ACLU Names Cecillia Wang as New National Legal Director
A Renowned Litigator Who Has Argued Before the U.S. Supreme Court, ACLU Veteran Attorney Wang Will Be the First Woman and Woman of Color in This Role
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it has appointed Cecillia Wang as the organization’s next National Legal Director. Wang succeeds David Cole, who departs the organization after seven years to return to Georgetown Law. An ACLU lawyer since 2004, Wang currently serves as an ACLU deputy legal director and director of the ACLU Center for Democracy, which works to strengthen American democratic institutions and values, promote human rights, and ensure government accountability. She will become the first woman and the first woman of color to serve as the ACLU’s top lawyer.
“I am thrilled that Cecillia will be leading our legal team at this key moment. For years, Cecillia has led the ACLU’s work to defend immigrants’ rights, help ward off attacks on our right to vote, and stem government overreach and abuse,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “Cecillia is one of the ACLU’s star litigators and has been instrumental in our landmark litigation wins at the appellate level and before the U.S. Supreme Court; there’s no one better to serve as our next legal director at this time of great uncertainty for our country and our rights.”
Wang began her career at the ACLU as a legal fellow in the Immigrants’ Rights Project. Before returning to the ACLU as a staff attorney in 2004, she was a public defender at the Federal Defenders of New York; worked in private practice; and served as a law clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court, worked as a fifth clerk in the chambers of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and also clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit.
After returning to the ACLU, Wang progressively moved up from staff attorney to managing attorney to director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project, stepping into the role of deputy legal director in 2016. As deputy legal director, she was instrumental in key legal battles with the Trump administration, including challenges to former President Trump’s 2017 Muslim ban and his use of military funds to construct a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. In 2018, she argued the ACLU’s case challenging the government’s draconian interpretation of an immigration detention statute before the Supreme Court. Under her leadership, the ACLU successfully fought to end former President Trump’s family separation policy and argued and won the U.S. Supreme Court case blocking the Trump administration from placing a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
“In my two decades as an ACLU lawyer, I have worked with colleagues and allies to defend and advance freedom, equality, fairness, and the principle that the government is accountable to the people,” said Wang. “As the daughter of immigrants, I am keenly aware that we build on the sacrifices and investments of generations of people who precede us in this work. I have both the great responsibility to carry the work forward and the great joy of doing so in community with an extraordinary nationwide organization.”
Wang is a nationally recognized expert on the intersection of immigration and criminal law, has been honored by numerous community and legal organizations, and has taught immigration law courses as an adjunct lecturer at Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley. Her appointment is effective Oct. 15, 2024.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.