Turning a Blind Eye: The Human Rights Crisis in Puerto Rico
Today, there are American citizens who are being assaulted by police during peaceful protests, but you likely have heard very little about it. The Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD), the second largest police department in the country, is out of control, with a broken and inadequate system for investigating, or even recording, acts of severe police brutality — including lethal force — perpetrated against the communities it is meant to protect. While all of this is occurring in the public eye, none of it is making headlines.
Since 2004, the ACLU of Puerto Rico has documented numerous incidents of serious police misconduct. These incidents have increased both in their frequency and intensity since 2008, at which time the Department of Justice opened an investigation in response to our complaints. Most recently, in March-May 2011 the national office of the ACLU conducted fact-finding research in Puerto Rico, and in May 2011 convened a high-level delegation that went on a two-day fact-finding mission to further research the rise in police brutality in the Commonwealth.
Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 23 states and the District of Columbia. Its citizens are suffering abuses at the hands of its own police department that would never be tolerated anywhere else in the United States. Based on evidence documented during these trips, the PRPD has engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens, that it shocks the conscience.
Last week, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director, Laura W. Murphy, ACLU Washington Legislative Director, Juan Cartagena, LatinoJustice PRLDEF President & General Counsel, Angelo Falcon, National Institute for Latino Policy President, and Jennifer Turner, ACLU Human Rights Researcher participated in a congressional briefing to discuss the preliminary findings of our fact-finding delegations and to raise awareness on Capitol Hill about the continuing crisis. Media, concerned citizens, and Hill staffers from numerous offices came out to learn about these abuses. Even Governor Fortuño sent his staff to distribute information intended to rebut the fact-finding mission.
However, the ACLU has compiled incidents of PRPD’s behavior that has been documented in video recordings and photographs. At the briefing, we played this chilling footage which shows numerous instances of brutality against protestors, including a police officer placing his hands around the neck of a young, unarmed protestor, cutting off her circulation until she passed out.
These examples have been part of an escalating problem. Starting in the summer of 2010, students of the University of Puerto Rico have been involved in protests about increased fees at the university. In order to quash the protests, the government of Puerto Rico activated riot squad officers, which resorted to police brutality. Students have been beaten, tasered, tear gassed, and shot at with rubber bullets. Police have also applied pressure techniques on immobilized protesters’ necks and eyeballs, and young women have been subjected to inappropriate sexual contact by police.
The Puerto Rican government has infringed on its other citizens’ First Amendment rights to free speech and public assembly by cutting off public access to legislative sessions for months, even though the constitution mandates that these sessions be open. After massive layoffs, union leaders and even a legislator has been attacked by police during peaceful protests at the Capitol building, Supreme Court and governor’s mansion, which stands in sharp contrast to, for example, the peaceful protests over job layoffs in Wisconsin this year. Meanwhile, journalists attempting to cover these developments have faced physical assaults by police and obstruction of their access to information.
Perhaps most shocking, is the ongoing police brutality, including and excessive force against civilians during anti-drug operations. In addition, the police department has singled out communities with a high proportion of racial minorities and indigent families for abuse, including the targeting of Dominican and Afro-Puerto Rican populations. As these injustices continue with impunity within the police department, they have also gone unaddressed by the Puerto Rican government or the Department of Justice.
The purpose of the briefing was to let the federal government know that this is a national crisis and our organizations are watching. Our elected and appointed government officials have a responsibility to speak out whenever and wherever they see injustice of this kind occurring. The ACLU has called on the Department of Justice to bring its long overdue investigation to a close. The PRPD has shown that it cannot police itself and DOJ must intervene to stop this pattern and practice of severe police misconduct. We have also urged members of Congress to speak out on this issue and to press DOJ to fully enforce our civil rights laws for all US citizens. Finally, we have appealed to President Obama to help as well. We applaud this administration’s vigorous support for the free speech and assembly rights of civil society in other countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia. However, as this administration turns its eyes toward abuses in other countries, it cannot turn a blind eye toward our own. We ask you to take action now and appeal to this administration to intervene and fully enforce the laws.
Learn more about First Amendment: 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.