New Venue, Same Game: Racial Profiling
The Arizona immigration law is poised to inflame the already widespread problem of racial profiling in the United States. This law, S.B. 1070, would require law enforcement officers to investigate a person's citizenship status if they think that the person could be in the country unlawfully. This is a clear invitation to racial profiling, and because of this new law, more people will be put into jails and the criminal justice system merely because of their race or ethnicity. When law enforcement is invited to question people based on appearance and without evidence of criminal activity, dire consequences occur.
Practices in Baltimore, Maryland, during the tenure of former mayor (and now governor) Martin O'Malley, are a prime example of policing gone awry. From 1999 to 2007, Baltimore established a "zero tolerance police policy" in an attempt to reduce the amount of homicides and violent crimes in the city. Instead of focusing on violent crime, law enforcement targeted people of color who were "driving while black" or loitering, arresting them and detaining them for a number of hours until they released them with no criminal charge (but with an arrest still on their record). In 2005 alone, more than in Baltimore; 30 percent of those arrests were dismissed after a preliminary review. This year, the ACLU of Maryland settled a 2006 lawsuit with the Baltimore Police Department and now focuses on reforming Baltimore's arresting and monitoring practices. Baltimore's policing tactics under Mayor O'Malley's policy wasted resources and time and did not address the crime problems of the city. In addition, the use of racial profiling to discriminate against African-Americans in particular created, as Baltimore defense attorney Warren A. Brown describes, "a mentality that we really can't be safe in the streets ."
Similarly, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's support for New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy is another abysmal example of racial profiling in law enforcement. According to the New York Times, in 2009, African-Americans and Latinos were to be stopped than whites but no more likely to be arrested. From 2004 to 2009, almost 3 million people were stopped and frisked; 90 percent of these people were not charged with a crime. These unprovoked and discriminatory searches are demeaning to minorities and cause the victims to feel worthless and defenseless. As if this policy isn't offensive enough, the personal information of people stopped is stored in a database used by police to investigate crimes, essentially turning untold numbers of New Yorkers into suspects for life. Innocent people are targeted by the police for crimes they did not commit simply because of the color of their skin. The New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of more than 100,000 New Yorkers that challenges elements of NYPD's stop-and-frisk database.
Racial profiling in law enforcement is not just limited to city police departments. For example, since 9/11, Sikhs and Muslims have been disproportionately targeted for stops at airports and U.S. borders. Some airports . Even though there is no physical profile that can be attributed to a potential terrorist, law enforcement officers specifically target anyone who appears to be of Middle Eastern descent. "No Fly" lists, airport searches, and other travel restrictions wrongfully and disproportionately affect Sikhs, Muslims, and other citizens of Middle Eastern and South Asian backgrounds. People are discouraged from exercising their right to travel for fear of being unjustly arrested and detained because of how they look or what religion they practice.
The Arizona immigration law is one of the most recent and obvious examples of racial profiling. S.B. 1070 states that race or color should not be factors justifying an officer's "reasonable suspicion" to demand a person's papers, but how else will an officer act on this vague definition of suspicion? In addition to the ACLU and other leading civil rights groups, the U.S. Justice Department has over S.B. 1070, saying that the law will cause the "detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens." Essentially, this law is attempting to not-so-covertly write the use of racial profiling into state immigration policy. Anyone who looks foreign could fall victim to the discriminatory tactics proposed by this unconstitutional law.
The victims of racial profiling might be expanding to include different shades of brown in different venues, but the game remains the same. Solely because of their appearance, people are harassed, detained and sometimes deported. Problems like over-incarceration and a lack of trust between law enforcement and the community worsen. Law enforcement officers waste precious time and resources relying on this inefficient and degrading police strategy, instead of focusing on investigating actual perpetrators of crime. Racial profiling affects everyone— citizen and noncitizen, black, white and every shade in between.
The Arizona immigration law, like all other forms of racial profiling, is ineffective, offensive and destructive to the work of law enforcement. People from both sides of the party line have reaffirmed that racial profiling is unjust and wrong. While an act to end racial profiling (ERPA) has been introduced numerous times in Congress, this legislation has not become law. The Obama administration has made the elimination of racial profiling a priority, and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) have just reintroduced ERPA in the House. We as a nation have progressed too far in the narrative of race relations for this discriminatory practice to continue.
We must act now to stop the Arizona immigration law from going into effect and help this country move one step closer to ending racial profiling.
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.