FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

ANCHORAGE, AK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm Perkins Coie appeared in Alaska Superior Court yesterday seeking to allow transgender individuals to correct the sex marker on their driver’s licenses. Refusing to change the sex marker on a driver’s license or requiring surgery prior to a change places an undue burden on transgender individuals and presents a gross violation of an individual’s right to privacy and equality.

The ACLU is representing a transgender woman, K.L., whose passport and work documents all identify her as a female. K.L., who is openly transgender but wishes to remain anonymous for the purposes of this case, changed the sex on her driver’s license but was told that her license would be revoked unless she submitted proof of having surgery.

“This case is about protecting the privacy of all Alaskans,” said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska. “The Department of Motor Vehicles has a responsibility to keep our roads safe. It is not their place to dictate medical requirements to any Alaskan or to treat one group of Alaskans differently from any others.”

“We hope that this court will recognize how humiliating and harmful it is for transgender people who are forced to carry a license that wrongly identifies their sex,” said John Knight, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “The DMV’s policy of refusing to change the sex designation on a driver’s license violates our client’s interests in keeping her transgender status private, in living her life as a woman and in being treated fairly compared to other people who are free to make corrections to their driver’s licenses.”

More information on the case is available at: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/kl-v-state-alaska-department-administration-div...

 

ACLU Hails Landmark Decision and Urges Efforts in Other States to Ensure Success on Appeal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO ¬– A federal appeals court today issued a historic decision upholding a lower court ruling that Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that excluded same-sex couples from marriage in the state, violates the U.S. Constitution.

The decision, unless appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will clear the way for same-sex couples in California to marry once again. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case supporting the argument that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

“This is a wonderful victory not only for same-sex couples, but for everyone who values fairness and dignity for all families,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons others do – to make a solemn commitment to their partners and to protect their families. It’s cruel for any state to bar them from marriage, and today’s decision confirms that it’s unconstitutional as well.”

Since the Proposition 8 case was filed in 2009, an increasing number of states have embraced protections for same-sex relationships, and a majority of the American public has come to support the freedom to marry. Currently, six states plus Washington, D.C. allow same-sex couples to marry, three other states recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed elsewhere, nine states have full domestic partnerships or civil unions and three more states have more limited domestic partnership registries.

“The best thing we can do to support this case is to continue working for greater protections for LGBT families in as many additional states as possible,” said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney for the LGBT Project at the ACLU of Northern California. “We’ll celebrate this ruling, and then put that momentum toward important battles we’re facing this year.”

The ACLU is working in coalition with other organizations to secure the freedom to marry across the country, including passing marriage bills in Maryland and Washington state, passing a voter initiative in Maine that would allow same-sex couples to marry and defeating proposed anti-marriage amendments in Minnesota and North Carolina. The ACLU is also seeking domestic partnership protections in Montana, Missouri and Alaska.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Indianapolis – A student wishing to express his support for breast cancer awareness will take on his school corporation in a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

The minor child, “L.G.,” is a student at Roosevelt Middle School, which is part of the Twin Lakes School Corporation in Monticello, Ind. In early January, school officials instructed the student to turn inside-out a silicone bracelet that contains the message “I ♥ BOOBIES” as well as the ribbon symbol for breast cancer awareness, and at that time informed the student he could be expelled if he continued to wear the bracelet to school.

The student wore the “I Heart BOOBIES” bracelet to assist with breaking down the barriers that make it difficult for young people to talk about breast cancer. The bracelets help support the work of the Carol M. Baldwin Breast Cancer Research Fund. Carol Baldwin is the mother of the Baldwin brothers, generally known as Hollywood actors and activists. The bracelets are popular among students at Roosevelt Middle School, and have not disrupted the educational environment.

“Decades ago the Supreme Court stressed that students do not shed their First Amendment rights when they enter school buildings,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, who is representing L.G.

“The bracelet did not disrupt the educational environment, and the speech here, designed to assist in the fight against breast cancer, is not profane, indecent, lewd, vulgar, or offensive to school purposes, and is therefore protected speech under the First Amendment,” added Falk.

The case, L.G., a minor child, by his father and next friend, Jeremy Glander, v. Twin Lakes School Corporation; Superintendent, Twin Lakes School Corporation was filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Indiana Lafayette Division under cause number 4:12-cv-00004-RLM-APR.

ACLU Video Highlights Three Jurors Who Say Racial Justice Act Needed to Prevent Discrimination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

FAYETEVILLE, N.C. – North Carolinians who say they were wrongfully struck from juries in capital cases because of their race are speaking out today in a new video produced by the American Civil Liberties Union documenting their experiences.

