{{Short description|Legal advocacy organization in the United States}} {{For|the conservative legal aid group founded in the 1990s|American Civil Rights Union}} {{redirect|ACLU|the Australian organisation (1980–2004)|Australian Civil Liberties Union}} {{Good article}} {{Pp-move|small=yes}} {{Use American English|date=December 2025}} {{Use mdy dates|date=May 2025}} {{Infobox organization | image = New ACLU Logo 2017.svg | predecessor = [[National Civil Liberties Bureau]] | formation = {{start date and age|1920|01|19}}<ref name=W47/> | founders = {{hlist|[[Jeannette Rankin]]|[[Roger Nash Baldwin]]|[[Crystal Eastman]]|[[Helen Keller]]|[[Walter Nelles]]|[[Morris Ernst]]|[[Albert DeSilver]]|[[Arthur Garfield Hays]]|[[Jane Addams]]|[[Felix Frankfurter]]|[[Elizabeth Gurley Flynn]]}} | type = [[501(c)(4)]] nonprofit organization | tax_id = 13-3871360 | purpose = Civil liberties advocacy | headquarters = [[125 Broad Street]], New York City, U.S. | leader_title = [[President (corporation)|President]] | leader_name = [[Deborah Archer]] | leader_title2 = Executive Director | leader_name2 = [[Anthony Romero]] | budget = $383{{nbsp}}million (2024; combined ACLU and Foundation, excludes affiliates)<ref name="bud2024">{{cite web| url = https://www.aclu.org/publications/aclu-2024-annual-report| title = ''ACLU Annual Report 2024''}}</ref>{{rp|22–3}} | name = American Civil Liberties Union | num_members = 1.7{{nbsp}}million (2024)<ref name="WeigelResistance">{{cite web|author=David Weigel|url=https://fortune.com/2018/07/05/aclu-membership-growth/|title=The ACLU's Membership Has Surged and It's Putting Its New Resources to Use|date=July 5, 2018|newspaper=Fortune|author-link=David Weigel|access-date=October 7, 2019|archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209043853/https://fortune.com/2018/07/05/aclu-membership-growth/|url-status=live}}</ref> | region_served = United States | num_staff = 500 staff attorneys<ref>"[https://www.aclu.org/aclu-history ACLU History] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150323201940/https://www.aclu.org/aclu-history |date=March 23, 2015 }}," first section, paragraph 3. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 3, 2017.</ref> | num_volunteers = Several thousand attorneys<ref>"[https://www.aclu.org/aclu-history ACLU History] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150323201940/https://www.aclu.org/aclu-history |date=March 23, 2015 }}," section: "And how we do it," paragraph 3. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 3, 2017.</ref> | website = {{official URL}} }} The '''American Civil Liberties Union''' ('''ACLU''') is an American [[nonprofit]] [[civil rights]] organization founded in 1920. ACLU affiliates are active in all 50 [[U.S. state|states]], [[Washington, D.C.]], and [[Puerto Rico]]. The budget of the ACLU in 2024 was $383 million.
The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases where it considers [[civil liberties]] at risk with advocacy from a [[secularism|secularist stance]] against [[separation of church and state|excessive religious entanglement]] over the United States government. Legal support from the ACLU can take the form of direct legal representation or preparation of ''[[amicus curiae]]'' [[brief (law)|briefs]] expressing legal arguments when another law firm is already providing representation. In addition to representing persons and organizations in lawsuits, the ACLU lobbies for policy positions established by its board of directors.
The ACLU's current positions include opposing the [[Capital punishment in the United States|death penalty]]; supporting [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriage]] and the [[LGBT adoption in the United States|right of LGBTQ+ people to adopt]]; supporting [[reproductive rights]] such as [[Birth control in the United States|birth control]] and [[Abortion in the United States|abortion rights]]; eliminating [[Discrimination in the United States|discrimination]] against women, [[minority group|minorities]], and [[LGBT|LGBTQ+]] people; [[decarceration in the United States]]; protecting [[housing]] and [[employment]] rights of [[veteran]]s; reforming [[Sex offender registry|sex offender registries]] and protecting housing and employment rights of convicted first-time offenders; supporting the [[Prisoners' rights in the United States|rights of prisoners]] and opposing [[Torture and the United States|torture]]; upholding the [[Separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]] by opposing government preference for religion over [[Irreligion|nonbelief in religious doctrine]] or for particular faiths over others; and supporting the legality of gender-affirming treatments, including those that are government funded, for transgender youth.
==Leadership== The ACLU is led by a president and an executive director, [[Deborah Archer]] and [[Anthony D. Romero]], respectively, as of September 2025.<ref>"[https://apnews.com/article/deborah-archer-aclu-president-adad34b7c6c77190830f9fb35513147a ACLU, for first time, elects Black person as its president] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210202114232/https://apnews.com/article/deborah-archer-aclu-president-adad34b7c6c77190830f9fb35513147a |date=February 2, 2021 }}", [[Associated Press]], February 1, 2021, Retrieved February 2, 2021.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Anthony D. Romero |url=https://www.aclu.org/bio/anthony-d-romero |access-date=March 23, 2024 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |archive-date=September 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190923230228/https://www.aclu.org/bio/anthony-d-romero |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Officers & Board of Directors |url=https://www.aclu.org/officers-board-directors |access-date=16 January 2026 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en}}</ref> The president acts as chair of the ACLU's board of directors, leads fundraising, and facilitates policy-setting. The executive director manages the day-to-day operations of the organization.<ref>{{Cite web |title=BYLAWS OF A.C.L.U, INC. (as amended in January 2017) |url=https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/aclu_bylaws.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150311171311/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/aclu_bylaws.pdf |archive-date=2015-03-11 |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=www.aclu.org}}</ref> The board of directors consists of 80 persons, including representatives from each state affiliate and at-large delegates. The organization has its headquarters in [[125 Broad Street]], a 40-story skyscraper located in [[Lower Manhattan]], New York City.<ref>{{Cite news|url = http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/aclu-high-manhattan-article-1.583550|title = ACLU is high on Lower Manhattan|last = Croghan|first = Lore|date = February 28, 2005|work = [[New York Daily News]]|access-date = March 10, 2015|archive-date = August 30, 2017|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170830080711/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/aclu-high-manhattan-article-1.583550|url-status = live}}</ref>
The leadership of the ACLU does not always agree on policy decisions; differences of opinion within the ACLU leadership have sometimes grown into major debates. In 1937, an internal debate erupted over whether to defend [[Henry Ford]]'s right to distribute anti-union literature.<ref name=W102>Walker, pp. 102–03.</ref> In 1939, a heated debate took place over whether to prohibit [[communism|communists]] from serving in ACLU leadership roles.<ref name=W1323/> During the early 1950s and [[Cold War]] [[McCarthyism]], the board was divided on whether to defend communists.<ref name=W176201/> In 1968, a schism formed over whether to represent [[Benjamin Spock]]'s anti-war activism.<ref name=W2845/> In 1973, as the [[Watergate Scandal]] continued to unfold, leadership was initially divided over whether to call for President [[Richard Nixon]]'s impeachment and removal from office.<ref>Walker, pp. 292–94</ref> In 2005, there was internal conflict about whether or not a [[gag rule]] should be imposed on ACLU employees to prevent the publication of internal disputes.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2007-01-18 |title=ACLU v. ACLU |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/aclu-v-aclu/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181204031044/https://www.thenation.com/article/aclu-v-aclu/ |archive-date=2018-12-04 |access-date=2026-01-15 |work=The Nation |language=en-US}}</ref>
==Funding== [[File:2012- ACLU ACLUF donations.png|thumb | right | 300px | Amounts reported to IRS as "Contributions, Gifts, Grants and Other Similar Amounts" by ACLU and ACLU Foundation.<ref>IRS Forms 990, part VIII, Line 1 – "Contributions, Gifts, Grants and Other Similar Amounts" <br>{{nbsp|3}} — for ACLU for periods ending March 31 of [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024623/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/aclu_fy12_990_public_disclosure_copy_for_website.pdf 2012], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024611/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU%20FY13%20IRS%20990%20(public%20version).pdf 2013], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024601/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU%20Form%20990%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy.pdf 2014], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024549/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU%20Form%20990%20FY15%20public%20disclosure.pdf 2015], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024539/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU_Form_990_FY16_public_disclosure.pdf 2016] [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024528/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU_Form_990_FY17_Public_Disclosure.pdf 2017], [https://web.archive.org/web/20181205185929/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_Inc_3-31-2018_Tax_Return.pdf 2018], [https://web.archive.org/web/20220202231648/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/fy2019_990_aclu_public_disclosure.pdf 2019], [https://web.archive.org/web/20201202044826/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2019_aclu_form_990_public_disclosure_copy.pdf 2020], [https://web.archive.org/web/20220224223625/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2020_aclu_form_990_public_disclosure_copy.pdf 2021], [https://web.archive.org/web/20230213045925/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_form_990_signed_public_disclosure_copy_1.pdf 2022], [https://web.archive.org/web/20240621045644/https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/06/990-ACLU-FY23-3.31.23.pdf 2023], [https://web.archive.org/web/20241212214605/https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/12/990-ACLU-FY24-3.31.24.pdf 2024], [https://web.archive.org/web/20260115180831/https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/01/990-ACLU-FY25-3.31.25-Hub.pdf 2025] <br>{{nbsp|3}} — for ACLU ''Foundation'' for periods ending March 31 of [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024726/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/acluf_fy12_990_public_disclosure_copy_for_website.pdf 2012], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024716/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLUF%20FY13%20IRS%20990%20(public%20version).pdf 2013], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024705/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLUF%20Form%20990%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy.pdf 2014], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024654/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU%20Foundation%20Form%20990%20FY15%20public%20disclosure.pdf 2015], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024644/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLU_Foundation_Form_990_FY16_public_disclosure.PDF 2016], [https://web.archive.org/web/20180824024633/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/ACLUF_Form_990_FY17_Public_Disclosure.pdf 2017], [https://web.archive.org/web/20181205190404/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_Foundation_Inc_3-31-2018_Tax_Return.pdf 2018], [https://web.archive.org/web/20220202231650/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/fy2019_990_aclu_foundation_public_disclosure.pdf 2019], [https://web.archive.org/web/20201202044854/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2019_acluf_form_990_public_disclosure_copy.pdf 2020], [https://web.archive.org/web/20220224223619/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2020_acluf_form_990_public_disclosure_copy.pdf 2021], [https://web.archive.org/web/20230213050034/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/acluf_signed_form_990_public_disclosure_copy.pdf 2022], [https://web.archive.org/web/20240621045821/https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/06/990-ACLUF-FY23-3.31.23.pdf 2023], [https://web.archive.org/web/20241212214536/https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/12/990-ACLUF-FY24-3.31.24.pdf 2024], [https://web.archive.org/web/20260115181333/https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/01/990-ACLUF-FY25-3.31.25-Hub.pdf 2025] <br>{{nbsp|3}}—(text labels in graph rounded to nearest million).</ref> Graph reflects an increase in donations following U.S. President Trump's January 2017 executive order barring millions of refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.<ref name=NYTimes20170130>{{cite news |last1=Stack |first1=Liam |title=Donations to A.C.L.U. and Other Organizations Surge After Trump's Order |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/aclu-fund-raising-trump-travel-ban.html |work=The New York Times |date=January 30, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170131085621/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/aclu-fund-raising-trump-travel-ban.html |archive-date=January 31, 2017 |url-status=live |access-date=September 18, 2018 }}</ref>]]
The ACLU solicits donations to its charitable foundation. The local affiliates solicit their own funding; however, some also receive funds from the national ACLU, with the distribution and amount of such assistance varying from state to state. At its discretion, the national organization provides subsidies to smaller affiliates that lack sufficient resources to be self-sustaining; for example, the Wyoming ACLU chapter received such subsidies until April 2015, when, as part of a round of layoffs at the national ACLU, the Wyoming office was closed.<ref>{{Cite news |title=National office closes Wyoming ACLU chapter {{!}} WyoFile |url=http://www.wyofile.com/blog/national-office-closes-wyoming-aclu-chapter/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150510231801/http://www.wyofile.com/blog/national-office-closes-wyoming-aclu-chapter/ |archive-date=2015-05-10 |access-date=2026-01-15 |work=WyoFile |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>''[https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/American%20Civil%20Liberties%202014%20FINAL.pdf American Civil Liberties Union ... Consolidated Financial Report, March 31, 2014] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029002624/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/about/American%20Civil%20Liberties%202014%20FINAL.pdf |date=October 29, 2018 }}'', p. 10, Note 1. Organization: "Although the ACLU plays no direct role in the governance of ... the affiliates, the organizations jointly fund-raise and work together on certain programs and the ACLU, through either the Union or Foundation, as appropriate, at its sole discretion provides targeted financial and other support to the affiliates."</ref>
In October 2004, the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the [[Ford Foundation]] and [[Rockefeller Foundation]] because the foundations had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities". The ACLU views this clause, both in federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The New York Times|title=A.C.L.U. Rejects Foundation Grants Over Terror Language|author=Stephanie Strom|date=October 19, 2004|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/national/19aclu.html|archive-date=May 28, 2015|access-date=February 5, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528054555/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/national/19aclu.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>See Kaminer, pp. 68–70, for a discussion of an internal scandal in which Romero was accused of attempting to accept the funds without disclosing the terms to the ACLU board.</ref>
Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies, which are generally protected from adverse monetary judgments; a town, state, or federal agency may be required to change its laws or behave differently, but not to pay monetary damages except by an explicit statutory waiver. In some cases, the law permits plaintiffs who successfully sue government agencies to collect money damages or other monetary relief. In particular, the [[Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976]] leaves the government liable in some civil rights cases. Fee awards under this civil rights statute are considered "equitable relief" rather than damages, and government entities are not immune from equitable relief.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988-|title=Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, § 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights|access-date=June 3, 2017|archive-date=April 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422164301/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988|url-status=live}}</ref> Under laws such as this, the ACLU and its state affiliates sometimes share in monetary judgments against government agencies. In 2006, the [[Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006|Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act]] sought to prevent monetary judgments in the particular case of violations of church-state separation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=109TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 2679 |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h2679rh.txt.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101207070324/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h2679rh.txt.pdf |archive-date=2010-12-07 |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=frwebgate.access.gpo.gov}}</ref>
The ACLU has received court-awarded fees from opponents; for example, the Georgia affiliate was awarded $150,000 in fees after suing a county demanding the removal of a [[Ten Commandments]] display from its courthouse;<ref>ACLU Georgia Press Release, [http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0507/barrow.county.html "Barrow County to Remove 10 Commandments Display"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222050743/http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0507/barrow.county.html |date=December 22, 2005 }}, July 19, 2007 (last visited January 6, 2008).</ref> a second Ten Commandments case in the state, in a different county, led to a $74,462 judgment.<ref>ACLU Georgia, [http://www.acluga.org/docket.html "2007 Litigation & Advocacy Docket"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051226043221/http://www.acluga.org/docket.html |date=December 26, 2005 }} (last visited January 6, 2008).</ref> The [[State of Tennessee]] was required to pay $50,000, the State of Alabama $175,000, and the State of Kentucky $121,500, in similar Ten Commandments cases.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/07/09/loc_kytencommandments09.html|title=State pays ACLU $121,500 in Ten Commandments fight}}{{Dead link|date=March 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Posting the Ten Commandments in schools, etc: Year 2002 |url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cb.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060102152946/http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cb.htm |archive-date=2006-01-02 |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=www.religioustolerance.org}}</ref>
