News & Commentary

Columnist Leonard Pitts reflects on the current disregard of the Fourth Amendment and points to the recent unsuccessful attempt to sue the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency for unlawfully detaining a train passenger and confiscating his laptop. Pitts lists multiple areas where the Fourth Amendment is no longer enforced as a  protection  against warrantless government search and seizures, including the case of Pascal Abidor, who was represented by the ACLU and a number of other groups. A graduate student in Canada who holds dual U.S. and French citizenship, Abidor was pulled off a train at the Canadian border in 2010, cuffed, held for several hours and had his laptop confiscated for 11 days. Last month, Judge Edward Korman dismissed Abidor’s case, claiming that he, and his co-plaintiffs, had no standing because such searches are so rare travelers are not likely to be similarly victimized. Pitts’ list of other areas where the Fourth Amendment no longer has teeth includes:

The Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act which requires consent from all parties if a conversation is recorded, whether or not the conversation is private. The ACLU of Illinois filed amicus briefs on behalf of both of the criminal defendants whose cases were heard. In People v. Clark, the accused was representing himself in a civil proceeding, and recorded a court hearing and a brief conversation with the opposing lawyer, in order to advance his access to the courts. In People v. Melongo, the defendant recorded her phone conversations with a county court reporter and then posted the recordings online, in order to advance her claim of ineffective government services. Ms. Melongo was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months while awaiting the conclusion of her trial. In both of these cases, a trial judge held that people have the right to record these kinds of conversations. The prosecutors appealed these decisions to the state’s Supreme Court. The Courthouse News highlighted portions of the ACLU of Illinois’ brief in support of Ms. Melongo’s claim.

Nationally-renowned Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne decries the inequitable application of anti-marijuana laws and argues for decriminalizing the drug. Citing the ACLU’s 2013 report “The War on Marijuana in Black and White,” the column dismisses the premise that there are moral and social benefits to keeping marijuana an illegal drug. Dionne says the ACLU report should be the key document used in the now occurring legalization debates and he points to the ACLU findings that, though marijuana is used at about the same rates across racial lines, Blacks are arrested for procession 3.73 times more often than Whites.

The constitutionality of a River Forest ordinance limiting political signs on residential properties is being questioned by a village trustee. The local River Forest publication, Forest Leaves, reports that Trustee Thomas Cargie questions the legality of the ordinance which specifies that only one political sign, of specific dimensions, may be posted in a yard. When questioned on the issue, ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had stuck down a similar Missouri ordinance in 1994:

Continuing an argument that we saw throughout the debate over the freedom to marry, a defiant wedding purveyor vows to continue to turn away business from same-sex couples seeking to celebrate their marriages at his Paxton, Illinois bed and breakfast even if he loses a suit now before the Illinois Human Rights Commission.  Jim Walder told the Paxton Record that he expects the Illinois General Assembly to legislatively exempt business owners like himself from the state’s Marriage Equality Act if their religious beliefs oppose same-sex marriages. He and his lawyer further maintained that they are prepared to appeal any ruling not in their favor on the pending law-suit.  The ACLU of Illinois, which brought the suit against Walder when he refused to book a civil union celebration at his Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in 2011, told the Paxton Record that the fight for equality for same-sex couples will continue:

A human tragedy unfolds in Texas as a collision of patient rights, standard medical practices, and rigidly applied state laws battle over who controls death. According to The New York Times, a Fort Worth Texas hospital has over-ruled a patient’s wishes, and those of her family, refusing to disconnect the brain-dead woman from life support systems because she is 14 weeks pregnant. The hospital maintains it is doing so in compliance with Texas state law.  ACLU of Illinois executive director Colleen Connell recently addressed a similar issue noting:

One issue facing many counties across the nation is the lack of resources being committed to defender services in our system of justice. This issue was highlighted in a news analysis article by The New York Times looking at two innovative approaches to raising the quality of public defender representation.

The Guttmacher Institute just released data showing a startling trend: more laws were enacted to restrict abortion in the past three years than there have been in the entire decade. The report illustrates a nationwide shift creating significant barriers to reproductive health resources even in the past year alone. Indeed, 2013 proved to be second only to 2011, as the year the highest number of abortion restrictions were created -- ever. This grim analysis, while it may not be hopeful at first glance, calls on the reproductive justice community to roll up its proverbial sleeves as we move ahead into 2014.The spike evidenced in the chart above, is a result of several factors. For one, several states didn't have legislative sessions in 2012, and also, the elections brought more anti-abortion lawmakers to the table in 2013. Perhaps the most troubling statistics gleaned from the report are the ones that show an increase in the number of states that have converted to what Guttmacher deems "hostile" to abortion rights. This category is defined by a state that has four or more types of major abortion restrictions on the books. But what this means is that a majority of women now live in states with numerous laws restricting abortion, as illustrated below:The four types of abortion restrictions referenced in the report are: abortion bans, restrictions on abortion providers, limitations on the provision of medication abortion and restrictions on coverage of abortion in private health plans. Illinois experienced a huge blow in a different realm of abortion restriction. In July, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, which now requires minors seeking an abortion to have an adult family member be notified 48 hours before the procedure takes place. The ACLU of Illinois responded by creating the Illinois Judicial Bypass Coordination Project, which includes a hotline for minors seeking abortion which provides information about Illinois’ parental notice law and connects young women with a free attorney if they need one.

The New York Times published a call from the National ACLU for the exoneration of Ed Snowden on espionage charges. The opinion piece written by Jameel Jaffer, ACLU Deputy Legal Director, reiterates all that the public has learned about N.S.A. programs and the agency’s infringement of accepted privacy standards since Snowden began releasing his information. Jaffer notes: