 | |
| Predecessor | National Civil Liberties Bureau |
|---|---|
| Formation | January 19, 1920; 105 years ago (1920-01-19)[1] |
| Founders | |
| Type | 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization |
| 13-3871360 | |
| Purpose | Civil liberties advocacy |
| Headquarters | 125 Broad Street, New York City, U.S. |
Region served | United States |
| Membership | 1.7 million (2024)[3] |
| Deborah Archer | |
Executive Director | Anthony Romero |
| Budget | $383 million (2024; combined ACLU and Foundation, excludes affiliates)[2]: 22–3 |
| Staff | 500 staff attorneys[4] |
| Volunteers | Several thousand attorneys[5] |
| Website | www |
TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an American nonprofitcivil rights organization founded in 1920. ACLU affiliates are active in all 50states,Washington, D.C., andPuerto Rico. The budget of the ACLU in 2024 was $383 million.
The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases where it considerscivil liberties at risk with advocacy from asecularist stance againstexcessive religious entanglement over the United States government. Legal support from the ACLU can take the form of direct legal representation or preparation ofamicus curiaebriefs expressing legal arguments when another law firm is already providing representation. In addition to representing persons and organizations in lawsuits, the ACLU lobbies for policy positions established by its board of directors.
The ACLU's current positions include opposing thedeath penalty; supportingsame-sex marriage and theright of LGBTQ+ people to adopt; supportingreproductive rights such asbirth control andabortion rights; eliminatingdiscrimination against women,minorities, andLGBTQ+ people;decarceration in the United States; protectinghousing andemployment rights ofveterans; reformingsex offender registries and protecting housing and employment rights of convicted first-time offenders; supporting therights of prisoners and opposingtorture; upholding theseparation of church and state by opposing government preference for religion overnonbelief in religious doctrine or for particular faiths over others; and supporting the legality of gender-affirming treatments, including those that are government funded, for transgender youth.
The ACLU is led by a president and an executive director,Deborah Archer andAnthony D. Romero, respectively, as of March 2024.[6][7][8] The president acts as chair of the ACLU's board of directors, leads fundraising, and facilitates policy-setting. The executive director manages the day-to-day operations of the organization.[9] The board of directors consists of 80 persons, including representatives from each state affiliate and at-large delegates. The organization has its headquarters in125 Broad Street, a 40-story skyscraper located inLower Manhattan, New York City.[10]
The leadership of the ACLU does not always agree on policy decisions; differences of opinion within the ACLU leadership have sometimes grown into major debates. In 1937, an internal debate erupted over whether to defendHenry Ford's right to distribute anti-union literature.[11] In 1939, a heated debate took place over whether to prohibitcommunists from serving in ACLU leadership roles.[12] During the early 1950s andCold WarMcCarthyism, the board was divided on whether to defend communists.[13] In 1968, a schism formed over whether to representBenjamin Spock's anti-war activism.[14] In 1973, as theWatergate Scandal continued to unfold, leadership was initially divided over whether to call for PresidentRichard Nixon's impeachment and removal from office.[15] In 2005, there was internal conflict about whether or not agag rule should be imposed on ACLU employees to prevent the publication of internal disputes.[16]
The ACLU solicits donations to its charitable foundation. The local affiliates solicit their own funding; however, some also receive funds from the national ACLU, with the distribution and amount of such assistance varying from state to state. At its discretion, the national organization provides subsidies to smaller affiliates that lack sufficient resources to be self-sustaining; for example, the Wyoming ACLU chapter received such subsidies until April 2015, when, as part of a round of layoffs at the national ACLU, the Wyoming office was closed.[19][20]
In October 2004, the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both theFord Foundation andRockefeller Foundation because the foundations had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities". The ACLU views this clause, both in federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.[21][22]
Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies, which are generally protected from adverse monetary judgments; a town, state, or federal agency may be required to change its laws or behave differently, but not to pay monetary damages except by an explicit statutory waiver. In some cases, the law permits plaintiffs who successfully sue government agencies to collect money damages or other monetary relief. In particular, theCivil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 leaves the government liable in some civil rights cases. Fee awards under this civil rights statute are considered "equitable relief" rather than damages, and government entities are not immune from equitable relief.[23] Under laws such as this, the ACLU and its state affiliates sometimes share in monetary judgments against government agencies. In 2006, thePublic Expressions of Religion Protection Act sought to prevent monetary judgments in the particular case of violations of church-state separation.[24]
The ACLU has received court-awarded fees from opponents; for example, the Georgia affiliate was awarded $150,000 in fees after suing a county demanding the removal of aTen Commandments display from its courthouse;[25] a second Ten Commandments case in the state, in a different county, led to a $74,462 judgment.[26] TheState of Tennessee was required to pay $50,000, the State of Alabama $175,000, and the State of Kentucky $121,500, in similar Ten Commandments cases.[27][28]
In 2024, the ACLU received $268M in grants and donations from supporters.[2]: 22–3
The ACLU's 2024 annual report states that it engages in legal advocacy in support of civil rights, including abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, immigrants' rights, criminal law reform, free speech, and voting rights.[2]: 3–4
When the ACLU was formed in 1919, free speech was the civil right that it concentrated on. The ACLU has supported free speech, even when the speech is unpopular or offensive. The ACLU opposes limits on campaign contributions, since such limits generally limit free speech and could be used to restrict the rights of unions.[2]: 12–13 [29][30] The ACLU also opposes state censorship of theConfederate flag.[31] Free speech on college campuses has been the subject of several lawsuits the ACLU has supported.[32] In the employment realm, the ACLU has supported the rights of employees to engage in free speech.[33][34] Protests outside religious buildings are supported by the ACLU, even when perceived as offensive.[35]
Combating discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or gender has been a focus of the ACLU since the civil rights era in the 1960s. The ACLU frequently participates in legal actions in support of the LGBTQ community.[2]: 14–15 [36][37][38][39]
Criminal justice has been long-standing goal of the ACLU, focusing on constitutional issues such as excessive punishment and the right to an attorney.[2]: 18–19 [40][41] Immigrant rights, for undocumented immigrants in particular, is an area of the law that the ACLU frequently acts as an advocate.[2]: 16–17 [42][43][44][45][46]
Many of the ACLU positions are rooted in the U.S. Constitution, such as theSecond Amendment: the ACLU opposes any effort to create a national registry of gun owners and has worked with theNational Rifle Association of America to prevent a registry from being created, and it has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the Second Amendment.[47][48] However, the ACLU also supports some degree ofgun control.[49]
The ACLU supports women's rights to make health care decisions, including access to abortions.[2]: 10–11 [50][51][52][53]
A variety of persons and organizations support the ACLU. Allies of the ACLU in legal actions have included theNational Association for the Advancement of Colored People,[54] theAmerican Jewish Congress,[55] theNational Rifle Association of America,[56]Planned Parenthood,[57][58] theElectronic Frontier Foundation,[59] andAmericans United for Separation of Church and State.[60]
The ACLU has been criticized byliberals, such as when it excludedcommunists from its leadership ranks, when it defendedNeo-Nazis, when it declined to defendPaul Robeson, or when it opposed the passage of theNational Labor Relations Act.[61][62] In 2014, an ACLU affiliate supported anti-Islam protesters,[63] and in 2018 the ACLU was criticized when it supported the NRA.[64][65]
Conversely, it has been criticized byconservatives such as when it argued against official prayer in public schools or when it opposed thePatriot Act.[66][67]
The ACLU has supported conservative figures such asRush Limbaugh,[68]George Wallace,[69]Henry Ford[70] andOliver North;[71] as well as liberal figures such asDick Gregory,[72]Rockwell Kent,[73] andBenjamin Spock.[14][74]
The ACLU is often criticized when it represents an individual or organization that promotes offensive or unpopular viewpoints, such as theKu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, theNation of Islam, theNorth American Man/Boy Love Association, theWestboro Baptist Church or theUnite the Right rally.[75][76][77] The ACLU's official policy is "... [we have] represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBTQ activists, and flag burners. That's because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone."[78][79]
At the national level, the ACLU consists of two legal entities: the American Civil Liberties Union, a501(c)(4) social welfare group; and the ACLU Foundation, a501(c)(3)public charity. Both are non-profit organizations that engage incivil rights litigation, advocacy, and education. The two organizations are closely related, and share common goals and some common leadership. Donations to the 501(c)(3) foundation are tax-deductible, but donations to the 501(c)(4) are not. The 501(c)(4) group can engage in unlimited political advocacy (includinglobbying), but the 501(c)(3) foundation cannot.[80][81]
Most of the organization's workload is performed by its local affiliates. There is at least one affiliate organization in each state, as well as one inWashington, D.C., and inPuerto Rico.California has three affiliates.[82] The affiliates operate autonomously from the national organization; each affiliate has its own staff, executive director, board of directors, and budget. Each affiliate consists of two non-profit corporations: a501(c)(3) corporation–called the ACLU Foundation–that does not perform lobbying, and a501(c)(4) corporation–called ACLU–which is entitled to lobby. Both organizations share staff and offices.[83][84][85]
ACLU affiliates are the basic unit of the ACLU's organization and engage in litigation, lobbying, and public education. For example, in 2020, theACLU's New Jersey chapter argued 26 cases before theNew Jersey Supreme Court, about one-third of the total cases heard in that court. They sent over 50,000 emails to officials or agencies and had 28 full-time staff.[86]
The ACLU developed from theNational Civil Liberties Bureau (CLB), co-founded in 1917 duringWorld War I byCrystal Eastman, an attorney activist, andRoger Nash Baldwin.[90] The focus of the CLB was onfreedom of speech, primarily anti-war speech, and on supportingconscientious objectors who did not want to serve in World War I.[91] In 1918, Crystal Eastman resigned from the organization due to health issues.[92] After assuming sole leadership of the CLB, Baldwin insisted that the organization be reorganized. He wanted to change its focus from litigation to direct action and public education.[1]
The CLB directors concurred, and on January 19, 1920, they formed an organization under a new name, the American Civil Liberties Union.[1] Although a handful of other organizations in the United States at that time focused on civil rights, such as theNational Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) andAnti-Defamation League (ADL), the ACLU was the first that did not represent a particular group of persons or a single theme.[1] Like the CLB, the NAACP pursued litigation to work on civil rights, including efforts to overturn thedisfranchisement of African Americans in the South that had taken place since the turn of the century.
