FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee met today to resume markup of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). The following statement can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office:

"Today's markup session was proof positive that the tide is turning away from anti-immigrant sentiment toward a future where we recognize the contributions of all who live in this great nation."

These amendments that strengthen civil liberties protections in the bill passed unanimously:

• Blumenthal 2 – Solitary Confinement
  Solitary confinement means physical and social isolation for 22 to 24 hours a day with little or no human contact – generally in a small cell with a solid steel door, a bunk, a toilet and a sink. This amendment is critical because it provides a broad framework for when it can be used to house immigration detainees, places presumptive limits on the use of such confinement in non-disciplinary settings, and requires the DHS Secretary to develop effective oversight mechanisms.
• Blumenthal 8 – Immigration Raids in Sensitive Locations
  Restricts ICE and CBP from conducting raids in "sensitive locations" – hospitals, schools, and places of worship – unless they have prior approval or there is an emergency. This amendment is an overdue response to the fears and experiences of many communities who cannot access critical services for themselves and their kids – many of whom are U.S. citizens – because of harassment, intimidation and the threat of arrest by immigration agents.
• Coons 5 – Right to See Documents
  This amendment would ensure that every noncitizen in removal proceedings has easy access to their immigration files. This is essential, as it could lead to a person finding out that they have lawful status or that they are eligible for relief from removal.
• Coons 6 – Assisting Congress Assess Costs of Detention
  Requires that each agency involved with immigration detainees make data available across agencies so that these agencies, Congress, and advocates can track how long a person is detained, under what authority, and at what cost.

Amendments that would have weakened the bill failed:

• Grassley 43 – Guilt by Association
  This amendment would have allowed an individual to be deported based solely on purported association with a street gang rather than an individual person’s culpable conduct. It would have allowed a determination that someone is a member of a street gang without a specific burden of proof. This would have disproportionately affected youth of color and increased racial profiling.

Unfortunately, some problematic amendments did pass:

• Grassley 44, Lee 16, and Lee 17 – Excluding People from Road to Citizenship
  These amendments taken together unnecessarily impose harsher bars to legalization for immigrants even though the base bill already bars immigrants from applying for legalization status if they have been convicted of most felony offenses, or three misdemeanor offenses. The base bill strikes the right balance on criminal enforcement, makes important reforms, and these excessive amendments will divert scarce federal resources away from the real criminals and toward draconian punishments on individuals.

Decision Declares Arizona Has No Rational Basis for Policy Which Violates Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Under Federal Law

May 16, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – A federal district court today said that the state of Arizona has no rational basis under the law to deny drivers’ licenses to young immigrants authorized to live and work in the United States under the federal government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but it stopped short of granting a preliminary injunction against the policy, issued last year in an executive order by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  These young immigrants, who arrived in the U.S. before aged 16 are known as DREAMers. The order was challenged by a coalition of civil rights groups on behalf of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, an immigrant youth-led organization, and five individual immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

“This is an important ruling for Arizona’s DREAMers, and everyone who seeks justice, but we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision not to immediately block this harmful policy," said Jenny Chang Newell with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. “It keeps young immigrants from contributing to their communities, to the state and to the nation. We intend to vigorously pursue justice for our plaintiffs so that this policy is blocked as soon as possible."

“Every day of our lives, we’re helping our families, the businesses in our communities, and working to take our place as teachers, scientists, and professionals in Arizona,” said Dulce Matuz, Director of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “To be successful, we need drivers’ licenses. They have become a necessity in life.”

The civil rights coalition argued that Arizona’s driver’s license policy is unconstitutional because it unfairly singles out young immigrants granted deferred action under DACA, when Arizona’s policy allows all other immigrants granted deferred action and a work permit to apply for licenses. DREAMers are young immigrants who came here before they were sixteen years of age and graduated from a U.S. high school.

