吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� 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鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile 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鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥�

The ACLU, ACLU of Maine, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing that religious schools in Maine participating in the state鈥檚 school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program 鈥� including a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other protected characteristics.

BATON ROUGE, LA 鈥� In a victory for religious freedom, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction today in Rev. Roake v. Brumley, prohibiting implementation of a Louisiana law that requires all public schools to permanently display a government-approved, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In the ruling, Judge John W. DeGravelles determined that Louisiana鈥檚 H.B. 71, enacted last June, violates the First Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state statute, holding that the First Amendment bars public schools from posting such displays. The defendants conceded during oral argument that Stone remains good law and is binding on lower courts. In his 177-page opinion, the judge explained: [T]hese displays must be posted in every 鈥渃lassroom in each school,鈥� all year round, regardless of subject matter, and regardless of the age of the student. Thus, the question is not whether the Biblical laws can ever be put on a poster; the issue is whether, as a matter of law, there is any constitutional way to display the Ten Commandments in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Act. In short, the Court finds that there is not. First, Stone remains good law and is directly on point, and this Court is bound to follow it. Second, even putting Stone aside . . . , Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that H.B. 71 fails to comply with the Establishment Clause analysis laid out in Kennedy and Fifth Circuit precedent. Judge DeGravelles also recognized that H.B. 71 would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the children-plaintiffs in the case by imposing religious doctrine on them for nearly every hour of the school day, throughout their entire public-school education. And, pointing to the testimony of plaintiffs鈥� expert, Dr. Steven K. Green, the court found that there is no historical support for permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms and that doing so would be at odds with our nation鈥檚 Founders鈥� understanding of the separation of church and state. The court鈥檚 opinion concludes: Each of the Plaintiffs鈥� minor children will be forced 鈥渋n every practical sense,鈥� through Louisiana鈥檚 required attendance policy, to be a 鈥渃aptive audience鈥� and to participate in a religious exercise: reading and considering a specific version of the Ten Commandments, one posted in every single classroom, for the entire school year, regardless of the age of the student or subject matter of the course. And, despite the differences among the Plaintiffs鈥� religious beliefs (be they Unitarian Universalist, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, or atheist/agnostic), the common threads are (1) that the required posting of the Decalogue conflicts with specific parts of their faith, and (2) that one of those articles of faith, shared by nearly all Plaintiff parents, is raising their children in accordance with their own beliefs and values. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Act and its requirements are coercive and inconsistent with the history of First Amendment and public education. The court further ruled that H.B. 71 also violates the plaintiffs鈥� rights under the Free Exercise Clause. After finding that the law violates the plaintiffs鈥� constitutional rights, the court prohibited the defendants from 鈥�(1) enforcing H.B. 71; (2) adopting rules or regulations for the enforcement of H.B. 71; and (3) requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public-school classroom in Louisiana in accordance with H.B. 71.鈥� The Court additionally directed the state defendants to provide notice of its order and H.B. 71鈥檚 unconstitutionality to all Louisiana public elementary, secondary, and charter schools, and all public post-secondary education institutions. Because the court denied the defendants鈥� request to pause (or 鈥渟tay鈥�) the preliminary injunction while they seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it immediately takes effect. 鈥淗.B. 71 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we鈥檙e pleased and relieved that the court ruled in our favor,鈥� said Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Adrian Van Young. 鈥淎s an interfaith family, we expect our children to receive their secular education in public school and their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.鈥� 鈥淭his ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淧ublic schools are not Sunday schools, and today鈥檚 decision ensures that our clients鈥� classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.鈥� 鈥淲e are pleased that the First Amendment rights of students and families are protected by this vital court decision,鈥� said Patrick Elliott, Legal Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭his ruling will ensure that Louisiana families 鈥� not politicians or public school officials 鈥� get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淚t should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation鈥檚 public school children. Not on our watch.鈥� 鈥淩eligious freedom鈥攖he right to choose one鈥檚 faith without pressure鈥攊s essential to American democracy,鈥� said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiff鈥檚 children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.鈥� Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 Litigation Department, added, 鈥淲e are heartened by the District Court鈥檚 well-reasoned and detailed opinion, which rests upon the wisdom of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the protections it affords regarding the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion.鈥� Represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools. Today鈥檚 opinion, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, is available online here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/11/LA-10c-Opinion.pdf

The ACLU, ACLU of Maine, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing that religious schools in Maine participating in Maine鈥檚 school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program, including a prohibition on discrimination against students based on their religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.