During the first decades of the ACLU, Baldwin continued as its leader. His charisma and energy attracted many supporters to the ACLU board and leadership ranks.[93] The ACLU was directed by an executive committee and was not particularly democratic or egalitarian. New Yorkers dominated the ACLU's headquarters.[94] Most ACLU funding came from philanthropies, such as theGarland Fund.[95]
Lucille Bernheimer Milner was cofounder of the American Civil Liberties Union. She also served for a time as Executive Secretary.[96]
During the 1920s, the ACLU's primary focus was on freedom of speech in general and speech within the labor movement particularly.[97] Because most of the ACLU's efforts were associated with the labor movement, the ACLU itself came under heavy attack from conservative groups, such as theAmerican Legion, theNational Civic Federation, and Industrial Defense Association and the Allied Patriotic Societies.[98] ACLU leadership was divided on how to challenge civil rights violations. One faction, including Baldwin,Arthur Garfield Hays, andNorman Thomas, believed that direct, militant action was the best path.[99] Another group, includingWalter Nelles andWalter Pollak, felt that lawsuits taken to the Supreme Court were the best way to achieve change.[100]In addition to labor, the ACLU also led efforts in non-labor arenas, for example, promoting free speech in public schools.[101] The ACLU was banned from speaking in New York public schools in 1921.[102] The ACLU, working with theNAACP, also supported racial discrimination cases.[54] The ACLU defended free speech regardless of espoused opinions. For example, the reactionary, anti-Catholic, anti-blackKu Klux Klan (KKK) was a frequent target of ACLU efforts, but the ACLU defended the KKK's right to hold meetings in 1923.[103] There were some civil rights that the ACLU did not make an effort to defend in the 1920s, including censorship of the arts,government search and seizure issues,right to privacy, orwiretapping.[104]
Government officials routinely hounded theCommunist Party USA, leading it to be the primary client of the ACLU.[105] At the same time, the Communists were very aggressive in their tactics, often engaging in illegal conduct such as denying their party membership under oath. This led to frequent conflicts between the Communists and ACLU.[105] Communist leaders sometimes attacked the ACLU, particularly when the ACLU defended the free speech rights of conservatives, whereas Communists tried to disrupt speeches by critics of the USSR.[105] This uneasy relationship between the two groups continued for decades.[105]
Five years after the ACLU was formed, the organization had virtually no success to show for its efforts.[106] That changed in 1925, when the ACLU persuadedJohn T. Scopes to defy Tennessee's anti-evolution law inThe State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes.Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team. The prosecution, led byWilliam Jennings Bryan, contended that the Bible should be interpreted literally in teachingcreationism in school. The ACLU lost the case, and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later upheld the law. Still, it overturned the conviction on a technicality.[107][108]
The Scopes trial was a phenomenal public relations success for the ACLU.[109] The ACLU became well known across America, and the case led to the first endorsement of the ACLU by a major US newspaper.[110] The ACLU continued to fight for the separation of church and state in schoolrooms, decade after decade, including the 1982 caseMcLean v. Arkansas and the 2005 caseKitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[111]
Baldwin was involved in a significant free speech victory of the 1920s after he was arrested for attempting to speak at a rally of striking mill workers in New Jersey. Although the decision was limited to the state of New Jersey, the appeals court's judgment in 1928 declared that constitutional guarantees of free speech must be given "liberal and comprehensive construction", and it marked a major turning point in thecivil rights movement, signaling the shift of judicial opinion in favor of civil rights.[112]
The most important ACLU case of the 1920s wasGitlow v. New York, in whichBenjamin Gitlow was arrested for violating a state law against inciting anarchy and violence when he distributed literature promoting communism.[113] Although the Supreme Court did not overturn Gitlow's conviction, it adopted the ACLU's stance (later termed theincorporation doctrine) that the First Amendment freedom of speech applied to state laws, as well as federal laws.[114]
TheOregon Compulsory Education Act required almost all children in Oregon between eight and sixteen years of age to attendpublic school by 1926.[115] Associate DirectorRoger Nash Baldwin, a personal friend ofLuke E. Hart, the then–Supreme Advocate and futureSupreme Knight of theKnights of Columbus, offered to join forces with the Knights to challenge the law. The Knights of Columbus pledged an immediate $10,000 to fight the law and any additional funds necessary to defeat it.[116] The case became known asPierce v. Society of Sisters, aUnited States Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded coverage of theDue Process Clause in theFourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the act was unconstitutional and that parents, not the state, had the authority to educate children as they thought best.[117] It upheld the religious freedom of parents to educate their children in religious schools.
Leaders of the ACLU were divided on the best tactics to use to promote civil liberties. Felix Frankfurter felt that legislation was the best long-term solution because the Supreme Court could not mandate liberal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. ButWalter Pollak,Morris Ernst, and other leaders felt that Supreme Court decisions were the best path to guarantee civil liberties.[118] A series of Supreme Court decisions in the 1920s foretold a changing national atmosphere; anti-radical emotions were diminishing, and there was a growing willingness to protect freedom of speech and assembly via court decisions.[119]
Starting in 1926, the ACLU expanded its free speech activities to encompass censorship of art and literature.[74] In that year,H. L. Mencken deliberately broke Boston law by distributing copies of his bannedAmerican Mercury magazine; the ACLU defended him and won an acquittal.[74] The ACLU went on to win additional victories, including the landmark caseUnited States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933, which reversed a ban by the Customs Department against the bookUlysses byJames Joyce.[120] The ACLU only achieved mixed results in the early years, and it was not until 1966 that the Supreme Court finally clarified the obscenity laws in theRoth v. United States andMemoirs v. Massachusetts cases.