In 2024, the ACLU received $268M in grants and donations from supporters.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|22–3}}
==Policy positions== The ACLU's 2024 annual report states that it engages in legal advocacy in support of civil rights, including abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, immigrants' rights, criminal law reform, free speech, and voting rights.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|3–4}}
When the ACLU was formed in 1919, free speech was the civil right that it concentrated on. The ACLU has supported free speech, even when the speech is unpopular or offensive. The ACLU opposes limits on campaign contributions, since such limits generally limit free speech and could be used to restrict the rights of unions.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|12–13}}<ref name="t1n">{{Cite news |last=Neuborne |first=Burt |date=March 21, 2012 |title=Why the ACLU Is Wrong About 'Citizens United' |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |language=en-US |issn=0027-8378 |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107160324/https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Campaign Finance Reform |url=https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/campaign-finance-reform |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref> The ACLU also opposes state censorship of the [[Confederate flag]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=March 23, 2015 |title=A Test of Free Speech and Bias, Served on a Plate From Texas |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/a-test-of-free-speech-and-bias-served-on-a-plate-from-texas.html |access-date=January 8, 2025 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=February 2, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210202202301/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/a-test-of-free-speech-and-bias-served-on-a-plate-from-texas.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Free speech on college campuses has been the subject of several lawsuits the ACLU has supported.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Palmer |first=Kathryn |title=The Litigation After the Protest Storm |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2024/05/21/litigation-after-protest-storm |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=Inside Higher Ed |language=en |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107192327/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2024/05/21/litigation-after-protest-storm |url-status=live }}</ref> In the employment realm, the ACLU has supported the rights of employees to engage in free speech.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chasan |first=Aliza |date=August 15, 2023 |title=New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic school that fired unwed pregnant teacher - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/victoria-crisitello-new-jersey-supreme-court-pregnant-unwed-catholic-school-teacher-st-theresa-school/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107192914/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/victoria-crisitello-new-jersey-supreme-court-pregnant-unwed-catholic-school-teacher-st-theresa-school/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="aclu62">{{Cite web |title=ACLU of Alaska Requests Court Rules to Protect the First Amendment Rights of State Employees |url=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-alaska-requests-court-rules-protect-first-amendment-rights-state-employees |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107192913/https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-alaska-requests-court-rules-protect-first-amendment-rights-state-employees |url-status=live }}</ref> Protests outside religious buildings are supported by the ACLU, even when perceived as offensive.<ref name="aclu56">{{Cite web |date=September 16, 2021 |title=Court won't stop protests outside Michigan synagogue |url=https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-religion-israel-michigan-constitutions-715eaf064965bda698a1fed411bb560d |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=AP News |language=en |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107193351/https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-religion-israel-michigan-constitutions-715eaf064965bda698a1fed411bb560d |url-status=live }}</ref>
Combating discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or gender has been a focus of the ACLU since the civil rights era in the 1960s. The ACLU frequently participates in legal actions in support of the LGBTQ community.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|14–15}}<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lennon |first=Lauren |date=September 4, 2024 |title=ACLU challenges South Carolina's transgender healthcare ban in new lawsuit |url=https://abcnews4.com/news/local/aclu-challenges-south-carolinas-transgender-healthcare-ban-in-new-lawsuit-wciv-abc-news-4-american-civil-liberties-union-of-south-carolina-gender-affirming-car |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=WCIV |language=en |archive-date=April 2, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250402222021/https://abcnews4.com/news/local/aclu-challenges-south-carolinas-transgender-healthcare-ban-in-new-lawsuit-wciv-abc-news-4-american-civil-liberties-union-of-south-carolina-gender-affirming-car |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Indiana ACLU challenging ruling on gender-affirming care for transgender kids |url=https://www.abc57.com/news/indiana-aclu-challenging-ruling-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=ABC57 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Levin |first1=Sam |title=Trans adults stripped of healthcare access sue South Carolina over GOP bill: 'I'm desperate' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/south-carolina-aclu-trans-healthcare |access-date=September 4, 2024 |work=The Guardian |date=August 29, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Clifford |first1=Ted |title=Lawsuit filed by ACLU aims to block law limiting transgender care in South Carolina |url=https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article291716320.html |access-date=September 4, 2024 |date=August 30, 2024}}</ref>
Criminal justice has been long-standing goal of the ACLU, focusing on constitutional issues such as excessive punishment and the right to an attorney.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|18–19}}<ref name="bop">{{Cite web |last=Pavlo |first=Walter |title=ACLU Files Class Action Against Bureau Of Prisons Over First Step Act |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2024/12/26/aclu-files-class-action-against-bureau-of-prisons-over-first-step-act/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=Forbes |language=en |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107191014/https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2024/12/26/aclu-files-class-action-against-bureau-of-prisons-over-first-step-act/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="aclu3">{{Cite web |title=ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows |url=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-bureau-of-prisons-for-keeping-people-in-prison-longer-than-the-law-allows |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107191013/https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-bureau-of-prisons-for-keeping-people-in-prison-longer-than-the-law-allows |url-status=live }}</ref> Immigrant rights, for undocumented immigrants in particular, is an area of the law that the ACLU frequently acts as an advocate.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|16–17}}<ref>{{Cite web |last=Giaritelli |first=Anna |date=December 28, 2024 |title=ACLU 'ready to return to the courts' to thwart Trump immigration plans |url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/3257748/aclu-legal-fights-trump-immigration-agenda/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107220318/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/3257748/aclu-legal-fights-trump-immigration-agenda/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Montoya-Galvez |first=Camilo |date=June 13, 2024 |title=ACLU and migrant rights groups sue over Biden's asylum crackdown - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-border-asylum-order-aclu-lawsuit/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107220316/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-border-asylum-order-aclu-lawsuit/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beitsch |first=Rebecca |date=May 12, 2023 |title=ACLU sues to block new asylum restrictions |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4001833-aclu-sues-to-block-new-asylum-restrictions/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=The Hill |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107220317/https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4001833-aclu-sues-to-block-new-asylum-restrictions/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Aleaziz |first=Hamed |date=June 12, 2024 |title=A.C.L.U. Sues to Stop Biden's Asylum Ban on the U.S.-Mexico Border |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/12/us/politics/aclu-lawsuit-biden-border-asylum.html |access-date=January 8, 2025 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107220316/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/12/us/politics/aclu-lawsuit-biden-border-asylum.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Holpuch |first=Amanda |date=March 4, 2022 |title=A suit filed by the A.C.L.U. accuses ICE jailers of denying detainees vaccines. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/aclu-ice-covid-vaccine-booster.html |access-date=January 8, 2025 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107220316/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/aclu-ice-covid-vaccine-booster.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
Many of the ACLU positions are rooted in the U.S. Constitution, such as the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]]: the ACLU opposes any effort to create a national registry of gun owners and has worked with the [[National Rifle Association of America]] to prevent a registry from being created, and it has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the Second Amendment.<ref>{{cite news |last=Blumenthal |first=Ralph |date=April 5, 2007 |title=Unusual Allies in a Legal Battle Over Texas Drivers' Gun Rights |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070408165308/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html |archive-date=April 8, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely/ | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=The Plum Line | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130421083726/https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely |archive-date=April 21, 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> However, the ACLU also supports some degree of [[gun control]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Melling |first=Louise |date=March 26, 2018 |title=ACLThe ACLU's Position on Gun Control |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/aclus-position-gun-control |access-date=June 26, 2025 |language=en-US |archive-date=June 25, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625213532/https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/aclus-position-gun-control |url-status=live }}</ref>
The ACLU supports women's rights to make health care decisions, including access to abortions.<ref name="bud2024"/>{{rp|10–11}}<ref name="nyt1">{{Cite news |last=Powell |first=Michael |date=June 8, 2022 |title=A Vanishing Word in Abortion Debate: 'Women' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/women-gender-aclu-abortion.html |access-date=January 8, 2025 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240404084338/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/women-gender-aclu-abortion.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="aclu35">{{Cite web |title=ACLU Applauds Effort to Repeal Comstock Act |url=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-effort-to-repeal-comstock-act |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107191247/https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-effort-to-repeal-comstock-act |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Planned Parenthood Files Lawsuit to Restore Abortion Access, on Heels of Voters Approving Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative |url=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-planned-parenthood-files-lawsuit-to-restore-abortion-access-on-heels-of-voters-approving-right-to-reproductive-freedom-initiative |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107190302/https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-planned-parenthood-files-lawsuit-to-restore-abortion-access-on-heels-of-voters-approving-right-to-reproductive-freedom-initiative |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=November 7, 2024 |title=Lawsuit filed by Missouri Planned Parenthood to challenge state abortion restrictions |url=https://www.fourstateshomepage.com/news/your-local-election-headquarters/lawsuit-filed-by-missouri-planned-parenthood-to-challenge-state-abortion-restrictions/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=KSNF/KODE {{!}} FourStatesHomepage.com |language=en-US |archive-date=January 7, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107190301/https://www.fourstateshomepage.com/news/your-local-election-headquarters/lawsuit-filed-by-missouri-planned-parenthood-to-challenge-state-abortion-restrictions/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>
==Partisanship== The ACLU has received criticism for its defense of individuals and organizations with offensive or unpopular viewpoints<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lewin |first=Tamar |date=1988-10-02 |title=A.C.L.U. Boasts Wide Portfolio of Cases, but Conservatives See Partisanship |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/02/us/aclu-boasts-wide-portfolio-of-cases-but-conservatives-see-partisanship.html |access-date=2026-04-13 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>. The most ardent criticisms have come in response to its defense of the [[Ku Klux Klan]], neo-Nazis, the [[Nation of Islam]], the [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]], the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] or the [[Unite the Right rally]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-charlottesville-violence-and-demonstrations|title=ACLU Statement on Charlottesville Violence and Demonstrations|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=February 25, 2018|language=en|archive-date=February 15, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190215230538/https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-charlottesville-violence-and-demonstrations|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html|title=ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense|author-link=Joan Biskupic|last=Biskupic|first=Joan|work=CNN|access-date=February 25, 2018|archive-date=August 17, 2017|archive-url=https://archive.today/20170817051939/http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/aclu-free-speech-white-supremacy/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/nyregion/aclu-free-speech-rights-charlottesville-skokie-rally.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220101/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/nyregion/aclu-free-speech-rights-charlottesville-skokie-rally.html |archive-date=January 1, 2022 |url-access=limited|title=After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role|last=Goldstein|first=Joseph|date=August 17, 2017|work=The New York Times|access-date=February 25, 2018|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The ACLU's official policy is "... [we have] represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBTQ activists, and flag burners. That's because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Free Speech |url=https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220803123908/https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech |archive-date=August 3, 2022}}</ref><ref>In 2000, the ACLU responded to such criticism by stating "[i]t is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive." from [https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150324073254/https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations |date=March 24, 2015 }}, August 31, 2000. Retrieved January 19, 2012.</ref>
The organization has found legal and financial support from individuals and organizations of disparate political affiliations. Allies of the ACLU in legal actions have included the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]],<ref name="Walker, p. 60">Walker, p. 60.</ref> the [[American Jewish Congress]],<ref name="W219" /> the [[National Rifle Association of America]],<ref>{{Cite news |title=In an usual and controversial move, the ACLU will defend the NRA in SCOTUS this week |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aclu-nra-supreme-court-case-b2514125.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241120132803/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aclu-nra-supreme-court-case-b2514125.html |archive-date=November 20, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2025 |work=The Independent |language=en-GB |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Planned Parenthood]],<ref>"Planned Parenthood Files Lawsuit to Restore Abortion Access, on Heels of Voters Approving Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative" November 6, 2024 ''ACLU of Missouri'' https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-planned-parenthood-files-lawsuit-to-restore-abortion-access-on-heels-of-voters-approving-right-to-reproductive-freedom-initiative {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107190302/https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-planned-parenthood-files-lawsuit-to-restore-abortion-access-on-heels-of-voters-approving-right-to-reproductive-freedom-initiative |date=January 7, 2025 }}</ref><ref>"Lawsuit filed by Missouri Planned Parenthood to challenge state abortion restrictions" Jessica Schaer November 6, 2024 ''KSNF News'' https://www.fourstateshomepage.com/news/your-local-election-headquarters/lawsuit-filed-by-missouri-planned-parenthood-to-challenge-state-abortion-restrictions/ {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250107190301/https://www.fourstateshomepage.com/news/your-local-election-headquarters/lawsuit-filed-by-missouri-planned-parenthood-to-challenge-state-abortion-restrictions/ |date=January 7, 2025 }}</ref> the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Homeland Security hit with lawsuit over phone, laptop searches |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/aclu-eff-sue-department-of-homeland-security-for-searches-of-phones-laptops/ |access-date=January 8, 2025 |website=CNET |language=en |archive-date=January 20, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250120212454/https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/aclu-eff-sue-department-of-homeland-security-for-searches-of-phones-laptops/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]].<ref>"Civil liberties groups file lawsuit against Louisiana Ten Commandments law" Lexi Lonas Cochran 06/24/24 ''The Hill'' https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4737430-louisiana-ten-commandment-law-aclu-religious-freedom-jeff-landry/</ref> In her 2009 book, former board member [[Wendy Kaminer]] criticized the ACLU's expanded fundraising<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kaminer |first=Wendy |title=Worst instincts: cowardice, conformity, and the ACLU |date=2009 |publisher=Beacon Press |isbn=978-0-8070-4430-8 |location=Boston |page=66 |chapter=Money Changes Everything |quote=Naturally, attitudes toward major donors changed (along with the definition of a major gift).}}</ref> and accused its leadership of catering to its donors.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kaminer |first=Wendy |title=Worst instincts: cowardice, conformity, and the ACLU |date=2009 |publisher=Beacon Press |isbn=978-0-8070-4430-8 |location=Boston |pages=14 |chapter=The Problem with Partisanship |quote=But occasionally staff members privately protested that quixotic, high-profile initiatives were displacing essential, low-profile work, and they reported being discouraged or prevented from working on cases or controversies unpopular with ACLU members and (especially) major donors, or merely unlikely to inspire substantial contributions.}}</ref>
