ACLU National

The Propellerheads may have been talking about fashion trends when they sang that "to me it seems quite clear that it's all just a little bit of history repeating." But that sentiment rings loud and true today when talking about the privacy-busting cybersecurity bill CISPA.

Leaders of the House Intel Committee reintroduced CISPA with the same privacy flaws as last year. While they suggested at its unveiling that they worked with the privacy community and addressed our concerns, they didn't. This is the same bill, with the same problems.

But since this is a repeat of last year, there is good news, too. Last year, citing many of our privacy concerns, President Obama threatened to veto CISPA, making clear that protecting privacy and civil liberties is a priority in any cybersecurity legislation he signs. Today the ACLU and 33 other organizations sent a letter to the president, urging him to do it again.

Last year, President Obama cautioned that CISPA would repeal "important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards," while failing to establish "requirements for both industry and Government to minimize and protect personally identifiable information." He warned that CISPA "does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes." And he objected to CISPA's overly broad liability protections that would make it virtually impossible for Americans to sue a company for improperly sharing our private information with the government or with another company.

Finally, President Obama echoed our serious concerns about the militarization of the cybersecurity mission – concerns that the House Homeland Security Committees also addressed at a hearing last week, before which the ACLU testified. In his veto threat, the president warned that CISPA "effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity and thus, significantly departs from longstanding efforts to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres." He also stated unequivocally that "The Administration believes that a civilian agency…must have a central role in domestic cybersecurity, including for conducting and overseeing the exchange of cybersecurity information."

CISPA, as reintroduced, raises exactly the same concerns as it did when the president issued his veto threat. Sign our petition calling on President Obama to stand up for Americans' privacy and civil liberties once more, and re-issue his threat to veto CISPA.

Learn more about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Of the many amici briefs filed to support marriage equality, the "Historian" brief, submitted by the American Historical Association along with 23 individual history professors, seeks to provide the proper historical context for the critical questions now facing the Supreme Court. As that brief explains, it is Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that is out of whack with our heritage, not the idea that states can recognize LGBT marriages.

For example, DOMA-supporters argue that DOMA is justified because a primary purpose of marriage in the United States has always been to provide a structure for parents raising children born of unintended pregnancies. This claim, however, has no historical basis. States have always encouraged marriages whether or not biological children would result. Perhaps the best example of this is our "First Family," establishing a non-biological family as a sound model for the nation. The "father of our country," George Washington was known to be sterile. Martha Custis brought two children from her first marriage into their household and they also later reared the children of her son, who died in the Revolutionary War. Are DOMA supporters really saying George shouldn't have been able to marry Martha?

Or how about the argument that DOMA is justified because the debate surrounding the freedom to marry arouses heated opposition of an intensity never seen before? Wrong again. States have always diverged in their own definitions of marriage, in ways that others thought were reprehensible. Some states, for example, allowed first cousin marriage, while others thought it incest. Some recognized common law marriage; some thought it "revolting." But the federal government always respected each state's choice, allowing them to be laboratories of change as understandings of family units evolved over time.

How about the "natural law" argument? Well, if you use that justification, then you are in the same company as one 19th-century state supreme court that argued against interracial marriages, , reasoning: "The natural law which forbids their intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures." Similarly, in 1871, the now-eliminated concept of "coverture," in which a married woman essentially became her husband's property, was seen "in the law of nature, which gave strength to the man and feebleness and dependence to the woman."

The truth is marriage has always been an evolving institution. There's really only been one constant over the centuries in the U.S.: marriage must be a union between a couple entered into by free will. Indeed, Revolutionary-era statesmen saw consent-based monogamy with their republican form of government, and saw the voluntary bond of marriage as a model for the voluntary allegiance asked of American citizens.

Let's hope soon that every American citizen will be able to exercise that right of free choice.

Catherine R. Connors joined Pierce Atwood in 1986, where she practices primarily in the area of appellate litigation - both civil and criminal - in the federal and state courts, including petitions for review of administrative decisions. She has argued over 100 appeals, primarily in the United States Courts of Appeals and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Cathy also leads Pierce Atwood's partnership with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Learn more about the Defense of Marriage Act and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Of the many amici briefs filed to support marriage equality, the "Historian" brief, submitted by the American Historical Association along with 23 individual history professors, seeks to provide the proper historical context for the critical questions now facing the Supreme Court. As that brief explains, it is Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that is out of whack with our heritage, not the idea that states can recognize LGBT marriages.