“Although we’re disappointed by the court’s refusal to immediately block this discriminatory order, we will continue to pursue this important fight until all DREAMers are treated with dignity and respect,” said Alessandra Soler, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona.  “At a time when the majority of Americans support fair and inclusive immigration policies, Arizona continues to stand out as an outlier by treating these young, hard-working immigrants differently because of who they are. We are confident that in the end the courts will side with DREAMers and uphold equality.”

An estimated 80,000 youth in Arizona, and 1.76 million nationwide, are eligible for the DACA program.

"This decision not to block the policy hurts not just Arizona's DREAMers, but Arizona's communities and economy as well. We will not give up the fight against Arizona's discriminatory policy against its own youth,” said Karen Tumlin, Managing Attorney for the National Immigration Law Center.

While the DACA program helps provide a lifeline for many immigrant youth who have been living in the United States in fear because of their immigration status, it does not negate the need for Congress to enact federal legislation that provides a roadmap to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people, including young people who came here as children commonly known as DREAMers, who are seeking to integrate fully in to American life.

In addition to the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center, and MALDEF, the legal team includes the Phoenix office of Polsinelli Shughart, P.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

AUGUSTA, Maine – The Judiciary Committee today voted "ought not to pass" on three anti-choice bills that could make it harder for Maine women to access the health care they need. Maine law already requires informed consent for abortion, requires that minors involve a parent, family member or licensed counselor when seeking an abortion, and provides civil damages to a woman who suffers harm during a pregnancy.

LD 760 would require doctors to tell women unnecessary, coercive information before they could obtain an abortion. LD 1339 would repeal Maine’s successful adult involvement law and replace it with strict parental consent. And LD 1193 seeks to convey legal status to a fetus, including granting the fetus legal rights to “heirs and an estate.”

The ACLU of Maine applauded the committee's rejection of the bills. The following can be attributed to Shenna Bellows, executive director of the ACLU of Maine:

"We applaud the committee for standing up for women's health and rejecting these three bad bills, which are very clearly aimed at chipping away at abortion rights. Maine law already recognizes that women take the decision about whether to have an abortion very seriously. The government should not be placing added burdens and pressures on women as they make these difficult and personal decisions."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON — The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 should apply to all defendants, including those sentenced prior to its passage, according to a decision issued by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals today. The FSA reduced the sentencing disparity between offenses for crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1.

"This decision could make a real difference in the lives of men and women currently serving needlessly cruel and very long mandatory minimum sentences for what are often low-level, non-violent drug offenses," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. "The Fair Sentencing Act and its retroactive application are important steps toward ending our country's misguided, ineffective, and harmful war on drugs. However, while we are celebrating this landmark decision for racial justice, we must not lose sight of our ultimate goal to remove all disparities between crack and powder cocaine sentencing."

In its decision, the court described old crack sentencing laws as "racially discriminatory" and argued that continuing to apply them to defendants violates the Equal Protection Clause. Heightened penalties for crack cocaine were adopted decades ago, based on assumptions about crack that are now known to be false. The single feature that most distinguishes a crack cocaine arrestee from a powder cocaine arrestee is skin color. Crack arrestees are far more likely to be Black than white, even though the majority of crack users are white.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Center for Reproductive Rights appeared in court today to ask a federal judge to prevent an Arkansas law that would ban abortion care starting at 12 weeks of pregnancy from taking effect. 

"We have asked the court to stop this dangerous law from going into effect," said Holly Dickson, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "This law is aimed at allowing politicians to insert themselves into deeply personal and private medical care and decisions for which they should have no say."

The law was passed in March when the Arkansas legislature overrode Gov. Mike Beebe's veto. The ban is set to take effect on Aug. 16. 

"This law is an extreme example of how lawmakers around the country are trying to limit a woman's ability to make the best decision for herself and her family," said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Far from safeguarding women's health, these laws are designed with one purpose – to eliminate all access to abortion care."

Bill Would Severely Limit Abortion Access for Many N.C. Women, as Well As Violate Religious Liberty

May 16, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

RALEIGH, N.C. – The North Carolina House of Representatives today approved a sweeping bill that would restrict access to abortion care for many women in North Carolina. H.B. 730 would allow public hospital employees to refuse to participate in abortion care if they object to such practices on religious or moral grounds, prohibit local governments from offering health plans that include abortion coverage to employees, and prohibit health care plans offered through the exchange under the Affordable Care Act from offering coverage for elective abortion procedures. The bill now heads to the Senate.

In response, the ACLU of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) released the following statement:

“This bill is just the latest example of politicians trying to take away women’s ability to make their own personal medical decisions,” said Sarah Preston, ACLU-NC Policy Director. “The provisions dealing with so-called ‘conscious’ protections turn the entire definition of religious liberty on its head. True religious liberty means that every individual has the right to make deeply personal decisions – including medical decisions – for themselves, based on their own beliefs. It does not mean that politicians or hospital workers get to force their own views on women by restricting their options on matters as personal and critical as reproductive health care. We urge the Senate to reject H.B. 730.”

HB 730 Would Allow Public Hospital Employees to Refuse Abortion Care and Private Employers to Refuse Contraception Coverage for Women Because of Religious Beliefs

May 15, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

RALEIGH, N.C. – A bill that would allow public hospital employees to refuse to participate in abortion care and private employers to deny contraception coverage to women because of their personal religious beliefs was approved by North Carolina House Judiciary Committee A today. House Bill 730 now heads to the full House for a vote.

In response, the ACLU of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) released the following statement:

“This bill would undermine a woman’s ability to make personal medical decisions and is the opposite of religious liberty,” said Sarah Preston, ACLU-NC Policy Director. “Politicians, employers, and hospital workers should not be allowed to force their personal religious views on women of different beliefs by making it harder for them to receive comprehensive and sometimes life-saving health care. We urge lawmakers to stand up for women and their right to make their own personal medical decisions by opposing House Bill 730.”

Read more about the ACLU’s opposition to H.B. 730 here.

Bills Threaten Women's Health and Well-Being

May 16, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

AUGUSTA, Maine – Health care providers and women’s health advocates today called on legislators to reject three dangerous anti-choice bills that could jeopardize the ability of women to get the care they need. The Judiciary Committee will hear public testimony on all three bills today.

“Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but they are not entitled to use the government to impose their beliefs on others,” said Shenna Bellows, executive director of the ACLU of Maine. “All three of these bills are aimed at imposing added burdens and pressures on women and chipping away at their constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.”

LD 760 would require doctors to tell women additional, unnecessary information before they could obtain an abortion.

“This bill would force doctors to tell women unnecessary, coercive information designed to change their minds about whether to end a pregnancy – regardless of whether the patient wants the information or the doctor wants to give it,” said Megan Hannan, director of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. “Maine law already ensures that women receive the information they need to make informed decisions. The sole intent of this bill is to shame, judge and confuse women.”

LD 1339 would repeal Maine’s successful adult involvement law and replace it with a law requiring physicians to obtain signed consent from a minor’s parent before she can obtain an abortion.

“We hope every young woman can involve her parents in such a serious decision, but there are times when that is simply not possible. These exceptions are often very complicated, and trying to address them with a one-size-fits-all law could have tragic results,” said Ruth Lockhart, executive director of the Mabel Wadsworth Women’s Health Center.  “This bill isn’t going to make it easier for girls who can’t talk to their parents to start doing so. It will only make it harder for our most vulnerable teenagers to get the care they need.”

The third bill, LD 1193, seeks to convey legal status to a fetus, including granting the fetus legal rights to “heirs and an estate.”

“This bill represents a threat to the ability of pregnant women to make decisions about their lives and their pregnancies, and a threat to the availability of health care services for pregnant women in Maine,” said Kate Brogan, vice president for public affairs at the Family Planning Association of Maine. “A pregnant woman and her fetus should never be considered as separate, independent or even adversarial entities. Government has no place interfering with these private medical decisions.”

Members of the Maine Choice Coalition and other advocates for women’s health, reproductive rights and privacy will urge legislators to reject LDs 760, 1339 and 1193 at a hearing in the Judiciary Committee today.