A nonpartisan stance is avowed by the ACLU,<ref>{{Cite web |title=About the ACLU |url=https://www.aclu.org/about/about-aclu |access-date=2026-04-12 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref> and the ACLU has supported [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] figures such as [[Rush Limbaugh]],<ref name="FOXRush">Donaldson-Evans, Catherine (January 12, 2004), [https://www.foxnews.com/story/aclu-comes-to-rush-limbaughs-defense "ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241130055430/https://www.foxnews.com/story/aclu-comes-to-rush-limbaughs-defense |date=November 30, 2024 }}, [[Fox News]]</ref> [[George Wallace]],<ref>Walker, p. 242 (Wallace).</ref> [[Henry Ford]]<ref>Walker, p. 103 (Ford).</ref> and [[Oliver North]];<ref>Walker, p. 375 (North).</ref> as well as [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] figures such as [[Dick Gregory]],<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/successes-american-civil-liberties-union ACLU list of successes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231026145318/https://www.aclu.org/successes-american-civil-liberties-union |date=October 26, 2023 }} (Gregory).</ref> [[Rockwell Kent]],<ref>Walker, p. 200 (Kent)</ref> and [[Benjamin Spock]].<ref name="W2845" /><ref name="W82">Walker, p. 82.</ref> However, the ACLU has been accused of partisanship by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals have criticized the ACLU for excluding [[communists]] from its leadership ranks; defending [[Neo-Nazis]]; declining to defend [[Paul Robeson]]; and opposing the passage of the [[National Labor Relations Act]].<ref>Finan, Christopher M. (2007), ''From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act: a history of the fight for free speech in America'', Beacon Press, pp. 158–59. (Robeson)</ref><ref name="Skokie">Walker, pp. 323–31.</ref> In 2014, an ACLU affiliate supported anti-Islam protesters,<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto | title=The Heckler's Veto | date=December 26, 2014 | access-date=September 4, 2022 | archive-date=September 4, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904162950/https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto | url-status=live }}</ref> and in 2018 the ACLU was criticized when it supported the NRA.<ref>{{cite web |author1=[[Mark Joseph Stern]] |title=Who Does the ACLU Fight For? |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/the-aclus-decision-to-defend-the-nra-is-under-attack-internally.html |website=Slate |publisher=The Slate Group |access-date=May 23, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180828035136/https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/the-aclus-decision-to-defend-the-nra-is-under-attack-internally.html |archive-date=August 28, 2018 |language=en-us |date=August 27, 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=David Cole |title=New York State Can't Be Allowed to Stifle the NRA's Political Speech |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech |website=ACLU |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |access-date=May 23, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904162950/https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |language=en-us |date=August 24, 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> Conversely, it has been criticized by conservatives, such as when it argued against official prayer in public schools or when it opposed the [[Patriot Act]].<ref>Walker, pp. 219–20 (prayer in school).</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.watchdog.org/issues/accountability/survey-highlights-nonpartisan-aclu-s-liberal-biases/article_8489a54a-0798-58bf-a075-f413a54f6c96.html|title=Survey highlights 'nonpartisan' ACLU's liberal biases|last=Kittle|first=M.D.|work=Watchdog.org|access-date=February 10, 2018}}{{dead link|date=July 2019|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>
==Organization and state affiliates== [[File:howard-simon-ed-aclu-fl.jpg|thumb|left|Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, joins in a protest of the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp|Guantanamo Bay detentions]] with [[Amnesty International]].]] At the national level, the ACLU consists of two legal entities: the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[501(c)(4)]] social welfare group; and the ACLU Foundation, a [[501(c)(3)]] [[public charity]]. Both are non-profit organizations that engage in [[civil rights]] litigation, advocacy, and education. The two organizations are closely related, and share common goals and some common leadership. Donations to the 501(c)(3) foundation are tax-deductible, but donations to the 501(c)(4) are not. The 501(c)(4) group can engage in unlimited political advocacy (including [[lobbying]]), but the 501(c)(3) foundation cannot.<ref name="nonprofit">{{cite web|title=ACLU and ACLU Foundation: What Is the Difference?|work=American Civil Liberties Union web site|publisher=ACLU|url=https://www.aclu.org/acluf.html|access-date=September 5, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070906190151/https://www.aclu.org/acluf.html|archive-date=September 6, 2007 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url = http://ncrp.org/files/rp-articles/RP-Winter-2005-Maximizing_Nonprofit_Voices_and_Mobilizing_the_Public.pdf|title = Maximizing Nonprofit Voices and Mobilizing the Public|last = Krehely|first = Jeff|date = 2005|journal = Responsive Philanthropy|access-date = March 10, 2015|pages = 9–10, 15|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134943/http://ncrp.org/files/rp-articles/RP-Winter-2005-Maximizing_Nonprofit_Voices_and_Mobilizing_the_Public.pdf|archive-date = March 4, 2016|df = mdy-all}}</ref>
Most of the organization's workload is performed by its local affiliates. There is at least one affiliate organization in each state, as well as one in [[Washington, D.C.]], and in [[Puerto Rico]]. [[California]] has three affiliates.<ref name="affiliates">{{cite news |title=State Affiliates |url=https://www.aclu.org/affiliates |access-date=August 17, 2024 |work= |publisher=ACLU |archive-date=August 19, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100819175118/http://www.aclu.org/affiliates |url-status=live }}</ref> The affiliates operate autonomously from the national organization; each affiliate has its own staff, executive director, board of directors, and budget. Each affiliate consists of two non-profit corporations: a [[501(c)(3)]] corporation–called the ACLU Foundation–that does not perform lobbying, and a [[501(c)(4)]] corporation–called ACLU–which is entitled to lobby. Both organizations share staff and offices.<ref>{{cite web|title=Giving to the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation: What Is the Difference? {{!}} American Civil Liberties Union|url=https://action.aclu.org/content/giving-american-civil-liberties-union-and-american-civil-liberties-union-foundation-what|access-date=March 22, 2021|website=action.aclu.org|language=en|archive-date=April 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230417194916/https://action.aclu.org/content/giving-american-civil-liberties-union-and-american-civil-liberties-union-foundation-what|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=February 28, 2019|title=ACLU vs. ACLU Foundation|url=https://www.aclupa.org/en/about/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation|access-date=March 22, 2021|website=ACLU Pennsylvania|language=en|archive-date=March 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210326164843/https://www.aclupa.org/en/about/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=February 9, 2016|title=History|url=https://www.acluga.org/en/about/history|access-date=March 22, 2021|website=ACLU of Georgia|language=en|archive-date=March 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210314193427/https://www.acluga.org/en/about/history|url-status=dead}}</ref>
ACLU affiliates are the basic unit of the ACLU's organization and engage in litigation, lobbying, and public education. For example, in 2020, the [[American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey|ACLU's New Jersey chapter]] argued 26 cases before the [[New Jersey Supreme Court]], about one-third of the total cases heard in that court. They sent over 50,000 emails to officials or agencies and had 28 full-time staff.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 1, 2021 |title=2020 Annual Report |url=https://www.aclu-nj.org/en/publications/2020-annual-report |access-date=August 28, 2022 |website=[[ACLU-NJ]] |page=12 |archive-date=August 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220828045531/https://www.aclu-nj.org/en/publications/2020-annual-report |url-status=live }}</ref> {{update after|2035|8|28}}
===American Civil Liberties Union state affiliates=== {| class=wikitable !State !ACLU state affiliate |- |[[Alabama]] |ACLU of Alabama |- |[[Alaska]] |ACLU of Alaska |- |[[Arizona]] |ACLU Arizona|ACLU of Arizona |- |[[Arkansas]] |ACLU of Arkansas |- |[[California]] |{{ill|ACLU of Northern California|qid=Q131870393}}<br />ACLU of Southern California<ref name="aclu-socal">{{cite web |title=ACLU of Southern California |url=https://www.aclusocal.org/ |website=www.aclusocal.org |access-date=19 September 2025 |language=en |archive-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924035922/https://www.aclusocal.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref><br />ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties |- |[[Colorado]] |[[ACLU of Colorado]] |- |[[Connecticut]] |ACLU of Connecticut |- |[[Delaware]] |ACLU of Delaware |- |[[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]] |ACLU of the District of Columbia |- |[[Florida]] | {{ill|ACLU of Florida|qid=Q97581971}} |- |[[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] |{{ill|ACLU of Georgia|qid=Q131870350}} |- |[[Hawaii]] |[[ACLU of Hawaiʻi|ACLU of Hawai'i]] |- |[[Idaho]] |{{ill|ACLU of Idaho|qid=Q131870351}} |- |[[Illinois]] |{{ill|ACLU of Illinois|qid=Q131150552}} |- |[[Indiana]] |ACLU of Indiana |- |[[Iowa]] |ACLU of Iowa |- |[[Kansas]] |{{ill|ACLU of Kansas|qid=Q98424218}} |- |[[Kentucky]] |ACLU of Kentucky |- |[[Louisiana]] |ACLU of Louisiana |- |[[Maine]] |ACLU of Maine |- |[[Maryland]] |{{ill|ACLU of Maryland|qid=Q131870396}} |- |[[Massachusetts]] |ACLU of Massachusetts |- |[[Michigan]] |{{ill|ACLU of Michigan|qid= Q131870397}} |- |[[Minnesota]] |{{ill|ACLU of Minnesota|qid=Q131870352 }} |- |[[Mississippi]] |ACLU of Mississippi |- |[[Missouri]] |{{ill|ACLU of Missouri|qid=Q133883713}} |- |[[Montana]] |ACLU of Montana |- |[[Nebraska]] |ACLU of Nebraska |- |[[Nevada]] |{{ill|ACLU of Nevada|qid=Q115900931}} |- |[[New Hampshire]] |ACLU of New Hampshire |- |[[New Jersey]] |[[American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey]] |- |[[New Mexico]] |ACLU of New Mexico |- |[[New York (state)|New York]] |[[New York Civil Liberties Union]] |- |[[North Carolina]] |{{ill|ACLU of North Carolina|qid=Q97582056}} |- |[[North Dakota]] |ACLU of North Dakota |- |[[Ohio]] |{{ill|ACLU of Ohio|qid=Q131870398 }} |- |[[Oklahoma]] |ACLU of Oklahoma |- |[[Oregon]] |{{ill|ACLU of Oregon|qid=Q131870353 }} |- |[[Pennsylvania]] |{{ill|ACLU of Pennsylvania|qid=Q131870354 }} |- |[[Puerto Rico]] |ACLU of Puerto Rico National Chapter |- |[[Rhode Island]] |ACLU of Rhode Island |- |[[South Carolina]] |ACLU of South Carolina |- |[[South Dakota]] |ACLU of South Dakota |- |[[Tennessee]] |ACLU of Tennessee |- |[[Texas]] |ACLU of Texas<ref>{{Cite web |title=ACLU of Texas |url=https://www.aclutx.org/ |access-date=August 19, 2024 |website=www.aclutx.org |language=en |archive-date=August 27, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240827004058/https://www.aclutx.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref> |- |[[Utah]] |{{ill|ACLU of Utah|qid= Q131870355}} |- |[[Vermont]] |ACLU of Vermont |- |[[Virginia]] |{{ill|ACLU of Virginia|qid=Q131870356}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=ACLU of Virginia |url=https://www.acluva.org/ |access-date=August 19, 2024 |website=www.acluva.org |language=en |archive-date=August 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240819035119/https://www.acluva.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref> |- |[[Washington (state)|Washington]] |{{ill|ACLU of Washington|qid=Q131870357 }} |- |[[West Virginia]] |ACLU of West Virginia |- |[[Wisconsin]] |ACLU of Wisconsin |- |[[Wyoming]] |ACLU of Wyoming |}
==History==
{{main|History of the American Civil Liberties Union}}
The ACLU has undertaken a large number of legal initiatives during its existence. In the chronological history below, ACLU initiatives are described in the decade in which the ACLU ''started'' advocating for the legal initiative. The description may include events that extended beyond the starting decade.
===1910s and '20s=== ====Origins==== [[File:CrystalEastman.jpeg|thumb|upright|[[Crystal Eastman]] was one of the co-founders of the CLB, the predecessor to the ACLU.]]
The ACLU developed from the [[National Civil Liberties Bureau]] (CLB), co-founded in 1917 during [[World War I]] by [[Crystal Eastman]], an attorney activist, and [[Roger Nash Baldwin]].<ref>Walker, pp. 17, 20.</ref> The focus of the CLB was on [[freedom of speech]], primarily anti-war speech, and on supporting [[conscientious objector]]s who did not want to serve in World War I.<ref>Walker, pp. 23–24, 30.</ref> In 1918, Crystal Eastman resigned from the organization due to health issues.<ref>Walker, p. 30.</ref>{{efn |After assuming sole leadership of the CLB, Baldwin insisted that the organization be reorganized. He wanted to change its focus from litigation to direct action and public education.<ref name=W47>Walker, p. 47.</ref> }}
On January 19, 1920, the CLB directors formed an organization under a new name, the American Civil Liberties Union.<ref name=W47/> Although a handful of other organizations in the United States at that time focused on civil rights, such as the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] ([[NAACP]]) and [[Anti-Defamation League]] (ADL), the ACLU was the first that did not represent a particular group of persons or a single theme.<ref name=W47/> During the first decades of the ACLU, Baldwin continued as its leader. His charisma and energy attracted many supporters to the ACLU board and leadership ranks.<ref>Walker, p. 66.</ref> The ACLU was directed by an executive committee and was not particularly democratic or egalitarian. New Yorkers dominated the ACLU's headquarters.<ref>Walker, p. 67.</ref> Most ACLU funding came from philanthropies, such as the [[Garland Fund]].<ref name="Walker">Walker, p. 70.</ref>
====Free speech era==== [[File:Norman Thomas 1937.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Norman Thomas]] was one of the early leaders of the ACLU.]]
During the 1920s, the ACLU's primary focus was on freedom of speech in general and speech within the labor movement particularly.<ref>Walker, p. 55</ref> Because most of the ACLU's efforts were associated with the labor movement, the ACLU itself came under heavy attack from conservative groups, such as the [[American Legion]], the [[National Civic Federation]], and Industrial Defense Association and the Allied Patriotic Societies.<ref>Walker, p. 57.</ref> In addition to labor, the ACLU also led efforts in non-labor arenas, for example, promoting free speech in public schools.<ref>Walker, p, 58.</ref> The ACLU, working with the [[NAACP]], also supported racial discrimination cases.<ref name="Walker, p. 60"/>
Government officials routinely hounded the [[Communist Party USA]], leading it to be the primary client of the ACLU.<ref name=W63>Walker, p. 63.</ref> At the same time, the Communists were very aggressive in their tactics, often engaging in illegal conduct such as denying their party membership under oath. This led to frequent conflicts between the Communists and ACLU.<ref name=W63/>
====Public schools==== Five years after the ACLU was formed, the organization had virtually no success to show for its efforts.<ref>Walker, p. 71.</ref> That changed in 1925, when the ACLU persuaded [[John T. Scopes]] to defy Tennessee's anti-[[evolution]] law in ''[[Scopes Trial|The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes]]''. [[Clarence Darrow]], a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team.<ref>University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm "''Tennessee v. John Scopes'': The 'Monkey Trial' (1925)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209210437/http://law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm |date=February 9, 2015 }}, ''Famous Trials in American History'', last updated April 25, 2005 (last visited January 7, 2008).</ref><ref>{{cite web|archive-date=April 9, 2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040409145806/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopeschrono.html|title=The Evolution-Creationism Controversy: A Chronology|url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopeschrono.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Scopes trial was a phenomenal public relations success for the ACLU.<ref>Walker, p. 73.</ref> The ACLU became well known across America, and the case led to the first endorsement of the ACLU by a major US newspaper.<ref>Walker, p. 75. The newspaper was the ''St. Louis Post Dispatch''.</ref>
The most important ACLU case of the 1920s was ''[[Gitlow v. New York]]'', in which [[Benjamin Gitlow]] was arrested for violating a state law against inciting anarchy and violence when he distributed literature promoting communism.<ref>Walker, p. 79.</ref> Although the Supreme Court did not overturn Gitlow's conviction, it adopted the ACLU's stance (later termed the [[incorporation doctrine]]) that the First Amendment freedom of speech applied to state laws, as well as federal laws.<ref>Walker, p. 80.</ref>
====Free speech expansion====
[[File:H l mencken.jpg|thumb|The ACLU defended [[H. L. Mencken]] when he was arrested for distributing banned literature.]]
