Another busy week at the ACLU! Congress is keeping us busy on a few fronts. Make sure to follow us on and to get up-to-the-minute info.
House Passes Misguided Amendment to Defund Planned Parenthood
The House has passed an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood of America. Targeted for providing abortion services, though those services are done without federal dollars, if Planned Parenthood loses all federal funding it will deny millions of men and women essential reproductive health care services. Support Planned Parenthood by tweeting with the . Learn more >>
TAKE ACTION: Stop the Assault on Women’s Health
Latest on the Patriot Act
Facing a looming deadline, overblown doomsday stories, and a series of mostly bad options, the Senate gathered up its courage . . . to put off making a decision. On Tuesday, the Senate voted 86-12 to extend the Patriot Act as is for another three months. On Thursday, the House voted to concur 279-143 with the three month extension. That bill is now on its way to the president's desk.
Still Without Justice
Jose Padilla was arrested in March 2002, held without charge for two years in a South Carolina military brig without access to a lawyer, and was tortured to the point that Yesterday, the federal court judge ruled in the government's favor and dismissed Padilla's case. The ACLU's Ben Wizner, who argued the case, said, "The court today held that Donald Rumsfeld is above the law and Jose Padilla is beneath it." Learn more >>
Don’t Filter Me!
Few things shock us here at the ACLU national office, but when a student from Virginia e-mailed us an image a few months ago, more than one of us gasped out loud. What the student saw when he tried to visit the website for the from a computer at his school was a big old STOP sign, courtesy of the school's web filter. See what he saw >>
TAKE ACTION:
Twitter / Wikileaks Case
The ACLU and EFF have filed 3 motions: to overturn a federal court order requiring Twitter to turn over the private records of some of its users; to unseal court records concerning the government's attempts to collect these kinds of private records from Twitter and other companies; to unseal the original two motions and the hearing, which were initially sealed by the court.
TAKE ACTION: Thank You, Twitter!
Don’t let the Fourth Amendment Go Dark
In 1994, when the FBI decided it needed a push-to-listen surveillance system built into the telephone network, Congress obliged by passing the , forcing the telecoms to rebuild their networks to be "wiretap ready." Seventeen years later, law enforcement wants to expand CALEA to include the Internet, claiming that its investigative abilities are "going dark" because people are increasingly communicating online.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to Reject Proposal to Make Internet Wiretap Ready
More on the 14th: Anchoring Equal Protections
The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868 to guarantee citizenship to newly freed slaves, has come under fire recently from anti-immigrant politicians. For nearly 150 years, this Amendment has protected all children born on U.S. soil – regardless of their race and ethnicity or the status of their parents. Now anti-immigrant legislators are putting forth needless, divisive measures to undo this great American tradition.
Law Would Represent Shocking Threat to Women's Health Care Providers
The South Dakota House of Representatives is considering a bill that would provide legal protection for committing murder in order to prevent conduct “likely to result in the death of” an embryo or fetus. The language of the bill is such that if a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, it would provide protection to her husband or boyfriend for killing the medical personnel involved: “justifiable homicide.”
This is your week in civil liberties. Let us know if this is useful or if you prefer a different format. Share your thoughts: ideas@aclu.org
Learn more about and take action on the issues that you care about: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.