Tag: aclu

ACLU Files Motion to Have Even More Male Convicts Moved to Women’s Prison After Securing Transfer of 4 Trans-Identified Male Killers and Sex Offenders

At least four trans-identified male convicts were transferred into an Illinois women’s prison after being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Now, the ACLU is requesting that the court issue an order prohibiting those men from being transferred to Menard Correctional Center, the state’s largest maximum security male facility, and demanding that an additional group of men in Menard be offered a transfer to a women’s prison.

For nearly a decade, the Illinois ACLU has acted as legal counsel on behalf of a group of male criminals who claim to be transgender, of whom at least four have been confirmed by Reduxx to be currently housed at Logan Correctional Center – a women’s facility.

In January 2018, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit against Department of Corrections (DOC) officials on behalf of six male inmates requesting a transfer to a women’s prison. In legal documents, all of the men were identified by a feminine alias: Andre C. Patterson, or “Janiah Monroe”; Eric D. Padilla, or “Lydia Helena Vision”; Diego R. Melendez, or “Marilyn”; Jordan Kuykendall, or “Sora”; Fadell Reed, or “Sasha”; and Gregory Stamps, or “Ebony.”

The initial suit, Monroe v. Rauner, accused then-mayor Bruce Rauner and DOC Director John Baldwin of “cruel and unusual punishment,” an eighth amendment violation, for not providing the convicted criminals with feminizing hormones.

The complaint argues that “the IDOC systematically fails to provide necessary medical treatment for gender dysphoria… Among other common and medically necessary treatments, IDOC routinely fails to provide adequate hormone therapy and to accommodate social transition so that a prisoner can live consistently with his or her gender identity.”

It continues: “And while gender affirming [genital] surgery also is medically necessary for some patients with gender dysphoria, IDOC has adopted a policy that such surgery can be approved only in ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ which in practice means that IDOC never has approved any prisoner for surgical gender dysphoria treatment.”

The suit has been ongoing for the past eight years. Earlier this year, the ACLU filed a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the DOC from ever transferring Padilla, Patterson, Kuykendall, Melendez, or Reed from being transferred to male prison Menard.

Keep reading

A D.C. Man Was Arrested for Mocking National Guard Troops with Star Wars’ ‘Imperial March.’ Now He’s Suing.

A Washington, D.C., resident who was handcuffed and detained in September for mocking National Guard soldiers by playing “The Imperial March” from Star Wars on his cellphone is suing the soldiers and police officers for their stormtrooper-like behavior.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of D.C. filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of Sam O’Hara, arguing that his detention violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights by cutting off his peaceful protest.

“The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” O’Hara’s lawsuit states. “But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests, and the Fourth Amendment (along with the District’s prohibition on false arrest) bars groundless seizures.”

After President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to D.C., O’Hara began following National Guard soldiers around playing “The Imperial March” on his cell phone as a form of protest. His lawsuit says O’Hara wanted “to encourage the public to view the deployment as a waste of tax dollars, a needless display of force, and a surreal danger.”

According to his lawsuit, on September 11, O’Hara was tailing four Ohio National Guard soldiers and doing his usual bit. 

“Less than two minutes after the protest began,” the lawsuit says, “Sgt. [Devon] Beck turned around and said, ‘Hey man, if you’re going to keep following us, we can contact Metro PD and they can come handle you if that’s what you want to do. Is that what you want to do?'”

O’Hara allegedly did not respond but continued to follow, at which point the Empire decided to strike back. 

Beck called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit claims that shortly after several MPD cars arrived. The MPD officers allegedly accused O’Hara of harassing the soldiers, and they detained and handcuffed him.

When O’Hara argued that he was engaged in protest, one of the MPD officers allegedly responded, “That’s not a protest. You better define protest. This isn’t a protest. You are not protesting.”

However, recording and mocking law enforcement are both firmly protected by the First Amendment, as long as one doesn’t interfere with their duties.

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in 1987, in a ruling striking down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer, that “the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

To put it another way, if you act like an autocratic villain when someone compares you to an autocratic villain, you just might be an autocratic villain.