Leaders of the ACLU were divided on the best tactics to use to promote civil liberties. Felix Frankfurter felt that legislation was the best long-term solution because the Supreme Court could not mandate liberal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. But [[Walter Pollak]], [[Morris Ernst]], and other leaders felt that Supreme Court decisions were the best path to guarantee civil liberties.<ref>Walker, p. 81</ref><ref>Walker, p. 82. The cases included Gitlow (1925), Whitney (1927), Powell (1932), and Patterson (1935).</ref> The [[Comstock laws]] banned the distribution of sex education information based on the premise that it was obscene and led to promiscuous behavior.<ref name=W85>Walker, p. 85.</ref> Birth control activist [[Mary Ware Dennett]] was fined in 1928 for distributing a pamphlet containing sex education material. The ACLU appealed her conviction and won a reversal.<ref name=W85/>
===1930s===
Although the ACLU deferred to the NAACP for litigation promoting civil liberties for African Americans, the ACLU engaged in educational efforts and published ''Black Justice'' in 1931, a report which documented [[institutional racism]] throughout the South, including lack of voting rights, segregation, and discrimination in the justice system.<ref name=W88>Walker, p. 88.</ref> The ACLU participated in the 1937 [[De Jonge v. Oregon]] case, and won a major victory when the Supreme Court ruled that "peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime."<ref>Court decision quoted by Walker, p. 106.</ref> The De Jonge case marked the start of an era lasting for a dozen years, during which Roosevelt appointees (led by [[Hugo Black]], [[William O. Douglas]], and [[Frank Murphy]]) established a body of civil liberties law.<ref name=W106>Walker, p. 106.</ref> In 1938, Justice [[Harlan F. Stone]] wrote the famous "footnote four" in ''[[United States v. Carolene Products Co.]]'' in which he suggested that state laws which impede civil liberties would{{spaced ndash}}henceforth{{spaced ndash}}require compelling justification.<ref name=W107>Walker, p. 107.</ref>
The ACLU regularly tackled police misconduct issues, starting with the 1932 case ''[[Powell v. Alabama]]'' (right to an attorney), and including 1942's ''[[Betts v. Brady]]'' (right to an attorney), and 1951's ''[[Rochin v. California]]'' (involuntary stomach pumping).<ref name="Walker, p. 246">Walker, p. 246.</ref> In the late 1940s, several ACLU local affiliates established permanent committees to address policing issues.<ref>Walker, p. 247.</ref> ====Communism and totalitarianism==== [[File:Elizabeth Gurley Flynn point.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Elizabeth Gurley Flynn]] was voted off the ACLU board in 1940 because of her Communist Party membership but reinstated posthumously in 1970.]] The ACLU leadership was divided over whether or not to defend pro-[[Nazi]] speech in the United States; pro-labor elements within the ACLU were hostile towards Nazism and fascism and objected when the ACLU defended Nazis.<ref name=W116>Walker, pp. 116–17.</ref> The ACLU defended numerous pro-Nazi groups, defending their rights to free speech and free association.<ref>Walker, pp. 117–18.</ref>
The [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] (HUAC) was created in 1938 to uncover sedition and treason within the United States.<ref name=W120>Walker, p. 120.</ref> When witnesses testified at its hearings, the ACLU was mentioned several times, leading the HUAC to mention the ACLU prominently in its 1939 report.<ref name=W121>Walker, p. 121.</ref> This damaged the ACLU's reputation severely, even though the report said that it could not "definitely state whether or not" the ACLU was a Communist organization.<ref name=W121/>
ACLU leadership was split on whether to purge its leadership of Communists. [[Norman Thomas]], [[John Haynes Holmes]], and [[Morris Ernst]] were anti-Communists who wanted to distance the ACLU from Communism; opposing them were Harry F. Ward, [[Corliss Lamont]], and [[Elizabeth Gurley Flynn]], who rejected any political test for ACLU leadership.<ref name=W128>Walker, p. 128.</ref> A bitter struggle ensued throughout 1939, and the anti-Communists prevailed in February 1940 when the board voted to prohibit anyone who supported totalitarianism from ACLU leadership roles. Ward immediately resigned, and{{spaced ndash}}following a contentious six-hour debate{{spaced ndash}}Flynn was voted off the ACLU's board.<ref name=W1323>Walker, pp. 132–33.</ref> The 1940 resolution was considered by many to be a betrayal of its fundamental principles. The resolution was rescinded in 1968, and Flynn was posthumously reinstated to the ACLU in 1970.<ref name=W133>Walker, p. 133.</ref>
===1940s===
====Separation of church and state====
Legal battles concerning the separation of church and state originated in laws dating to 1938, which required religious instruction in school or provided state funding for religious schools.<ref name=W219>Walker, p. 219</ref> The ACLU led the challenge in the 1947 ''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]'' case, in which Justice Hugo Black wrote "[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.... That wall must be kept high and impregnable."<ref name=W219/><ref>Black quoted by Walker.</ref><ref>Black was paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, who first employed the metaphor of a wall. Urofsky, Melvin, "Church and State", in Bodenhamer, p. 67.</ref> It was not clear that the Bill of Rights forbid state governments from supporting religious education, and strong legal arguments were made by religious proponents, arguing that the Supreme Court should not act as a "national school board", and that the Constitution did not govern social issues.<ref name=W221>Walker, p. 221.</ref> However, the ACLU and other advocates of church/state separation persuaded the Court to declare such activities unconstitutional.<ref name=W221/>
In 1948, the ACLU prevailed in the ''[[McCollum v. Board of Education]]'' case, which challenged public school religious classes taught by clergy paid for by private funds.<ref name=W221/> The ACLU also won cases challenging schools in New Mexico that were taught by clergy and had crucifixes hanging in the classrooms.<ref name=W222>Walker, p. 222.</ref>
====World War II==== Roosevelt put constant pressure on Attorney General [[Francis Biddle]] to take legal action against his prominent WW II critics.<ref>Beito, p. 211-213.</ref> Partly to appease the president, Biddle finally charged thirty lesser-known individuals for violating the [[Smith Act]]. Although many of the defendants did not know each other, and most lived in scattered locations in the U.S., they were all tried at once in Washington, D.C., in the Sedition Trial of 1944. Despite efforts by Roger N. Baldwin, [[Norman Thomas]], [[Thurgood Marshall]], and others in the leadership to get the ACLU to go on record condemning the trial (Baldwin called it "monstrous"), the board of directors overruled them.<ref>Beito, p. 244-250.</ref>
The ACLU also had a mixed record on fighting wartime restrictions on the press. It was silent when the U.S. Post Office revoked the second class mailing privileges of ''[[Social Justice (periodical)|Social Justice]]'', the magazine of Father [[Charles E. Coughlin]]. On the other hand, it extended legal aid to the publishers of [[the Militant]] of the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers Party]] and the [[Boise Valley Herald]] when their mailing rights were revoked. The ACLU was unable to prevent extensive extralegal harassment of the black press by the FBI and other agencies. The ACLU's shortcomings in defending civil liberties inspired the contemporary saying "born in World War I and died in World War II."<ref>Beito, p. 215-234.</ref>
[[File:Photograph of Members of the Mochida Family Awaiting Evacuation - NARA - 537505 - Restoration.jpg|thumb|The ACLU was internally divided when it came to defending the rights of Japanese Americans who had been forcibly relocated to [[internment camps]].]] Two months after the [[Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor]], Roosevelt authorized the creation of military "exclusion zones" with [[Executive Order 9066]], paving the way for the detention of all West Coast [[Japanese American]]s in inland camps. In addition to the non-citizen [[Issei]] (prohibited from [[naturalization]] as members of an "unassimilable" race), over two-thirds of those swept up were American-born citizens.<ref name=W137>Walker, p. 137.</ref> The West Coast offices had wanted a test case to take to court. However, they had a difficult time finding a Japanese American who was both willing to violate the internment orders and able to meet the ACLU's desired criteria of a sympathetic, Americanized plaintiff. Of the 120,000 Japanese Americans affected by the order, only 12 disobeyed, and Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and two others were the only resisters whose cases eventually made it to the Supreme Court.<ref name=W138>Walker, p. 138.</ref> ''[[Hirabayashi v. United States]]'' came before the Court in May 1943, and the justices upheld the government's right to exclude Japanese Americans from the West Coast.<ref>Walker, p. 145.</ref><ref name=Niiya-ACLU>{{cite web |last=Niiya |first=Brian |url=http://encyclopedia.densho.org/American_Civil_Liberties_Union/ |title=American Civil Liberties Union |publisher=Densho Encyclopedia |access-date=September 24, 2014 |archive-date=January 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114201638/https://encyclopedia.densho.org/American_Civil_Liberties_Union/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{efn |''[[Korematsu v. United States]]'' proved to be the most controversial of these cases, as Besig and Collins refused to bow to the national ACLU office's pressure to pursue the case without challenging the government's right to remove citizens from their homes. The ACLU board threatened to revoke the San Francisco branch's national affiliation. At the same time, Baldwin tried unsuccessfully to convince Collins to step down so he could replace him as lead attorney in the case.<ref>Walker, pp. 146–47</ref><ref>Chin, Steven A. ''When Justice Failed: The Fred Korematsu Story'', Raintree, 1992, p. 95.</ref> Legal scholar [[Peter Irons]] later asserted that the national office of the ACLU's decision not to challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 directly had "crippled the effective presentation of these appeals to the Supreme Court".<ref name=Niiya-ACLU/> }}
The national office of the ACLU was even more reluctant to defend anti-war protesters. A majority of the board passed a resolution in 1942 that declared the ACLU unwilling to defend anyone who interfered with the United States' war effort.<ref>Walker, p. 157.</ref> The national organization prohibited local branches from representing the renunciants, forcing Collins to pursue the case independently, although Besig and the Northern California office provided some support.<ref>{{cite web |last=Niiya |first=Brian |url=http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Ernest%20Besig/ |title=Ernest Besig |publisher=Densho Encyclopedia |access-date=September 26, 2014 |archive-date=December 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201201151823/http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Ernest |url-status=live }}</ref>
====Cold War era====
[[File:DennisEugene.jpg|thumb|The ACLU chose not to support [[Eugene Dennis]] or other leaders of the US Communist Party, and they were all imprisoned, along with their attorneys.]]
Anti-Communist sentiment gripped the United States during the [[Cold War]] beginning in 1946. Federal investigations caused many persons with Communist or left-leaning affiliations to lose jobs, become blocklisted, or be jailed.<ref>Walker, pp. 173–75.</ref> The ACLU was internally divided when it purged Communists from its leadership in 1940, and that ambivalence continued as it decided whether to defend alleged Communists during the late 1940s.<ref>Walker, pp. 175–76.</ref> This ambivalent state of affairs would last until 1954, when the civil liberties faction prevailed, leading to most anti-Communist leaders' resignations.<ref name=W176201>Walker, pp. 176, 210.</ref> In 1947, President Truman issued [[Executive Order 9835]], which created the [[Federal Loyalty Program]]. This program authorized the Attorney General to create a list of organizations that were deemed to be subversive.<ref>walker, p. 176.</ref><ref name=W179>Walker, p. 179</ref> Although ACLU leadership was divided on whether to challenge the Federal Loyalty Program, some challenges were successfully made.<ref name=W179/>
Also in 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) subpoenaed ten Hollywood directors and writers, the ''[[Hollywood Ten]]'', intending to ask them to identify Communists, but the witnesses refused to testify. All were imprisoned for [[contempt of Congress]]. The ACLU supported several artists' appeals but lost on appeal.<ref name=W181>Walker, p. 181.</ref> The ACLU was more successful with an education effort; the 1952 report ''The Judges and the Judged'', prepared at the ACLU's direction in response to the blocklisting of actress [[Jean Muir (actress)|Jean Muir]], described the unfair and unethical actions behind the blocklisting process, and it helped gradually turn public opinion against McCarthyism.<ref>Walker, p. 183.</ref>
The federal government took direct aim at the US Communist Party in 1948 when it indicted its top twelve leaders in the [[Foley Square trial]].<ref name=W185>Walker, p. 185.</ref> The case hinged on whether or not mere membership in a totalitarian political party was sufficient to conclude that members advocated the overthrow of the United States government.<ref name=W185/> The ACLU chose not to represent any of the defendants, and they were all found guilty.<ref name=W185/> In a change of heart, the ACLU supported the party leaders during their appeal process. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions in the ''[[Dennis v. United States]]'' decision by softening the free speech requirements from a "clear and present danger" test to a "grave and probable" test.<ref name=W187>Walker, p 187.</ref> <ref name="Walker_c">Walker, p. 195.</ref>{{efn|The ''Dennis'' decision paved the way for the prosecution of hundreds of other Communist party members.<ref name=W188>Walker, p. 188.</ref> The ACLU supported many Communists during their appeals (although most of the initiative originated with local ACLU affiliates, not the national headquarters), but most convictions were upheld.<ref name=W188/> The two California affiliates, in particular, felt the national ACLU headquarters was not supporting civil liberties strongly enough, and they initiated more cold war cases than the national headquarters did.<ref name="Walker_c" />}} The ACLU challenged many loyalty oath requirements across the country, but the courts upheld most loyalty oath laws.<ref>Walter, pp. 188–89.</ref> The Supreme Court, until 1957, upheld nearly every law which restricted the liberties of Communists.<ref>Walker, photo caption of Flynn, page following 214.</ref>{{efn|The ACLU, even though it scaled back its defense of Communists during the Cold War, still came under heavy criticism as a "front" for Communism. Critics included the [[American Legion]], Senator [[Joseph McCarthy]], the HUAC, and the FBI.<ref>Walker, pp. 193, 195–96.</ref> Several ACLU leaders were sympathetic to the FBI, and as a consequence, the ACLU rarely investigated any of the many complaints alleging abuse of power by the FBI during the Cold War.<ref>Walker, pp. 191–93.</ref>}}
===1950s=== In 1950, the ACLU board of directors asked executive director Baldwin to resign, feeling he lacked the organizational skills to lead the 9,000 (and growing) member organization. Baldwin objected, but a majority of the board elected to remove him from the position, and he was replaced by [[Patrick Murphy Malin]].<ref>Walker, pp. 205–06.</ref> Under Malin's guidance, membership tripled to 30,000 by 1955{{spaced ndash}}the start of 24 years of continual growth leading to 275,000 members in 1974.<ref name=W207>Walker, p. 207.</ref> Malin also presided over an expansion of local ACLU affiliates.<ref name=W207/>
The ACLU, controlled by an elite of a few dozen New Yorkers, became more democratic in the 1950s. In 1951, the ACLU amended its bylaws to permit the local affiliates to participate directly in voting on ACLU policy decisions.<ref name=W208>Walker, p. 208.</ref> A bi-annual conference, open to the entire membership, was instituted in the same year; in later decades, it became a pulpit for activist members, who suggested new directions for the ACLU, including abortion rights, death penalty, and rights of the poor.<ref name=W208/>
====McCarthy era==== [[File:Paul Robeson 1942 crop.jpg|thumb|upright|In the 1950s, the ACLU chose not to support [[Paul Robeson]] and other leftist defendants, a decision that would later be heavily criticized.]]
During the early 1950s, the ACLU continued to steer a moderate course through the Cold War. When singer [[Paul Robeson]] was denied a passport in 1950, even though he was not accused of any illegal acts, the ACLU chose not to defend him.<ref>Walker, p. 199.</ref> The ACLU later reversed their stance and supported [[William Worthy]] and [[Rockwell Kent]] in their passport confiscation cases, which resulted in legal victories in the late 1950s.<ref>Walker, p. 200.</ref>
In response to communist witch-hunts, many witnesses and employees chose to use the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|fifth amendment]] protection against [[self-incrimination]] to avoid divulging information about their political beliefs.<ref>Walker, p. 201.</ref> The national ACLU was divided on whether to defend employees who had been fired merely for pleading the fifth amendment, but the New York affiliate successfully assisted teacher [[Harry Slochower]] in his Supreme Court case, which reversed his termination.<ref>Walker, p. 202. The case was ''[[Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City]]'', 350 US 551 (1956).</ref>
The fifth amendment issue became the catalyst for a watershed event in 1954, which finally resolved the ACLU's ambivalence by ousting the anti-communists from ACLU leadership.<ref>Walker, pp. 208–11.</ref> In 1953, the anti-communists, led by [[Norman Thomas]] and [[James Fly]], proposed a set of resolutions that inferred guilt of persons that invoked the fifth amendment.<ref name="W208" />{{efn |These resolutions were the first that fell under the ACLU's new organizational rules permitting local affiliates to participate in the vote; the affiliates outvoted the national headquarters and rejected the anti-communist resolutions.<ref>Walker, p. 209.</ref> }} Anti-communist leaders refused to accept the results of the vote and brought the issue up for discussion again at the 1954 bi-annual convention.<ref name=W210>Walker, p. 210.</ref> ACLU member [[Frank Porter Graham|Frank Graham]], president of the [[University of North Carolina]], attacked the anti-communists with a counter-proposal, which stated that the ACLU "stand[s] against guilt by association, judgment by accusation, the invasion of privacy of personal opinions and beliefs, and the confusion of dissent with disloyalty".<ref name=W210/><ref>Graham's proposal quoted in Walker</ref> The anti-communists finally gave up and departed the board of directors in late 1954 and 1955, ending an eight-year ambivalence within the ACLU leadership ranks.<ref>Walker, pp. 210–11.</ref>{{efn |After 1955, the ACLU proceeded with firmer resolve against Cold War anti-communist legislation.<ref name=W211>Walker, p. 211.</ref> }} The period from the 1940 resolution (and the purge of Elizabeth Flynn) to the 1954 resignation of the anti-communist leaders is considered by many to be an era in which the ACLU abandoned its core principles.<ref name=W211/> The Supreme Court handed the ACLU two key victories in 1957, in ''[[Watkins v. United States]]'' and ''[[Yates v. United States]]'', both of which undermined the [[Smith Act]] and marked the beginning of the end of communist party membership inquiries.<ref>Walker, pp. 240–42.</ref>
===1960s===
[[File:HugoLaFayetteBlack.jpg|thumb|upright|Supreme Court justice [[Hugo Black]] often endorsed the ACLU's position on the separation of church and state.]]
