ACLU, AAUP And NCAC File Brief Urging Court To Uphold First Amendment In Ward Churchill Case
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Colorado, American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) today submitted a brief to a Colorado Court of Appeals arguing that the University of Colorado, a publicly funded university, should reinstate a tenured professor who was wrongly terminated from his job there for exercising his right to free speech.
"The First Amendment prohibits public officials from suppressing lawful speech or retaliating against those who engage in such speech, no matter how unpopular or offensive the speech may be to some people," said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "That is especially the case in the university setting, where the Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment freedoms must be vigilantly protected."
After he was fired from the teaching post he had held for many years, Ward Churchill sued the University and its Board of Regents alleging that he was unconstitutionally terminated because of a controversial and unpopular essay he had written concerning the events on September 11. In April 2009, a jury agreed that Churchill was fired for expressing his personal opinions, which is a clear violation of his First Amendment rights.
However, a judge denied Churchill's petition to be reinstated to his job, essentially denying him any relief for the blatant denial of his rights. Churchill is appealing that decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The ACLU, ACLU of Colorado, AAUP and NCAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting reversal of the trial court's decision, arguing that plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have been violated must be provided with a remedy, and that in this case, Churchill should be reinstated to the job from which he was wrongly fired.
"Denying a remedy to people whose rights have been violated amounts to gutting the Constitution," said Mariko Hirose, a legal fellow with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "The court has a responsibility to ensure the University of Colorado rights its wrong and reinstates Professor Churchill immediately."
"Unless the trial court's ruling is corrected, university professors will receive the chilling message that silence is smart and voicing unpopular views can be fatal to their careers," said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director. "The First Amendment right to speak out is meaningful only if it is enforceable in court."
Today's friend-of-the-court brief is available online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/ward-churchill-v-university-colorado-et-al-amicus-brief
Attorneys include Fine and Hirose of the ACLU First Amendment Working Group, Silverstein of the ACLU of Colorado, Rachel Levinson of AAUP and Joan Bertin of NCAC.
Groups And Prominent Authors Say Settlement Doesn't Protect Free Speech Or User Privacy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law are in federal court today urging a judge to reject the proposed settlement in a lawsuit over Google Book Search because it does not include critical privacy protections for users of the online book materials. The groups filed an objection to the settlement in September 2009 on behalf of a coalition of more than two dozen authors and publishers, including ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and best-selling novelists Michael Chabon and Jonathan Lethem.
"As digital book programs like Google Book Search advance, more and more people will turn to the Internet for their reading needs. Readers should be able to expect as much privacy when they're reading a book on a Web site as they do in a library or bookstore," said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "People should feel that they are free to read on the Internet without being monitored by private companies or the government."
The objection arose over the proposed settlement of a 2005 class action lawsuit, The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., currently pending approval in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The settlement would allow Google to scan and digitize millions of books and make them available to readers online, ending the legal challenges brought by the Authors' Guild and others over the Google Book Search project. The coalition of authors and publishers who object to the settlement charge that it fails to include critical privacy and speech protections concerning the collection and potential disclosure of personally identifying information about Google Book Search users, and that this failure to protect privacy will chill their readership. They are urging Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District to reject the settlement.
Because the settlement does not contain any privacy protections for users, Google's system will be able to monitor which books users search for, which pages of the books they read and how long they spend on each page. Google could then combine information about readers' habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive "digital dossier" that would be highly tempting and possibly vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants.
"Advancements in technology should not come at the expense of Americans' privacy," said Fine. "The court should ensure that the same privacy and speech protections available to readers in libraries and bookstores are part of this settlement, to ensure that readers in the digital age continue to have the same rights they've always had."
The objection filed in September includes a list of privacy protections that would improve the settlement, including requiring a court order or judge-approved warrant before disclosure of any information collected and limiting the amount of time that the information can be retained.
Attorneys who filed the objection are Fine of the ACLU, Cindy Cohn of EFF and Jennifer Lynch and Jason Schultz of the Samuelson Clinic.
The filing is available online at: www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/40934lgl20090908.html
More information about the case is available at: www.aclunc.org/googlebooks and www.eff.org/cases/authors-guild-v-google
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org
West Palm Beach, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the City of West Palm Beach, West Palm Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, and CityPlace Community Redevelopment District on behalf of Bruce Kevin Bates, a street artist who was unlawfully prohibited from using a public area to create his art.
Bates regularly sets up his portable easel and chair at the south end of Harriet Himmel Theater, in a publicly owned plaza at CityPlace, an upscale outdoor mixed use mall, whose Web site characterizes it as "reminiscent of an Italian town center." Bates' easel was out of the way of foot traffic, and he positioned himself there to paint the city scenes in front of him.
On August 29, 2009, a West Palm Beach police officer and the head of CityPlace security approached Bates and told him that he was trespassing on private property and that he needed to leave. When Bates refused, the officer issued a trespass warning to Bates, threatening to arrest the artist if he is found again within the City Place Plaza area. As a result, Bates has not returned to CityPlace, even though he prefers the ambiance and architecture for his art.