Keep reading

ACLU distributes mailer clearly favoring Dem Jay Jones in Virginia AG race despite policy of not endorsing candidates

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently paid for and distributed a left-wing mailer in Virginia regarding the state attorney general race, using language that clearly favors Jones as the candidate, despite the organization having a policy against endorsing or opposing political candidates as a nonprofit organization.

The mailer, which was delivered to multiple locations in Virginia, stated, “The ACLU does not endorse or oppose candidates, but we do want voters to make an informed choice” under a table showing the positions of Jones on Miyares on the topics of abortion, voting rights, federal funding, and Medicaid.

Although the flyer did not explicitly endorse Jones, the ACLU provided multiple direct quotes from the Democrat, who was recently revealed to have wished for the death of GOP politician Todd Gilbert as well as his children. In the portion dedicated to Miyares, no quotes from the GOP politician were cited and the ACLU used left-wing phrasing such as that Miyares wanted to “take away the federal constitutional right to abortion” and painted the AG candidate in a negative light. 

On federal funding cuts, the ACLU characterized Miyares negatively, saying that the Virginia AG did not join a wave of left-wing Attorneys General who “challenged federal layoffs that gutted civil rights enforcement and impacted thousands of Virginians.”

Conversely, the ACLU pulled a direct quote from Jones, which was not only a talking point in favor of Jones, but also an attack on Miyares. “While our current AG enables Trump’s attacks on our workforce, I promise to use every tool to protect Virginia federal workers,” the ACLU cited as Jones’ position on federal funding.  

One individual reported getting the mailer in Virginia, and posted a video to X, shredding the flyer with the caption, “The only thing to do with the ACLU’s pro Jay Jones mailers.”

Keep reading

ACLU loses last-ditch effort to stop SCOTUS from evaluating state bans on males in girls’ sports

When the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Idaho and West Virginia can ban males from girls’ sports, two weeks after upholding Tennessee’s ban on medicalized gender transitions for minors, the transgender track athlete who defeated Idaho at trial and appeals courts got cold feet and tried to stop SCOTUS from hearing Idaho’s part of the case.

Lindsay Hecox, who is male, decided to “cease playing women’s sports in any context covered by H.B. 500” and dismissed the suit with prejudice so it cannot be filed again, claiming that continuing the litigation through SCOTUS will threaten Hecox’s “mental health, my safety, and my ability to graduate as soon as possible.”

U.S. District Judge David Nye, whose injunction against Idaho’s law as applied to Hecox was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, doesn’t think the ACLU-represented athlete is playing it straight.

The President Trump nominee, who saved Hecox’s challenge three years ago when the 9th Circuit questioned whether the lapsed athlete would resume competing and thus maintain legal standing to sue Idaho, interpreted Hecox’s late-breaking about-face as “somewhat manipulative to avoid Supreme Court review” and ruled it “should not be endorsed.”

Nye granted Idaho’s motion to strike Hecox’s notice of voluntary dismissal, in the latest setback for the ACLU’s quest to preempt state laws that favor sex over gender identity, through federal regulation and the federal courts, while keeping SCOTUS from hearing close cases.

Federal courts including President Biden’s nominees blocked his administration’s Title IX regulation conflating sex and gender identity as his lone term closed, leaving the first Trump administration’s sex-based Title IX regulation in place. Second-term President Trump’s executive orders against gender ideology left SCOTUS the ACLU’s last hope.

That hope was dashed in June when a 6-3 court rejected the ACLU’s argument, on behalf of transgender children’s families, that gender identity is a protected trait like sex and race in the context of Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery as treatment options for gender-confused youth.

Keep reading

‘Louisiana Lockup’ Detention Center Is Punishing Immigrants for the Same Crime Twice, New Lawsuit Says

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on Monday, accusing Louisiana’s new immigration detention center, “Louisiana Lockup,” and the Trump administration of indefinitely locking up immigrant detainees in the facility and punishing immigrants for the same crime twice, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Louisiana facility opened on September 3, using the blueprint forged by Florida’s Alligator Alcatraz. After Republican Gov. Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency in July to expedite repairs to a section of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana—a maximum-security prison notorious for violent and inhumane conditions—the state partnered with the Department of Homeland Security to add 416 immigrant detainee beds. 

