The Women Who Made ACLU History
The ACLU’s “founding mothers” were far ahead of their time not only in their striving for women's equality, but also in understanding that their struggle for equality shared common cause with all people who have been denied their rights. This principle has continued to inform and inspire legal and advocacy battles to this day. The ACLU was the first national organization to argue for abortion rights and trans rights before the Supreme Court, and has argued more women's rights cases before the Supreme Court than any other organization to this day. Here are just a handful of the women who made history with us.
Crystal Eastman
Credit: National Woman’s Party, Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument, Washington, DC
It’s no coincidence that the ACLU was founded in 1920, the same year women won the right to vote. From the very beginning, the ACLU counted among its founders, organizers, and supporters an impressive roster of women, many of whom were veterans of the fight for suffrage. One of these women was Crystal Eastman, who is known as the ACLU’s founding mother.
“The hardest part of the battle is yet to come; the battle with ourselves, with our inherited instincts, with our cultivated taste for leisure, with our wrong early training, with our present physical unfitness … God meant the whole rich world of work and play and adventure for women as well as men. It is high time for us to enter into our heritage — that is my feminist faith.” —
Eastman was a labor lawyer, suffragist, socialist, and journalist who authored model legislation and helped create political organizations that survived a century of turmoil. Yet few people know her as a preeminent champion of most of the major movements for social change in the early 20th century — not just civil liberties but women’s suffrage and rights, pacifism, internationalism, and socialism — who frequently created and led multiple organizations simultaneously, including the ACLU.
Dorothy Kenyon and Harriet Pilpel
Left: Dorothy Kenyon, Credit: Barney Stein/New York Post Archives /(c) NYP Holdings, Inc. via Getty Images
Right: Harriet Pilpel, Credit: ACLU Archives
Early board members at the ACLU were not all on board with abortion as a civil liberties issue. Dorothy Kenyon, who joined the board in 1930, tried to convince them to take on abortion rights as part of the ACLU’s portfolio, to no avail. Other board members, who were mostly men, concluded that abortion fell outside of their purview and to leave the matter to “social agencies in the field.” When Harriet Pilpel joined the board in the 1960s, she and Kenyon joined forces.
“Laws against abortion and other ‘sex laws’ constitute a form of ‘class legislation,’” Pilpel argued. “They are enforced primarily against the poor and underprivileged who suffer ‘wholesale violations of civil liberties’ through surveillance, entrapment, arbitrary police action, speech repression, and intrusions on their privacy.”
After years of negotiations, the board in 1969 articulated the following policy:
“The Union asks that state legislatures abolish all laws imposing criminal penalties for abortions. Total repeal of all such laws will meet these civil liberties criteria.”
It wasn’t the first time ACLU staff helped shift the institutional mission in favor of women’s rights. In the years prior, Kenyon and fellow board member Pauli Murray persuaded the organization to take on cases that challenged sex discrimination, helping to pave the way for abortion rights in 1969.
“I am free now,” said Kenyon, “to shout abroad that this policy of mine is also that of the ACLU.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Credit: AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi
Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a Supreme Court justice, she founded the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in 1972. Under her leadership, the project tallied hundreds of federal laws that discriminated on the basis of sex — in education, employment, reproductive rights, mortgages, credit cards, loans, house rentals, prison, and the military. At the time, most legal scholars believed the law should treat women differently to protect them. Cases about sex discrimination often centered on a specific woman; not changing the law or broader gender equality. Ginsburg wanted to do just that.
"Women's rights are an essential part of the overall human rights agenda, trained on the equal dignity and ability to live in freedom all people should enjoy." — Ruth Bader Ginsburg
While at the ACLU, she played a role in 34 Supreme Court cases, and won five of the six cases she argued before the court. Many of her cases involved sex discrimination against men, which she felt might rouse more sympathy among the male justices, and show that discrimination hurts everyone.
Aimee Stephens
Credit: ACLU
After Aimee Stephens came out as transgender to her employer, she was fired — not because of concerns about her job performance, but just because she was trans. The ACLU assisted Aimee in filing a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in what would become the first case about the civil rights of trans people to be heard by the Supreme Court. When Aimee decided to fight back, she just wanted it to be acknowledged that what happened to her was wrong. As a result of her courage, in 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal to fire people for being LGBTQ.
“I found it a little overwhelming when I realized that I could be in the history books, but somebody’s gotta do it, and I’d be happy and satisfied to be that person.” —
Tragically, Aimee died just a month before the court issued its landmark decision. But she had already made history as a transgender woman and trailblazer in civil rights.
Crystal Mason
Credit: ACLU
Crystal Mason, a Texas mother of three, went to the polls on Election Day 2016 and cast a provisional ballot. She didn’t know that Texas considered her ineligible to vote because she was on federal supervised release, and this honest mistake resulted in her arrest, a five-year prison sentence, and years of legal battles for simply trying to exercise her right to vote.
“You wanted me to feel fear. You wanted me to run. You wanted me to be scared to educate and teach my kids to continue to vote, to go vote, what my mom instilled in me. Instead of letting it be a crutch, I have let it motivate me now.” — Crystal Mason
Crystal’s story is shocking, but it’s also a predictable outcome of politicians’ obsession with supposed rampant voter fraud, and part of broader voter suppression efforts, particularly those silencing voters of color. It’s what fuels her to keep fighting alongside the ACLU, which is representing her in court this month as her case is heard for a second time in an appeals court.
Andraya Yearwood
Credit: Stephen Remich
Andraya is a recent high school graduate who ran on her school’s girls’ track team. A lawsuit was filed against her school and the state of Connecticut by cisgender students who did not want to run with transgender students. The ACLU and ACLU of Connecticut joined the lawsuit on behalf of Andraya and Terry Miller, another student. Both Terry and Andraya have graduated from high school and no longer compete in track, but anti-trans groups are suing to take away any record of their past achievements. For updates on Andraya’s case, visit the Soule et al v. CT Association of Schools et al case page.
“I know that speaking up against the injustices that transgender athletes face within sports is something that needs to be continued.” —
Transgender athletes — particularly Black transgender women — face systemic barriers to participation in athletics and all aspects of public life. This exclusion contributes to the high rates of homelessness, suicidality, and violence that Black transgender women and girls face.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090