The ACLU of Florida argues in the lawsuit that the Plaza and adjacent streets and sidewalks are public property, and therefore the policies limiting expression are unconstitutional. The land is owned by the CRA and leased to the district, which issued tax exempt municipal bonds to construct the Plaza and surrounding areas.
"The public plaza is an urban park in the middle of CityPlace. Pedestrians walk through the area on their way to different destinations in and around the plaza, and it is open to the public for regular and everyday use. Musicians play there on a weekly, if not daily basis," said James K. Green, a West Palm Beach attorney and cooperating counsel with the ACLU. "The First Amendment cannot be curtailed in the public arena without a compelling reason, and the only reason that appears to exist here is that the city doesn't want Mr. Bates to paint in CityPlace—that's not a compelling government interest and is downright unconstitutional."
The ACLU of Florida is asking the court to rule that the defendants violated Bates' First Amendment right to freedom of expression, and to rule that the policies created by the CRA and District to regulate public use of the CityPlace Plaza and adjacent streets and sidewalks are unconstitutional.
View photos of Bates here: www.aclufl.org/news_events/gallery/index.cfm?action=viewGallery&entryID=55
Download a PDF of the complaint filed in federal court here: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Bates.pdf
Speaker Budish Should Reconsider Ban on 'Controversial' Awards
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
COLUMBUS - The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio urged House Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beachwood) to re-assess his decision to block certain groups or individuals from being recognized on the floor of the Ohio House. Elizabeth Trisler, a Shelby County teen who recently won an oratory contest sponsored by National Right to Life, was scheduled to be presented with a proclamation by state Rep. John Adams (R-Sidney) on February 3. Speaker Budish decided Ms. Trisler should not be honored on the House floor because he believed it could be divisive.
"By declining to recognize Ms. Trisler's achievement, Speaker Budish has created a troubling precedent that anyone who is deemed 'controversial' by House leadership will not be honored," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "Legislators should pay tribute to those who excel in their field, regardless of their political views or affiliations. This decision could cause legislators to second guess issuing proclamations for many Ohioans."
"Perhaps what is more troubling is the message this sends to Ms. Trisler and other young activists like her," added Link. "Instead of teaching young people that the answer is to silence those who disagree with us, legislators should be modeling how to address difficult issues thoughtfully and listen respectfully to others."
Since January 2009, the Ohio House has issued 217 resolutions honoring individuals or organizations. 43 have had their proclamation delivered to them to the House floor. Most of the honorees were athletes or sports teams; however, other individuals such as Miss Wheelchair Ohio and the winner of the 2009 MLK Statewide Oratorical Contest were recognized.
"Ohio has a diverse political and social landscape that includes a broad spectrum of views that may be controversial to some. If we limit whose achievements may be honored, we are only contributing to the notion that these issues are divisive and cannot reasonably be discussed. If anything, the House should expand who they choose to honor in order to recognize the accomplishments of those from a range of political and social viewpoints," concluded Link.
ACLU of Louisiana demands that student's record be restored
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEW ORLEANS – Today the Principal of Maurepas High School, which had declared that students could wear jerseys in support of the New Orleans Saints, punished a student for wearing a jersey in support of the Indianapolis Colts. The student, who had lived most of his life in Indianapolis and has an outstanding academic record, was called out of class and told that he was not allowed to wear that shirt. When he refused to change his shirt, the Principal sent him home.
The ACLU of Louisiana has sent a letter to the Principal, Steven Vampran, demanding that the school restore the student's record and erase any mention of disciplinary action that may have been taken because he chose to support a team that is not the Principals' favorite. "Students do not give up their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate," said ACLU of Louisiana Executive Director Marjorie R. Esman. "To allow students to express support of one team but not the other amounts to forcing support of the team that the Principal likes. As excited as people are about the Saints going to the Super Bowl, students like everyone else have the right to choose which team they prefer."
The student in question recently joined the National Guard, to protect this country and its founding beliefs. The right to free expression – including cheering for a football team – is one of those fundamental rights. Esman continued: "The school should be proud of this young man and his commitment to his country and the rights we enjoy. And, after all, it takes two teams to play a football game, and fans of both sides are entitled to cheer."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
ST. LOUIS -- In a consent judgment entered today by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department are ordered to stop enforcing a St. Louis City ordinance that criminalized the placement of political leaflets on vehicles parked on public streets.
The order comes in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri (ACLU-EM) in December 2009 that alleged a city ordinance prohibiting such behavior is a violation of free speech. Under existing precedent, the ban on leaflets "would be interpreted as an infringement upon the First Amendment speech rights of Plaintiffs and other non-parties to this litigation," according to the judgment.
The plaintiffs in the case are members of Citizens for More Responsible St. Louis City Government. The group had been publicizing a petition drive that would have allowed city voters to affirm or reject a city ordinance in support of the controversial Northside Development plan. As outreach in their effort, the plaintiffs were placing flyers on the windshields of cars parked on public streets. This activity put them in conflict with city ordinance 11.18.180, which states, "No person shall throw or deposit any commercial or noncommercial handbill in or upon any vehicle without the owner's consent."