For example, DOMA-supporters argue that DOMA is justified because a primary purpose of marriage in the United States has always been to provide a structure for parents raising children born of unintended pregnancies. This claim, however, has no historical basis. States have always encouraged marriages whether or not biological children would result. Perhaps the best example of this is our "First Family," establishing a non-biological family as a sound model for the nation. The "father of our country," George Washington was known to be sterile. Martha Custis brought two children from her first marriage into their household and they also later reared the children of her son, who died in the Revolutionary War. Are DOMA supporters really saying George shouldn't have been able to marry Martha?

Or how about the argument that DOMA is justified because the debate surrounding the freedom to marry arouses heated opposition of an intensity never seen before? Wrong again. States have always diverged in their own definitions of marriage, in ways that others thought were reprehensible. Some states, for example, allowed first cousin marriage, while others thought it incest. Some recognized common law marriage; some thought it "revolting." But the federal government always respected each state's choice, allowing them to be laboratories of change as understandings of family units evolved over time.

How about the "natural law" argument? Well, if you use that justification, then you are in the same company as one 19th-century state supreme court that argued against interracial marriages, , reasoning: "The natural law which forbids their intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures." Similarly, in 1871, the now-eliminated concept of "coverture," in which a married woman essentially became her husband's property, was seen "in the law of nature, which gave strength to the man and feebleness and dependence to the woman."

The truth is marriage has always been an evolving institution. There's really only been one constant over the centuries in the U.S.: marriage must be a union between a couple entered into by free will. Indeed, Revolutionary-era statesmen saw consent-based monogamy with their republican form of government, and saw the voluntary bond of marriage as a model for the voluntary allegiance asked of American citizens.

Let's hope soon that every American citizen will be able to exercise that right of free choice.

Catherine R. Connors joined Pierce Atwood in 1986, where she practices primarily in the area of appellate litigation - both civil and criminal - in the federal and state courts, including petitions for review of administrative decisions. She has argued over 100 appeals, primarily in the United States Courts of Appeals and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Cathy also leads Pierce Atwood's partnership with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Learn more about the Defense of Marriage Act and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

It's a big week for reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a little-known law which safeguards internet communications but hasn't been touched in nearly 30 years.

Yesterday the ACLU joined Americans for Tax Reform to push for an update to the law, and today Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bipartisan bill that would do just that. The bill would require police to get a warrant before accessing email and all other online communications, like Facebook posts or photos we store in the cloud with Google, Yahoo, or any other provider. In addition, the House Judiciary Committee began a series of hearings today on updating ECPA. (ACLU statement for the record is here).

All of this activity is in recognition of the simple fact that current law contains enormous loopholes. Americans keep a wealth of personal information online. A law enforcement investigation could reveal intimate data like emails, contacts, online calendars and journals as well as sensitive health or financial information… the list goes on. Items like these, if kept inside the home, would clearly be protected by the Fourth Amendment and require a warrant before law enforcement searched or seized them. However, our outdated electronic privacy laws leave such personal information vulnerable on the internet. Law enforcement is well aware of this gap in the law.

According to Google's Transparency report, the company received 6,321 requests for users' personal information from U.S. law enforcement between July and December of 2011 alone. In 2012, the number jumped to 7,969 during the first half of the year, and to 8,348 during the second half of the year. Since the first report was issued in 2009, requests are up a staggering 136 percent.

The problem is ECPA was written in 1986 when few Americans even knew what email was, much less conceive of services like Facebook, Twitter and Picasa. While Congress fully intended to put in place strong privacy protections, they could not have imagined how the internet would evolve and how much personal data would eventually be stored in the cloud.

The evolution of email is an excellent example of how much things have changed since ECPA was passed. Back then, when a message was opened it was immediately deleted from the provider and stored on the user's hard drive. ECPA—written with this in mind—currently requires law enforcement to get a warrant to access a message from an e-mail provider's storage, only if the message is less than 180 days old. In Congress's thinking, any message unopened in 6 months was probably junk mail and thus didn't require a warrant to access.

Today, however, e-mail is often both stored on and accessed from remote servers belonging to the e-mail provider, and many people "archive" their e-mail on their provider's server rather than deleting old messages. Under the outdated ECPA statute, these messages are not protected by warrant. Our email currently lacks warrant protection not because of the original intention of the law, but because the internet has evolved far faster than legislators could keep up with.