The video, which features three African Americans who say they were struck from capital juries by prosecutors simply because of the color of their skin, is being released in conjunction with the first hearing under North Carolina's historic Racial Justice Act. Marcus Robinson is asking that his death sentence be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Potential African American jurors in Robinson’s case were struck from his jury at a rate 3.5 times higher than other potential jurors.

“It made me feel like I was back in 1960, that racism is still very much alive,” Laverne Keys, who was excluded in the 1999 case State v. Jathiyah Al-Bayyinah, says in the video. “It makes you wonder whether all these people are being given a fair trial or given a fair consequence so far as the death penalty.”

The Racial Justice Act allows death-row prisoners like Robinson a hearing in which they can present statistics and other evidence showing that death sentences state- and county-wide were tainted by racism, and that their death sentence should be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A recent Michigan State University study shows that state prosecutors are significantly more likely to eliminate potential African-American jurors and that defendants are more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death if the victim is white than if the victim is black.

“The stories presented in this video make clear that the death penalty system in North Carolina and across the nation is plagued by discrimination,” said Denny LeBoeuf, director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. “The Racial Justice Act is a crucial means of ensuring that no one is wrongfully executed because of racial bias.”

Cassandra Stubbs, staff attorney with the Capital Punishment Project, is part of the legal team representing Robinson.

One of 34 states to maintain the death penalty, North Carolina has the nation’s sixth-largest death row population, more than half of whom is African-American. Thirty-one people on North Carolina’s death row were sentenced by all-white juries.

The video highlighting the experiences of three African-Americans struck from capital juries in North Carolina is available at:
www.aclu.org/capital-punishment-racial-justice/african-americans-exclude...

A New York Police Department document recommended targeting dozens of Shiite Muslim mosques from Pennsylvania to Connecticut for surveillance in a search for possible Iranian terrorists, though no evidence of such a threat existed.  The recommendation to target groups based solely on their religion, and previous reports of NYPD infiltration and surveillance of mosques with assistance from the CIA, violate NYPD and FBI guidelines, and constitutional rights to freedom of religion. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/nypd-document-gather-inte_n_1250386.html

To See the NYPD document: http://bit.ly/wYrAUX

Join us for the first stop of a national tour to address the issue of prosecutorial oversight in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Connick v. Thompson, which granted prosecutors almost complete immunity for their intentional misconduct. Panelists from all aspects of the criminal justice system will discuss systemic and legal approaches for reducing prosecutorial error and misconduct.

Monday, February 6, 2012
6 to 8:30 PM
Jacob Burns Moot Court Room
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Speakers include:
Maddy deLone, Executive Director of the Innocence Project, who will moderate the panel; 
John Thompson, whose $14 million civil award for the prosecutorial misconduct that caused him to spend 14 years on death row was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, Founder and Director of Resurrection After Exoneration and Voices of Innocence;  
Ellen Yaroshefsky, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law at Cardozo School of Law;
Hon. Richard Buchter, New York Supreme Court Judge and former Queens Assistant District Attorney;  
Hon. Elisa Koenderman, New York Supreme Court Judge and former Bronx Assistant District Attorney; 
Sarah Jo Hamilton, Principal at Scalise & Hamilton, LLP, and a former trial counsel and first deputy chief counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for New York’s First Judicial Department; and 
Ross E. Firsenbaum and Shauna Friedman,  Senior Associates at Wilmer Hale, who represented Arthur Ashe Courage Award Winner Dewey Bozella, who was wrongly convicted of murder due to police and prosecutorial misconduct and was exonerated after serving 26 years in New York prisons.

Light refreshments will be served following the panel discussion. More info here.

Seating is limited.  Pease RSVP by February 1 to info@prosecutorialoversight.org.

Florida Law Limits Donations by Minors to $100 but Adults And Corporations Can Donate up to $500 per Election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

MIAMI – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLUFL) today filed a legal challenge on behalf of Julie Towbin, a 17-year-old resident of Boca Raton, challenging Florida’s law limiting political contributions by minors because the law limits the Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Current Florida law (statute 106.08(1)(b)(2)) limits donations made by minors to state and local candidates to $100 per candidate per election while adults and corporations may contribute up to $500 per candidate per election.

“The law goes overboard by restricting my ability to access the political process, effectively support candidates for office and express my views as others do.” Towbin said. “The state is violating a right guaranteed to me by the First Amendment – the right to engage in political speech.”

Towbin is a high school senior who, in addition to earning money from a job as cashier in a restaurant, earned more than $7,000 as a Congressional House Page in 2011. She keeps her funds in a bank account in her name. She is registered to vote and plans to cast her first ballot in the November 2012 elections.