TheComstock laws banned the distribution of sex education information based on the premise that it was obscene and led to promiscuous behavior.[121]Mary Ware Dennett was fined $300 in 1928 for distributing a pamphlet containing sex education material. The ACLU, led by Morris Ernst, appealed her conviction and won a reversal, in which judgeLearned Hand ruled that the pamphlet's primary purpose was to "promote understanding".[121] The success prompted the ACLU to broaden their freedom of speech efforts beyond labor and political speech to encompass movies, press, radio, and literature.[121] The ACLU formed the National Committee on Freedom from Censorship in 1931 to coordinate this effort.[121] By the early 1930s,censorship in the United States was diminishing.[120]
Two major victories in the 1930s cemented the ACLU's campaign to promote free speech. InStromberg v. California, decided in 1931, the Supreme Court sided with the ACLU and affirmed the right of a communist party member to salute a communist flag. The result was the first time the Supreme Court used theDue Process Clause of the14th amendment to subject states to the requirements of theFirst Amendment.[122] InNear v. Minnesota, also decided in 1931, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not exerciseprior restraint and prevent a newspaper from publishing, simply because the newspaper had a reputation for being scandalous.[123]
The late 1930s saw the emergence of a new era of tolerance in the United States.[124] National leaders hailed theBill of Rights, particularly as it protected minorities, as the essence of democracy.[124] The 1939 Supreme Court decision inHague v. Committee for Industrial Organization affirmed the right of communists to promote their cause.[124] Even conservative elements, such as theAmerican Bar Association, began to campaign for civil liberties, which were long considered to be the domain of left-leaning organizations. By 1940, the ACLU had achieved many of the goals it set in the 1920s, and many of its policies were the law of the land.[124]
In 1929, after the Scopes and Dennett victories, Baldwin perceived that there was vast, untapped support for civil liberties in the United States.[120] Baldwin proposed an expansion program for the ACLU, focusing on police brutality, Native American rights, African American rights, censorship in the arts, and international civil liberties.[120] The board of directors approved Baldwin's expansion plan, except for the international efforts.[125]
The ACLU played a significant role in passing the 1932Norris–La Guardia Act, a federal law that prohibited employers from preventing employees from joining unions and stopped the practice of outlawing strikes, marriages, and labor organizing activities with the use of injunctions.[125] The ACLU also played a key role in initiating a nationwide effort to reduce misconduct (such as extracting false confessions) within police departments by publishing the reportLawlessness in Law Enforcement in 1931, under the auspices ofHerbert Hoover'sWickersham Commission.[125] In 1934, the ACLU lobbied for the passage of theIndian Reorganization Act, which restored some autonomy to Native American tribes, and established penalties for kidnapping Native American children.[125]
Although the ACLU deferred to the NAACP for litigation promoting civil liberties for African Americans, the ACLU engaged in educational efforts and publishedBlack Justice in 1931, a report which documentedinstitutional racism throughout the South, including lack of voting rights, segregation, and discrimination in the justice system.[126] Funded by theGarland Fund, the ACLU also participated in producing the influentialMargold Report, which outlined a strategy to fight for civil rights for blacks.[127][128] The ACLU planned to demonstrate that the "separate but equal" policies governing the Southern discrimination were illegal because blacks were never, in fact, treated equally.[127]
In 1932 – twelve years after the ACLU was founded – it had achieved significant success; the Supreme Court had embraced the free speech principles espoused by the ACLU, and the general public was becoming more supportive of civil rights in general.[129] But theGreat Depression brought new assaults on civil liberties; the year 1930 saw a large increase in the number of free speech prosecutions, a doubling of the number of lynchings, and all meetings of unemployed persons were banned in Philadelphia.[130] TheFranklin D. Roosevelt administration proposed theNew Deal to combat the depression. ACLU leaders were of mixed opinions about the New Deal since many felt that it represented an increase in government intervention into personal affairs and because theNational Recovery Administration suspended antitrust legislation.[131]The economic policies of the New Deal leaders were often aligned with ACLU goals, but social goals were not.[132] In particular, movies were subject to a barrage of local ordinances that banned screenings deemed immoral or obscene.[133] Even public health films portraying pregnancy and birth were banned, as wasLife magazine's April 11, 1938, issue, which included photos of the birth process. The ACLU fought these bans but did not prevail.[134] The Catholic Church attained increasing political influence in the 1930s; it used its influence to promote the censorship of movies and to discourage the publication of birth control information. This conflict between the ACLU and the Catholic Church led to the resignation of the last Catholic priest from ACLU leadership in 1934; a Catholic priest would not be represented again until the 1970s.[135]The first decision that marked the Supreme Court'smajor shift in policy—no longer applying strict constitutional limits to government programs, and taking a more active role in protecting civil liberties—wasDe Jonge v. Oregon, in which a communist labor organizer was arrested for calling a meeting to discuss unionization.[136] The ACLU attorneyOsmond Fraenkel, working withInternational Labor Defense, defended De Jonge in 1937 and won a major victory when the Supreme Court ruled that "peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime."[137] The De Jonge case marked the start of an era lasting for a dozen years, during which Roosevelt appointees (led byHugo Black,William O. Douglas, andFrank Murphy) established a body of civil liberties law.[136] In 1938, JusticeHarlan F. Stone wrote the famous "footnote four" inUnited States v. Carolene Products Co. in which he suggested that state laws which impede civil liberties would – henceforth – require compelling justification.[138]
SenatorRobert F. Wagner proposed theNational Labor Relations Act in 1935, which empowered workers to unionize. Ironically, after 15 years of fighting for workers' rights, the ACLU initially opposed the act (it later took no stand on the legislation) because some ACLU leaders feared the increased power the bill gave to the government.[139] The newly formedNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) posed a dilemma for the ACLU because, in 1937, it issued an order toHenry Ford, prohibiting Ford from disseminating anti-union literature.[11] Part of the ACLU leadership habitually took the side of labor, and that faction supported the NLRB's action.[11] But part of the ACLU supported Ford's right to free speech.[11] ACLU leaderArthur Garfield Hays proposed a compromise (supporting the auto workers union, yet also endorsing Ford's right to express personal opinions), but the schism highlighted a deeper divide that would become more prominent in the years to come.[11]
The ACLU's support of the NLRB was a significant development for the ACLU because it marked the first time it accepted that a government agency could be responsible for upholding civil liberties.[140] Until 1937, the ACLU felt that citizens and private organizations best upheld civil rights.[140]
Some factions in the ACLU proposed new directions for the organization. In the late 1930s, some local affiliates proposed shifting their emphasis from civil liberties appellate actions to becoming a legal aid society centered on store front offices in low-income neighborhoods. The ACLU directors rejected that proposal.[141] Other ACLU members wanted the ACLU to shift focus into the political arena and be more willing to compromise their ideals to strike deals with politicians. The ACLU leadership also rejected this initiative.[141]
The ACLU's support of defendants with unpopular, sometimes extreme, viewpoints has produced many landmark court cases and established new civil liberties.[138] One such defendant was theJehovah's Witnesses, who were involved in alarge number of Supreme Court cases.[138][142] The most important cases involved statutes requiring flag salutes.[143] The Jehovah's Witnesses felt that saluting a flag was contrary to their religious beliefs. Two children were convicted in 1938 of not saluting the flag.[143] The ACLU supported their appeal to the Supreme Court, but the court affirmed the conviction in 1940.[144] But three years later, inWest Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme court reversed itself.[144][145]
The rise oftotalitarian regimes in Germany, Russia, and other countries that rejected freedom of speech and association greatly impacted the civil liberties movement in the US; anti-Communist sentiment rose, and civil liberties were curtailed.[146]
The ACLU leadership was divided over whether or not to defend pro-Nazi speech in the United States; pro-labor elements within the ACLU were hostile towards Nazism and fascism and objected when the ACLU defended Nazis.[147] The ACLU defended numerous pro-Nazi groups, defending their rights to free speech and free association.[148] In the late 1930s, the ACLU allied itself with thePopular Front, a coalition of liberal organizations coordinated by theUnited States Communist Party.[149] The ACLU benefited because affiliates from the Popular Front could often fight local civil rights battles much more effectively than the New York-based ACLU.[149] The association with the Communist Party led to accusations that the ACLU was a "Communist front", particularly becauseHarry F. Ward was both chairman of the ACLU and chairman of theAmerican League Against War and Fascism, a Communist organization.[150]
TheHouse Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was created in 1938 to uncover sedition and treason within the United States.[151] When witnesses testified at its hearings, the ACLU was mentioned several times, leading the HUAC to mention the ACLU prominently in its 1939 report.[152] This damaged the ACLU's reputation severely, even though the report said that it could not "definitely state whether or not" the ACLU was a Communist organization.[152] While the ACLU rushed to defend its image against allegations of being a Communist front, it also protected witnesses harassed by the HUAC.[153] The ACLU was one of the few organizations to protest (unsuccessfully) against the passage of theSmith Act in 1940, which would later be used to imprison many persons who supported Communism.[154][155] The ACLU defended many persons who were prosecuted under the Smith Act, including labor leaderHarry Bridges.[156]
ACLU leadership was split on whether to purge its leadership of Communists.Norman Thomas,John Haynes Holmes, andMorris Ernst were anti-Communists who wanted to distance the ACLU from Communism; opposing them were Harry F. Ward,Corliss Lamont, andElizabeth Gurley Flynn, who rejected any political test for ACLU leadership.[157] A bitter struggle ensued throughout 1939, and the anti-Communists prevailed in February 1940 when the board voted to prohibit anyone who supported totalitarianism from ACLU leadership roles. Ward immediately resigned, and – following a contentious six-hour debate – Flynn was voted off the ACLU's board.[12] The 1940 resolution was considered by many to be a betrayal of its fundamental principles. The resolution was rescinded in 1968, and Flynn was posthumously reinstated to the ACLU in 1970.[156]
The ACLU had a decidedly mixed civil liberties record during World War II. While there were far fewer sedition prosecutions than in World War I, this did not mean that President Roosevelt was more tolerant of dissent than Wilson had been. The primary explanation was that prosecutors, working under similar laws, had fewer plausible targets because almost everyone rallied to the war effort after the attack on Pearl Harbor.[158]
Roosevelt put constant pressure on Attorney GeneralFrancis Biddle to take legal action against his prominent pre-war critics.[159] Partly to appease the president, Biddle finally charged thirty lesser-known individuals for violating theSmith Act. Although many of the defendants did not know each other, and most lived in scattered locations in the U.S., they were all tried at once in Washington, D.C., in the Sedition Trial of 1944. Despite efforts by Roger N. Baldwin,Norman Thomas,Thurgood Marshall, and others in the leadership to get the ACLU to go on record condemning the trial (Baldwin called it "monstrous"), the board of directors overruled them.[160]