"There is a long established right to free political speech while on public property. The flyers in question are clearly political in nature," said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "Our clients feared that any future leafleting activity may result in their arrest. Today's consent judgment ensures that their right to expression will not be suppressed."
ACLU-EM Executive Director Brenda Jones applauded the City of St. Louis for bring the case to a quick resolution: "We appreciate the recognition of the important constitutional rights at stake and the willingness to resolve this matter quickly and amicably."
Under terms of the consent judgment, the City of St. Louis will not enforce the ordinance, take all necessary steps to ensure that the ordinance is removed from law enforcement charge codes, and will make all police officers and park rangers aware of the order.
The plaintiffs were represented in this case by ACLU-EM cooperating attorney Nathan Howard in addition to Rothert.
The complaint and consent judgment are available for viewing on the ACLU of Eastern Missouri's website at: www.aclu-em.org/moore
ACLU Sues to Protect His Rights
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org
CLERMONT, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the City of Clermont on behalf of local businessman Wayne E. Weatherbee, owner of Bee's Auto located in Clermont. According to the lawsuit, City officials have unconstitutionally targeted Weatherbee, attempting to suppress his free speech.
In October 2009, Weatherbee erected 12 signs on his business property in political protest against the City, which he claims selectively enforced its laws against him and his business, including falsely arresting him. One of the signs reads: "ACLU WHERE ARE YOU."
Beginning Tuesday, February 2, the City began imposing a $75/day fine on Bee's Auto until the signs are removed or Weatherbee obtains a permit.
The ACLU's lawsuit asserts that the City's ordinance regarding signage is unconstitutional and that officials are unconstitutionally applying it to Bee's Auto. "The City's code would allow, without any permit, a sign that urged viewers to 'Vote for Crist for Senate,' but would require a permit for one that read 'Impeach Crist,'" said Maria Kayanan, ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director. "The City is regulating protected political speech based on its content, with no compelling reason. The City also allows, without any permits or limits on size or number, holiday decorations – so an Easter bunny or an inflatable reindeer gets more protection under the Code than Mr. Weatherbee's political speech - that's a clear violation of the First Amendment."
Through the lawsuit, the ACLU is seeking for the court to strike down The City of Clermont's unconstitutional signage ordinance, and prevent the City from further levying fines or collecting past fines placed on Mr. Weatherbee and Bee's Auto, thus restoring the constitutional right to engage in political speech in Clermont.
"The City's actions are abusive. Since at least 2007, the City of Clermont has been on notice that the code violates the First Amendment's protection of political speech," said Derek B. Brett, ACLU cooperating attorney in Orlando and Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Central Florida. "In 2007, the City demanded that Clermont residents obtain a permit and fee for a 'Ron Paul for President' sign on their lawn. In that case, a 'cease and desist' letter from the ACLU resolved the issue. Clearly the City didn't learn, and continues to violate the First Amendment."
View photos of the signs erected at Bee's Auto here: www.aclufl.org/news_events/gallery/index.cfm?action=viewGallery&entryID=54
For a description of the signs erected at Bee's Auto, download a PDF of the Complaint filed today in federal court here: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/weatherbeecomplaint.pdf
View the ACLU's 2007 letter to the City of Clermont about political speech here: www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2947
Bee's Auto vs. City of Clermont was filed in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. Attorneys leading the case include Derek B. Brett, ACLU cooperating attorney; and Maria Kayanan and Randall Marshall, both of the ACLU of Florida.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona today announced the winners of a high school essay contest about the Constitution and the meaning of the First Amendment.
The contest, which was sponsored by the Southern and University of Arizona Law College chapters of the ACLU of Arizona, asked students in grades 9 through 12 to write essays about "What the First Amendment means to you." It was developed as a way to encourage students to think about the importance of advancing and protecting civil liberties.
"The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people of their fundamental rights, and it doesn't just apply to adults; it applies to young people too," said Mary-Carol Wagner, Chair of the ACLU of Arizona Southern Chapter. "We wanted to encourage students to think and write about how the Constitution affects their daily lives."
The winners are: Rachel Ellsworth, senior at Mesa High School, First Place $500 prize; Laura Maillard, senior at Tanque Verde High School, Second Place $250 prize; and John Nussmeier, also a senior at Tanque Verde High School, third place $100 prize.
The three high school students will be presented with cash prizes and awards at the For Love of the Constitution event at 1:30 PM on February 6, 2010 at the home of Corny & Joanne Steelink. For more information about the event or to RSVP, please call Essie Ramirez at (520) 908-0416 or email rsvp@aclusaz.org.
"The First Amendment impacts nearly every other freedom. That's precisely why we wanted students to share their own thoughts about whether they think it goes too far or not far enough," added Audrey C. Stirnitzke, president of the ACLU of Arizona University of Arizona Law College Chapter.
Excerpts from the first place essay will be printed in the ACLU of Arizona's spring newsletter, which will be published next month.
Founded in 1959, the ACLU of Arizona is a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization dedicated to preserving Constitutional freedoms and the Bill of Rights. With approximately 6,500 members and supporters statewide, the ACLU of Arizona is an affiliate of the national ACLU, which boasts a membership of 550,000. The Southern Chapter is one of two volunteer-run chapters of the ACLU of Arizona.