In September, 2011, Towbin was interested in attending a fundraising dinner for the Palm Beach County Democratic Executive Committee, of which she is a member. But she was told that purchasing a regular $150 ticket to the dinner may be a violation of the $100 limit on contributions by minors.

Because of her concerns about violating the law by purchasing a ticket to the fundraiser and making contributions to local candidates in 2012, Towbin wrote the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, the Palm Beach County State Attorney, the State Attorney General and to the Florida Elections Commission which would be responsible for hearing potential violations and issuing penalties such as criminal referrals for prosecution and fines. Receiving no assurances that buying the ticket would not result in legal penalties, Towbin did not attend the fundraiser and has not made any campaign contributions over $100.

“It’s clear that this Florida law limits a citizen’s access to political discourse based solely on age,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “The right to speak politically as well as hear political debate is clearly protected and our laws should encourage everyone – especially young people – to engage with democracy instead of cutting people off from the process.”

The statutory age limit restriction applies only to Florida and local candidates. Under federal election rules, even though she is a minor, Towbin may contribute up to $2,500 – the same amount allowed for adults – to candidates for federal office such as President or Congress.

“The Constitution does not allow the state to treat speech differently based on who is doing the speaking,” said James K. Green, cooperating attorney in the case. “If the state has a need to limit contributions to a set amount – in this case $500 – the amount needs to be the same for everyone without exception.”

The suit was filed today in the Southern District of United States Court in West Palm Beach and asks the Court to declare Florida’s law unconstitutional as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The suit also seeks an order blocking the state from enforcing the age limit restriction on supporting candidates.

“Florida law gives more speech and political participation rights to corporations and political action committees than seventeen year olds who will vote this year,” Towbin said. “More than being unconstitutional, the law institutionalizes apathy among young people – it says your voice is worth one-fifth of someone else’s.”

A copy of the complaint filed today is available here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2012-01-26-TwobinComplaint.pdf
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

A former student who endured severe and persistent harassment throughout junior high and high school has gained a major settlement from the Aberdeen School District, the ACLU of Washington announced today. The ACLU has represented Russell Dickerson III in a lawsuit saying that school district officials were aware of the harassment but failed to take steps reasonably calculated to end it. Under terms of the settlement, Dickerson will receive $100,000 from the district. Additionally, the ACLU will receive $35,000 in legal fees.

“Public school officials must be held accountable when they fail to meet their responsibility to act decisively when a student is subjected to harassment by his peers. This settlement sends a message to school districts statewide to take strong action as soon as they learn that a student is being bullied,” said Sarah Dunne, ACLU-WA legal director.

“I learned from my parents that you should never give up. You should fight for your rights – you don’t just walk away,” said Dickerson.

Russell Dickerson III, now 20, is an African-American resident of Aberdeen. For six years, from 2003 when he entered junior high until 2009 when he graduated high school, other students harassed Dickerson on the basis of his race, sex, and perceived sexual orientation.

At Miller Junior High, Dickerson was called names by other students and found notes in his backpack and taped to his back calling him “stupid nigger” and “dog.” Students tripped him in the hallways and threw food at him in the cafeteria. In one incident, three students pushed him to the floor in the hallway and smashed a raw egg on his head; only one of the students was disciplined.

At Aberdeen High School, the harassment escalated, with Dickerson subjected to a continuing barrage of viciously derogatory insults about his race, physical appearance, and suspected sexual orientation. Dickerson suffered physical harassment, with other students pinching and fondling his chest, spitting on his head, and throwing objects at him. Although an assistant principal discouraged Dickerson from reporting misconduct by the student’s peers, the student and his parents repeatedly reported incidents of harassment to district administrators, both verbally and in writing. Yet the district failed to take adequate steps to end the harassment.

In 2007 students in the district created a website mocking Dickerson and his perceived sexual orientation, and posted threatening racist comments on it. Students discussed the website at school. Grays Harbor Superior Court issued a no contact order between Dickerson and one of his harassers who had threatened on the website to lynch him, yet Dickerson became the target of retaliatory harassment after reporting the website to school authorities.

The school district’s failure to act created a hostile educational environment for the student. His academic progress was hindered, he was isolated at school, he felt discouraged from using his locker, and he avoided extra-curricular activities that put him in contact with his peers. Further, the student suffered extreme emotional distress, including an inability to concentrate on studies, serious depression, despair, and anxiety.

Filed in December 2010 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, the lawsuit said that the deliberate indifference to ongoing harassment by the school district, which receives federal funds, violated federal law – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The district’s negligent inaction also violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys Michael Scott, Joseph Sakay, and Alexander Wu of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. and ACLU-WA staff attorneys Sarah Dunne and Rose Spidell represented Dickerson.