The ACLU also had a mixed record on fighting wartime restrictions on the press. It was silent when the U.S. Post Office revoked the second class mailing privileges ofSocial Justice, the magazine of FatherCharles E. Coughlin. On the other hand, it extended legal aid to the publishers ofthe Militant of theSocialist Workers Party and theBoise Valley Herald when their mailing rights were revoked. The ACLU was unable to prevent extensive extralegal harassment of the black press by the FBI and other agencies. The ACLU's shortcomings in defending civil liberties inspired the contemporary saying "born in World War I and died in World War II."[161]
Two months after theJapanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt authorized the creation of military "exclusion zones" withExecutive Order 9066, paving the way for the detention of all West CoastJapanese Americans in inland camps. In addition to the non-citizenIssei (prohibited fromnaturalization as members of an "unassimilable" race), over two-thirds of those swept up were American-born citizens.[162] Opinions within the organization became increasingly divided as the Army began the "evacuation" of the West Coast. The board decided not to challenge the eviction of Japanese American citizens; on June 22, instructions were sent to West Coast branches not to support cases that argued the government had no constitutional right to do so.[163] The ACLU offices on the West Coast had been more directly involved in addressing the tide of anti-Japanese prejudice from the start, as they were geographically closer to the issue and were already working on cases challenging the exclusion by this time. The Seattle office, assisting inGordon Hirabayashi's lawsuit, created an unaffiliated committee to continue the work the ACLU had started, while in Los Angeles, attorneyA.L. Wirin continued to representErnest Kinzo Wakayama but without addressing the case's constitutional questions.[163] Wirin would lose private clients because of his defense of Wakayama and other Japanese Americans;[164] however, the San Francisco branch, led byErnest Besig, refused to discontinue its support forFred Korematsu, whose case had been taken on before the June 22 directive, and attorneyWayne Collins, with Besig's full support, centered his defense on the illegality of Korematsu's exclusion.[163]
The West Coast offices had wanted a test case to take to court. However, they had a difficult time finding a Japanese American who was both willing to violate the internment orders and able to meet the ACLU's desired criteria of a sympathetic, Americanized plaintiff. Of the 120,000 Japanese Americans affected by the order, only 12 disobeyed, and Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and two others were the only resisters whose cases eventually made it to the Supreme Court.[165]Hirabayashi v. United States came before the Court in May 1943, and the justices upheld the government's right to exclude Japanese Americans from the West Coast;[166] although it had earlier forced its local office in L.A. to stop aiding Hirabayashi, the ACLU donated $1,000 to the case (over a third of the legal team's total budget) and submitted anamicus brief. Besig, dissatisfied withOsmond Fraenkel's tamer defense, filed an additionalamicus brief that directly addressed Hirabayashi's constitutional rights. In the meantime, A.L. Wirin served as one of the attorneys inYasui v. United States (decided the same day as the Hirabayashi case and with the same results). Still, he kept his arguments within the national office's parameters. The only case to receive a favorable ruling,ex parte Endo, was also aided by twoamicus briefs from the ACLU, one from the more conservative Fraenkel and another from the more putative Wayne Collins.[163]
Korematsu v. United States proved to be the most controversial of these cases, as Besig and Collins refused to bow to the national ACLU office's pressure to pursue the case without challenging the government's right to remove citizens from their homes. The ACLU board threatened to revoke the San Francisco branch's national affiliation. At the same time, Baldwin tried unsuccessfully to convince Collins to step down so he could replace him as lead attorney in the case. Eventually, Collins agreed to present the case alongsideCharles Horsky; however, their arguments before the Supreme Court remained based on the unconstitutionality of the exclusion order Korematsu had disobeyed.[163] The case was decided in December 1944, when the Court once again upheld the government's right to relocate Japanese Americans,[167] although Korematsu's, Hirabayashi's and Yasui's convictions were later overturned incoram nobis proceedings in the 1980s.[168] Legal scholarPeter Irons later asserted that the national office of the ACLU's decision not to challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 directly had "crippled the effective presentation of these appeals to the Supreme Court".[163]
The national office of the ACLU was even more reluctant to defend anti-war protesters. A majority of the board passed a resolution in 1942 that declared the ACLU unwilling to defend anyone who interfered with the United States' war effort.[169] Included in this group were the thousands of Nisei whorenounced their US citizenship during the war but later regretted the decision and tried to revoke their applications for "repatriation". (A significant number of those slated to "go back" to Japan had never actually been to the country and were being deported rather than repatriated.) Ernest Besig had in 1944 visited theTule Lake Segregation Center, where the majority of these "renunciants" were concentrated, and subsequently enlisted Wayne Collins' help to file a lawsuit on their behalf, arguing the renunciations had been given under duress. The national organization prohibited local branches from representing the renunciants, forcing Collins to pursue the case independently, although Besig and the Northern California office provided some support.[170]
Anti-Communist sentiment gripped the United States during theCold War beginning in 1946. Federal investigations caused many persons with Communist or left-leaning affiliations to lose jobs, become blocklisted, or be jailed.[171] The ACLU was internally divided when it purged Communists from its leadership in 1940, and that ambivalence continued as it decided whether to defend alleged Communists during the late 1940s. Some ACLU leaders were anti-Communist and felt that the ACLU should not defend any victims. Some ACLU leaders felt that Communists were entitled to free speech protections and that the ACLU should defend them. Other ACLU leaders were uncertain about the threat posed by Communists and tried to establish a compromise between the two extremes.[172] This ambivalent state of affairs would last until 1954, when the civil liberties faction prevailed, leading to most anti-Communist leaders' resignations.[13]In 1947, President Truman issuedExecutive Order 9835, which created theFederal Loyalty Program. This program authorized the Attorney General to create a list of organizations that were deemed to be subversive.[173] Listed organizations were not notified that they were being considered for the list, nor did they have an opportunity to present counterarguments; nor did the government divulge any factual basis for inclusion in the list.[174] Although ACLU leadership was divided on whether to challenge the Federal Loyalty Program, some challenges were successfully made.[174]
Also in 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) subpoenaed ten Hollywood directors and writers, theHollywood Ten, intending to ask them to identify Communists, but the witnesses refused to testify. All were imprisoned forcontempt of Congress. The ACLU supported several artists' appeals but lost on appeal.[175] The Hollywood establishment panicked after the HUAC hearings and created ablacklist that prohibited anyone with leftist associations from working. The ACLU supported legal challenges to the blocklist, but those challenges failed.[175] The ACLU was more successful with an education effort; the 1952 reportThe Judges and the Judged, prepared at the ACLU's direction in response to the blocklisting of actressJean Muir, described the unfair and unethical actions behind the blocklisting process, and it helped gradually turn public opinion against McCarthyism.[176]
The federal government took direct aim at the US Communist Party in 1948 when it indicted its top twelve leaders in theFoley Square trial.[177] The case hinged on whether or not mere membership in a totalitarian political party was sufficient to conclude that members advocated the overthrow of the United States government.[177] The ACLU chose not to represent any of the defendants, and they were all found guilty.[177] In a change of heart, the ACLU supported the party leaders during their appeal process. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions in theDennis v. United States decision by softening the free speech requirements from a "clear and present danger" test to a "grave and probable" test.[178] The ACLU issued a public condemnation of theDennis decision, and resolved to fight it.[178] One reason for the Supreme Court's support of Cold War legislation was the 1949 deaths of Supreme Court justicesFrank Murphy andWiley Rutledge, leavingHugo Black andWilliam O. Douglas as the only remaining civil libertarians on the Court.[179]
TheDennis decision paved the way for the prosecution of hundreds of other Communist party members.[180] The ACLU supported many Communists during their appeals (although most of the initiative originated with local ACLU affiliates, not the national headquarters), but most convictions were upheld.[180] The two California affiliates, in particular, felt the national ACLU headquarters was not supporting civil liberties strongly enough, and they initiated more cold war cases than the national headquarters did.[179]
The ACLU challenged many loyalty oath requirements across the country, but the courts upheld most loyalty oath laws.[181] The Supreme Court, until 1957, upheld nearly every law which restricted the liberties of Communists.[182] The ACLU, even though it scaled back its defense of Communists during the Cold War, still came under heavy criticism as a "front" for Communism. Critics included theAmerican Legion, SenatorJoseph McCarthy, the HUAC, and the FBI.[183] Several ACLU leaders were sympathetic to the FBI, and as a consequence, the ACLU rarely investigated any of the many complaints alleging abuse of power by the FBI during the Cold War.[184]
In 1950, the ACLU board of directors asked executive director Baldwin to resign, feeling he lacked the organizational skills to lead the 9,000 (and growing) member organization. Baldwin objected, but a majority of the board elected to remove him from the position, and he was replaced byPatrick Murphy Malin.[185] Under Malin's guidance, membership tripled to 30,000 by 1955 – the start of 24 years of continual growth leading to 275,000 members in 1974.[186] Malin also presided over an expansion of local ACLU affiliates.[186]
The ACLU, controlled by an elite of a few dozen New Yorkers, became more democratic in the 1950s. In 1951, the ACLU amended its bylaws to permit the local affiliates to participate directly in voting on ACLU policy decisions.[187] A bi-annual conference, open to the entire membership, was instituted in the same year; in later decades, it became a pulpit for activist members, who suggested new directions for the ACLU, including abortion rights, death penalty, and rights of the poor.[187]
During the early 1950s, the ACLU continued to steer a moderate course through the Cold War. When singerPaul Robeson was denied a passport in 1950, even though he was not accused of any illegal acts, the ACLU chose not to defend him.[188] The ACLU later reversed their stance and supportedWilliam Worthy andRockwell Kent in their passport confiscation cases, which resulted in legal victories in the late 1950s.[189]
In response to communist witch-hunts, many witnesses and employees chose to use thefifth amendment protection againstself-incrimination to avoid divulging information about their political beliefs.[190] Government agencies and private organizations, in response, established policies which inferred communist party membership for anyone who invoked the fifth amendment.[191] The national ACLU was divided on whether to defend employees who had been fired merely for pleading the fifth amendment, but the New York affiliate successfully assisted teacherHarry Slochower in his Supreme Court case, which reversed his termination.[192]
The fifth amendment issue became the catalyst for a watershed event in 1954, which finally resolved the ACLU's ambivalence by ousting the anti-communists from ACLU leadership.[193] In 1953, the anti-communists, led byNorman Thomas andJames Fly, proposed a set of resolutions that inferred guilt of persons that invoked the fifth amendment.[187] These resolutions were the first that fell under the ACLU's new organizational rules permitting local affiliates to participate in the vote; the affiliates outvoted the national headquarters and rejected the anti-communist resolutions.[194] Anti-communist leaders refused to accept the results of the vote and brought the issue up for discussion again at the 1954 bi-annual convention.[195] ACLU memberFrank Graham, president of theUniversity of North Carolina, attacked the anti-communists with a counter-proposal, which stated that the ACLU "stand[s] against guilt by association, judgment by accusation, the invasion of privacy of personal opinions and beliefs, and the confusion of dissent with disloyalty".[195][196] The anti-communists continued to battle Graham's proposal but were outnumbered by the affiliates. The anti-communists finally gave up and departed the board of directors in late 1954 and 1955, ending an eight-year ambivalence within the ACLU leadership ranks.[197] After that, the ACLU proceeded with firmer resolve against Cold War anti-communist legislation.[198] The period from the 1940 resolution (and the purge of Elizabeth Flynn) to the 1954 resignation of the anti-communist leaders is considered by many to be an era in which the ACLU abandoned its core principles.[198][199]