The ACLU is funded entirely with private donations, foundation grants, court-awarded legal fees and membership dues, and does not receive any government funding. For more information on the ACLU of Arizona, visit www.acluaz.org
First Hearing In Federal Court About The Patentability Of Human Genes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – In the first hearing in federal court about the patentability of human genes, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit organization affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, asked the court today to rule that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer are unconstitutional and invalid. The groups charge that the patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care.
"Allowing patents on genetic material imposes real and severe limits on scientific research, learning and the free flow of information," said Chris Hansen, an attorney with the ACLU.
The lawsuit, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al., was filed on May 12, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of breast cancer and women's health groups, individual women and scientific associations representing approximately 150,000 researchers, pathologists and laboratory professionals. The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which hold the patents on the genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. The lawsuit charges that patents on human genes violate the First Amendment and patent law because genes are "products of nature" and therefore can't be patented.
"Patenting human genes is like patenting e=mc2, blood or air," said Hansen.
"The patent system was designed to reward and encourage human ingenuity. But genes are naturally-occurring parts of our bodies, not inventions," said Daniel B. Ravicher, Executive Director of PUBPAT and co-counsel in the lawsuit. "Patents on human genes should never have been granted in the first place. Genes are identified, not invented."
Mutations along the BRCA genes are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Many women with a history of breast and ovarian cancer in their families opt to undergo genetic testing to determine if they have the mutations on their BRCA genes that put them at increased risk for these diseases. This information is critical in helping these women decide on a plan of treatment or prevention, including increased surveillance or preventive mastectomies or ovary removal.
The patents granted to Myriad give the company the exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and to prevent any researcher from even looking at the genes without first getting permission from Myriad. Myriad's monopoly on the BRCA genes makes it impossible for women to access alternate tests or get a second opinion about their results and allows Myriad to charge a high rate for their tests.
Because the ACLU's lawsuit challenges the whole notion of gene patenting, its outcome could have far reaching effects beyond the patents on the BRCA genes. Approximately 20 percent of all human genes are patented, including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, asthma and many other illnesses.
"The patents on the BRCA genes restrict women's access to genetic testing and interfere with their medical care," said Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "We hope that at the conclusion of this lawsuit, the court declares the patents unconstitutional and invalid."
Several major organizations, including the American Medical Association, the March of Dimes and the American Society for Human Genetics, filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the ACLU and PUBPAT's case. Prominent medical researchers and academics, including Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Sir John Sulston, have also stated their support.
Today's argument is on the ACLU's motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in favor of the ACLU's clients without a trial, and on the defendants' cross motions.
Attorneys on the case include Hansen and Aden Fine of the ACLU First Amendment Working Group; Park and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women's Rights Project; and Ravicher and Sabrina Hassan of PUBPAT. Tania Simoncelli, the ACLU's science advisor, provides expert guidance on the case.
More information about the case, including an ACLU video featuring breast cancer patients, legal documents and plaintiff and supporter statements and declarations can be found online at: www.aclu.org/brca
Civil rights groups say ordinance violates day laborers' First Amendment rights
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
COSTA MESA, CA – Today, MALDEF, the ACLU of Southern California and the National Day Laborer's Organizing Network (NDLON) announced a lawsuit challenging the City of Costa Mesa's anti-solicitation ordinance as unconstitutional.
The civil rights groups filed the lawsuit against the City of Costa Mesa on behalf of the Asociacion de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa and the Colectivo Tonantzin, whose members have been restricted from peaceably expressing their need and availability for employment in the city's public areas due to the ordinance.
MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz said, "Free speech, one of our most cherished rights, belongs to everyone in society. Day laborers seeking work have as much right to express themselves as the largest corporation employing hundreds of thousands. Costa Mesa's anti-solicitation ordinance violates this vital and longstanding constitutional principle."
The city's anti-solicitation ordinance prohibits any person standing on a sidewalk or other public area from soliciting employment, business or contributions in any manner deemed to be intended to attract the attention of traveling vehicles. The ordinance subjects day laborers and other solicitors to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment up to six months. The ordinance violates the day laborers' First and Fourteenth amendments rights under the United States Constitution.
"This ordinance is simply illegal. Not only does it discriminate against day laborers but it prohibits protected speech. It's so sweeping that it bans school children from holding car wash signs on the street or could prevent struggling businesses from using sign spinners," said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California.
Federal courts throughout the country have consistently stricken down anti-solicitation ordinances, and have ruled in favor of preserving the free speech rights of day laborers, which allows them to continue to solicit work and provide for their families.
"Day laborers have contributed to the Costa Mesa economy for decades," said Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. He continued, "Particularly during these tough times, the hard work they provide the community should be rewarded and not the target of destructive law enforcement practices."
The plaintiffs, Asociacion de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa and the Colectivo Tonantzin, are represented by attorneys Saenz and Gladys Limon of MALDEF, and Escobosa Helzer, Hector O. Villagra and Peter J. Eliasberg of the ACLU of Southern California. They are joined by co-counsel, Chris Newman of NDLON.
