Tag Archives: ACLU

Trump’s transgender move puts spotlight on Supreme Court case

FILE PHOTO - A bathroom sign welcomes both genders at the Cacao Cinnamon coffee shop in Durham, North Carolina, United States on May 3, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Trump administration’s move on Wednesday to rescind guidance allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice has raised the stakes for an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that could deliver a landmark decision on the issue.

The eight justices are due to hear oral arguments on March 28 on whether the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia can block Gavin Grimm, a female-born transgender high school student, from using the boys’ bathroom. A ruling is due by the end of June.

A key question in the case is whether a federal law, known as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education, covers transgender students. The Education Department under Democratic President Barack Obama said in guidance to public schools last May that it does, but the Republican Trump administration withdrew that finding on Wednesday.

The high court on Thursday asked the lawyers involved to file letters by March 1 giving their views on how the Trump action should affect consideration of the case.

Lawyers for Grimm say that the definition of sex discrimination in Title IX is broad and includes gender identity. The school board maintains that the law was enacted purely to address “physiological distinctions between men and women.”

If the Supreme Court rules that Title IX protects transgender students, the decision would become the law of the land, binding the Trump administration and the states.

“This is an incredibly urgent issue for Gavin and these other kids across the country,” said Joshua Block, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who represents Grimm.

The Trump administration’s announcement “only underscores the need for the Supreme Court to bring some clarity here,” he added.

The administration on Wednesday did not offer its own interpretation of Title IX, with the Justice Department telling the court only that it plans to “consider further and more completely the legal issues involved.”

The administration is not directly involved in the case.

Lawyers for both Grimm and the Gloucester County School Board have urged the court to decide whether Title IX applies to transgender students rather than taking a narrower approach by sending the case back to a lower court.

In a court filing on Thursday, the ACLU said that, regardless of the administration’s position, the court “can – and should – resolve the underlying question of whether the Board’s policy violates Title IX.”

The school board’s lawyers made similar comments in their most recent court filing, saying that the meaning of the federal law is “plain and may be resolved as a matter of straightforward interpretation.”

But the court could take a more cautious approach and send the case back to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court’s April 2016 ruling in favor of Grimm relied on the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law.

Kyle Duncan, a lawyer representing the school board, said the court must at a minimum throw out the appeals court decision because “the entire basis for that opinion” was the no-longer extant Obama administration interpretation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: PIVOTAL VOTE?

With the eight-justice court likely to be closely divided, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, conservative appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, could end up casting the deciding vote if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate in time. Otherwise, the court, which is divided equally between liberals and conservatives, could split 4-4, which would set no nationwide legal precedent.

Clues as to how the high court could rule can be gleaned from its decision last August to temporarily block the appeals court decision in Grimm’s case from going into effect. That emergency request from the school board did not require the justices to decide the merits of the case.

The vote in favor of the school board was 5-3, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, joining the four conservative justices. Breyer made clear in a statement at the time that his vote would not dictate how he would approach the case if the court took the issue up.

That decision indicated that the court is likely to be closely divided at oral argument. Grimm’s hopes may rest in Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who voted against Grimm last summer but has sometimes sided with liberals in major cases, including several on gay rights.

But even lawyers closely following the case are not sure which way Kennedy could go.

“If I could predict that, I would be down in the casino,” said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer with conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which backs the school board.

For graphic on transgender rights and “bathroom bills”, click: http://tmsnrt.rs/2l529J9

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Noeleen Walder and Jonathan Oatis)

Lawsuit claims Trump travel ban discriminates against Muslims

Protest of Donald Trump's travel ban

(Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Trump administration in a lawsuit filed on Thursday of violating the religious freedom of some nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries who have been barred from entering the United States.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of California on behalf of three student visa holders, including one Yemeni who left the United States and is unable to come back, according to court documents.

The lawsuit is a proposed class-action brought on behalf of nationals who are living or have lived in the United States and are originally from the Muslim-majority nations whose citizens President Donald Trump has temporarily banned from entering the United States, with some exceptions.

The suit is the latest in a series of legal actions challenging the executive order that was issued last Friday. Federal judges in several states have placed limits on the order.

The order set off protests over the weekend at several major airports as immigration and customs officials struggled to interpret the new rules.

The plaintiffs and the members of the class “fear that, in the event they attempt to enter or re-enter the United States, they will be denied permission to do so,” the lawsuit said.