McCarthyism declined in late 1954 after television journalistEdward R. Murrow and others publicly chastised McCarthy.[200] The controversies over the Bill of Rights that the Cold War generated ushered in a new era in American Civil liberties. In 1954, inBrown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned state-sanctioned school segregation, and after that, a flood of civil rights victories dominated the legal landscape.[201]
The Supreme Court handed the ACLU two key victories in 1957, inWatkins v. United States andYates v. United States, both of which undermined theSmith Act and marked the beginning of the end of communist party membership inquiries.[202] In 1965, the Supreme Court produced some decisions, includingLamont v. Postmaster General (in which the plaintiff wasCorliss Lamont, a former ACLU board member), which upheld fifth amendment protections and brought an end to restrictions on political activity.[203]
The decade from 1954 to 1964 was the most successful period in the ACLU's history.[204] Membership rose from 30,000 to 80,000, and by 1965 it had affiliates in seventeen states.[204][205] During the ACLU's bi-annual conference in Colorado in 1964, the Supreme Court issued rulings on eight cases involving the ACLU; the ACLU prevailed on seven of the eight.[206] The ACLU played a role in Supreme Court decisions reducing censorship of literature and arts, protecting freedom of association, prohibiting racial segregation, excluding religion from public schools, and providing due process protection to criminal suspects.[204] The ACLU's success arose from changing public attitudes; the American populace was more educated, tolerant, and willing to accept unorthodox behavior.[204]
Legal battles concerning the separation of church and state originated in laws dating to 1938, which required religious instruction in school or provided state funding for religious schools.[55] The Catholic church was a leading proponent of such laws, and the primary opponents (the "separationists") were the ACLU,Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and theAmerican Jewish Congress.[55] The ACLU led the challenge in the 1947Everson v. Board of Education case, in which Justice Hugo Black wrote "[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.... That wall must be kept high and impregnable."[55][207][208] It was not clear that the Bill of Rights forbid state governments from supporting religious education, and strong legal arguments were made by religious proponents, arguing that the Supreme Court should not act as a "national school board", and that the Constitution did not govern social issues.[209] However, the ACLU and other advocates of church/state separation persuaded the Court to declare such activities unconstitutional.[209] HistorianSamuel Walker writes that the ACLU's "greatest impact on American life" was its role in persuading the Supreme Court to "constitutionalize" so many public controversies.[209]
In 1948, the ACLU prevailed in theMcCollum v. Board of Education case, which challenged public school religious classes taught by clergy paid for by private funds.[209] The ACLU also won cases challenging schools in New Mexico that were taught by clergy and had crucifixes hanging in the classrooms.[210] In the 1960s, the ACLU, in response to member insistence, turned its attention to the in-class promotion of religion.[211] In 1960, 42 percent of American schools included Bible reading.[211] In 1962, the ACLU published a policy statement condemning in-school prayers, observation of religious holidays, and Bible reading.[211] The Supreme Court concurred with the ACLU's position when it prohibited New York's in-school prayers in the 1962Engel v. Vitale decision.[212] Religious factions across the country rebelled against the anti-prayer decisions, leading them to propose theSchool Prayer Constitutional Amendment, which declared in-school prayer legal.[213] The ACLU participated in a lobbying effort against the amendment, and the 1966 congressional vote failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority.[213]
However, not all cases were victories; ACLU lost cases in 1949 and 1961 which challenged state laws requiring commercial businesses to close on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath.[210] The Supreme Court has never overturned such laws, although some states subsequently revoked many of the laws under pressure from commercial interests.[210]
Cities across America routinely banned movies because they were deemed to be "harmful", "offensive", or "immoral" – censorship which was validated by the 1915Mutual v. Ohio Supreme Court decision which held movies to be mere commerce, undeserving of first amendment protection.[214] The filmThe Miracle was banned in New York in 1951 at the behest of the Catholic Church, but the ACLU supported the film's distributor in an appeal of the ban, and won a major victory in the 1952 decisionJoseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson.[214] Further legal actions by the ACLU successfully defended films such asM andla Ronde, leading the eventual dismantling of movie censorship.[214][215] Hollywood continued employing self-censorship with its ownProduction Code, but in 1956 the ACLU called on Hollywood to abolish the Code.[216]The ACLU lost animportant press censorship case when, in 1957, the Supreme Court upheld the obscenity conviction of publisherSamuel Roth for distributing adult magazines.[217] As late as 1953, books such asTropic of Cancer andFrom Here to Eternity were still banned.[218] But public standards rapidly became more liberal through the 1960s, and obscenity was notoriously difficult to define, so by 1971, obscenity prosecutions had halted.[206][218]
Several civil liberties organizations worked together for progress on thecivil rights movement, including theNational Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the ACLU, and theAmerican Jewish Congress.[219] The NAACP took primary responsibility for Supreme Court cases (often led by lead NAACP attorneyThurgood Marshall), with the ACLU focusing on police misconduct, and supporting the NAACP withamicus briefs.[219] In 1954, the ACLU filed anamicus brief in the case ofBrown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on racial segregation in USpublic schools.[220] Southern states instituted a McCarthyism-style witch-hunt against the NAACP, attempting to force it to disclose membership lists. The ACLU's fight against racism was not limited to segregation; in 1964, the ACLU provided key support to plaintiffs, primarily lower-income urban residents, inReynolds v. Sims, which required states to establish the voting districts following the "one person, one vote" principle.[221]
The ACLU regularly tackled police misconduct issues, starting with the 1932 casePowell v. Alabama (right to an attorney), and including 1942'sBetts v. Brady (right to an attorney), and 1951'sRochin v. California (involuntary stomach pumping).[203] In the late 1940s, several ACLU local affiliates established permanent committees to address policing issues.[222] During the 1950s and 1960s, the ACLU was responsible for substantially advancing the legal protections against police misconduct.[223] In 1958, the Philadelphia affiliate was responsible for causing the City of Philadelphia to create the nation's first civilian police review board.[224] In 1959, the Illinois affiliate published the first report in the nation,Secret Detention by the Chicago Police which documented unlawful detention by police.[225]
Some of the most notable ACLU successes came in the 1960s when the ACLU prevailed in a string of cases limiting the power of police to gather evidence; in 1961'sMapp v. Ohio, the Supreme court required states to obtain a warrant before searching a person's home.[226] TheGideon v. Wainwright decision in 1963 provided legal representation to indigents.[227] In 1964, the ACLU persuaded the Court, inEscobedo v. Illinois, to permit suspects to have an attorney present during questioning.[228] And, in 1966,Miranda v. Arizona federal decision required police to notify suspects of their constitutional rights, which was later extended tojuveniles in the following year'sin re Gault (1967) federal ruling.[229] Although many law enforcement officials criticized the ACLU for expanding the rights of suspects, police officers also used the services of the ACLU. For example, when the ACLU represented New York City policemen in their lawsuit, which objected to searches of their workplace lockers.[230] In the late 1960s, civilian review boards in New York City and Philadelphia were abolished, over the ACLU's objection.[231]
The 1960s was a tumultuous era in the United States, and public interest in civil liberties underwent explosive growth.[232] Civil liberties actions in the 1960s were often led by young people and often employed tactics such assit ins and marches. Protests were often peaceful but sometimes employed militant tactics.[233] The ACLU played a central role in all major civil liberties debates of the 1960s, including new fields such asgay rights,prisoner's rights, abortion, rights of the poor, and the death penalty.[232] Membership in the ACLU increased from 52,000 at the beginning of the decade to 104,000 in 1970.[234] In 1960, there were affiliates in seven states, and by 1974 there were affiliates in 46 states.[234][235] During the 1960s, the ACLU underwent a major transformation in tactics; it shifted emphasis from legal appeals (generally involvingamicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court) to direct representation of defendants when they were initially arrested.[234] At the same time, the ACLU transformed its style from "disengaged and elitist" to "emotionally engaged".[236] The ACLU published a breakthrough document in 1963, titledHow Americans Protest, which was borne of frustration with the slow progress in battling racism, and which endorsed aggressive, even militant protest techniques.[237]
After four African-American college studentsstaged a sit-in in a segregated North Carolina department store, thesit-in movement gained momentum across the United States.[238] During 1960–61, the ACLU defended black students arrested for demonstrating in North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana.[239] The ACLU also provided legal help for theFreedom Rides in 1961, theintegration of the University of Mississippi, theBirmingham campaign in 1963, and the 1964Freedom Summer.[239] The NAACP was responsible for managing most sit-in related cases that made it to the Supreme Court, winning nearly every decision.[240] But it fell to the ACLU and other legal volunteer efforts to provide legal representation to hundreds of protestors – white and black – who were arrested while protesting in the South.[240] The ACLU joined with other civil liberties groups to form the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee (LCDC), which provided legal representation to many protesters.[241] The ACLU provided the majority of the funding for the LCDC.[242]
In 1964, the ACLU opened up a major office in Atlanta, Georgia, dedicated to serving Southern issues.[243] Much of the ACLU's progress in the South was due toCharles Morgan Jr., the charismatic leader of the Atlanta office. Morgan was responsible for desegregating juries (Whitus v. Georgia), desegregating prisons (Lee v. Washington), andreforming election laws.[244] In 1966, the southern office successfully represented African-American congressmanJulian Bond inBond v. Floyd, after theGeorgia House of Representatives refused to admit Bond into the legislature on the basis that he was an admitted pacifist opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War.[245] Another widely publicized case defended by Morgan was that of Army doctor Howard Levy, who was convicted of refusing to trainGreen Berets. Despite raising the defense that the Green Berets were committing war crimes in Vietnam, Levy lost on appeal inParker v. Levy, 417 US 733 (1974).[246]
In 1969, the ACLU won a significant victory for free speech when it defendedDick Gregory after he was arrested for peacefully protesting against the mayor of Chicago. The court ruled inGregory v. Chicago that a speaker cannot be arrested for disturbing the peace when hostility is initiated by someone in the audience, as that would amount to a "heckler's veto".[247]
The ACLU was at the center of several legal aspects of the Vietnam war: defendingdraft resisters, challenging the constitutionality of the war, thepotential impeachment of Richard Nixon, and the use of national security concerns to preemptivelycensor newspapers.