More information on the case, Asociacion de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa v. Costa Mesa, is available online at: www.aclu-sc.org
The ACLU of Southern California is the Southland's premier defender of civil liberties and civil rights. Founded in 1923, we defend freedom and the constitutional rights of all through lobbying, litigation and education. For more information about our work, visit us at: www.aclu-sc.org
Founded in 1968, MALDEF is the nation's leading Latino legal civil rights organization. Often described as the "law firm of the Latino community," MALDEF promotes social change through advocacy, communications, community education, and litigation in the areas of education, employment, immigrant rights, and political access. For more information on MALDEF, please visit: www.maldef.org
Col. Morris Davis Fired For Speaking Out About Military Commissions
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the Library of Congress on behalf of Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the Guantánamo military commissions, who was terminated from his job at the Library's Congressional Research Service (CRS) because of opinion pieces he wrote about the military commissions system. The lawsuit charges that CRS violated Davis's right to free speech and due process when it fired him for speaking as a private citizen about matters having nothing to do with his responsibilities at CRS.
"Col. Davis has a constitutional right to speak about issues of which he has expert knowledge, and the public has a right to hear from him," said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "Col. Davis's firsthand experience is invaluable to the ongoing debate over military commissions, and the public should not be denied the chance to hear from him just because he is a public employee."
After 25 years in the United States Air Force, Davis resigned from his position as chief prosecutor in the military commissions in October 2007 because of his belief that the system was fundamentally flawed. He then became a vocal critic of the commissions, writing articles, giving speeches and testifying before Congress. In December 2008, Davis began working as the Assistant Director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division at CRS, a position that is not related to the military commissions.
On November 11, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece and the Washington Post published a letter to the editor in which Davis argued against having a two-tiered system of justice in which some Guantánamo detainees are tried in military commissions and others in federal courts. Both pieces were written by Davis in his personal capacity, made clear that he was writing as a private individual and former chief prosecutor of the military commissions and made no mention of CRS. Davis wrote the pieces on his home computer during non-work hours. In meetings that followed, Davis's supervisor at CRS, Daniel Mulhollan, informed Davis that as a result of the pieces his employment would be terminated. Davis was transferred to a temporary 30-day position at CRS, which will expire on January 20.
"My status as the former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay and my opinions on that subject are completely unrelated to my position at CRS and totally separate from my duties there, and they don't interfere with my ability to do my job," said Davis. "The work that CRS does is incredibly valuable and I am proud of the opportunity to continue serving my country after a career in the military. I hope to be reinstated to my original position so I can continue to support Congress at this critical time in our nation's history."
In response to a letter from the ACLU in December, the Library of Congress stated that it would not reinstate Davis to his job at CRS. Today's lawsuit seeks to reinstate Davis to his position and to reaffirm that governmental employees, including employees of the Library of Congress, may not be terminated for speaking in their private capacities on matters of great public concern.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit against James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and Mulhollan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Fine, Alexander Abdo and Jameel Jaffer of the national ACLU and Arthur Spitzer and Frederick Mulhauser of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
The ACLU's complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/davis-v-billington-complaint
More information about the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/davis-v-billington
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Today the ACLU of Colorado announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and the Jefferson County School District on behalf of Blake Benson, avoiding a potential lawsuit. The dispute arose when Jefferson County officials arrested and suspended Mr. Benson for displaying a "Nobama" message on a t-shirt prior to an after-school speech by Michelle Obama at Dakota Ridge High School.
Mr. Benson was a junior at the high school on November 3, 2008, when Michelle Obama came to speak at the school. As attendees lined up to enter the gymnasium, Mr. Benson stood near the school's main entrance wearing a t-shirt with a "Nobama" sticker taped across the front. Dakota Ridge school officials ordered Mr. Benson to leave. When he refused, officials had Mr. Benson handcuffed, searched, and arrested for "interference," a charge that carries up to six months in jail and a $750 fine. Mr. Benson was also give a one-day suspension by Principal Jim Jelinek, who stated in a notice of suspension that, "Blake was directed to cease politically protesting on school grounds."
ACLU cooperating attorney Dan Recht represented Mr. Benson in the criminal case. In May 2009 Jefferson County officials confirmed that they would not pursue the criminal charge.
"Jefferson County officials were wrong to censor the peaceful, purely political speech of a high school student just a day before a historic national election," stated Taylor Pendergrass, staff attorney for the ACLU of Colorado. "We should be encouraging civic engagement and political discourse in our high schools. Unfortunately, Jefferson County officials sent exactly the opposite message last November by arresting Mr. Benson for his expressing his political views."
The Jefferson County School District and the Jefferson County Sheriff's office agreed to pay $2,000 each to settle claims that Jefferson County violated Mr. Benson's free speech rights under the First Amendment and Article II Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. Jefferson County officials do not admit to wrongdoing in the settlement agreement.
"What my teachers taught me about our constitutional rights wasn't respected outside the classroom," said Mr. Benson. "If one thing comes from this case, I hope it is that other students will learn more about their free speech rights and not be afraid to use them."