It accuses Trump and his administration of violating the free speech, religious freedom and due process rights of those affected by the order, and says it is an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise made by Trump to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

“Senior advisers to defendant Trump have engaged in anti-Muslim rhetoric that provides additional support for the notion that the executive order was prompted by animus toward Islam and Muslims,” the suit said.

Department of Justice officials could not be reached for comment late on Thursday.

The ACLU asked the court to rule that the executive order violates the rights of the students and class members and to order the administration not to enforce the travel ban, according to the suit.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis and Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Editing by Sandra Maler, Robert Birsel and Kevin Liffey)

ACLU and Kentucky’s only abortion clinic sue over ultrasound law

By Steve Bittenbender

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union sued Kentucky state officials on Monday to block a new law that requires women seeking an abortion to first undergo an ultrasound and hear a description of the embryo or fetus.

ACLU lawyers filed the lawsuit in federal court in Louisville on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center, which the lawsuit said is the sole licensed abortion facility in Kentucky.

The requirement violates the speech rights of doctors and patients by forcing them to deliver and listen to a government-mandated message, the lawsuit argues. The surgical center is asking for a temporary restraining order and a permanent declaration that the law is unconstitutional.

The law is part of a renewed effort by abortion opponents nationwide to restrict the procedure. It was passed on Saturday by the Kentucky General Assembly, where Republicans swept to power after taking the state House for the first time in nearly a century, and signed on Monday by Governor Matt Bevin, also a Republican.

Bevin, in a statement on Monday, defended the law and several other recently passed measures as representing a new day for Kentucky. He said the measures would “protect our most vulnerable.”

The law requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman may view the images. The medical staff will also be required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible.

It does not contain exceptions for women who are facing medical complications or are victims of rape or incest. Lawmakers inserted an emergency clause allowing it to take effect immediately upon Bevin’s signature.

The lawsuit accuses lawmakers of “forcibly co-opting and perverting the informed consent process.”

While the bill received overwhelming support in both chambers of Kentucky’s legislature, even some of its supporters questioned whether the state risked a lawsuit.

Some 25 states have laws regarding ultrasounds and abortions, but only three states require medical staff to display and describe the images, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit group focusing on health issues.

Republicans have acted swiftly in their first week with majorities in the Kentucky legislature. Other measures they passed include prohibiting abortions after a pregnancy has reached 20 weeks, making Kentucky the 27th “right-to-work” state and allowing the governor to overhaul the University of Louisville’s board of trustees.

(Reporting by Steve Bittenbender; Editing by David Ingram and Lisa Shumaker)

Kansas, ACLU reach temporary agreement on voter ID

Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State

(Recasts to show that judge has canceled contempt of court hearing scheduled for Friday, adds comment by Kansas secretary of state)

Sept 29 (Reuters) – The Kansas Secretary of State and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have reached a temporary agreement over the state’s voter registration laws, keeping Kansas’ chief elections officer from a contempt of court hearing, according to court documents filed on Thursday.

The deal between Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the ACLU comes six weeks before the U.S. presidential election.

The two sides have been at odds over a Kansas law requiring people to prove American citizenship if they want to register to vote while applying for a driver’s license. Critics say this requirement disenfranchises voters, especially minorities.

The deal will allow people who registered at motor vehicle offices or with a federal form without providing citizenship documents to vote in the Nov. 8 election with a standard ballot, rather than be forced to use a provisional one, the ACLU and Kobach said in a status report filed on Thursday.

Kobach will also clarify his office’s website to help voters find information more easily, according to the report filed to U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.

Robinson had ordered Kobach, a Republican, to explain by Thursday why he should not be held in contempt for failing to obey a federal order issued in May.

That order required him to register people who applied to vote at motor vehicle offices or with a federal form without proof of citizenship.

Robinson canceled the contempt hearing scheduled for Friday, according to her own court filing, citing the ACLU and Kobach’s agreement.

“Our case is ongoing, but this interim agreement is a critical victory for Kansans who want to vote in the November election. It is a shame that voters had to fight so hard to get Kris Kobach to do his job,” ACLU attorney Orion Danjuma said in a statement.

Kobach said he was pleased an agreement had been reached, but criticized the ACLU.

