LA ACLU y grupos de derechos civiles entablan demanda legal contra ley discriminatoria de Arizona
PARA SU DIFUSIÓN INMEDIATA
CONTACTO: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
PHOENIX – La Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU, por sus siglas en inglés) y una coalición de grupos de derechos civiles entablaron el día de hoy una demanda colectiva, o acción de clase, ante el Tribunal Federal de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Arizona, impugnando la nueva ley estatal que requiere que la policía exija "documentos" a las personas a quienes piden que se detengan cuando haya la sospecha de que no tienen autorización para estar en los EE.UU. Esta extremosa ley, acusa la coalición, incita a la discriminación contra las personas de color, infringe la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución de los EE.UU. e interfiere con las leyes federales.
La coalición que presenta la demanda incluye a la ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC, por sus siglas en inglés), la Asociación Nacional para el Avance de las Personas de Color (NAACP, por sus siglas en inglés), la ACLU de Arizona, la Red Nacional de Organización de los Jornaleros (NDLON, por sus siglas en inglés) y el Centro Jurídico de Americanos de Asia del Pacífico (APALC, por sus siglas en inglés), integrante del Centro Asiaticoamericano para el Impulso a la Justicia (Asian American Center for Advancing Justice).
"La ley de Arizona es anti-americana por excelencia: no somos un país en donde hay que mostrar nuestros documentos, ni uno donde se crea en hacer a las personas objetos del acoso, la investigación y el arresto tan sólo porque otros los perciban como extranjeros," afirmó Omar Jadwat, abogado de la ACLU del Proyecto de los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de la ACLU. "Esta ley viola la Constitución e interfiere con las leyes federales y estamos confiados que se impedirá que esta ley jamás entre en vigor."
La demanda argumenta que la ley de California interfiere ilegalmente con los poderes y las autoridades federales referentes a los asuntos migratorios, contraviniendo la Cláusula de Supremacía de la Constitución de los EE.UU.; fomenta la discriminación racial contra las personas de color por parte de los cuerpos policiacos, en violación de la garantía de protección equitativa y la prohibición contra las detenciones no razonables según la decimocuarta y cuarta enmiendas; y quebranta los derechos a la libre expresión de los jornaleros y otras personas en Arizona.
"La ley discriminatoria sume a Arizona en un espiral descendente de temor, aumento de la delincuencia y litigios costosos," aseveró Víctor Viramontes, Abogado en Jefe Nacional de MALDEF. "Prevemos que esta ley equivocada será objeto de un amparo [será prohibida] antes de que pueda entrar en vigor."
Uno de los individuos a quienes la coalición representa en el caso, Jim Shee, es un ciudadano estadounidense, nacido en los EE.UU., de ascendencia Española y China, de 70 años de edad. Shee asevera que él quedará susceptible a la discriminación racial bajo la ley, y que, aunque la ley no ha entrado en vigor, ya le han detenido dos veces oficiales de la ley de Arizona y le han pedido que muestre sus "documentos."
Otro demandante, Jesús Cuauhtémoc Villa, es un residente del estado de Nuevo México que se encuentra actualmente estudiando en la Universidad Estatal de Arizona. El estado de Nuevo México no exige que se presenten pruebas de la ciudadanía estadounidense ni de la condición migratoria para obtener una licencia de conducir. Villa no tiene pasaporte de los EE.UU. y no quiere arriesgarse a perder su acta de nacimiento al portarla consigo. Le preocupa viajar en Arizona sin alguna forma de identificación válida que compruebe su ciudadanía a la policía si le piden que se detenga en la vía pública. Si no puede presentar pruebas cuando se le exijan, las autoridades de Arizona tienen la obligación de arrestarle y mantenerle detenido.
Varios grupos distinguidos de miembros de los cuerpos policiacos, incluyendo la Asociación de Jefes de Policía de Arizona, se oponen a la ley debido a que desvía los limitados recursos para las responsabilidades principales de los cuerpos policiacos, de dar protección y velar por la seguridad pública en la comunidad, y mina la confianza y la cooperación entre la policía local y las comunidades de inmigrantes.
"Esta ley mal concebida envía un mensaje a las comunidades de personas de color, que las autoridades no son dignas de confianza, lo cual hará menos probable que denuncien un delito ya sea como víctimas o como testigos," explicó Linton Joaquin, Abogado General de la NILC. "Las autoridades de Arizona no deberían dejar que la seguridad pública quede supeditada a la discriminación racial."
"Los afroamericanos conocen demasiado bien los nefastos efectos de la discriminación racial," señala Benjamin Todd Jealous, Presidente y Presidente de la NAACP. "El gobierno debería impedir que la policía investigue y detenga a las personas con base en su color o acento, no ordenar que se haga. Las leyes que alientan la discriminación no tienen cabida en ninguna parte de este país, para nadie."
