Today, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. With over 2.3 million men and women living behind bars, our imprisonment rate is the highest it's ever been in U.S. history. And yet, our criminal justice system has failed on every count: public safety, fairness and cost-effectiveness. Across the country, the criminal justice reform conversation is heating up. Each week, we feature our some of the most exciting and relevant news in overincarceration discourse that we've spotted from the previous week. Check back weekly for our top picks.
Fighting Overincarceration in the States
The ACLU continues to work to reduce prison populations and improve public safety at the state level. Here are some highlights from March:
• California: The ACLU analyzing implementation of last year's , finding that too many counties are increasing jail capacity instead of looking for alternatives to incarceration.
• Florida: The ACLU supported a to create a parole program for individuals who have served 50 percent of their prison sentence and completed reentry programs, a knock to the state's truth-in-sentencing law.
• Georgia: We supported that will send fewer people to prison for low-level offenses and expand drug and mental health courts, among other things. The bill awaits the governor's signature.
• Hawaii: We to the Senate last month on a bill that would reform pretrial risk assessments and parole supervision.
• Maryland: The ACLU supported two bills that passed the Maryland legislature: one that grants to people on parole that will reduce prison populations and increase public safety, and one that codifies the right to an attorney at bail review, which cleared both houses and .
• Oklahoma: Ryan Kiesel, the ACLU of Oklahoma's Executive Director, in the Oklahoma Gazette explaining why a pending reform law falls short of expectations.
• Texas: Last month, the ACLU held on ending mass incarceration and calling for local rehabilitation instead of prison time for lower crimes.
• West Virginia: in the Charleston Gazette, the ACLU of West Virginia's Alyson Clements laments the legislature's failure to pass comprehensive criminal justice reform.
Federal Criminal Justice Reform
The ACLU fights for a more fair and effective criminal justice system at the federal level, too. Here are some highlights from March:
• U.S. Sentencing Commission: The ACLU supporting fairer treatment for drug crimes and immigration offenses.
• Prosecutorial Misconduct: The ACLU supports the . The bill clarifies what evidence federal prosecutors must disclose and addresses remedies for Brady violations. Laura Murphy and Jesselyn McCurdy of our Washington Legislative Office submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting the bill, and the WLO's Michael Macleod-Ball participated in a held by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on the bill.
Criminal Justice in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court handed down several important criminal justice decisions in March, including:
• Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye: The Supreme Court that defendants have a right to effective counsel during plea bargaining, and that violations cannot be cured by a later fair trial or plea. The ACLU joined an submitted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
• Florence v. Burlington: The ACLU filed an on behalf of former New Jersey attorneys general who opposed blanket strip search policies. Inimai Chettiar writes for the American Constitution Society and its link to overincarceration.
Trayvon Martin and Racial Profiling Reform
The ACLU has called for an unbiased, professional and thorough outside investigation of Trayvon Martin's death and asked lawmakers to take steps to end racial profiling:
• Joyce Hamilton Henry of the ACLU of Florida spoke at a gathering at an AME church in Sanford and at a large rally with Trayvon's family.
• ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon in the Tampa Bay Times.
• Racial Justice Project Director Dennis Parker testified at a forum hosted by U.S. House Democrats. He called for an unbiased outside investigation, passage of the End Racial Profiling Act, and for the administration to strengthen the U.S. Department of Justice guidance on profiling.
• Call on Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to guarantee a meaningful investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Stop Solitary
The ACLU's fight against overincarceration is also a fight against its pernicious effects, including massive expansion of the use of solitary confinement:
• National Prison Project Director David Fathi testified in favor of closing Tamms Correctional Center before an Illinois Commission. Listen to a podcast with Brian Nelson, who spent 23 years in solitary confinement.
• David also discusses the use of solitary confinement in California in this front page and in Virginia in this front page .
• The New York Times ran a and the Open Society Foundation ran a post by the ACLU National Prison Project's Margaret Winter about our litigation to reduce the use of solitary confinement in Mississippi and its link to overincarceration.
• The ACLU's Amy Fettig condemned the use of solitary confinement in the United States in her testimony to the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
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 -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.