“The ACLU’s argument was weak at best. However, at this point the preparations for the November 8, 2016, general election must proceed with rules established to ensure the efficient administration of the election,” he said in a statement.

Kansas’ law, among the strictest voter identification statutes in the country, is defended by Republicans who say the rules are meant to prevent voter fraud.

On Tuesday, a Kansas state judge issued a separate ruling extending voting rights through the Nov. 8 election of about 17,500 people who registered to vote at motor vehicle offices.

(Reporting by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago; Editing by Matthew
Lewis)

Supreme Court agrees to hear immigrant detention dispute

Supreme Court building

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether immigrants detained for more than six months by the U.S. government while deportation proceedings take place are eligible for a hearing in which they can argue for their release.

The decision by the justices to hear a case focusing on the rights of people flagged for deportation comes during a presidential election campaign in which immigration has been a hot topic.

The court agreed to hear an Obama administration appeal of an October 2015 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a lower-court injunction requiring a hearing after six months of detention.

The long-running class action litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union includes some immigrants who were held at the border when seeking illegal entry into the United States and others, including legal permanent residents, who have been convicted of crimes.

If the immigrants were granted a bond hearing, the government would have to show they are flight risks or a danger to the community in order for the detention to continue.

The Justice Department said in court papers that the appeals court decision was “fundamentally wrong” because it dramatically expanded the number of people eligible for hearings and set a high bar for the government to argue that a detainee should not be released.

The ACLU responded in its court papers that the government had exaggerated the impact of the court injunction, which has been in place since 2012 and applies only to immigrants in the Los Angeles area.

Since it has been in effect, there has been “no evidence of adverse effects on immigration enforcement,” the ACLU lawyers said.

The court will hear oral arguments and decide the case during its next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2017.

In one of the biggest cases of its current term, the Supreme Court is due to decide by the end of the month whether to reinstate President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive action to shield millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation. The plan was blocked by lower courts.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

ACLU asks to block Kansas voter ID law

I voted Stickers are seen on a table at a polling stations for the Wisconsin presidential primary election in Milwaukee,

By Kevin Murphy

KANSAS CITY, Kan. (Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Thursday will seek to block a Kansas state law that requires people to prove American citizenship if they want to register to vote while applying for a driver’s license.

The civil rights group will ask a federal judge in Kansas City, Kansas, to issue a preliminary injunction pending the outcome of a lawsuit the group filed in February.

The ACLU claims Kansas is making illegal demands for additional proof of citizenship, violating the so-called Motor-Voter Law that Congress passed in 1993 to boost voter registration for federal elections by allowing voters to register at motor vehicle departments.

The Kansas law requiring documents like a birth certificate or U.S. passport for voter registration, which took effect Jan. 1, 2013, is one of numerous voter ID laws passed by Republican-led state legislatures in recent years. The ACLU alleges that Kansas goes beyond what is required by federal law.

Democrats have argued voter ID laws typically hurt potential Democratic supporters like young people and minorities. Proponents say the laws are intended to curb voter fraud.

Driver’s license applicants should only be required to sign a sworn statement that they are citizens in order to register to vote, ACLU lawyer Dale Ho said.

“Under federal law, registration is supposed to be simple and uniform in all 50 states,” Ho said. “It’s accurate to say this is a unique situation in Kansas.”

The ACLU estimates as many as 22,000 people have been unable to register to vote in Kansas when applying for or renewing a driver’s license. Six of them are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, some said they cannot find or afford needed documentation.

Since the lawsuit is not set for trial until 2017, the preliminary injunction is being sought so people denied registration can vote in August and November elections, Ho said.

Georgia and Alabama passed laws similar to Kansas, but are not enforcing them, Ho said. Arizona uses the law, but people have not reported as many registration denials as in Kansas, Ho said.

The lawsuit names Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as a defendant. Kobach said the Kansas law has prevented many illegal aliens from voting.

“This is a very real issue and we have lots of close elections where the margin of victory is one vote or four to five votes,” Kobach said. “Non-citizens voting can potentially steal an election.”

(Reporting By Kevin Murphy, Editing by Ben Klayman and Andrew Hay)

Apple, Google Products Target of Court Order

Apple Logo inside Corporate offices

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday said it had identified 63 cases across the U.S. in which the federal government asked for a court order compelling Apple Inc or Google to help access devices seized during investigations.

