ACLU of Texas and ACLU Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Defend First Amendment Right to Protest
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the ACLU are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state criminal court convictions of who were sentenced to incarceration in county jail for peacefully protesting a Confederate monument outside a county courthouse.
On Aug. 30, 2020, Gainesville organizers Torrey Henderson, Amara Ridge, and Justin Thompson marched peacefully with approximately three dozen people on a route outside the county courthouse in Gainesville, Texas, a small town north of Dallas.
A few days later, they were arrested for “obstructing a highway or other passageway,” a misdemeanor under Texas law, even though they had not caused an obstruction under the law or directed others to cause one. In 2022, they were convicted in county court based on evidence about others at the march. In November 2023, the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo .
“We founded PRO Gainesville to speak out against injustice in our hometown, and facing jail time for peacefully protesting shows how far we have still to go,” said Gainesville community organizers Torrey Henderson, Amara Ridge, and Justin Thompson. “We are not the first protesters to petition the highest court in the land to defend our most fundamental rights. The struggle for the right to protest, especially against racial injustice, has been passed down through generations. With the law on our side, we carry the resolve of our Black elders who marched before us to build a more equal society where our children and future generations are free to speak against injustices without losing their liberty.”
The asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state appellate court decision and ultimately reverse the organizers’ convictions on the charge of obstructing a passageway. The organizers have also filed a application, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to remain free while the court reviews their petition.
“Our democracy is contingent on the right to protest,” said Savannah Kumar (she/they), ACLU of Texas staff attorney and counsel of record for the three community organizers. “The Constitution protects our clients’ right to peacefully protest in their rural hometown, just as it protected the rights of civil rights leaders across the country before them. No one should lose their liberty for simply walking in a public space without obstructing traffic or directing others to do so.”
As the petition explains, convicting the organizers based on the actions of others and for their brief, orderly march along a public street and sidewalk violates the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment protects our right to use public streets and sidewalks to assemble, protest, and march about issues of public concern,” said David Cole (he/him), national legal director of the ACLU. “Punishing our clients for organizing a nonviolent civil rights protest – where they neither obstructed traffic nor directed others to do so – is unconstitutional.”
Free Speech
Henderson v. State of Texas
Free Speech
Henderson v. State of Texas
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.