The announcement that the is both good news and deeply disturbing. The investigation of improper targeting by local law enforcement of Latinos in Connecticut, along with DOJ’s recent scathing report of the constitutional violations perpetrated against Latinos by Maricopa County, Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio, are welcome signs that the federal government is taking action to protect people of color from having their most basic rights compromised by racial profiling. Less welcome is the repeated appearance of this particular kind of discrimination in so many parts of the country. Incidents like these raise questions of whether we are dealing with isolated, events or facing examples of rapidly spreading problems that threaten to engulf our entire nation.
The allegations against law enforcement in Arizona and Connecticut are sickeningly similar. The Justice Department report confirmed complaints made in a four-year old civil rights law suit filed by the ACLU. he had ever observed Latinos were pulled over and ticketed for offenses to for which whites were not. People with limited command of English were subjected to abuse upon arrest because of their inability to understand orders issued by law enforcement. Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, East Haven, Police subjected Latino residents and businesses to unwarranted and discriminatory harassment and arrest.
In both states, people who had committed no offense other than being or appearing to be Latino were harassed and told, effectively, that the rights supposedly granted to everyone by the Constitution did not apply to them and that they were not entitled to the protection of the law by those charged with enforcing it.
The appearance of this problem in Connecticut raises unsettling questions. Whether talking about abuses in Arizona or the spate of anti-immigrant laws that started in Arizona and have spread to Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah, there is a temptation to minimize how widespread trends of unlawful discrimination against immigrants are. It is easy to dismiss this racial profiling as the result of the antics of an attention-hungry sheriff or the attempt by a few, unenlightened southern politicians to make hay out of the fears and resentments against black and brown immigrants. But the existence of the practice in the “liberal” state of Connecticut begs the question of whether we can afford to be complacent about intolerance and discrimination anywhere in the country.
It is encouraging that the Justice Department has taken decisive steps in these two cases. We can only hope that the federal government will continue to take aggressive action in each and every instance in which it is warranted. But the problem is not one that can be addressed by the Justice Department alone. It is a problem that all Americans must face. Ultimately what is at stake is not just the ability of people of color to be free to drive on public streets, patronize businesses or to rely on law enforcement for protection. What is at stake is the kind of country we choose to be. Any willingness to accept the abridgement of the rights of some in the name of enforcement of immigration laws, or national security or fighting crime erodes the very foundation of our nation. We must recognize that injustice anywhere and against anyone is injustice against us all.
Learn more about racial justice: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
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.