During the decade from 1954 to 1964, ACLU membership rose from 30,000 to 80,000, and by 1965 it had affiliates in seventeen states.<ref name=W217>Walker, p. 217</ref><ref>Membership numbers are from 1955 and 1965.</ref> During the ACLU's bi-annual conference in Colorado in 1964, the Supreme Court issued rulings on eight cases involving the ACLU; the ACLU prevailed on seven of the eight.<ref name="Walker_d">Walker, p. 236.</ref> The ACLU played a role in Supreme Court decisions reducing censorship of literature and arts, protecting freedom of association, prohibiting racial segregation, excluding religion from public schools, and providing due process protection to criminal suspects.<ref name=W217/>{{efn |The ACLU's success arose from changing public attitudes; the American populace was more educated, tolerant, and willing to accept unorthodox behavior.<ref name=W217/> }} In the 1960s, the ACLU, in response to member insistence, turned its attention to the in-class promotion of religion.<ref name=W223>Walker, p. 223</ref>{{efn |In 1960, 42 percent of American schools included Bible reading.<ref name=W223/> }} In 1962, the ACLU published a policy statement condemning in-school prayers, observation of religious holidays, and Bible reading.<ref name=W223/> The Supreme Court concurred with the ACLU's position when it prohibited New York's in-school prayers in the 1962 ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' decision.<ref>Walker, p. 224</ref>
Cities across America routinely banned movies because they were deemed to be "harmful", "offensive", or "immoral"{{spaced ndash}}censorship which was validated by the 1915 ''[[Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio|Mutual v. Ohio]]'' Supreme Court decision which held movies to be mere commerce, undeserving of first amendment protection.<ref name=W231>Walker, p. 231.</ref>
The ACLU lost an [[Roth v. United States|important press censorship case]] when, in 1957, the Supreme Court upheld the obscenity conviction of publisher [[Samuel Roth]] for distributing adult magazines.<ref>Walker, p. 234.</ref> As late as 1953, books such as ''[[Tropic of Cancer (novel)|Tropic of Cancer]]'' and ''[[From Here to Eternity (novel)|From Here to Eternity]]'' were still banned.<ref name=W227>Walker, p. 227.</ref> But public standards rapidly became more liberal through the 1960s, and obscenity was notoriously difficult to define, so by 1971, obscenity prosecutions had halted.<ref name="Walker_d" /><ref name=W227/>
====Racial discrimination==== Several civil liberties organizations worked together for progress on the [[civil rights movement]], including the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] (NAACP), the ACLU, and the [[American Jewish Congress]].<ref name=W238>Walker, p. 238.</ref> The NAACP took primary responsibility for Supreme Court cases (often led by lead NAACP attorney [[Thurgood Marshall]]), with the ACLU focusing on police misconduct, and supporting the NAACP with [[amicus brief]]s.<ref name=W238/> In 1954, the ACLU filed an [[amicus brief]] in the case of ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', which led to the ban on racial segregation in US [[public school (government funded)#United States|public schools]].<ref>ACLU, ''ACLU Amicus Brief in Brown v. Board of Education'', October 11, 1952 ([https://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/15901lgl19521011.html PDF brief] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080423220108/http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/15901lgl19521011.html |date=April 23, 2008 }}).</ref> Southern states instituted a McCarthyism-style witch-hunt against the NAACP, attempting to force it to disclose membership lists. The ACLU's fight against racism was not limited to segregation; in 1964, the ACLU provided key support to plaintiffs, primarily lower-income urban residents, in ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'', which required states to establish the voting districts following the "one person, one vote" principle.<ref>Walker, pp. 255–57.</ref>
====Police misconduct==== During the 1950s and 1960s, the ACLU was responsible for substantially advancing the legal protections against police misconduct.<ref>Walker, pp. 246–50.</ref>{{efn|In 1958, the Philadelphia affiliate was responsible for causing the City of Philadelphia to create the nation's first civilian police review board.<ref>Walker, pp. 246–48.</ref> In 1959, the Illinois affiliate published the first report in the nation, ''Secret Detention by the Chicago Police'' which documented unlawful detention by police.<ref>Walker, pp. 248–49.</ref> }} Some of the most notable ACLU successes came in the 1960s when the ACLU prevailed in a string of cases limiting the power of police to gather evidence; in 1961's ''[[Mapp v. Ohio]]'', the Supreme court required states to obtain a warrant before searching a person's home.<ref>Walker, pp. 249–51.</ref> The ''[[Gideon v. Wainwright]]'' decision in 1963 provided legal representation to indigents.<ref>Walker, pp. 252–53.</ref> In 1964, the ACLU persuaded the Court, in ''[[Escobedo v. Illinois]]'', to permit suspects to have an attorney present during questioning.<ref>Walker, p. 250.</ref> And, in 1966, ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'' federal decision required police to notify suspects of their constitutional rights, which was later extended to [[Minor (law)|juveniles]] in the following year's ''[[in re Gault]]'' (1967) federal ruling.<ref>Walker, pp. 250–51.</ref>{{efn|Although many law enforcement officials criticized the ACLU for expanding the rights of suspects, police officers also used the services of the ACLU. For example, when the ACLU represented New York City policemen in their lawsuit, which objected to searches of their workplace lockers.<ref>Walker, p. 252.</ref> In the late 1960s, civilian review boards in New York City and Philadelphia were abolished, over the ACLU's objection.<ref>Walker, p. 274.</ref> }}
====Civil liberties revolution==== The 1960s was a tumultuous era in the United States, and public interest in civil liberties underwent explosive growth.<ref name="Walkerpp">Walker, pp. 257, 261–62.</ref> Civil liberties actions in the 1960s were often led by young people and often employed tactics such as [[sit in]]s and marches. Protests were often peaceful but sometimes employed militant tactics.<ref>Walker, pp. 262–64.</ref> The ACLU played a central role in all major civil liberties debates of the 1960s, including new fields such as [[gay rights]], [[prisoner's rights]], abortion, rights of the poor, and the death penalty.<ref name="Walkerpp" /> Membership in the ACLU increased from 52,000 at the beginning of the decade to 104,000 in 1970.<ref name=W262>Walker, p. 262</ref> In 1960, there were affiliates in seven states, and by 1974 there were affiliates in 46 states.<ref name=W262 /><ref>The count of affiliates is of affiliates with permanent staff.</ref> During the 1960s, the ACLU underwent a major transformation in tactics; it shifted emphasis from legal appeals (generally involving [[amicus briefs]] submitted to the Supreme Court) to direct representation of defendants when they were initially arrested.<ref name=W262 /> At the same time, the ACLU transformed its style from "disengaged and elitist" to "emotionally engaged".<ref>Walker, p. 263. Characterizations by Samuel Walker.</ref> The ACLU published a breakthrough document in 1963, titled ''How Americans Protest'', which was borne of frustration with the slow progress in battling racism, and which endorsed aggressive, even militant protest techniques.<ref>Walker, pp. 263–64.</ref>
After four African-American college students [[Greensboro sit-ins|staged a sit-in]] in a segregated North Carolina department store, the [[sit-in movement]] gained momentum across the United States.<ref>Walker, p. 261.</ref> During 1960–61, the ACLU defended black students arrested for demonstrating in North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana.<ref name=W263 /> The ACLU also provided legal help for the [[Freedom Riders|Freedom Rides]] in 1961, the [[Civil rights movement#Integration of Mississippi universities, 1956–1965|integration of the University of Mississippi]], the [[Birmingham campaign]] in 1963, and the 1964 [[Freedom Summer]].<ref name=W263>Walker, p. 263.</ref>{{efn|The NAACP was responsible for managing most sit-in related cases that made it to the Supreme Court, winning nearly every decision.<ref name=W264>Walker, p. 264.</ref> But it fell to the ACLU and other legal volunteer efforts to provide legal representation to hundreds of protestors{{spaced ndash}}white and black{{spaced ndash}}who were arrested while protesting in the South.<ref name=W264 /> The ACLU joined with other civil liberties groups to form the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee (LCDC), which provided legal representation to many protesters.<ref>Walker, pp. 264–65.</ref> The ACLU provided the majority of the funding for the LCDC.<ref>Walker, p. 266.</ref> }}
In 1964, the ACLU opened up a major office in Atlanta, Georgia, dedicated to serving Southern issues.<ref>Walker, p. 267.</ref> Much of the ACLU's progress in the South was due to [[Charles Morgan Jr.]], the charismatic leader of the Atlanta office. Morgan was responsible for desegregating juries (''[[Whitus v. Georgia]]''), desegregating prisons (''[[Lee v. Washington]]''), and [[Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction era|reforming election laws]].<ref>Walker, pp. 268–69.</ref> In 1966, the southern office successfully represented African-American congressman [[Julian Bond]] in ''[[Bond v. Floyd]]'', after the [[Georgia House of Representatives]] refused to admit Bond into the legislature on the basis that he was an admitted pacifist opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War.<ref>Walker, pp. 270–71.</ref>{{efn |Another widely publicized case defended by Morgan was that of Army doctor Howard Levy, who was convicted of refusing to train [[Green Berets]]. Despite raising the defense that the Green Berets were committing war crimes in Vietnam, Levy lost on appeal in ''Parker v. Levy'', 417 US 733 (1974).<ref>Walker, p. 271.</ref> }}
====Vietnam War====
[[File:US Flag Burn.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The ACLU contends that the Bill of Rights protects individuals who burn the U.S. flag as a form of expression.]]
The ACLU was at the center of several legal aspects of the Vietnam war: defending [[draft resister]]s, challenging the constitutionality of the war, the [[Watergate scandal|potential impeachment of Richard Nixon]], and the use of national security concerns to preemptively [[Censorship|censor]] newspapers. David J. Miller was the first person prosecuted for burning his [[draft card]]. The New York affiliate of the ACLU appealed his 1965 conviction (367 F.2d 72: ''United States of America v. David J. Miller'', 1966), but the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Two years later, the Massachusetts affiliate took the card-burning case of David O'Brien to the Supreme Court, arguing that the act of burning was a form of symbolic speech, but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in ''[[United States v. O'Brien]]'', 391 US 367 (1968).<ref name="Walker_e">Walker, p. 280.</ref> Thirteen-year-old Junior High student Mary Tinker wore a black armband to school in 1965 to object to the war and was suspended from school. The ACLU appealed her case to the Supreme Court and won a victory in ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]]''. This critical case established that the government may not establish "enclaves" such as schools or prisons where all rights are forfeited.<ref name="Walker_e" />
The ACLU defended Sydney Street, who was arrested for burning an American flag to protest the reported assassination of civil rights leader [[James Meredith]]. In the ''[[Street v. New York]]'' decision, the court agreed with the ACLU that encouraging the country to abandon one of its national symbols was a constitutionally protected form of expression.<ref>Walker, p. 280. Meredith, in fact, was not assassinated.</ref>
Non-war-related free speech rights were also advanced during the Vietnam war era; in 1969, the ACLU defended a [[Ku Klux Klan]] member who advocated long-term violence against the government, and the Supreme Court concurred with the ACLU's argument in the landmark decision ''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'', which held that only speech which advocated ''imminent'' violence could be outlawed.<ref name=W281>Walker, p. 281.</ref>
A major crisis gripped the ACLU in 1968 when a debate erupted over whether to defend [[Benjamin Spock]] and the Boston Five against federal charges that they encouraged draftees to avoid the draft. The board finally agreed to a compromise solution that permitted the ACLU to defend the anti-war activists without endorsing the activist's political views. Some critics of the ACLU suggest that the ACLU became a partisan political organization following the Spock case.<ref name=W2845>Walker, pp. 284–85.</ref> After the [[Kent State shootings]] in 1970, ACLU leaders took another step toward politics by passing a resolution condemning the Vietnam War. The resolution was based on various legal arguments, including civil liberties violations and claiming that the war was illegal.<ref>Walker, p. 286.</ref>
===1970s=== ====Watergate era==== [[File:Richard M. Nixon, ca. 1935 - 1982 - NARA - 530679.jpg|thumb|upright|The ACLU was the first national organization to call for the impeachment of [[Richard Nixon]].]]
The ACLU supported ''[[The New York Times]]'' in its 1971 suit against the government, requesting permission to publish the [[Pentagon Papers]]. The court upheld the ''Times'' and ACLU in the ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'' ruling, which held that the government could not preemptively prohibit the publication of classified information and had to wait until after it was published to take action.<ref>Walker, pp. 289–90.</ref>
On September 30, 1973, the ACLU became first national organization to publicly call for the impeachment and removal from office of President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>{{cite web| last=Jones| first=Glyn| title=ACLU Would Impeach Nixon| url=http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/collection/itempage.jsp?itemid=18506&img=0&level=advanced&transcription=1| work=Greenfield Recorder| publisher=Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association| location=Deerfield, Massachusetts| date=November 10, 1973| access-date=October 16, 2019| id=#L06.052| via=Online Collection – Memorial Hall Museum| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191201015708/http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/collection/itempage.jsp?itemid=18506&img=0&level=advanced&transcription=1| archive-date=December 1, 2019| url-status=dead}}</ref> Six civil liberties violations were cited as grounds: "specific proved violations of the rights of political dissent; usurpation of Congressional war-making powers; establishment of a personal secret police which committed crimes; attempted interference in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; distortion of the system of justice and perversion of other Federal agencies".<ref>{{Cite news| title=A.C.L.U. Asks Impeachment of Nixon| last=Clack| first=Alfred E.| date=October 5, 1973| url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/05/archives/aclu-asks-impeachment-of-nixon.html| work=The New York Times| access-date=October 15, 2019| via=Times's print archive| archive-date=January 3, 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103234836/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/05/archives/aclu-asks-impeachment-of-nixon.html| url-status=live}}</ref>
====Enclaves and new civil liberties==== The decade from 1965 to 1975 saw an expansion of civil liberties. Administratively, the ACLU responded by appointing [[Aryeh Neier]] as executive director in 1970. Neier embarked on an ambitious program to expand the ACLU; he created the ACLU Foundation to raise funds and created several new programs to focus the ACLU's legal efforts. By 1974, ACLU membership had reached 275,000.<ref>Walker, pp. 314–16.</ref>
During those years, the ACLU worked to expand legal rights in three directions: new rights for persons within government-run "enclaves", new rights for members of what it called "victim groups", and privacy rights for citizens in general.<ref>Walker, p. 299. Key ACLU leaders in this effort were [[Ira Glasser]] and [[Aryeh Neier]].</ref> At the same time, the organization grew substantially. The ACLU helped develop the field of constitutional law that governs "enclaves", which are groups of persons that live in conditions under government control. Enclaves include mental hospital patients, military members, prisoners, and students (while at school). The term enclave originated with Supreme Court justice [[Abe Fortas]]'s use of the phrase "schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism" in the ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines]]'' decision.<ref>Raskin, James B. (2009), "No Enclaves of Totalitarianism", American University Law Review, Vol. 58:1193.</ref>
As early as 1945, the ACLU had taken a stand to protect the rights of the mentally ill when it drafted a model statute governing mental commitments.<ref name=W309>Walker, p. 309.</ref> In the 1960s, the ACLU opposed involuntary commitments unless it could be demonstrated that the person was a danger to himself or the community.<ref name=W309/> In the landmark 1975 ''[[O'Connor v. Donaldson]]'' decision, the ACLU represented a non-violent mental health patient who had been confined against his will for 15 years and persuaded the Supreme Court to rule such involuntary confinements illegal.<ref name=W309/>
Before 1960, prisoners had virtually no recourse to the court system because courts considered prisoners to have no civil rights.<ref>Note, "Beyond the Ken of Courts", ''Yale Law Journal'' 72 (1963):506. Cited by Walker, p. 310.</ref> That changed in the late 1950s, when the ACLU began representing prisoners subject to [[police brutality]] or deprived of religious reading material.<ref name=W310>Walker, p. 310.</ref> In 1968, the ACLU successfully sued to desegregate the Alabama prison system; in 1969, the New York affiliate adopted a project to represent prisoners in New York prisons.<ref>Walker, pp. 310–11. The ACLU was not involved in the ''Landman'' case.</ref>
====Victim groups==== [[File:Ruth Bader Ginsburg official SCOTUS portrait.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] co-founded the ACLU's Women's Rights Project in 1971.<ref>Pullman, Sandra (March 7, 2006). [https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/tribute-legacy-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-wrp-staff "Tribute: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and WRP Staff"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319024236/http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/tribute-legacy-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-wrp-staff |date=March 19, 2015 }}. ''ACLU.org''. Accessed November 18, 2010.</ref> She was later appointed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] by President [[Bill Clinton]].]]