A picture of Mr. Benson wearing his t-shirt on the day of his arrest is available at the ACLU's website at: www.aclu-co.org/docket/200907/200907_description.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
The New York Civil Liberties Union has won a federal lawsuit challenging secrecy in the hearing process for people accused by police officers of offenses on New York City's subways and buses. In a decision released today, a federal judge ruled that the secret, closed-door hearings violate the First Amendment and barred further enforcement of New York City Transit Authority's court access policy.
Each year, the New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau (TAB) holds more than 20,000 hearings to determine the guilt or innocence of alleged violators of the New York City Transit Authority's rules of conduct. The hearings are closed to the public unless an accused person consents to an observer's presence. The NYCLU argued that this practice shrouds the hearings in secrecy, depriving the public of information about the fairness of the hearing process and accused transit riders of an understanding of the adjudication process, and concealing important public information concerning police activity in the public transit system.
In a ruling dated December 23, 2009, Judge Richard J. Sullivan declared the TAB access policy unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction against its further enforcement.
"This ruling unlocks the doors that hid from public view tens of thousands of hearings each year," said Christopher Dunn, NYCLU associate legal director and lead counsel in the case. "Moving forward, the NYCLU will monitor these hearings so we can make sure they are conducted fairly and so we track NYPD enforcement activity in the transit system."
In recent years, the NYPD has issued up to 171,000 citations annually for violations of the New York City Transit Authority's rules of conduct. Violations include fare evasion, public intoxication, unreasonable noise and obstructing pedestrian traffic. Officers can either issue summonses returnable to the TAB or criminal court. All criminal court proceedings are completely open to the public.
People who have received a TAB summons and wish to contest the charges in person must appear at a hearing at the bureau's Brooklyn offices where an adjudicator determines their guilt or innocence. Between 2005 and 2008, the TAB held more than 22,000 hearings a year.
According to available data, the TAB levies guilty judgments in more than 83 percent of contested cases. Out of 23,202 summonses that transit riders challenged in 2006, the TAB upheld 19,424 of them.
"The courts have confirmed that there is no room for a secret court in New York City," said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. "The Transit Adjudication Bureau's refusal to grant the public access to these hearings violates core democratic principles of open government. New Yorkers have a right to know about police conduct on our city's subways and buses."
The NYCLU's lawsuit charged that by closing these hearings to the public, and by not publishing rules governing the hearings for transit violations, the TAB hinders people's ability to present a complete, coherent defense. People challenging summonses lack basic information, such as what evidence is inadmissible, when to present evidence or whether they can cross examine adverse witnesses.
Closing the hearings also withholds information on police conduct in the city's massive public transit system. The number of subway riders stopped and questioned by NYPD officers spiked from 2,474 in 2003 to 38,552 in 2007 – a 1,558 percent increase. Statistics show that 88 percent of those subjected to police stops in the subway system are black or Latino.
In addition to Dunn, the case was worked on by Matthew Hallinan, Brian Horan and Vanessa Pastora, law students enrolled in the New York University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic.
To read the full decision or the NYCLU's original complaint, visit: www.nyclu.org/news/federal-court-orders-transit-authority-open-secret-court-nyclu-and-public
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org
Group Had Been Illegally Barred From Putting Up Display Despite Meeting State Requirements
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
LITTLE ROCK, AR – A federal judge this week granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that a temporary Winter Solstice display be allowed to be erected on the grounds of the state Capitol.
The ACLU of Arkansas filed a federal lawsuit last week charging Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels with violating the free speech rights of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers by illegally barring them from putting up their display, despite the fact that it meets the requirements of the state capitol display policy and despite the presence of another display on the grounds.
“This is a victory for freedom of speech in America,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “People cannot be arbitrarily denied their constitutionally protected right to free expression in a public forum, and that is exactly what had happened in this case.”
In 1993, the Arkansas Secretary of State adopted a policy for “Temporary Displays on State Capitol Grounds.” The policy set up a system whereby any person or group could put up a temporary display by meeting certain requirements, including sturdiness and non-interference with pedestrian traffic. The Freethinkers’ proposed display met the guidelines of the policy, but was nonetheless rejected by Daniels, who cited an Arkansas statute providing authority to the state capitol police to maintain “proper order and decorum.”
On further inquiry, the Secretary of State’s office asserted that the proposed display did not have the proper “tone.” Later, the office added that a Winter Solstice display would not be consistent with the other displays and decorations at the Capitol. According to court papers filed by the ACLU, the only other temporary display on state capitol grounds is “a crèche with a wood exterior and nativity figures carved out of wood. The display is not decorated with lights or ornamentation of any kind and is devoid of a festive tone.”
The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers is a statewide non-profit organization in part dedicated to promoting education and awareness of Freethinkers, their history, activities and holidays. The group filed a written application to put up a display October 16, describing the meaning and history of the Winter Solstice holiday. Though the Society of Freethinkers could have sought to have the existing nativity scene removed, the suit did not request this relief. Instead, the Society of Freethinkers sought and obtained permission to include their display as part of the celebration, as was intended by the Secretary of State’s policy and by the First Amendment.
