Yesterday, around 4:15 p.m., we learned that President Obama with a release date of May 17, 2017. In four months, with our continued vigilance to ensure her safety and lawful release, she will be free.
No doubt saving her life, the president cut 28 years off her egregiously long sentence. Having already served nearly seven years in custody, Chelsea has spent more time in prison than any other whistleblower in U.S. history. And history will no doubt look favorably upon President Obama’s decision to cut short Chelsea’s unprecedented sentence.
As the ACLU’s on August 21, 2013, the day of Chelsea’s sentencing, “When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.” Years before that, in 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates , “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.” And then just last week, unnamed Army intelligence officers that in retrospect, Chelsea’s sentence “seems excessive.”
Indeed, the excessive sentence nearly cost Chelsea her life. Subjected to long-stretches of solitary confinement and particularly brutal conditions at Quantico before her trial, denied health care for her gender dysphoria, and then punished for the desperation that led her to attempt suicide, Chelsea’s life has been repeatedly imperiled while in custody.
This past year, Chelsea in large part due to the escalating distress caused by the government’s refusal to adequately treat her gender dysphoria. Despite the recommendations of the military’s own medical providers, Chelsea has had to fight for her treatment in court and was still facing an uphill and protracted legal battle to obtain the right to follow the hair and grooming standards for female military prisoners. And while that the military would move forward with medically recommended surgery to treat her gender dysphoria, Chelsea has been waiting since September to meet with the treatment team. Those plans may have been further stalled given of the military’s change in policy to permit transgender individuals to serve openly as being too “politically correct.”
These delays were breaking her, and they likely would have killed her.
In 2015, after the military informed Chelsea that they would continue to enforce the male hair length standards against her, , “After feeling devastated, humiliated, hurt, and rejected — and after wanting to give up on the world — I found my ‘second wind’ of sorts. I can make it just a little longer. I just hope it’s not too much longer.”
Finally, it won’t be too much longer. Instead of 28 years, it will be four months. Instead of certain death, it will be a chance at life.
Chelsea in her plea to President Obama for clemency, “I am merely asking for a first chance to live my life outside the USDB as the person I was born to be.”
What a gift to us all that she may get that chance.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.