During the 1960s and 1970s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include what it referred to as "victim groups", namely women, the poor, and homosexuals.<ref>Walker, p. 299.</ref> Heeding the call of female members, the ACLU endorsed the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] in 1970<ref>The ERA was passed by congress in 1972 but failed to be ratified by the states.</ref> and created the Women's Rights Project in 1971. The Women's Rights Project dominated the legal field, handling more than twice as many cases as the [[National Organization for Women]], including breakthrough cases such as ''[[Reed v. Reed]]'', ''[[Frontiero v. Richardson]]'', and '' [[Taylor v. Louisiana]]''.<ref>Walker, pp. 304–05.</ref>
ACLU leader [[Harriet Pilpel]] raised the issue of the rights of homosexuals in 1964, and two years later, the ACLU formally endorsed [[LGBT rights in the United States|gay rights]]. In 1972, ACLU cooperating attorneys in Oregon filed the first federal civil rights case involving a claim of unconstitutional discrimination against a gay or lesbian public school teacher. The US District Court held that a state statute that authorized school districts to fire teachers for "immorality" was unconstitutionally vague, and awarded monetary damages to the teacher.<ref>Walker, p. 312.</ref>
The rights of the poor were another area that the ACLU expanded.{{efn |In 1966 and again in 1968, activists within the ACLU encouraged the organization to adopt a policy overhauling the welfare system and guaranteeing low-income families a baseline income; but the ACLU board did not approve the proposals.<ref name=W313>Walker, p. 313.</ref> }} However, the ACLU played a key role in the 1968 ''[[King v. Smith]]'' decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that welfare benefits for children could not be denied by a state simply because the mother cohabited with a boyfriend.<ref name=W313/>
==== Reproductive Freedom Project ==== The ACLU founded the Reproductive Freedom Project in 1974 to defend individuals the government obstructs in cases involving access to abortions, birth control, or sexual education. According to its mission statement, the project works to provide access to reproductive health care for individuals.<ref>{{Cite book|jstor=j.ctt32bqj0.7|title=The Other Feminists|chapter=Litigating Feminist Principles|date=January 1, 1998|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0300074642|editor-last=Hartmann|editor-first=Susan M.|series=Activists in the Liberal Establishment|pages=[https://archive.org/details/otherfeministsac0000hart/page/53 53–91]|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/otherfeministsac0000hart/page/53|last1=Hartmann|first1=Susan M.}}</ref> The project also opposes [[abstinence-only sex education]], arguing that it promotes an unwillingness to use contraceptives.<ref name=":02">{{cite web|url=https://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-planned-parenthood-aclu-file-challenges-to-abortion-restrictions-in-three-states|title=Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, ACLU File Challenges to Abortion Restrictions in Three States|date=September 27, 2013|website=[[Center for Reproductive Rights]]|language=en|access-date=May 1, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709115230/https://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-planned-parenthood-aclu-file-challenges-to-abortion-restrictions-in-three-states|archive-date=July 9, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://prospect.org/article/women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-freedom-chill-wind-blows|title=For Women's Reproductive Freedom, a Chill Wind Blows|work=The American Prospect|access-date=May 1, 2017|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170502005651/http://prospect.org/article/women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-freedom-chill-wind-blows|archive-date=May 2, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.proquest.com/openview/b2e15d5d2875ce26854147fecd6f12f1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35312|title=Abstinence-Only Education in the Courts|id={{ProQuest|<!-- insert ProQuest data here -->}}|language=en|access-date=May 2, 2017|archive-date=July 2, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220702074719/https://www.proquest.com/openview/b2e15d5d2875ce26854147fecd6f12f1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35312|url-status=live}}</ref>
In 1980, the Project filed ''[[Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital]]'' which attempted to overturn ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'', the 1927 US Supreme Court decision which had allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to legally sterilize persons it deemed to be mentally defective without their permission. Though the Court did not overturn ''Buck v.Bell'', in 1985, the state agreed to provide counseling and medical treatment to the survivors among the 7,200 to 8,300 people sterilized between 1927 and 1979.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wong |first1=Elizabeth |title=A Shameful History: Eugenics in Virginia |url=https://acluva.org/en/news/shameful-history-eugenics-virginia |website=ACLUVA |access-date=August 16, 2021 |date=January 11, 2013 |archive-date=August 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817025243/https://acluva.org/en/news/shameful-history-eugenics-virginia |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1977, the ACLU took part in and litigated ''[[Walker v. Pierce]]'', the [[United States courts of appeals|federal circuit court case]] that led to federal regulations to prevent [[Medicaid]] patients from being sterilized without their knowledge or consent.<ref>{{cite web |title=About the ACLU reproductive freedom project |url=https://www.aclu.org/other/about-aclu-reproductive-freedom-project |access-date=August 23, 2021 |archive-date=August 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824012208/https://www.aclu.org/other/about-aclu-reproductive-freedom-project |url-status=live }}</ref>
====Privacy==== The [[Privacy laws of the United States|right to privacy]] is not explicitly identified in the [[United States Constitution|US Constitution]], but the ACLU led the charge to establish such rights in the indecisive ''[[Poe v. Ullman]]'' (1961) case, which addressed a state statute outlawing contraception. The issue arose again in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' (1965), and this time the Supreme Court adopted the ACLU's position and formally declared a right to privacy.<ref>Walker, pp. 300–01</ref> The New York affiliate of the ACLU pushed to eliminate [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion|anti-abortion laws]] starting in 1964, a year before ''Griswold'' was decided; in 1967 the ACLU itself formally adopted the [[Support for the legalization of abortion|right to abortion]] as a policy.<ref>Walker, p. 302.</ref> The ACLU led the defense in ''[[United States v. Vuitch]]'' (1971), which expanded the right of physicians to determine when abortions were necessary.<ref>Walker, p. 303.</ref> These efforts culminated in one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973), which legalized abortion throughout the United States.<ref>Walker, p. 303. The ACLU did not participate directly in ''Roe v. Wade'', but did lead the effort in the companion case ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]''.</ref> The ACLU successfully argued against state bans on [[interracial marriage]], in the case of ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' (1967).<ref> {{cite web | url = https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/loving-reality-all | title = A Loving Reality for All | publisher = ACLU | access-date = 24 March 2026 | last = Calhan | first = Greger }} </ref>
Related to privacy, the ACLU engaged in several battles to ensure that government records about individuals were kept private and to give individuals the right to review their records. The ACLU supported several measures, including the 1970 [[Fair Credit Reporting Act]], which required credit agencies to divulge credit information to individuals; the 1973 [[Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act]], which provided students the right to access their records; and the [[Privacy Act of 1974|1974 Privacy Act]], which prevented the federal government from disclosing personal information without good cause.<ref>Walker, p. 308.</ref>
====Allegations of bias==== In the early 1970s, conservatives and [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] began to criticize the ACLU for being too political and too liberal.<ref>Walker, p. 317.</ref> Legal scholar Joseph W. Bishop wrote that the ACLU's trend to partisanship started with its defense of Spock's anti-war protests.<ref>Bishop, Joseph W., "Politics and the ACLU", ''Commentary'' 52 (December 1971): 50–58. Bishop cited by Walker. Bishop was a professor of law at Yale.</ref> Critics also blamed the ACLU for encouraging the Supreme Court to embrace [[judicial activism]].<ref name=W318>Walker, p. 318.</ref> Critics claimed that the ACLU's support of controversial decisions like ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' violated the [[Original intent|intention of the authors]] of the Bill of Rights.<ref name=W318/> The ACLU became an issue in the [[1988 United States presidential election|1988 presidential campaign]], when Republican candidate [[George H. W. Bush]] accused Democratic candidate [[Michael Dukakis]] (a member of the ACLU) of being a "card carrying member of the ACLU".<ref>Walker, pp. 319, 363. Bush quoted by Walker.</ref>
====Skokie case==== {{main|National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie}}
In 1977, the [[National Socialist Party of America]], led by [[Frank Collin]], applied to the town of [[Skokie, Illinois]], for a permit to hold a demonstration in the town park. Skokie at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens, some of whom were survivors of [[Nazi concentration camp]]s. Skokie refused to grant the NSPA a permit and passed ordinances against hate speech and military wear, in addition to requiring an insurance bond. Skokie's Village Council ordered [[village attorney]], Harvey Schwartz, to seek an injunction to stop the demonstration. The ACLU assisted Collin and appealed to federal court, eventually prevailing in [[National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie|NSPA v. Village of Skokie]].<ref>Ed McManus, "Nazi March: What's It All About?", ''Illinois Issues'', v.13, Nov. 1978 (available at [http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1978/ii781111.html Illinois Periodicals Online] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060908083411/http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1978/ii781111.html |date=September 8, 2006 }}).<br />The federal appeal case was ''Smith v. Collin'' 447 F. Supp. 676. See also Supreme Court: ''Smith v. Collin'', 439 US 916 (1978), and ''National Socialist Party v. Skokie'', 432 US 43 (1977).</ref>
The Skokie case was heavily publicized across America, partially because Jewish groups such as the [[Jewish Defense League]] and [[Anti Defamation League]] strenuously objected to the demonstration, leading many members of the ACLU to cancel their memberships.<ref name=Skokie/> The Illinois affiliate of the ACLU lost about 25% of its membership and nearly one-third of its budget.<ref>30,000 ACLU members resigned in protest.</ref><ref>Philippa Strum, ''When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate'' (University Press of Kansas) ([http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html University of Kansas Press publisher's catalog description] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070827110841/http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html |date=August 27, 2007 }}).</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/skokiepo001&CISOPTR=36|title=Membership woes hurt ACLU while others gain|access-date=October 7, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081913/http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fskokiepo001&CISOPTR=36|archive-date=September 27, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/skokiepo001&CISOPTR=0|title=2d suit to block Nazis from Skokie march fails|access-date=October 7, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081811/http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fskokiepo001&CISOPTR=0|archive-date=September 27, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> The financial strain from the controversy led to layoffs at local chapters.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=The High Cost of Free Speech: A.C.L.U. dilemma: defending "hateful and heinous" ideas |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=June 28, 1978 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916244-1,00.html |access-date=May 18, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090624045022/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C916244-1%2C00.html |archive-date=June 24, 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> After the membership crisis died down, the ACLU sent out a fund-raising appeal which explained their rationale for the Skokie case and raised over $500,000 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|500000|1977}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}} dollars).{{inflation-fn|US}}<ref>Walker, p. 239.</ref>
===1980s=== [[File:Oliver North mug shot.jpg|thumb|upright|The ACLU defended [[Oliver North]] in 1990, arguing that his conviction was tainted by coerced testimony.]]