The Winter Solstice celebration is an ancient tradition that is celebrated by the Freethinkers annually from approximately November 15 to January 5. The Society of Freethinkers asserts that the purpose of the Winter Solstice display is to express some of the members’ beliefs and to educate the public about the Winter Solstice and Freethinkers.
Pictures of the Freethinkers display can be seen at: wintersolsticedisplay.info and more information about the ACLU’s work on Religious Freedom and Belief can be found at: www.aclu.org/religion-belief
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK -- In a ruling issued late Monday afternoon, a federal judge has ordered the NYPD to produce 2,000 pages of documents to the New York Civil Liberties Union concerning the Police Department's undercover infiltration of protest groups during the 2004 Republican National Convention.
"Today's ruling will force the NYPD at long last to come clean about its nationwide surveillance of protesters before the 2004 Convention," said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn. "We believe these documents will show that, contrary to the NYPD's claims, protesters were coming to New York City not to engage in violence but to engage in peaceful protest."
The ruling arises from two federal lawsuits the NYCLU filed challenging the mass arrest, prolonged detention and blanket fingerprinting of 1,800 convention protestors.
The NYPD has claimed that its harsh treatment of protestors was justified by information it obtained from its surveillance operation. The Department has refused to disclose documents detailing that information to the NYCLU, claiming that their disclosure would compromise ongoing investigations and other law-enforcement concerns. Federal judges have three times rejected that claim.
"The right to political protest is one of our nation's founding liberties," said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. "Because of our victory today, we will finally get to know the depth and breadth of the NYPD's massive spying dragnet prior to the RNC."
To read the full decision, visit: www.nyclu.org/news/federal-judge-orders-release-of-rnc-intelligence-documents-0
ACLU Planning Lawsuit On Behalf Of Col. Morris Davis
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – In response to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union earlier this month, the Library of Congress stated today that it will not reinstate Col. Morris Davis to his job at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the Guantánamo military commissions, was terminated from his job at CRS because of opinion pieces he wrote about the Guantánamo military commissions system that ran in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post on November 11, 2009. The ACLU's letter argued that CRS violated the First Amendment when it fired Davis for speaking as a private citizen about matters having nothing to do with his job there, and that CRS must reinstate Davis to his position in order to avoid litigation. The ACLU now plans to file a lawsuit on Col. Davis's behalf.
The following can be attributed to Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group:
"The decision by the Library of Congress not to reinstate Col. Davis represents a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the free speech rights of its employees. The First Amendment protects Col. Davis's right to speak and write as a private citizen about issues on which he has personal knowledge. We are disappointed that the Library did not take this opportunity to right its wrong."
The full text of the ACLU's letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/letter-library-congress-asking-reinstatement-colonel-morris-davis
The Library of Congress response is online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/letter-aclu-library-congress-regarding-removal-col-morris-davis
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Center for Constitutional Rights announced today they have filed papers to expand and continue a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Pittsburgh, city officials and police officers for their repeated harassment and intimidation of two climate and environmental-justice organizations whose efforts to organize and support demonstrations during September's G-20 Summit were completely frustrated.
"The First Amendment does not allow the government to use possible vandalism by a few to justify suppressing the free-speech rights of many, but that's exactly what Pittsburgh officials did during the G-20," said Witold Walczak, the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Legal Director and one of the groups' lawyers. "Pittsburgh city officials must be held accountable for systematically and deliberately suppressing non-violent climate and environment-justice demonstrations."
An amended complaint in the lawsuit, which was originally filed September 21, was filed late Friday night in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The suit alleges that City of Pittsburgh officials deliberately adopted a strategy to harass, intimidate, discourage and ultimately prevent Three Rivers Climate Convergence and the Seeds of Peace Collective from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to free speech and assembly during the International Coal Conference and the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh during the week of September 20, 2009.
This lawsuit is the first of what is expected to be several cases filed against the City of Pittsburgh and other law enforcement agencies for their interference with and harassment of demonstrators during the G-20 Summit and International Coal Conference.
The suit names as defendants Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Director of Public Safety Michael Huss, Chief of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Nathan Harper and Assistant Chief William Bochter, Assistant Director of Pittsburgh City Parks Michael Radley, and as-yet-unidentified police officers who will be named later. It alleges the defendants repeatedly violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
"City officials must be held accountable for their blatantly unconstitutional actions during the G-20 in order to help ensure that it doesn't happen again," said University of Pittsburgh Law School Professor Jules Lobel, Vice President of Center for Constitutional Rights and one of the attorneys representing the groups.
In addition to the delay and denial of G-20 protest permits that led to September lawsuits in federal court, the suit details an extensive and well-coordinated effort led by the City of Pittsburgh to surveil, harass, intimidate and prevent the Seeds of Peace food bus and Three Rivers Climate Convergence from holding their climate and environmental-justice activities, including the repeated detainment of the Seeds of Peace bus by dozens of armed police officers and the late night confiscation of Three Rivers sustainability fair tents and materials from their permitted location in Schenley Park which effectively ended their ability to demonstrate.
