in the United States in general and in Texas specifically. In its 2001 report, the CERD Committee identified Texas and several other states in the Deep South as demonstrating a "disturbing correlation between race, both of the victim and the defendant, and the imposition of the death penalty." The Committee recommended that the US "ensure, possibly via a moratorium, that no death penalty is imposed as a result of racial bias on the part of prosecutors, judges, juries and lawyers, or as a result of economically, socially, educationally disadvantaged position of the convicted person." ()
Anti-death penalty advocates have achieved some significant gains in the US since 2001 -- most notably, the Supreme Court's decisions prohibiting the death penalty for the mentally ill () and juveniles (). However, as I noted to the Committee, statistical evidence from Texas and other states confirms that the race of the defendant and the victim continue to be significant predictors of the likelihood the death penalty will be imposed. Moreover,these disparities do not just appear at capital sentencing - rather, the impact of racial discrimination permeates the entire US criminal justice system, beginning with overpolicing in schools and neighborhoods of color, to the lack of access to counsel, to sentencing for non-violent crimes as well as capital offenses.
The US government is intractable in its insistence that, absent evidence of intentional discrimination in an individual case, the government's hands are tied with respect to remedying these disparities. The most gratifying aspect of the international law in this area, to me, is the fact that under CERD, showing that a government practice has a discriminatory impact on people of color is considered adequate evidence to prove the truth we all know: that the imposition of the death penalty in the US is inextricably related to the legacy of racism in our country which began with slavery and continues to shape the entire US criminal justice system. The process in which we are currently engaged with the CERD Committee will be a success if it we are able, through our testimony to the Committee and its
recommendations to the the US government, to continue to push the US, bit by bit, closer to acknowledging and accepting affirmative responsibility for remedying this systemic discrimination.
The process is incremental, and every single step counts.
Read the ACLU's shadow report at www.aclu.org/cerd
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.