American Civil Liberties Union Positions History And Notable

The ACLU can generally be described as promoting a social (though not economic) libertarian program. Over the years, the ACLU has consistently fought in the court system for a liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that allows for as much individual liberty as possible. Among other positions, the ACLU:

The ACLU has been noted for vigorously defending the right to express unpopular, controversial, and extremist opinions on both the left and right. Some have expressed the view that the ACLU sometimes plays a role comparable to that played by public defenders, helping to ensure that even unpopular defendants receive due process. Executive Director Anthony D. Romero , President Nadine Strossen, and Legal Director Steven Shapiro currently head the organization.

2 History and Notable Cases

The ACLU was formed in 1920 as the Civil Liberties Bureau. Founders include Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin. During that year, it took the side of aliens threatened with deportation by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their radical views (see: Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World and other labor unions to meet and organize. Since its founding, the ACLU has been involved in many cases. A few of the most significant are discussed here:

In 1925, the ACLU persuaded John T. Scopes to defy Tennessee's anti- evolution law in a court test. Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team. The ACLU lost the case and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later reversed the fine, but not the conviction.

In 1942, a few months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the ACLU affiliates on the West Coast became some of the sharpest critics of the government's policy on enemy aliens and US citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included the relocation of Japanese-American citizens, internment of aliens, prejudicial curfews (U.S. v. Hirabayashi, 1942), and the like.

In 1954, the ACLU played a role in the case of Brown v. Board of Education which led to the ban on segregation in US public schools.

In 1973, the organization was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon, giving as reasons the violation by the Nixon administration of civil liberties. That same year, the ACLU was involved in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton , in which the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of privacy extended to women seeking abortions.

In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations (Skokie had a large Jewish population). A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to the resignation of about 15 percent of the membership from the organization (25 percent in Illinois), especially of Jewish members. A cutback in its activities was avoided by a special mailing which elicited $500,000 in contributions. Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear .... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."

The ACLU filed suit to challenge the Arkansas 1981 Creationism statute, which required the teaching in public schools of the biblical story of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The law was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court.

The terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the ensuing debate regarding the proper balance of civil liberties and security including the passage of the PATRIOT Act, led to a 20% increase in membership between August 2001 and December 2002, when its total enrollement reached 330,000 [1]. The growth has continued; in August 2004, ACLU membership was at 400,000 [2].

The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the proposed (as of 2003) PATRIOT 2 act, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism, that it believes violates either the letter or the spirit of the US Bill of Rights. In response to a requirement of the PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from a Federal Donation Program that provides matching funds from the federal government for federal employees. The requirement was that ACLU employees must be checked against a federal anti-terrorism watch list. The ACLU estimates that it will lose approximately $500,000 in such contributions. See also: ACLU v. Ashcroft

3 Controversial defence stances

The organization believes that free speech rights must be available to all citizens of the United States. It has, therefore, taken on extremely controversial cases to defend the free speech rights of unpopular clients such as Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazi groups, and NAMBLA, a group which supports pedophilia.

The ACLU has defended Frank Snepp formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency (from an attempt of this government agency to gag him) and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North (convicted on the basis of coerced testimony--a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights).

4 Critics of the ACLU

The ACLU's most vocal critics are generally those who consider themselves conservatives. Many of these conservatives allege that the ACLU has not dedicated itself only to the defense of constitutional rights, but seeks to advance a liberal agenda. Some critics point to its opposition to the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States while the ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment" and against international human rights norms. Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting gun rights (the organization believes that the Second Amendment does not preclude Congress from "reasonable" regulation of arms in general [3]). Critics claim gun rights enjoy the similar constitutional protection as "civil rights" and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a political agenda.

The Ohio chapter of the ACLU was criticized for presenting the Council on American-Islamic Relations with an award in October, 2003. Critics contend that CAIR is dedicated to the advancement of radical Wahhabism. [4]

The ACLU also has been subject to criticism by some, mainly on the political left, who support the bulk of its mission, but object to the organization's advocacy for corporations to enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, e.g. corporate personhood.

4.1 Christian and other religious critics

At the local level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore one of the most consistent critics of the ACLU is the conservative Christian community in the United States. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.

In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. Then the ACLU threatened Los Angeles County, California if it also did not remove an image of a cross from its seal. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross from its seal as well.

After the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to 'secularize America' had made God mad, and that is why God allowed the terrorist attacks to happen. Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning.

Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU and are ardent supporters of it. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [5]. However, a good number of Mormons are strongly against the activities of the ACLU, and there is evidence that this is the official position of the church [6].

5 National Affiliates

Although the ACLU has a national headquarters located in New York City, the organization does most of its work through locally based affiliates that are located throughout the United States. These affiliates maintain a certain amount of autonomy from the National organization, and are able to work independently from each other. Many of the ACLU's cases originate from the local level and are handled by lawyers from the local affiliates.

Below are some of the ACLU's bigger affiliates:

6 Quotes about the ACLU

"America needs a civil liberties union. It no longer has one. I still make my contribution because the ACLU still does some good, but if things don't change, it could become an enemy of free speech." —Professor Alan Dershowitz, 25-year ACLU member

"I'm glad the ACLU raises the objections it does, because it forces the government and Congress to be mindful of First Amendment rights." — U.S. Representative Henry Hyde ( R- Illinois), 2003

7 External links

Political advocacy groups in the U.S. Civil Rights

<Hide>

Home > American Civil Liberties Union

1 Positions