David J. Miller was the first person prosecuted for burning hisdraft card. The New York affiliate of the ACLU appealed his 1965 conviction (367 F.2d 72:United States of America v. David J. Miller, 1966), but the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Two years later, the Massachusetts affiliate took the card-burning case of David O'Brien to the Supreme Court, arguing that the act of burning was a form of symbolic speech, but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction inUnited States v. O'Brien, 391 US 367 (1968).[248] Thirteen-year-old Junior High student Mary Tinker wore a black armband to school in 1965 to object to the war and was suspended from school. The ACLU appealed her case to the Supreme Court and won a victory inTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. This critical case established that the government may not establish "enclaves" such as schools or prisons where all rights are forfeited.[248]
The ACLU defended Sydney Street, who was arrested for burning an American flag to protest the reported assassination of civil rights leaderJames Meredith. In theStreet v. New York decision, the court agreed with the ACLU that encouraging the country to abandon one of its national symbols was a constitutionally protected form of expression.[249] The ACLU successfully defended Paul Cohen, who was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "fuck the draft" on its back while he walked through the Los Angeles courthouse. The Supreme Court, inCohen v. California, held that the vulgarity of the wording was essential to convey the intensity of the message.[250]
Non-war-related free speech rights were also advanced during the Vietnam war era; in 1969, the ACLU defended aKu Klux Klan member who advocated long-term violence against the government, and the Supreme Court concurred with the ACLU's argument in the landmark decisionBrandenburg v. Ohio, which held that only speech which advocatedimminent violence could be outlawed.[250]
A major crisis gripped the ACLU in 1968 when a debate erupted over whether to defendBenjamin Spock and the Boston Five against federal charges that they encouraged draftees to avoid the draft. The ACLU board was deeply split over whether to defend the activists; half the board harbored anti-war sentiments and felt that the ACLU should lend its resources to the cause of the Boston Five. The other half of the board believed that civil liberties were not at stake and the ACLU would be taking a political stance. Behind the debate was the longstanding ACLU tradition that it was politically impartial and provided legal advice without regard to the defendants' political views. The board finally agreed to a compromise solution that permitted the ACLU to defend the anti-war activists without endorsing the activist's political views. Some critics of the ACLU suggest that the ACLU became a partisan political organization following the Spock case.[14] After theKent State shootings in 1970, ACLU leaders took another step toward politics by passing a resolution condemning the Vietnam War. The resolution was based on various legal arguments, including civil liberties violations and claiming that the war was illegal.[251]
Also in 1968, the ACLU held an internal symposium to discuss its dual roles: providing "direct" legal support (defense for accused in their initial trial, benefiting only the individual defendant) and appellate support (providing amicus briefs during the appeal process, to establish widespread legal precedent).[252] Historically, the ACLU was known for its appellate work, which led to landmark Supreme Court decisions, but by 1968, 90% of the ACLU's legal activities involved direct representation. The symposium concluded that both roles were valid for the ACLU.[252]
The ACLU supportedThe New York Times in its 1971 suit against the government, requesting permission to publish thePentagon Papers. The court upheld theTimes and ACLU in theNew York Times Co. v. United States ruling, which held that the government could not preemptively prohibit the publication of classified information and had to wait until after it was published to take action.[253]
On September 30, 1973, the ACLU became first national organization to publicly call for the impeachment and removal from office of PresidentRichard Nixon.[254] Six civil liberties violations were cited as grounds: "specific proved violations of the rights of political dissent; usurpation of Congressional war-making powers; establishment of a personal secret police which committed crimes; attempted interference in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; distortion of the system of justice and perversion of other Federal agencies".[255] One month later, after the House of Representatives began animpeachment inquiry against him, the organization released a 56-page handbook detailing "17 things citizens could do to bring about the impeachment of President Nixon".[256] This resolution, when placed beside the earlier resolution opposing the Vietnam war, convinced many ACLU critics, particularly conservatives, that the organization had transformed into a liberal political organization.[257]
The decade from 1965 to 1975 saw an expansion of civil liberties. Administratively, the ACLU responded by appointingAryeh Neier to take over from Pemberton as executive director in 1970. Neier embarked on an ambitious program to expand the ACLU; he created the ACLU Foundation to raise funds and created several new programs to focus the ACLU's legal efforts. By 1974, ACLU membership had reached 275,000.[258]
During those years, the ACLU worked to expand legal rights in three directions: new rights for persons within government-run "enclaves", new rights for members of what it called "victim groups", and privacy rights for citizens in general.[259] At the same time, the organization grew substantially. The ACLU helped develop the field of constitutional law that governs "enclaves", which are groups of persons that live in conditions under government control. Enclaves include mental hospital patients, military members, prisoners, and students (while at school). The term enclave originated with Supreme Court justiceAbe Fortas's use of the phrase "schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism" in theTinker v. Des Moines decision.[260]
The ACLU initiated the legal field of student's rights with theTinker v. Des Moines case and expanded it with cases such asGoss v. Lopez, which required schools to provide students an opportunity to appeal suspensions.[261]
As early as 1945, the ACLU had taken a stand to protect the rights of the mentally ill when it drafted a model statute governing mental commitments.[262] In the 1960s, the ACLU opposed involuntary commitments unless it could be demonstrated that the person was a danger to himself or the community.[262] In the landmark 1975O'Connor v. Donaldson decision, the ACLU represented a non-violent mental health patient who had been confined against his will for 15 years and persuaded the Supreme Court to rule such involuntary confinements illegal.[262] The ACLU has also defended the rights of mentally ill individuals who are not dangerous but create disturbances. The New York chapter of the ACLU defendedBillie Boggs, a woman with mental illness who exposed herself and defecated and urinated in public.[263]
Before 1960, prisoners had virtually no recourse to the court system because courts considered prisoners to have no civil rights.[264] That changed in the late 1950s, when the ACLU began representing prisoners subject topolice brutality or deprived of religious reading material.[265] In 1968, the ACLU successfully sued to desegregate the Alabama prison system; in 1969, the New York affiliate adopted a project to represent prisoners in New York prisons. Private attorneyPhil Hirschkop discovered degrading conditions in Virginia prisons following theVirginia State Penitentiary strike and won an important victory in 1971'sLandman v. Royster which prohibited Virginia from treating prisoners in inhumane ways.[266] In 1972, the ACLU consolidated several prison rights efforts across the nation and created theNational Prison Project. The ACLU's efforts led to landmark cases such asRuiz v. Estelle (requiring reform of the Texas prison system), and in 1996US Congress enacted thePrison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) which codified prisoners' rights.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include what it referred to as "victim groups", namely women, the poor, and homosexuals.[268] Heeding the call of female members, the ACLU endorsed theEqual Rights Amendment in 1970[269] and created the Women's Rights Project in 1971. The Women's Rights Project dominated the legal field, handling more than twice as many cases as theNational Organization for Women, including breakthrough cases such asReed v. Reed,Frontiero v. Richardson, andTaylor v. Louisiana.[270]
ACLU leaderHarriet Pilpel raised the issue of the rights of homosexuals in 1964, and two years later, the ACLU formally endorsedgay rights. In 1972, ACLU cooperating attorneys in Oregon filed the first federal civil rights case involving a claim of unconstitutional discrimination against a gay or lesbian public school teacher. The US District Court held that a state statute that authorized school districts to fire teachers for "immorality" was unconstitutionally vague, and awarded monetary damages to the teacher. The court refused to reinstate the teacher, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that refusal by a 2-to-1 vote. In 1973, the ACLU created the Sexual Privacy Project (later the Gay and Lesbian Rights Project), which combated discrimination against homosexuals.[271] This support continued into the 2000s. For example, after then-SenatorLarry Craig was arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom in 2007, the ACLU wrote an amicus brief for Craig, saying that sex between consenting adults in public places was protected under privacy rights.[272]
The rights of the poor were another area that the ACLU expanded. In 1966 and again in 1968, activists within the ACLU encouraged the organization to adopt a policy overhauling the welfare system and guaranteeing low-income families a baseline income; but the ACLU board did not approve the proposals.[273] However, the ACLU played a key role in the 1968King v. Smith decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that welfare benefits for children could not be denied by a state simply because the mother cohabited with a boyfriend.[273]
The ACLU founded the Reproductive Freedom Project in 1974 to defend individuals the government obstructs in cases involving access to abortions, birth control, or sexual education. According to its mission statement, the project works to provide access to reproductive health care for individuals.[274] The project also opposesabstinence-only sex education, arguing that it promotes an unwillingness to use contraceptives.[275][276][277]
In 1980, the Project filedPoe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital which attempted to overturnBuck v. Bell, the 1927 US Supreme Court decision which had allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to legally sterilize persons it deemed to be mentally defective without their permission. Though the Court did not overturnBuck v.Bell, in 1985, the state agreed to provide counseling and medical treatment to the survivors among the 7,200 to 8,300 people sterilized between 1927 and 1979.[278] In 1977, the ACLU took part in and litigatedWalker v. Pierce, thefederal circuit court case that led to federal regulations to preventMedicaid patients from being sterilized without their knowledge or consent.[279] In 1981–1990, the Project litigatedHodgson v. Minnesota, which resulted in theSupreme Court overturning a state law requiring both parents to be notified before a minor could legally have an abortion.[280] In the 1990s, the Project provided legal assistance and resource kits to those who were being challenged for educating about sexuality andAIDS. In 1995, the Project filed anamicus brief inCurtis v. School Committee of Falmouth, which allowed for the distribution of condoms in a public school.[281]
The Reproductive Freedom Project focuses on three ideas: (1) to "reverse the shortage of trained abortion providers throughout the country" (2) to "block state and federal welfare "reform" proposals that cut off benefits for children who are born to women already receiving welfare, unmarried women, or teenagers"[282] and (3) to "stop the elimination of vital reproductive health services as a result of hospital mergers and health care networks".[283] The Project proposes to achieve these goals through legal action and litigation.