The [[Arkansas]] 1981 creationism statute, which required schools to teach the biblical account of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The ACLU won the case in the ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' decision.<ref>Walker, pp. 342–43.<br />''[[McLean v. Arkansas|McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education]]'', 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982) ([http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html "transcription" by Clark Dorman] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070317031623/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html |date=March 17, 2007 }}, January 30, 1996, at TalkOrigins).</ref>
In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of [[child pornography]] (''[[New York v. Ferber]]''). In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that child pornography that violates the [[three prong obscenity test]] should be outlawed. However, the law was overly restrictive because it banned artistic displays and non-obscene material. The court did not adopt the ACLU's position.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html|title=Letter to Reps. Smith and Scott on H.R. 4623, the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002"|date=May 8, 2002|access-date=November 20, 2007|work=ACLU.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214213745/http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html|archive-date=December 14, 2007 |url-status= live}}</ref>
During the [[1988 United States presidential election|1988 presidential election]], Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]] noted that his opponent [[Governor of Massachusetts|Massachusetts Governor]] [[Michael Dukakis]] had described himself as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" and used that as evidence that Dukakis was "a strong, passionate liberal" and "out of the mainstream".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/dod/1988-broadcast.html|title=Debating Our Destiny: The 1988 Debates|website=[[PBS]]|access-date=August 24, 2017|archive-date=December 31, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231042713/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/dod/1988-broadcast.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> The phrase subsequently was used by the organization in an advertising campaign.<ref>{{cite news|author=Randall Rothenburg|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/28/us/aclu-goes-hollywood-in-countering-bush-s-campaign-of-derision.html|title=A.C.L.U. Goes Hollywood in Countering Bush's Campaign of Derision|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=September 28, 1988|access-date=September 28, 2008|archive-date=August 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200829032123/https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/28/us/aclu-goes-hollywood-in-countering-bush-s-campaign-of-derision.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
===1990s=== In 1997, ruling unanimously in the case of ''[[Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union]]'', the Supreme Court voided the anti-[[indecency]] provisions of the [[Communications Decency Act]] (the CDA), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]. In their decision, the Supreme Court held that the CDA's "use of the undefined terms 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two standards relate to each other and just what they mean."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/521bv.pdf |title=521 U. S. 844 (1997) |access-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171114160842/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/521bv.pdf |archive-date=November 14, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
===2000s=== In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State joined with a pro-gun rights organization, the [[Second Amendment Foundation]], and prevailed in a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks.<ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/waedce/2:2006cv00327/41160/53/ ''Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131025190751/http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/waedce/2:2006cv00327/41160/53/ |date=October 25, 2013 }} (US District Court, Eastern District of Washington), {{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-seeks-access-lawful-information-internet-library-patrons-eastern|title=ACLU Lawsuit Seeks Access to Lawful Information on Internet for Library Patrons in Eastern Washington|date=November 16, 2006|access-date=January 7, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110107005129/http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-seeks-access-lawful-information-internet-library-patrons-eastern|archive-date=January 7, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2012, the ACLU sued the same library system for refusing to disable temporarily, at the request of an adult patron, Internet filters which blocked access to [[Google Images]].<ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/292757/20120203/library-porn-washington-aclu-lawsuit-wenatchee.htm "Internet Porn is Subject of ACLU lawsuit"], ''International Business Times'', February 3, 2012.</ref>
In 2006, the ACLU challenged a Missouri law prohibiting picketing outside veterans' funerals. The ACLU filed the suit in support of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] and [[Shirley Phelps-Roper]], who were threatened with arrest.<ref>Garance Burke, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html "ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials"], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', July 23, 2006.</ref><ref>The ACLU challenged the Missouri law, which was similar to the federal [[Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act]].</ref> The Westboro Baptist Church is well known for its picket signs that contain messages such as "God Hates Fags", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", and "Thank God for 9/11". The ACLU issued a statement calling the legislation a "law that infringes on Shirley Phelps-Roper's rights to religious liberty and free speech."<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html "ACLU of Eastern Missouri Challenges Law Banning Pickets and Protests One Hour Before or After a Funeral"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091021074659/http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html |date=October 21, 2009 }}, ACLU, July 21, 2006.</ref> The ACLU prevailed in the lawsuit.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33239prs20071206.html|title=ACLU of Eastern Missouri Applauds Decision in Free Speech Case|access-date=August 3, 2014|archive-date=October 31, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091031220515/http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33239prs20071206.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>
In 2009, the ACLU filed an [[amicus brief]] in ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'', arguing that the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] of 2002 violated the First Amendment right to free speech by curtailing political speech.<ref>{{cite journal|title=''Amicus Curiae'' Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Appellant on Supplemental Question|journal=Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission|date=July 29, 2009|page=24|url=https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/scotus/citizensunited_v_fec_acluamicus.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/scotus/citizensunited_v_fec_acluamicus.pdf |archive-date=October 9, 2022 |url-status=live|access-date=April 1, 2012}}</ref> This stance on the landmark ''Citizens United'' case caused considerable disagreement within the organization, resulting in a discussion about its future stance during a quarterly board meeting in 2010.<ref>{{cite news|last=Goldstein|first=Joseph|title=ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling|url=http://www.nysun.com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/|access-date=March 1, 2019|newspaper=New York Sun|date=January 24, 2010}}</ref>{{efn |On March 27, 2012, the ACLU reaffirmed its stance in support of the Supreme Court's ''Citizens United'' ruling, at the same time voicing support for expanded public financing of election campaigns and stating the organization would firmly oppose any future constitutional amendment limiting free speech.<ref>{{cite web|title=The ACLU and ''Citizens United''|url=https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united|date=March 27, 2012|publisher=ACLU|access-date=April 1, 2012}}</ref> }}
==== LGBTQ issues ==== In 2000, the ACLU lost the ''[[Boy Scouts of America v. Dale]]'' case, which had asked the Supreme Court to require the [[Boy Scouts of America]] to drop their policy of prohibiting homosexuals from becoming Boy Scout leaders.<ref>{{Cite web |title=American Civil Liberties Union : U.S. Supreme Court Ruling that Boy Scouts Can Discriminate is 'Damaging but Limited,' ACLU Says |url=http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/11988prs20000628.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091019213611/http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/11988prs20000628.html |archive-date=2009-10-19 |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=www.aclu.org}}</ref>
In March 2004, the ACLU, along with [[Lambda Legal]] and the [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]], sued the state of California on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. That case, ''Woo v. Lockyer'', was eventually consolidated into ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'', the [[California Supreme Court]] case which led to same-sex marriage being available in that state from June 16, 2008, until [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]] was passed on November 4, 2008.<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/californiamarriage.html "California Marriage Case"], ACLU, retrieved June 28, 2009</ref> The ACLU, [[Lambda Legal]] and the [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]] then challenged Proposition 8 and won.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2008-11-06 |title=California's Prop 8 Update {{!}} ACLU |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/californias-prop-8-update |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title={{!}} ACLU of Northern CA |url=https://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/federal_appeals_court_says_california_marriage_ban_is_unconstitutional.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103152128/https://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/federal_appeals_court_says_california_marriage_ban_is_unconstitutional.shtml |archive-date=January 3, 2020 |access-date=2026-01-15 |work=ACLU of Northern CA |language=en |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2011, the ACLU started its [[Don't Filter Me]] project, countering [[LGBTQ]]-related [[Internet censorship]] in [[American public schools|public schools]] in the United States.<ref name="ars">{{cite news | last =Lasar | first =Matthew | title ="Don't filter me": ACLU fights schools that block LGBT websites | newspaper =[[Ars Technica]] | date =March 29, 2011 | url =https://arstechnica.com/business/2011/03/is-your-public-school-blocking-lgbt-websites-call-the-aclu/ | access-date =December 14, 2014 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20141215035304/http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/03/is-your-public-school-blocking-lgbt-websites-call-the-aclu/ | archive-date =December 15, 2014 | url-status =dead }}</ref>
On January 7, 2013, the ACLU settled with the federal government in ''[[Collins v. United States]]'' that provided for the payment of full separation pay to servicemembers discharged under "[[don't ask, don't tell]]" since November 10, 2004, who had previously been granted only half that.<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=Servicemembers Kicked Out Under Military's Gay Ban Since '04 To Receive Full Separation Pay|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/servicemembers-kicked-out-under-militarys-gay-ban|access-date=January 7, 2013|newspaper=Buzz Feed|date=January 7, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130109011201/http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/servicemembers-kicked-out-under-militarys-gay-ban|archive-date=January 9, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>
===2010s=== In 2012, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of the [[Ku Klux Klan]] of Georgia, claiming that the KKK was unfairly rejected from the state's "[[Adopt-a-Highway]]" program. The ACLU prevailed in the lawsuit.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/us/georgia-in-suing-state-aclu-defends-klan.html |title=Georgia: In Suing State, A.C.L.U. Defends Klan - The New York Times |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=September 15, 2012 |accessdate=February 17, 2022}}</ref>
====Allegations of prioritizing civil rights over civil liberties{{Anchor|Lost impartiality accusations}}====
Some have claimed the ACLU is reducing its support of unpopular free speech (specifically, by declining to defend speech made by [[Conservatism in the United States|conservatives]]) in favor of [[identity politics]], [[political correctness]], and [[progressivism]].<ref> * {{cite web |last=Soave |first=Robby |date=June 21, 2018|title=Leaked Internal Memo reveals ACLU is wavering on free speech|url=https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ |website=Reason|access-date=December 28, 2021}} * {{cite news |title=Civil Rights v civil liberties at the aclu |url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/02/13/civil-rights-v-civil-liberties-at-the-aclu |newspaper=The Economist|access-date=December 28, 2021}} * {{cite web |last1=Kirchick |first1=James |date=May 24, 2016|title=The Disintegration of the ACLU |url=https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick |website=Tablet|access-date=December 28, 2021}} * {{Cite web |last1=Gillespie |first1=Nick |last2=Taylor |first2=Regan |date=June 23, 2022 |title=As the ACLU Recedes From Its Core Mission, FIRE Expands To Fill the Void |url=https://reason.com/video/2022/06/23/as-the-aclu-recedes-from-its-core-mission-fire-expands-to-fill-the-void/ |access-date=June 25, 2022 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}} * {{Cite news |last=Bazelon |first=Lara |title=The ACLU Has Lost Its Way |work=[[The Atlantic]] |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/629808/}}</ref> Instead, critics contend that the organization has become a progressive advocacy organization intensely focused on [[identity politics]].<ref name="tropes">{{cite news |last=Peters |first=Jeremy W. |date=March 22, 2024 |title=The A.C.L.U. Said a Worker Used Racist Tropes and Fired Her. But Did She? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bias.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322092149/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bias.html |archive-date=March 22, 2024 |accessdate=March 22, 2024 |work=[[The New York Times]] |publisher=}}</ref> One basis of these allegations was a 2017 statement the ACLU president made to a reporter after the death of a counter-protester during the [[Unite the Right rally|2017 Unite the Right rally in Virginia]], where Romero told a reporter that the ACLU would no longer support legal cases of activists that wish to carry guns at their protests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville |title=Why the ACLU is adjusting its approach to "free speech" after Charlottesville |publisher=Vox |date=August 21, 2017 |accessdate=February 17, 2022}}</ref>{{efn|Another basis for these claims was an internal ACLU memo dated June 2018, discussing factors to evaluate when deciding whether to take a case. The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." The memo's authors stated that the memo did not define a change in official ACLU policy, but was intended as a guideline to assist ACLU affiliates in deciding which cases to take.<ref>{{cite web|author=Robby Soave |url=https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ |title=Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech |publisher=Reason.com |date=June 21, 2018 |accessdate=February 17, 2022}}</ref> }}
Some analysts viewed this as a retreat from the ACLU's historically strong support of First Amendment rights, regardless of whether minorities were negatively impacted by the speech, citing the ACLU's past support for certain KKK and Nazi legal cases.<ref name="Kaminer">{{Cite news|last=Kaminer|first=Wendy|date=June 20, 2018|title=The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression|language=en-US|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065|access-date=June 22, 2018|issn=0099-9660}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=Freedom of Expression – ACLU Position Paper|language=en|work=American Civil Liberties Union|url=https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-paper|access-date=June 22, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) {{!}} ACLU of Ohio|url=https://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622032745/https://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio|archive-date=June 22, 2018|access-date=June 22, 2018|website=www.acluohio.org|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Powell|first=Michael|date=June 6, 2021|title=Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20211228/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html |archive-date=December 28, 2021 |url-access=limited|access-date=October 29, 2021|issn=0362-4331}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="Sykes 2018">{{cite web|last=Sykes|first=Michael|date=June 21, 2018|url=https://www.axios.com/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rights-1108e489-d79f-4d51-ac22-877b14546b76.html|title=Leaked memo reveals ACLU debate on defense of free speech|website=Axios|language=en|access-date=June 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622123345/https://www.axios.com/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rights-1108e489-d79f-4d51-ac22-877b14546b76.html|archive-date=June 22, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> The ACLU responded to the criticisms by denying that they are reducing their support for unpopular First Amendment causes and listing 27 cases from 2017 to 2021 where the ACLU supported a party holding an unpopular or repugnant viewpoint.{{efn |The cases included one which challenged college restrictions on hate speech; a case defending a Catholic school's right to discriminate in hiring; and a case that defended antisemitic protesters who marched outside a synagogue.<ref>{{cite web |last=Cole |first=David |date=June 6, 2021 |title=Defending Speech We Hate |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate/ |access-date=December 28, 2021 |website=ACLU}}</ref> }}
===2020s=== ====Anti-terrorism issues==== [[File:Nicholas Merrill 27C3.jpg|thumb|upright|The ACLU represented [[Internet service provider]] [[Nicholas Merrill]] in [[American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft|a 2004 lawsuit]] which challenged the government's right to gather information about Internet access secretly.]]
After the [[September 11 attacks]], the federal government instituted a broad range of new measures to combat [[terrorism]], including the passage of the [[Patriot Act]]. The ACLU challenged many of the measures, claiming that they violated rights regarding [[due process]], privacy, illegal searches, and [[cruel and unusual punishment]].{{efn| An ACLU policy states: "Our way forward lies in decisively turning our backs on the policies and practices that violate our greatest strength: our Constitution and the commitment it embodies to the rule of law. Liberty and security do not compete in a zero-sum game; our freedoms are the very foundation of our strength and security. The ACLU's National Security Project advocates for national security policies that are consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights. The Project litigates cases relating to detention, torture, discrimination, surveillance, censorship, and secrecy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/national-security|title=National Security – Recent Court Cases, Issues and Articles |website=American Civil Liberties Union |date=September 11, 2001|access-date=August 15, 2012}}</ref> }} During the ensuing debate regarding the proper balance of civil liberties and security, the membership of the ACLU increased by 20%, bringing the group's total enrollment to 330,000.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021202aclusidebarp8.asp|title=ACLU has new constituency after 9/11|work=[[Associated Press]] via [[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]|date=December 2, 2002|access-date=November 20, 2007|author=Ron Kampeas|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071208095437/http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021202aclusidebarp8.asp|archive-date=December 8, 2007 |url-status=live}}</ref> The growth continued, and by August 2008 ACLU membership was greater than 500,000. It remained at that level through 2011.<ref>ACLU, [https://aclu.org/about/index.html "About Us"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091031134423/https://www.aclu.org/about/index.html |date=October 31, 2009 }}</ref>
The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the [[Patriot Act]] of 2001, the [[Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003|PATRIOT 2]] Act of 2003, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism. In response to a requirement of the USA PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from the [[Combined Federal Campaign]] charity drive.<ref name="cfc">{{Cite web |title=American Civil Liberties Union: Citing Government "Blacklist"; Policy, ACLU Rejects $500,000 from Funding Program |url=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18526prs20040731.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091017010806/http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18526prs20040731.html |archive-date=October 17, 2009 |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=www.aclu.org |url-status=live }}</ref>
In 2004, the ACLU sued the federal government in ''[[American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft]]'' on behalf of [[Nicholas Merrill]], owner of an [[Internet service provider]]. Under the provisions of the Patriot Act, the government had issued [[national security letter]]s to Merrill to compel him to provide private Internet access information from some of his customers.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hamblett|first=Mark|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426792619|title=2nd Circuit Requires Judicial Review Before Security Letter Gag Order|publisher=New York Law Journal|date=December 16, 2008|access-date=November 8, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Zetter|first=Kim|url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/|title='John Doe' Who Fought FBI Spying Freed From Gag Order After 6 Years|website=Wired.com|date=August 10, 2010|access-date=November 8, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101018162650/http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/|archive-date=October 18, 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Doe|first=John|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html|title=My National Security Letter Gag Order|newspaper=Washington Post|date=March 23, 2007|access-date=November 15, 2010}}</ref>
