On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence Jon Kyl as the new senator from Arizona, replacing the late John McCain.
Kyl previously served in the Senate from 1995 and 2013, where he built up a clear record of opposition to civil liberties, proposing to make the Patriot Act permanent and supporting amendments to the Constitution to undermine free expression, equal protection, and due process.
He more recently developed close ties to the Trump administration, helping advance and the Supreme Court nomination of .
Now that he has returned to the Senate, we expect that Kyl will once again push a platform that undermines civil liberties and civil rights.
Undermining privacy rights
Kyl an expansion of the Patriot Act of 2001 just three years after its passage that would have repealed its sunset clauses and effectively made the sweeping and unconstitutional law permanent.
While this measure failed, Kyl did win an amendment to greatly expand the government’s secret surveillance powers, and he later succeeded in granting the government vast authority to of any person arrested or detained by federal agents for any reason — a clear threat to privacy.
Hostility to due process
Kyl was a cosponsor of a proposed to the Constitution which, had it been ratified, would have turned the longstanding principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head by weakening the rights of criminal defendants.
He also an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that would have provided some protections against the indefinite detention of people without charge or trial.
Opposition to LGBT rights
Across the board, Kyl against nearly every measure to advance LGBT equality — the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military, , and protections for LGBT people in the Violence Against Women Act. He supported attempts to undermine LGBT equality, including the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to forever ban same-sex couples from marrying, and the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.
Opposition to women’s reproductive freedoms
Kyl is a staunch opponent of and received national attention for his deceptive criticism of Planned Parenthood. After Kyl made the patently false claim that abortion services compose “,” his office notoriously attempted to correct his remark by saying it was “.”
In 2009, Kyl introduced a failed to prevent the government from requiring insurance plans to cover benefits, such as maternity care, remarking that as a man, “I don’t need maternity care.”
Voted against free expression
Kyl an amendment to the Constitution to ban the desecration of the flag, a direct attack on Americans’ freedom of speech. The amendment was just one vote short of reaching the two-thirds majority needed for Senate approval.
Voted against disability rights
Despite bipartisan support for the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Kyl opposed ratification of the landmark disability rights treaty, joining 37 other Republicans in defeating it. The vote took place with former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, a disabled WWII veteran, sitting in his wheelchair in the Senate chamber while Kyl and others rejected Dole’s appeal for disability rights protections.
Voted against rights for Dreamers
Kyl voted against two versions of the Dream Act in both and , and he the need to grant Dreamers a path to citizenship because, he said, they could simply find a U.S. citizen to marry.
Kyl’s record on undermining civil liberties is unmistakably clear. Instead of serving as a check on the administration’s unconstitutional impulses, as members of Congress should, he is more likely to support attacks on civil liberties than stand up for constitutional rights.
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.