Theright to privacy is not explicitly identified in theUS Constitution, but the ACLU led the charge to establish such rights in the indecisivePoe v. Ullman (1961) case, which addressed a state statute outlawing contraception. The issue arose again inGriswold v. Connecticut (1965), and this time the Supreme Court adopted the ACLU's position and formally declared a right to privacy.[284] The New York affiliate of the ACLU pushed to eliminateanti-abortion laws starting in 1964, a year beforeGriswold was decided; in 1967 the ACLU itself formally adopted theright to abortion as a policy.[285] The ACLU led the defense inUnited States v. Vuitch (1971), which expanded the right of physicians to determine when abortions were necessary.[286] These efforts culminated in one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions,Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion throughout the United States.[287] The ACLU successfully argued against state bans oninterracial marriage, in the case ofLoving v. Virginia (1967).
Related to privacy, the ACLU engaged in several battles to ensure that government records about individuals were kept private and to give individuals the right to review their records. The ACLU supported several measures, including the 1970Fair Credit Reporting Act, which required credit agencies to divulge credit information to individuals; the 1973Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which provided students the right to access their records; and the1974 Privacy Act, which prevented the federal government from disclosing personal information without good cause.[288]
In the early 1970s, conservatives andlibertarians began to criticize the ACLU for being too political and too liberal.[289] Legal scholar Joseph W. Bishop wrote that the ACLU's trend to partisanship started with its defense of Spock's anti-war protests.[290] Critics also blamed the ACLU for encouraging the Supreme Court to embracejudicial activism.[291] Critics claimed that the ACLU's support of controversial decisions likeRoe v. Wade andGriswold v. Connecticut violated theintention of the authors of the Bill of Rights.[291] The ACLU became an issue in the1988 presidential campaign, when Republican candidateGeorge H. W. Bush accused Democratic candidateMichael Dukakis (a member of the ACLU) of being a "card carrying member of the ACLU".[292]
In 1977, theNational Socialist Party of America, led byFrank Collin, applied to the town ofSkokie, Illinois, for a permit to hold a demonstration in the town park. Skokie at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens, some of whom were survivors ofNazi concentration camps. Skokie refused to grant the NSPA a permit and passed ordinances against hate speech and military wear, in addition to requiring an insurance bond. Skokie's Village Council orderedvillage attorney, Harvey Schwartz, to seek an injunction to stop the demonstration. The ACLU assisted Collin and appealed to federal court, eventually prevailing inNSPA v. Village of Skokie.[293]
The Skokie case was heavily publicized across America, partially because Jewish groups such as theJewish Defense League andAnti Defamation League strenuously objected to the demonstration, leading many members of the ACLU to cancel their memberships.[62] The Illinois affiliate of the ACLU lost about 25% of its membership and nearly one-third of its budget.[294][295][296][297] The financial strain from the controversy led to layoffs at local chapters.[298] After the membership crisis died down, the ACLU sent out a fund-raising appeal which explained their rationale for the Skokie case and raised over $500,000 ($2,594,454 in 2024 dollars).[299][300]
Theinauguration of Ronald Reagan as president in 1981 ushered in atwelve-year period of conservative leadership in the US government. Under the leadership ofReagan andBush, the government pushed a conservative social agenda.
TheArkansas 1981 creationism statute, which required schools to teach the biblical account of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The ACLU won the case in theMcLean v. Arkansas decision.[301]
In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution ofchild pornography (New York v. Ferber). In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that child pornography that violates thethree prong obscenity test should be outlawed. However, the law was overly restrictive because it banned artistic displays and non-obscene material. The court did not adopt the ACLU's position.[302]
During the1988 presidential election, Vice PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush noted that his opponentMassachusetts GovernorMichael Dukakis had described himself as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" and used that as evidence that Dukakis was "a strong, passionate liberal" and "out of the mainstream".[303] The phrase subsequently was used by the organization in an advertising campaign.[304]
In 1997, ruling unanimously in the case ofReno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court voided the anti-indecency provisions of theCommunications Decency Act (the CDA), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of theFirst Amendment. In their decision, the Supreme Court held that the CDA's "use of the undefined terms 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two standards relate to each other and just what they mean."[305]In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such, "Standardized labeling iscompelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."[306] The debate found the ACLU joining with theDirect Marketing Association and theCenter for Democracy and Technology in 2000 in criticizing a bipartisan bill in theHouse of Representatives. As early as 1997, the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper, although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003CAN-SPAM act[307] suggesting that it could have achilling effect on speech in cyberspace. It has been criticized for this position.
In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State joined with a pro-gun rights organization, theSecond Amendment Foundation, and prevailed in a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks.[308] In 2012, the ACLU sued the same library system for refusing to disable temporarily, at the request of an adult patron, Internet filters which blocked access toGoogle Images.[309]In 2006, the ACLU challenged a Missouri law prohibiting picketing outside veterans' funerals. The ACLU filed the suit in support of theWestboro Baptist Church andShirley Phelps-Roper, who were threatened with arrest.[310][311] The Westboro Baptist Church is well known for its picket signs that contain messages such as "God Hates Fags", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", and "Thank God for 9/11". The ACLU issued a statement calling the legislation a "law that infringes on Shirley Phelps-Roper's rights to religious liberty and free speech."[312] The ACLU prevailed in the lawsuit.[313]
The ACLU argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that a decision on the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law required the consideration of additional evidence because lower courts have undervalued the right to engage in sidewalk counseling.[314] The law prohibited sidewalk counselors from approaching women outside abortion facilities and offering them alternatives to abortion but allowed escorts to speak with them and accompany them into the building.[315] In overturning the law inMcCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it violated the counselors' freedom of speech and constitutedviewpoint discrimination.
In 2009, the ACLU filed anamicus brief inCitizens United v. FEC, arguing that theBipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 violated the First Amendment right to free speech by curtailing political speech.[316] This stance on the landmarkCitizens United case caused considerable disagreement within the organization, resulting in a discussion about its future stance during a quarterly board meeting in 2010.[317] On March 27, 2012, the ACLU reaffirmed its stance in support of the Supreme Court'sCitizens United ruling, at the same time voicing support for expanded public financing of election campaigns and stating the organization would firmly oppose any future constitutional amendment limiting free speech.[318]
In 2012, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of theKu Klux Klan of Georgia, claiming that the KKK was unfairly rejected from the state's "Adopt-a-Highway" program. The ACLU prevailed in the lawsuit.[319]
Some have claimed the ACLU is reducing its support of unpopular free speech (specifically, by declining to defend speech made byconservatives) in favor ofidentity politics,political correctness, andprogressivism.[320] Instead, critics contend that the organization has become a progressive advocacy organization intensely focused onidentity politics.[321]
One basis of these allegations was a 2017 statement the ACLU president made to a reporter after the death of a counter-protester during the2017 Unite the Right rally in Virginia, where Romero told a reporter that the ACLU would no longer support legal cases of activists that wish to carry guns at their protests.[322] Another basis for these claims was an internal ACLU memo dated June 2018, discussing factors to evaluate when deciding whether to take a case. The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values."