"Rather than seek to strike the difficult but necessary balance in such a high profile event between safety concerns and free speech, the City of Pittsburgh choose instead to use an overwhelming amount of resources and personnel to unconstitutionally harass and stifle dissent, including this group of peaceful activists whose sole mission was to support other activists by providing healthy home-cooked meals during their stay in Pittsburgh," said Glen Downey of Healey & Hornack, P.C., another of the groups' attorneys.
The lawsuit filed on Friday seeks the declaration that Seeds of Peace and Three Rivers Climate Convergence's constitutional rights were violated as well as other compensatory and punitive damages.
Seeds of Peace is a Montana-based, non-profit-cooperative that has attended demonstrations and supported various communities and groups working on the front lines of social change by providing them food, water, and planning assistance. Their vegetable oil and solar powered bus intended to model sustainable practices and support Three Rivers Climate Convergence and other activists in the form of food, water and planning during the International Coal Conference and G-20 Summit.
Three Rivers Climate Convergence is a partnership of Pittsburgh-area groups and individuals, working other regional and national organizations to create meaningful action on climate change, advocate for environmental justice and demonstrate truly sustainable living. The group planned an international convergence of activists and educators to create an educational and participatory climate camp and to mobilize around the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit and the International Coal Conference.
The case is Seeds of Peace Collective, et al. v. City of Pittsburgh, et al. Seeds of Peace and Three Rivers Climate Convergence are represented by Walczak and Sara Rose of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; Lobel; Downey and Michael Healey of Healey & Hornack, P.C.; and Jon Pushinsky. A copy of the amended complaint can be found at: aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/g20protestorsharassedbypol.htm
Group Illegally Barred From Putting Up Display Despite Meeting State Requirements
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
LITTLE ROCK, AR – The ACLU of Arkansas filed a federal lawsuit today charging Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels with violating the free speech rights of The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers by barring them from erecting a temporary Winter Solstice display on the grounds of the state Capitol. An application by the Freethinkers to erect a display was rejected despite the fact that the proposed display meets the requirements of the state capitol display policy and despite the presence of another display on the grounds.
The ACLU lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to order Daniels to grant the Freethinkers permission to put up their display.
In 1993 the Arkansas Secretary of State adopted a policy for "Temporary Displays on State Capitol Grounds." The policy set up a system whereby any person or group could put up a temporary display by meeting certain requirements, including sturdiness and non-interference with pedestrian traffic. The Freethinkers' proposed display met the guidelines of the policy, but was rejected.
"It's clear that the only reason the Freethinkers' application has been turned down is that the Secretary of State doesn't like the message of the display," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "The Secretary of State didn't have to allow anyone to put up a display on the Capitol grounds, but when the Office adopted the temporary display policy it set up a public forum where anyone with any message could install a display if they followed the policy."
The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers is a statewide non-profit organization in part dedicated to promoting education and awareness of Freethinkers, their history, activities and holidays. The group filed a written application to put up a display October 16, describing the meaning and history of the Winter Solstice holiday. The Secretary of State rejected the application in November, citing an Arkansas statute that provides authority to the state capitol police to maintain "proper order and decorum." On further inquiry, the Secretary of State's office asserted that the proposed display did not have the proper "tone." Later, the office added that a Winter Solstice display would not be consistent with the other displays and decorations at the Capitol.
According to court papers filed by the ACLU, the only other temporary display on state capitol grounds is "a crèche with a wood exterior and nativity figures carved out of wood. The display is not decorated with lights or ornamentation of any kind and is devoid of a festive tone."
When the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the file on the 16-year-old policy for the past 10 years, the only documents provided were the applications filed the past two years by the Freethinkers, the denials of these applications and the policy listing the requirements that must be met in order to erect a temporary display. There were no applications or permits related to the other display.
ACLU attorneys met with representatives of the Secretary of State's office to request clarification of the reasons the Freethinkers' display was turned down, and to ask how the other display was put up every year without any apparent documentation. When they received no answer, the ACLU lawyers informed Secretary of State officials that denying the Freethinkers permission to erect their display was unconstitutional and that litigation was likely.
"Our goal is to be included in the holiday season, which we think is big enough to accommodate everyone," said Bill Parker, an Arkansas Society of Freethinkers officer. "All we want is to be treated fairly, and have the same access to express ourselves on public grounds that other groups have."
The Winter Solstice celebration is an ancient tradition that is celebrated around the time of the winter solstice, December 21. Some Freethinkers celebrate it annually from approximately November 15 to January 5. The Society of Freethinkers asserts that the purpose of the Winter Solstice display is to express some of the members' beliefs and to educate the public about the Winter Solstice and Freethinkers.
In court papers the ACLU says that the Secretary of State is preventing the Freethinkers Society "from exercising its First Amendment rights," and that they "suffer, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm" if the society is "not permitted to install its display on the state capitol grounds as soon as possible."
The ACLU complaint further states that the Secretary of State's action "violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it conditions access to the designated public forum" on his "personal acceptance of content and viewpoint […of…] constitutionally protected speech."
Pictures of the Freethinkers display can be seen at: wintersolsticedisplay.info