"Esta ley extremista coloca a Arizona completamente a destiempo con los valores estadounidenses de la justicia y la igualdad," destacó Julie Su, Directora de Litigios de la APALC. "En un estado donde los ciudadanos estadounidenses de ascendencia japonesa fueron internados durante la segunda guerra mundial, es profundamente perturbador que se apruebe una ley en el 2010 que imponga un tratamiento de segunda clase a las personas de color, los inmigrantes y a otros que son vistos como fuereños."
La demanda se entabló a nombre de organizaciones laborales, que combaten la violencia intrafamiliar, de jornaleros, de servicios humanos y de justicia social, incluyendo Friendly House, el Sindicato Internacional de Empleados de Servicios (SEIU, por sus siglas en inglés), SEIU Local 5, el Sindicato Internacional de Trabajadores de Alimentos y Comerciales (UFCW, por sus siglas en inglés), Sudasiáticos de Arizona por la Seguridad de las Familias (ASAFSF, por sus siglas en inglés), la Iglesia Presbiteriana Southside, la Cámara de Comercio Hispana de Arizona, la Cámara de Comercio Asiática de Arizona, Border Action Network, el Instituto de Desarrollo Comunitario Tonatierra, la Sociedad Musulmana de los EE.UU., la Liga de Ciudadanos Sinoamericanos, Valle del Sol, Inc., la Coalición de Derechos Humanos y demandantes individuales nombrados que serían objetos del acoso o arresto bajo la nueva ley y una clase de personas en condiciones semejantes.
"Los jornaleros han defendido constantemente sus derechos bajo la Primera Enmienda ante los tribunales federales y han establecido con éxito su derecho irrefutable de solicitar trabajo en los lugares públicos," indicó Pablo Alvarado, Director Ejecutivo de NDLON. "Los intentos de Arizona por tildar de criminales a los jornaleros y a los inmigrantes es una afrenta a la Constitución y amenaza con perturbar la unidad nacional, por lo que nos sentimos confiados de que los tribunales federales intervendrán para garantizar la protección de nuestros derechos civiles fundamentales."
Incluso antes de que se promulgara la ley, la aplicación de las leyes federales de inmigración por parte de las autoridades locales ya ha causado la discriminación desenfrenada de los Latinos de Arizona, especialmente en el Condado de Maricopa. La ACLU, MALDEF y otros miembros de la coalición tienen pendientes varias demandas contra funcionarios de gobierno de Arizona debido a las violaciones que han cometido de los derechos civiles de ciudadanos estadounidenses e inmigrantes.
Las organizaciones y abogados del caso, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., incluyen a:
- Proyecto por los derechos de los inmigrantes de la ACLU (Immigrants' Rights Project): Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam y Harini P. Raghupathi;
- MALDEF: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Nina Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limón y Nicholás Espiritu;
- NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal y Ghazal Tajmiri;
- Fundación de la ACLU de Arizona (ACLU Foundation of Arizona): Dan Pochoda y Annie Lai;
- APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi y Carmina Ocampo;
- NDLON: Chris Newman y Lisa Kung;
- NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd y Yuval Miller; y
- Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
Puede consultar la denuncia en: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-complaint
Si desea mayores informes sobre la ley de Arizona, incluyendo un video y transparencias de la ACLU, vaya a: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona
Immigrants' Rights
Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.
Immigrants' Rights
Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Smart Justice
ACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their CommunitiesACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their Communities
WASHINGTON – President Biden heeded the calls of advocates and families today by granting commutations to close to 1,500 people who were released to home confinement at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act and pardons to 39 additional people, including many veterans and women. The CARES Act, passed in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed certain groups of people to serve part of their sentences at home to mitigate the dangers of COVID-19 in federal prisons. Since then, thousands of people have been allowed to serve part of their sentences at home, securing jobs, reconnecting with loved ones, and reintegrating into their communities. The American Civil Liberties Union advocated for the CARES Act and has been urging President Biden to provide clemency to CARES Act release recipients since 2021, launching a six-figure ad buy, engaging grassroots supporters, filing FOIA litigation, and more. “We are thrilled that President Biden has allowed people to remain with their families and communities, where they belong, said Cynthia W. Roseberry, director of policy and government affairs at the ACLU’s Justice Division. “The CARES Act was an unprecedented experiment in decarceration, and the data tells us it was incredibly successful. Of the over 13,000 people released, more than 99 percent have safely and successfully reintegrated into their communities. We urge Congress to build on the remarkable success of the CARES Act and pass other decarceration policies that prioritize compassion, redemption, and public safety.” “President Biden’s actions today also remind us of the incredible and unique power of executive clemency,” Roseberry continued. “The ACLU has long advocated for the categorical use of clemency to address unjust outcomes of the criminal legal system. While today’s announcement is wonderful, there is more to do in the final weeks before President Biden leaves office. We strongly urge President Biden to use his power to address this country's failed death penalty by commuting death row sentences.” According to data the ACLU obtained this year through FOIA litigation, the vast majority (71.8 percent) of those on home confinement had less than one year remaining in their sentence. Almost a quarter (23.5 percent) of CARES Act clemency recipients are older than 61 and over half (59.4 percent) are people of color. “Biden's announcement today means I can finally breathe a sigh of relief after 3.5 years of living with the fear of being sent back to prison for no reason,” said Won Lee, released on CARES Act home confinement in May 2021. “The second chance I got through the CARES Act allowed me to take care of my aging parents, restart my career, pursue a graduate degree, and receive treatment for the cancer I was diagnosed with shortly after returning home. Today's decision means I will no longer have to live with the uncertainty and fear that I will be unjustly uprooted from my life and family, who now depend on me. I am incredibly grateful and thrilled to sleep soundly tonight knowing I'll remain at home.” Learn more about the ACLU’s campaign to commute death row here: /campaigns-initiatives/president-biden-commute-the-row -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Smart Justice
