After months of negotiations and legal wrangling, Federal District Judge Joan Ericksen issued a disappointing decision in the suit between the City of St. Paul and the . At issue was the Coalition's request for a preliminary injunction regarding the proposed march route, time and duration. The ACLU-MN and the argued the City's proposal, dubbed a "recipe for disaster" by the City's own police union head, violated the Coalition's First Amendment rights. Despite a traffic engineer's analysis that concluded that the City's proposal could accommodate, at best, 28,000 of the expected 50,000 plus crowd, the Court accepted the City's broad, generalized security concerns at face value and refused to order any changes to their proposal.
In this day and age, we all understand that security is a significant concern surrounding events such as a national political nominating convention. But the Constitution requires government restrictions on speech to be narrowly tailored to serve those interests. Judge Ericksen seemed to understand that when she opined that
[s]ecurity measures that were used - and upheld - for one large gathering do not thereby become the baseline for all future large gatherings. Were it otherwise, a sort of 'security creep' would come, by increments, to overwhelm the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, the Judge failed to heed her own warning and went on to cite speech restrictions in place at past political conventions to justify her acceptance of the City's proposal. There was little or no analysis as to whether the restrictions were actually calculated to meet risks or, as we argued, the City had given logistical issues such as parking for busses precedence over protections for free speech. Had the City done its logistical planning around the requested march route, they could have accommodated both.
The most disappointing part of the court's decision was the complete failure to ensure that the City's proposed march route will be safe for the marchers. While the Court seemed to be concerned that the City-imposed march duration would not accommodate the numbers of marchers that the Coalition is expecting, the decision failed to meaningfully address the issue. Instead, the Court left it to the City to make good on representations they made to the court about their willingness to make changes to the duration of the march.
We are still reviewing our legal options and will be deciding on our next steps in the days to come.
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.