The cases predominantly arise out of investigations into drug crimes, the ACLU said, adding that the data indicate such government requests have become “quite ordinary.”

Representatives for the Justice Department and Apple declined to comment.

A spokesman for Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc, declined to say how frequently it has cooperated with All Writs Act requests or orders, and how often it has contested them.

The Justice Department previously disclosed that Apple has received 70 court orders requiring it to provide assistance since 2008, which it obeyed without objection.

However, last October Apple contested a Justice Department demand for assistance in a Brooklyn drug case. Since then, Apple has objected to several other government requests for help accessing devices across the country, the company said in a court filing last month.

A U.S. judge in Brooklyn agreed with Apple and ruled that Congress has not authorized the government to ask for the help it demanded of the company. The Justice Department has appealed that ruling.

The ACLU report comes after the Justice Department withdrew a request for Apple’s assistance in California, saying on Monday it had succeeded in unlocking an iPhone used by one of the shooters involved in a rampage in San Bernardino in December without Apple’s help.

Other cases involving government requests for Apple’s help are still pending.

A variety of Apple and Google products have been targeted by court orders, according to the ACLU report. In one, an Apple iPhone 5 was seized by a man arrested in 2013 for importing methamphetamine from Mexico.

A California court ordered Apple to help the Justice Department bypass the passcode and copy data onto an external hard drive. The order does not specify which operating system was running on the phone.

(Reporting by Dan Levine)

Judge Rules Commissioners Can’t Pray Only In Jesus’ Name

A federal judge has ruled that a group of county commissioners cannot present prayers in Jesus’ name even if all the commissioners are Christians.

The ACLU and the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation filed suit against the commissioners of Rowan County in March 2013 claiming that commissioners said during their opening invocations that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” and thank the Lord for the “virgin birth,” the “cross at Calvary” and “the resurrection.”

A local resident who was against the Christian message in the public meeting explained why they helped bring the suit.

“I want my local government to be open and welcoming to people of all beliefs,” Nan Lund, a local resident who is among three plaintiffs named in the suit, stated in a news release announcing the legal challenge. “But when officials begin a public meeting with prayers that are specific to only one religious viewpoint, I feel unwelcome and excluded.”

Federal Judge James A. Beaty Jr., ruled in favor of Lund and the other plaintiffs, saying that the actions of the councilmen was unconstitutional.

“The practice fails to be nondiscriminatory, entangles government with religion, and over time, establishes a pattern of prayers that tends to advance the Christian faith of the elected commissioners at the expense of any religious affiliation unrepresented by the majority,” he wrote.

“While an all-comers policy is not necessarily required, a nondiscriminatory one is,” he said. “When all faiths but those of the five elected commissioners are excluded, the policy inherently discriminates and disfavors religious minorities.”

The county has not announced if they will appeal the ruling.

Federal Judge Throws Out Atheist Suit Against Commandments

A federal judge in Oklahoma has dismissed a lawsuit brought by atheists against a Ten Commandments monument in the state capital.

The anti-Christian group American Atheists, based in New Jersey, filed suit on behalf of an anonymous woman who claimed about the installation of a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Oklahoma capitol building.

The State Capitol Preservation Commission argued that the woman had only seen the monument once and had traveled to the capitol solely for the purpose of being offended by the monument.

U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled that the woman lacked standing to sue because she could not prove that she had suffered any personal injury from the display.

The monument has faced suits in the past.  The ACLU sued in August 2013 claiming the presence of the display was unconstitutional.

ACLU Trying To Force Hospital To Perform Abortions

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is attempting to force a hospital to perform abortions in their facility.

The lawsuit claims that Skagit Regional Health is violating a state law that requires medical facilities that provide maternity care to also kill babies via abortion.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a woman who is doctoral nursing student.

“As a woman and a health care provider, I care deeply about reproductive health issues. I want to make sure that women throughout Washington have access to the full range of reproductive health care services,” Kevan Coffey said in a statement. “And I personally want to have all options, including abortion, available to me.”

“The right of women to choose or to refuse to have an abortion is fundamental and has long been recognized under Washington law,” said ACLU Executive Director Kathleen Taylor. “We want to ensure that all women in our state can access the full range of reproductive health care at public health facilities in their communities.”

The state has said numerous times that hospitals have to provide abortion services if they want to provide maternity services.