Just City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail LawJust City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail Law
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Criminal Law Reform Project, ACLU of Tennessee, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of Just City Memphis to challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee’s unprecedented new bail law, arguing that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment by mandating unfair bail hearing procedures and discriminatory wealth-based detention. The law makes Tennessee the only state in the country to prohibit judges from considering whether people appearing before them will be able to pay for release. The new law, which went into effect on May 1, targeted successful bail reforms that Shelby County implemented following an agreement with the ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, Just City, and other local advocates. The agreement required the examination of a person’s financial circumstances prior to any bail decision; individualized bail hearings with counsel no later than three days after a person’s arrest; and imposition of secured money bail only as a last resort. As a result, more people returned home to their communities while at the same time lowering the number of people rearrested for new crimes. By rolling back these reforms, the Tennessee legislature has created a two-tiered system of justice, leaving those who cannot afford to pay detained indefinitely, even if they are not a flight or safety risk. Meanwhile, those who face the same charges but can afford to pay money bail are freed until trial. “Bail reform works, and it was working in Shelby County. More Tennesseans were returning home to live peacefully in their communities,” said Trisha Trigilio, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “This shameful legislation targets low-income and marginalized Tennesseans for pointless jail time. We will not allow Tennessee lawmakers to end successful bail reform for political gain.” "Our Constitution demands that judges make individualized determinations about pretrial release," said Josh Spickler, executive director at Just City. "This law prevents judges from doing that crucial work and results in the unnecessary detention of people who pose no risk to public safety because they can't afford to pay an arbitrary bail amount. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work." “We don't have to choose between safety and justice; we can have both if we maintain a bail system that is evidence-based, fair, and constitutional.” said Stella Yarbrough, legal director at the ACLU of Tennessee. “Everyone has a basic right to freedom, and this new law contradicts decades of constitutional precedent. Freedom for the wealthy and punishment for poor people of all races violates the Constitution and disproportionately impacts Black people and people with disabilities, while doing nothing to address the systemic causes of crime—like poverty and lack of opportunity.” Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Litigation Partner Craig Waldman added, “Tennessee’s law banning judges from considering an individual’s ability to pay bail is unfair and unconstitutional. The right to due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment is a bedrock of our justice system.” Just City is an organization dedicated to fighting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and income in Shelby County criminal proceedings, and has long advocated for pretrial practices that prioritize fair and sensible release decisions over a person’s ability to pay. Their lawsuit asks the court to declare that this new bail law violates the Fourteenth Amendment and requests a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the Shelby County Sheriff from enforcing this law. -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Reproductive Freedom
+2 Issues
Court Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of AbortionCourt Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of Abortion
McALLEN, Texas – A federal judge ruled today that a lawsuit seeking accountability for the unlawful investigation and prosecution of Lizelle Gonzalez can proceed, rejecting attempts by Starr County officials to have the case dismissed. Gonzalez, represented by Garza Martinez, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas was unlawfully arrested, jailed, and charged with murder after a medication abortion she had in 2022. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancy. “When I first heard Lizelle’s story, I was outraged at the behavior of our elected officials,” said Cecilia Garza, attorney at Garza Martinez. “The court’s decision today to allow this case to proceed gives me hope that courts will not allow these types of egregious acts to continue. Law enforcement need to be held accountable to the laws that they took an oath to uphold.” In the motions to dismiss, the prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez’s constitutional rights. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez’s case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. “Immunity doctrine creates a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people’s rights, knowing they will face few – if any – consequences,” said Lauren Johnson, director of the ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. “While immunity often obstructs victims of misconduct from attaining accountability, the court’s decision today to allow the case to proceed will give Lizelle a chance to pursue the justice she deserves for being unlawfully targeted and prosecuted.” “Texas is one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to abortion health care, but even in Texas, the laws are uniform and clear that pregnant women cannot be criminally liable for having an abortion,” said David Donatti, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “We expect and demand that our elected officials follow the rule of law, and that is especially true for officials elected to enforce the laws with so much power over our daily lives and personal decisions.”