“This facility is designed to hold the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” and is meant “to consolidate the most violent offenders into a single deportation and holding facility,” Landry said during a press conference on opening day. “Angola is the largest maximum-security prison in the country,” he continued, “with 18,000 acres bordered by the Mississippi River, swamps filled with alligators, and forests filled with bears.”

“If you don’t think that they belong somewhere like this,” Landry said, referring to the incoming immigrant detainees, “you got a problem.” 

But in the case of Oscar Amaya, a 34-year-old man who is currently detained at “Louisiana Lockup,” there may very well be a problem. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, argues that Amaya’s continued detention violates the Double Jeopardy Clause and is designed to punish him—again—for a prior conviction. 

Although immigration detention is a civil penalty, double jeopardy applies if the civil sanctions are applied punitively. As the complaint, reviewed by Reason, points out, the punitive nature of imprisonment in a place like Angola is no secret. Rather, both Landry and Trump administration officials seem to relish in the facility’s violent past. “This is not just a typical [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ICE detention facility that you will see elsewhere in the country,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem proclaimed during the facility’s opening. “This is a facility that’s notorious.…Angola Prison is legendary.”

Amaya fled Honduran gang life in 2005 and worked in the United States “without incident” until 2016, according to the complaint. That year, he was arrested and later “convicted of attempted aggravated assault, possession of a weapon (knife) for unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon (knife).” Amaya was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, but was released after two years with good time credits. 

Keep reading

ACLU Sues ICE to Release Records of Detainment Facilities

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking to compel the agency to disclose records related to specific operations, according to the complaint filed on Oct. 1.

The lawsuit, filed jointly by the ACLU and its Virginia and North Carolina affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, concerns the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

According to the lawsuit, ICE issued a request for information (RFI) on May 28, seeking information on available detention facilities capable of housing single adult populations to support the agency’s Washington field office.

An RFI is issued to gather information regarding services or products from suppliers. In this case, ICE wanted information on detection facilities. While ICE owns five detention facilities, it relies on private prison companies and other facilities to detain a majority of people in its custody, the lawsuit states.

On Aug. 8, plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to ICE, asking for records of responses to the agency’s RFI.

“[The FOIA] was enacted to facilitate public access to government documents,” the lawsuit reads.

Keep reading

Army surveillance balloons spotted over Tucson raise privacy concerns from advocates

The U.S. Army and a private company are flying high-altitude surveillance balloons over the Tucson area, raising concerns among privacy advocates. 

Multiple high-altitude balloons have been spotted over the Tucson and Sierra Vista area for more than a week, with one balloon in particular staying over the area longer than any of the others. That balloon, with the registration number N257TH, has made headlines in the past. 

The balloon is owned by South Dakota aerospace company Aerostar, and in 2023 was mistaken for a Chinese spy balloon. The balloon is actually part of Aerostar’s “Thunderhead” balloon system, which has been doing multiple tests with the military and other contractors across the nation and around the globe. 

“It is a technology that should not and constitutionally cannot be applied to the American people,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Arizona Mirror. “Even testing for eventual overseas use in legitimate combat theaters raises a lot of questions about what kind of data is being collected.”

Aerostar would not answer specific questions about what type of testing was being done. The company referred additional questions to the U.S. Department of Defense and the Army, neither of which responded to multiple requests for comment. 

Aerostar confirmed that the flights were not connected to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol or Department of Homeland Security programs, “however high-altitude balloons would be ideal for that type of mission,” Aerostar Culture and Communications Director Anastasia Quanbeck said in an email to the Mirror. 

“By leveraging directional wind patterns at high altitudes, Aerostar’s Thunderhead Balloon Systems offer groundbreaking capabilities for navigation and persistence over areas of interest,” she said. “Aerostar Thunderhead Balloon Systems are capable of supporting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions, as well as extending communications across wide distances, environmental monitoring, earth observation, and scientific research.” 

Quanbeck said she was not able to discuss the work the company does with the DOD or the Army. 

Keep reading

Trump Administration Must Give Some Venezuelans 21 Days Notice Before Deportations: Judge

The Trump administration must provide Venezuelans whom officials arrest for alleged links to the Tren de Aragua gang three weeks’ notice before removing them from the country, a federal judge ruled on April 22.

A temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney applies to all noncitizens in Colorado who were, are, or will be subject to President Donald Trump’s March proclamation declaring an invasion of the United States by the gang and directing the deportation of its members.

Government officials must under the order provide 21 days’ notice to the noncitizens advising them that the government intends to deport them, that they can hire an attorney, and that they have a right to seek judicial review.

The notice “must be written in a language the individual understands,” Sweeney wrote.

The judge also required the government not to remove any of the affected noncitizens from Colorado, until at least May 6. The restraining order may be extended by then, or turned into a preliminary injunction—a longer-term form of relief.

Sweeney sided with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing two Venezuelan nationals who were apprehended under Trump’s proclamation and said they feared being deported.

Keep reading

The Courts Are The Scofflaws Behind Our Current Constitutional Crisis

“Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.” 

Those thirteen words, penned by Justice Samuel Alito on Holy Saturday, represent the first admission by the judiciary that courts too can wrongly flout the law. 

Justice Alito’s stark acknowledgement concluded his bullet-point evisceration of the Supreme Court’s “unprecedented” command that President Trump not remove a “putative class of detainees” under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court had entered that order shortly after midnight after the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) filed an emergency application asking alternatively for an emergency injunction, an immediate administrative injunction, a writ of mandamus, or a stay of removal, to prevent the Trump Administration from removing Venezuelans to El Salvador pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act.

The ACLU’s scattershot request for relief from the Supreme Court came a mere two days after they sued the Trump Administration in a federal court in Texas — and before that court or the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had an opportunity to rule on the request for an injunction barring the removal of any more aliens to El Salvador. 

The ACLU filed the habeas corpus complaint on Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of two plaintiffs, identified merely as A.A.R.P. and W.M.M., but the ACLU also sought certification of a class defined as “[a]ll noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled ‘Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua’ and/or its implementation.”

Simultaneously, the ACLU filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the Trump Administration from removing any aliens under the presidential proclamation Trump signed on March 14, 2024. That proclamation provided that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

Keep reading

No Other Land Won an Oscar. Miami Beach’s Mayor Is Trying To Evict a Movie Theater for Screening It

The mayor of Miami Beach, Florida, is trying to terminate the lease of a movie theater for screening No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Miami Herald reported that Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner introduced a resolution to terminate the lease of O Cinema, an independent film theater that rents space from the city, and discontinue more than $60,000 in promised grant funding. The legislation comes after Meiner tried to pressure the theater to cancel the screening.

Florida civil rights groups and First Amendment experts say such government retaliation against the theater for the content of the films it chooses to screen would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

“Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow the government to discriminate based on viewpoint or to retaliate against anyone for their speech,” says Daniel Tilley, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. “Pulling funding from an independent, community-based cinema under these circumstances is patently unconstitutional. The government does not get to pick and choose which viewpoints the public is allowed to hear, however controversial some might find them.”

The Miami Beach mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

However, in a newsletter to Miami Beach residents earlier this week, Meiner wrote: “I am a staunch believer in free speech. But normalizing hate and then disseminating antisemitism in a facility owned by the taxpayers of Miami Beach, after O Cinema conceded the ‘concerns of antisemitic rhetoric,’ is unjust to the values of our city and residents and should not be tolerated.”

On March 5, Meiner sent O Cinema a letter on official city letterhead expressing outrage at the cinema’s decision to screen the film, which documents the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

“Here in Miami Beach, our City has adopted a strong policy of support for the State of Israel in its struggle to defend itself and its residents against attacks by the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah,” the letter read. “Airing performances of the one-sided, inaccurate film ‘No Other Land’ at a movie theater facility owned by the City and operated by O Cinema is disappointing.”

This is flagrant government jawboning—an attempt to use the mayor’s bully pulpit and the implicit threat of government action to cow the theater into self-censorship.

O Cinema initially complied.

“Due to the concerns of antisemitic rhetoric, we have decided to withdraw the film from our programming,” Vivian Marthell, CEO of O Cinema, wrote to Meiner the following day. “This film has exposed a rift which makes us unable to do the thing we’ve always sought out to do which is to foster thoughtful conversations about cinematic works.”

However, the theater then reversed course and told the Miami Herald it would continue the screenings after all.

Keep reading