Some analysts viewed this as a retreat from the ACLU's historically strong support of First Amendment rights, regardless of whether minorities were negatively impacted by the speech, citing the ACLU's past support for certain KKK and Nazi legal cases.[323][324][325][326][327] The memo's authors stated that the memo did not define a change in official ACLU policy, but was intended as a guideline to assist ACLU affiliates in deciding which cases to take.[328]
In 2021, the ACLU responded to the criticisms by denying that they are reducing their support for unpopular First Amendment causes and listing 27 cases from 2017 to 2021 where the ACLU supported a party holding an unpopular or repugnant viewpoint. The cases included one which challenged college restrictions on hate speech; a case defending a Catholic school's right to discriminate in hiring; and a case that defended antisemitic protesters who marched outside a synagogue.[329]
In 2024, theNational Labor Relations Board sued the ACLU in an unfair labor practice case after the ACLU fired an Asian attorney for criticizing her Black bosses. The ACLU contended that the employee's use of phrases like "the beatings will continue until morale improves" was racially coded and that it "caused serious harm to Black members of the ACLU community." According toJeremy W. Peters ofThe New York Times, critics of the ACLU saw the firing as "a sign of how far the group has strayed from its core mission – defending free speech – and has instead aligned itself with a progressive politics that is intensely focused on identity."[321]
In 2000, the ACLU lost theBoy Scouts of America v. Dale case, which had asked the Supreme Court to require theBoy Scouts of America to drop their policy of prohibiting homosexuals from becoming Boy Scout leaders.[330]
In March 2004, the ACLU, along withLambda Legal and theNational Center for Lesbian Rights, sued the state of California on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. That case,Woo v. Lockyer, was eventually consolidated intoIn re Marriage Cases, theCalifornia Supreme Court case which led to same-sex marriage being available in that state from June 16, 2008, untilProposition 8 was passed on November 4, 2008.[331] The ACLU,Lambda Legal and theNational Center for Lesbian Rights then challenged Proposition 8[332] and won.[333]In 2011, the ACLU started itsDon't Filter Me project, counteringLGBT-relatedInternet censorship inpublic schools in the United States.[334]
On January 7, 2013, the ACLU settled with the federal government inCollins v. United States that provided for the payment of full separation pay to servicemembers discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" since November 10, 2004, who had previously been granted only half that.[335]
In 2021, the ACLU filed a brief siding with a school district that had a policy of using preferred pronouns for transgender students. Some analysts felt this was a retreat from the ACLU's historical defense of the First Amendment because the ACLU was opposing the teachers who were disciplined for refusing to use the preferred pronouns.[336][337]
After theSeptember 11 attacks, the federal government instituted a broad range of new measures to combatterrorism, including the passage of thePatriot Act. The ACLU challenged many of the measures, claiming that they violated rights regardingdue process, privacy, illegal searches, andcruel and unusual punishment. An ACLU policy statement states:
Our way forward lies in decisively turning our backs on the policies and practices that violate our greatest strength: our Constitution and the commitment it embodies to the rule of law. Liberty and security do not compete in a zero-sum game; our freedoms are the very foundation of our strength and security. The ACLU's National Security Project advocates for national security policies that are consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights. The Project litigates cases relating to detention, torture, discrimination, surveillance, censorship, and secrecy.[338]
During the ensuing debate regarding the proper balance of civil liberties and security, the membership of the ACLU increased by 20%, bringing the group's total enrollment to 330,000.[339] The growth continued, and by August 2008 ACLU membership was greater than 500,000. It remained at that level through 2011.[340]
The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of thePatriot Act of 2001, thePATRIOT 2 Act of 2003, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism. In response to a requirement of the USA PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from theCombined Federal Campaign charity drive.[341] The campaign required ACLU employees to be checked against a federal anti-terrorism watch list. The ACLU has stated that it would "reject $500,000 in contributions from private individuals rather than submit to a government 'blacklist' policy".[341]
In 2004, the ACLU sued the federal government inAmerican Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft on behalf ofNicholas Merrill, owner of anInternet service provider. Under the provisions of the Patriot Act, the government had issuednational security letters to Merrill to compel him to provide private Internet access information from some of his customers. In addition, the government placed agag order on Merrill, forbidding him from discussing the matter with anyone.[342][343][344]
In January 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit,ACLU v. NSA, in a federal district court in Michigan, challenging government spying in theNSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007) controversy.[345] On August 17, 2006, that court ruled that the warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.[346] However, the order was stayed pending an appeal. TheBush administration did suspend the program while the appeal was being heard.[347] In February 2008, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal from the ACLU to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the September 11 terror attacks.[348]
The ACLU and other organizations also filed separate lawsuits against telecommunications companies. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Illinois (Terkel v. AT&T), which was dismissed because of thestate secrets privilege[349] and two others in California requesting injunctions againstAT&T andVerizon.[350] On August 10, 2006, the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies were transferred to a federal judge in San Francisco.[351]
The ACLU represents aMuslim-American who was detained but never accused of a crime inAshcroft v. al-Kidd, a civil suit against former Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft.[352] In January 2010, theAmerican military released the names of 645 detainees held at theBagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, modifying its long-held position against publicizing such information. This list was prompted by aFreedom of Information Act lawsuit filed in September 2009 by the ACLU, whose lawyers had also requested detailed information about conditions, rules, and regulations.[353][354]
On August 10, 2020, in an opinion article forUSA Today by Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU called for the dismantling of theUnited States Department of Homeland Security over thedeployment of federal forces in July 2020 during theGeorge Floyd protests.[355] On August 26, 2020, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven protesters and three veterans following theprotests in Portland, Oregon, which accused the Trump Administration of using excessive force and unlawful arrests with federal officers.[356]
.jpg)
FollowingDonald Trump's election as president on November 8, 2016, the ACLU responded on Twitter by saying: "Should President-elect Donald Trump attempt to implement his unconstitutional campaign promises, we'll see him in court."[357] On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed anexecutive order indefinitely barring "Syrian refugees from entering the United States, suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days and blocked citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, refugees or otherwise, from entering the United States for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen".[358] The ACLU responded by filing a lawsuit against the ban on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who had been detained at JFK International Airport. On January 28, 2017, District Court JudgeAnn Donnelly granted a temporary injunction against the immigration order,[359] saying it was difficult to see any harm from allowing the newly arrived immigrants to remain in the country.[360] In response to Trump's order, the ACLU raised more than $24 million from more than 350,000 individual online donations in two days. This amounted to six times what the ACLU normally receives in online donations in a year. Celebrities donating includedChris Sacca (who offered to match other people's donations and ultimately gave $150,000),Rosie O'Donnell,Judd Apatow,Sia,John Legend, andAdele.[361][362] The number of members of the ACLU doubled in the time from the election to end of January to 1 million.[362]
Grants and contributions increased from US$106 million reported by the 2016 year-endincome statement to $274 million by the 2017 year-end statement. The segment's primary revenue source came from individual contributions in response to the Trump presidency's infringements oncivil liberties.[363][364][365] Besides filing more lawsuits than during previous presidential administrations, the ACLU has spent more money on advertisements and messaging as well, weighing in on elections and pressing political concerns. This increased public profile has drawn some accusations that the organization has become more politically partisan than in previous decades.[366][367][368] In 2018,Harvard Law School professorAlan Dershowitz accused the ACLU of morphing from a "neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties" into a "hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group."[369]
In 2022, the ACLU petitioned the US Supreme Court to overturn an Arkansasanti-BDS law mandating that companies pledge not to boycott Israel in order to do business with the state.[370]
During theGaza war, the New York chapter of the ACLU suedColumbia University for banning its campus chapters ofJewish Voice for Peace andStudents for Justice in Palestine on the grounds of First Amendment violations.[371] In February 2024, the ACLU signed a letter to US Secretary of EducationMiguel Cardona calling on him to rejectdefining antisemitism to include some political criticism of the government of the state of Israel, claiming it would lead toFirst Amendment violations.[372][373] The ACLU also rejected a staff petition urging the organization to oppose U.S. military aid to Israel and divest from potential financial ties to the country.[374] In a 50–4 vote, with one abstention, the board stated that their mission focuses on U.S. civil rights, as an ACLU spokesperson stated "it is not the ACLU's practice to take positions on overseas conflicts."[375] Nearly 700 staff members stated that the ACLU had previously taken stances on global issues like the Vietnam War and South African apartheid.[375]
In 2024, the ACLU spoke out against governments banning the social media platformTikTok.[376] The organization specifically condemned a U.S. House bill banning the platform in March 2024, calling the legislation "unconstitutional."[377] In December 2024, the ACLU criticized a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the law, claiming it "sets a flawed and dangerous precedent, one that gives the government far too much power to silence Americans' speech online."[376]
The ACLU has also lobbied against theKids Online Safety Act, a bill meant to protect children online.[378] The organization claims it would censor important conversations online, particularly among marginalized groups.[378]
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Data from Wikidata