In January 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit, ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', in a federal district court in Michigan, challenging government spying in the [[NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)]] controversy.<ref>Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("NSA Spying Complaint"), ''ACLU v. NSA'' (E.D. Mich. January 17, 2006) ([https://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23491lgl20060117.html#attach PDF of complaint available] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091010184241/http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23491lgl20060117.html#attach |date=October 10, 2009 }} at ACLU website, "Safe and Free: NSA Spying" section of website).</ref> On August 17, 2006, that court ruled that the warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.<ref>Ryan Singel, [https://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71610-0.html?tw=wn_index_3 "Judge Halts NSA Snooping"], ''Wired'', August 17, 2006.</ref>{{efn |However, the order was stayed pending an appeal. The [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration did suspend the program while the appeal was being heard.<ref name="fisaappeal">{{cite news|last=Marks|first=Alexandra|title=Privacy Advocates Fight for Ground Lost After 9/11|work=The Christian Science Monitor|page=USA2|date=April 3, 2007}}</ref> In February 2008, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal from the ACLU to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the September 11 terror attacks.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-dismisses-aclus-challenge-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-law|title=Supreme Court Dismisses ACLU's Challenge to NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Law|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=April 27, 2018|language=en}}</ref> }} The ACLU represented a [[Muslim-American]] who was detained but never accused of a crime in ''[[Ashcroft v. al-Kidd]]'', a civil suit against former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]].<ref name="wp">{{cite news|title=Supreme Court to consider Ashcroft bid for immunity|first=Robert|last=Barnes|date=October 19, 2010|page=A2|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101802032.html}}</ref> In January 2010, the [[American military]] released the names of 645 detainees held at the [[Bagram Theater Internment Facility]] in Afghanistan, modifying its long-held position against publicizing such information. This list was prompted by a [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]] lawsuit filed in September 2009 by the ACLU, whose lawyers had also requested detailed information about conditions, rules, and regulations.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/asia/17afghan.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220101/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/asia/17afghan.html |archive-date=January 1, 2022 |url-access=limited|title=Bagram Detainees Named by U.S.|newspaper=New York Times|date=January 17, 2010|first1=Alissa J.|last1=Rubin|first2=Sangar|last2=Rahimi}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=BBC News - US releases names of prisoners at Bagram, Afghanistan |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8462894.stm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100116052233/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8462894.stm |archive-date=2010-01-16 |access-date=2026-01-15 |website=news.bbc.co.uk |language=en-GB}}</ref>
==== Trump administration ==== [[File:NoBanNoWall SF 20170204-1945 (cropped).jpg|thumb|left|upright|Abdi Soltani, executive director of Northern California ACLU, speaks at a San Francisco protest of the U.S. immigration ban.]] Following [[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016|Donald Trump]]'s election as president on November 8, 2016, the ACLU responded on Twitter by saying: "Should President-elect Donald Trump attempt to implement his unconstitutional campaign promises, we'll see him in court."<ref>{{cite tweet |author=ACLU |author-link=ACLU |user=ACLU |number=796389278033051648 |date=November 9, 2016 |title=Should President-elect Donald Trump attempt to implement his unconstitutional campaign promises, we'll see him in court. |language=en |access-date=December 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220812131345/https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/796389278033051648 |archive-date=August 12, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an [[Executive Order 13769|executive order]] indefinitely barring "Syrian refugees from entering the United States, suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days and blocked citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, refugees or otherwise, from entering the United States for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220101/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html |archive-date=January 1, 2022 |url-access=limited |title=Trump's Executive Order on Immigration: What We Know and What We Don't |last=Stack|first=Liam|date=January 29, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=January 30, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The ACLU responded by filing a lawsuit against the ban on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who had been detained at JFK International Airport. On January 28, 2017, District Court Judge [[Ann Donnelly]] granted a temporary injunction against the immigration order,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained|title=ACLU and Other Groups Challenge Trump Immigration Ban After Refugees Detained at Airports Following Executive Order |department=Speak Freely (blog) |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |access-date=January 30, 2017}}</ref> saying it was difficult to see any harm from allowing the newly arrived immigrants to remain in the country.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-refugees-lawsuit-iraq-visas-234305|title=Judge blocks deportations as Trump order sparks global outrage|newspaper=Politico|access-date=February 5, 2017}}</ref> In response to Trump's order, the ACLU raised more than $24 million from more than 350,000 individual online donations in two days. This amounted to six times what the ACLU normally receives in online donations in a year. Celebrities donating included [[Chris Sacca]] (who offered to match other people's donations and ultimately gave $150,000), [[Rosie O'Donnell]], [[Judd Apatow]], [[Sia]], [[John Legend]], and [[Adele]].<ref name="Stelter">{{cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/30/news/aclu-online-donations/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170130095222/http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/30/news/aclu-online-donations/|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 30, 2017|title=ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend|last=Stelter|first=Brian|date=January 30, 2017 |publisher=CNNMoney|access-date=January 30, 2017}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Dastagir |first=Alia E. |date=January 29, 2017 |title=Outrage over Trump's immigrant ban helps ACLU raise more money online in one weekend than in all of 2016 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/01/29/aclu-fundraising-records-muslim-immigrant-ban/97218098/ |access-date=February 18, 2017 |newspaper=USA Today |language=en}}</ref> The number of members of the ACLU doubled in the time from the election to end of January to 1 million.<ref name=":0" />
Grants and contributions increased from US$106 million reported by the 2016 year-end [[income statement]] to $274 million by the 2017 year-end statement. The segment's primary revenue source came from individual contributions in response to the Trump presidency's infringements on [[civil liberty|civil liberties]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=2017-01-30 |title=Donations to A.C.L.U. and Other Organizations Surge After Trump's Order (Published 2017) |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/aclu-fund-raising-trump-travel-ban.html |access-date=2025-08-27 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Folley |first=Aris |date=2018-07-04 |title=ACLU membership grew from 400,000 to 1.84 million after Trump was elected: report |url=https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395525-aclu-membership-grew-from-400000-to-184-million-months-after/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250609120049/https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395525-aclu-membership-grew-from-400000-to-184-million-months-after/ |archive-date=June 9, 2025 |access-date=2025-08-27 |work=The Hill |language=en-US |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) |url=https://www.charitywatch.org/charities/american-civil-liberties-union-aclu |access-date=2025-08-27 |website=www.charitywatch.org |language=en}}</ref> Besides filing more lawsuits than during previous presidential administrations, the ACLU has spent more money on advertisements and messaging as well, weighing in on elections and pressing political concerns. This increased public profile has drawn some accusations that the organization has become more politically partisan than in previous decades.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stahl |first=Lesley |date=March 10, 2019 |title=The ACLU's surprising new political strategy, modeled in part after the NRA - 60 Minutes - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-aclu-surprising-new-political-strategy-modeled-in-part-after-the-national-rifle-association-60-minutes/ |access-date=August 19, 2024 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Heller |first=Jordan |date=2025-01-17 |title=The Free-Speech War Inside the ACLU |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-free-speech-war-inside-the-aclu.html |access-date=2025-08-27 |website=Intelligencer |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2021-06-06 |title=Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis (Published 2021) |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html |access-date=2025-08-27 |language=en}}</ref> In 2018, [[Harvard Law School]] professor [[Alan Dershowitz]] accused the ACLU of morphing from a "neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties" into a "hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dershowitz |first=Alan |date=2018-06-11 |title=The final nail in the ACLU's coffin |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/391682-the-final-nail-in-the-aclus-coffin/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250127152222/https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/391682-the-final-nail-in-the-aclus-coffin/ |archive-date=January 27, 2025 |access-date=2025-08-27 |work=The Hill |language=en-US |url-status=live }}</ref>
In December 2025, the ACLU of Minnesota filed a lawsuit on behalf of six community members, alleging [[United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement|Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] agents violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to "watch, document, and criticize ICE."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-12-18 |title=ACLU of Minnesota filing suit alleging ICE agents have violated constitutional rights - CBS Minnesota |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/aclu-minnesota-accuses-ice-of-violating-constitutional-rights/ |access-date=2025-12-18 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Magan |first=Christopher |date=December 17, 2025 |title=ACLU of Minnesota sues ICE over alleged mistreatment of observers |url=https://www.startribune.com/aclu-of-minnesota-sues-ice-over-alleged-mistreatment-of-observers/601548112 |website=The Minnesota Star Tribune }}{{Dead link|date=March 2026 |bot=InternetArchiveBot }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Kyle |date=2025-12-17 |title=ACLU sues ICE, claiming federal agents deprived citizens of civil rights |url=https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/aclu-sues-ice-claiming-federal-agents-deprived-citizens-of-civil-rights/ |access-date=2025-12-18 |website=KSTP.com 5 Eyewitness News |language=en-US}}</ref>
==== Israel–Palestine ==== In 2022, the ACLU petitioned the US Supreme Court to overturn an Arkansas [[anti-BDS law]] mandating that companies pledge not to boycott Israel in order to do business with the state.<ref>{{cite web |last1=McGreal |first1=Chris |title=ACLU asks supreme court to overturn Arkansas' anti-boycott law against Israel |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/20/aclu-arkansas-anti-boycott-law-israel |website=The Guardian |date=October 20, 2022 |access-date=October 29, 2024}}</ref> During the [[Gaza war]], the New York chapter of the ACLU sued [[Columbia University]] for banning its campus chapters of [[Jewish Voice for Peace]] and [[Students for Justice in Palestine]] on the grounds of First Amendment violations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Touré |first1=Madina |title=Civil liberties organizations sue Columbia over suspension of pro-Palestinian groups |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/12/civil-liberties-organizations-columbia-lawsuit-pro-palestinian-groups-00146458 |website=Politico |date=March 12, 2024 |access-date=March 14, 2024}}</ref> In February 2024, the ACLU signed a letter to US Secretary of Education [[Miguel Cardona]] calling on him to reject [[Working definition of antisemitism|defining antisemitism]] to include some political criticism of the government of the state of Israel, claiming it would lead to [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] violations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Alonso |first1=Johanna |title=ACLU Warns Against Adopting Antisemitism Definition |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/08/aclu-urges-education-dept-reject-antisemitism-definition |website=Inside Higher Ed |access-date=October 29, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=US civil liberties group asks Education Department to reject IHRA definition of antisemitism |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/7/israels-war-on-gaza-live-israel-pounds-gaza-as-truce-diplomacy-continues?update=2689390 |website=Al Jazeera |access-date=February 8, 2024}}</ref>
==== Social media ==== In 2024, the ACLU spoke out against governments banning the social media platform [[TikTok]].<ref name="Timotija">{{Cite web |last=Timotija |first=Filip |date=December 7, 2024 |title=ACLU denounces federal ruling on TikTok ban |url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5028001-aclu-titok-ban-ruling/ |access-date=December 9, 2024 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> The organization specifically condemned a U.S. House bill banning the platform in March 2024, calling the legislation "unconstitutional."<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 6, 2024 |title=ACLU says US House bill that could ban TikTok is unconstitutional |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/aclu-says-us-house-bill-that-could-ban-tiktok-is-unconstitutional-2024-03-06/ |website=Reuters}}</ref> In December 2024, the ACLU criticized a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the law, claiming it "sets a flawed and dangerous precedent, one that gives the government far too much power to silence Americans' speech online."<ref name="Timotija"/> The ACLU has also lobbied against the [[Kids Online Safety Act]], a bill meant to protect children online.<ref name="Kang">{{Cite web |last=Kang |first=Cecilia |title=How the Kids Online Safety Act Was Dragged Into a Political War |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/technology/kosa-child-online-safety.html |website=The New York Times|date=July 30, 2024 }}</ref> The organization claims it would censor important conversations online, particularly among marginalized groups.<ref name="Kang"/>
==See also== {{div col|colwidth=30em}} * {{Annotated link|American Civil Rights Union}} * {{Annotated link|Anti-Defamation League}} * {{Annotated link|British Columbia Civil Liberties Association}} * {{Annotated link|Canadian Civil Liberties Association}} * {{Annotated link|Common Cause}} * {{Annotated link|Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression}} * {{Annotated link|Institute for Justice}} * {{Annotated link|Liberty (advocacy group)}} * {{Annotated link|List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union}} * {{Annotated link|National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee}} * {{Annotated link|Political freedom}} * {{Annotated link|Southern Poverty Law Center}} {{div col end}}
== References==
===Footnotes=== {{notelist}}
=== Citations === {{Reflist}}
=== Bibliography === * {{cite book|last=Alley|first=Robert S.|year=1999|title=The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State|location=Amherst, New York|publisher=[[Prometheus Books]]|isbn=978-1-57392-703-1|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionreli0000unse}} * {{cite book | last=Beito | first=David T. | author-link = David T. Beito| year=2023 | title = The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights: The Untold Story of FDR's Concentration Camps, Censorship, and Mass Surveillance| edition=First | pages=4–7| location=Oakland | publisher=Independent Institute | isbn=978-1598133561}} * Bodenhamer, David, and Ely, James, Editors (2008). ''The Bill of Rights in Modern America'', second edition. Indiana University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-253-21991-6}}. * [[William A. Donohue|Donohue, William]] (1985). ''The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union''. Transaction Books. {{ISBN|0-88738-021-2}}. * [[Wendy Kaminer|Kaminer, Wendy]] (2009). ''Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU''. Beacon Press. {{ISBN|978-0-8070-4430-8}}. A dissident member of the ACLU criticizes its post-9/11 actions as betraying the core principles of its founders. * {{cite book|last=Kauffman|first=Christopher J.|year=1982|title=Faith and Fraternalism: The History of the Knights of Columbus, 1882–1982|publisher=Harper and Row|isbn=978-0-06-014940-6|url=https://archive.org/details/faithfraternalis00kauf}} * Lamson, Peggy (1976). ''Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union''. Houghton Mifflin Company. {{ISBN|0-395-24761-6}}. * {{cite book | url = https://archive.org/details/indefenseofameri00walk_0 | last = Walker | first = Samuel | year = 1990 | title = In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU | publisher = Oxford University Press | access-date = 24 March 2026 | isbn = 0-19-504539-4 }}
===Further reading=== * Klein Woody, and Baldwin, Roger Nash (2006). ''Liberties lost: the endangered legacy of the ACLU''. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. A collection of essays by Baldwin, each accompanied by commentary from a modern analyst. * Krannawitter, Thomas L. and Palm, Daniel C. (2005). ''A Nation Under God?: The ACLU and religion in American politics''. Rowman & Littlefield. * Sears, Alan, and Osten, Craig (2005). ''The ACLU vs America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values''. B&H Publishing Group. * Smith, Frank LaGard (1996). ''ACLU: The Devil's Advocate: The Seduction of Civil Liberties in America''. Marcon Publishers.
====Archives==== * [https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt9c60151m/ American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California records]. 754 boxes. UCLA Library Special Collections. * [https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv75164 American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.] 1917–2019. 188.31 cubic feet (including 13 microfilm reels and 1 videocassette) plus 62 cartons and 2 rolled posters. [http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/laws/ ''Labor Archives of Washington''. University of Washington Special Collections.] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20151117022142/http://reuther.wayne.edu/node/2181 American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan: Detroit Branch Records] 1952–1966. This collection documents the early years of the Detroit ACLU branch. The collection contains documents related to academic freedom; censorship; church and state; civil liberties; police brutality; HUAC; and legal assistance to prisoners. [[Walter P. Reuther Library]], Detroit, Michigan. * [https://web.archive.org/web/20151117014756/http://reuther.wayne.edu/node/2180 American Civil Liberties Union of Oakland County, Michigan] 1970–1984. This collection illustrates that the branch was formed to address Oakland County jail conditions, lie detector use, senior housing rights, and attempts to reinstate the death penalty. [[Walter P. Reuther Library]], Detroit, Michigan. * [https://archive.today/20121215000319/http://findingaids.princeton.edu/getEad?eadid=MC001.01&kw American Civil Liberties Union Records], Princeton University. Document archive 1917–1950, including the history of the ACLU. * [http://library.indstate.edu/about/units/rbsc/debs/pamphlet.html Debs Pamphlet Collection] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200812185849/http://library.indstate.edu/about/units/rbsc/debs/pamphlet.html |date=August 12, 2020 }}, Indiana State University Library. An array of annual ACLU reports in PDF. * [https://web.archive.org/web/20120701045320/http://www.nhclu.org/ACLU-greatest-hits.php List of 100 most important ACLU victories (through 2002)] by New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union * [http://vault.fbi.gov/ACLU De-classified records on the ACLU], [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]]
====Selected works sponsored or published by the ACLU==== * ''Annual Report – American Civil Liberties Union'', American Civil Liberties Union, 1921. * ''Black Justice'', ACLU, 1931. * ''How Americans Protest'', American Civil Liberties Union, 1963. * ''Secret detention by the Chicago police: a report'', American Civil Liberties Union, 1959. * ''Report on lawlessness in law enforcement'', Wickersham Commission, Patterson Smith, 1931. This report was written by the ACLU but published under the auspices of the Wickersham Commission. * Miller, Merle, (1952), '' The Judges and the Judged'', Doubleday. * '' ACLU organization records, 1947–1995''. Princeton University Library, Mudd Manuscript Library. * ''The Dangers of Domestic Spying by Federal Law Enforcement'', American Civil Liberties Union, 2002. * ''Engines of Liberty: The Power of Citizen Activists to Make Constitutional Law'', David D. Cole, 2016
===External links=== {{sister project links|d=Q21637|n=Category:ACLU|c=category:American Civil Liberties Union|q=American Civil Liberties Union|wikt=ACLU|b=no|v=no|voy=no|m=no|mw=no|s=Category:American Civil Liberties Union}} * {{Official website}} <!-- Per [[WP:ELMINOFFICIAL]], choose one official website only --> * {{ProPublicaNonprofitExplorer|133871360}}
{{ACLU}} {{Patriot Act}} {{VH1 Trailblazer Honors}} {{Authority control}}
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union| ]] [[Category:Civil rights organizations in the United States]] [[Category:1920 establishments in the United States]] [[Category:501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations]] [[Category:Abortion-rights organizations in the United States]] [[Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States]] [[Category:Drug policy reform]] [[Category:Government watchdog groups in the United States]] [[Category:Identity politics in the United States]] [[Category:Immigration political advocacy groups in the United States]] [[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]] [[Category:LGBTQ political advocacy groups in the United States]] [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York City]] [[Category:Law firms based in New York City]] [[Category:Political organizations established in 1920]] [[Category:Privacy in the United States]] [[Category:Privacy organizations]] [[Category:Secularism in the United States]] [[Category:Separation of church and state in the United States]] [[Category:Transgender organizations in the United States]] [[Category:Anti–death penalty organizations in the United States]]