Law enforcement has pushed back on the update claiming it would interfere with investigations. Although having unrestricted access to Americans' online information is helpful in investigations, we must maintain Americans' privacy rights through strong checks and balances. Just as a warrant approved by a judge would be required to read someone's physical mail or go into their home, the same safeguards should protect our electronic lives.

We are pleased to see so much bipartisan attention paid to ECPA. Our hope is that the result will be an updated law that allows us to use cool new technologies without sacrificing our privacy.

Learn more about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

It's a big week for reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a little-known law which safeguards internet communications but hasn't been touched in nearly 30 years.

Yesterday the ACLU joined Americans for Tax Reform to push for an update to the law, and today Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bipartisan bill that would do just that. The bill would require police to get a warrant before accessing email and all other online communications, like Facebook posts or photos we store in the cloud with Google, Yahoo, or any other provider. In addition, the House Judiciary Committee began a series of hearings today on updating ECPA. (ACLU statement for the record is here).

All of this activity is in recognition of the simple fact that current law contains enormous loopholes. Americans keep a wealth of personal information online. A law enforcement investigation could reveal intimate data like emails, contacts, online calendars and journals as well as sensitive health or financial information… the list goes on. Items like these, if kept inside the home, would clearly be protected by the Fourth Amendment and require a warrant before law enforcement searched or seized them. However, our outdated electronic privacy laws leave such personal information vulnerable on the internet. Law enforcement is well aware of this gap in the law.

According to Google's Transparency report, the company received 6,321 requests for users' personal information from U.S. law enforcement between July and December of 2011 alone. In 2012, the number jumped to 7,969 during the first half of the year, and to 8,348 during the second half of the year. Since the first report was issued in 2009, requests are up a staggering 136 percent.

The problem is ECPA was written in 1986 when few Americans even knew what email was, much less conceive of services like Facebook, Twitter and Picasa. While Congress fully intended to put in place strong privacy protections, they could not have imagined how the internet would evolve and how much personal data would eventually be stored in the cloud.

The evolution of email is an excellent example of how much things have changed since ECPA was passed. Back then, when a message was opened it was immediately deleted from the provider and stored on the user's hard drive. ECPA—written with this in mind—currently requires law enforcement to get a warrant to access a message from an e-mail provider's storage, only if the message is less than 180 days old. In Congress's thinking, any message unopened in 6 months was probably junk mail and thus didn't require a warrant to access.

Today, however, e-mail is often both stored on and accessed from remote servers belonging to the e-mail provider, and many people "archive" their e-mail on their provider's server rather than deleting old messages. Under the outdated ECPA statute, these messages are not protected by warrant. Our email currently lacks warrant protection not because of the original intention of the law, but because the internet has evolved far faster than legislators could keep up with.

Law enforcement has pushed back on the update claiming it would interfere with investigations. Although having unrestricted access to Americans' online information is helpful in investigations, we must maintain Americans' privacy rights through strong checks and balances. Just as a warrant approved by a judge would be required to read someone's physical mail or go into their home, the same safeguards should protect our electronic lives.

We are pleased to see so much bipartisan attention paid to ECPA. Our hope is that the result will be an updated law that allows us to use cool new technologies without sacrificing our privacy.

Learn more about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom."
Clarence Darrow, 1920

Yesterday, we honored the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright, in which the high Court held that a poor person facing criminal charges is entitled to counsel at the expense of the state. Fifty years after this decision, 80% of criminal defendants nationwide cannot afford their own lawyer. It's time to take stock of what we need to do going forward, as our Constitutional imperative to provide an adequate defense to those in need remains as pressing as ever.

In the 50 years since the Gideon decision, we have certainly made some strides – but do not be fooled. Yes, an indigent defendant's right to counsel has now been expanded to cover not only felony trials, but pretrial-proceedings, sentencing, misdemeanors, appeals, children charged with a juvenile offense, and attaches at the commencement of adversarial judicial proceedings. But, 50 years later, the true promise of Gideon is far from being fulfilled. The right to counsel has been twisted and shredded in many jurisdictions across the country so as to have become almost unrecognizable.

Like many other true believes in the necessity of this work, I did not become a criminal defense lawyer to get ensnared in a system that disrespects us and our clients so completely. Instead, we seek to trumpet the "obvious truth" that the average defendant stands little chance without a well-resourced, experienced defense attorney next to her. We have specialized skills and abilities to match our commitment to justice – we must insist the right to counsel mean what the Supreme Court has said it means.

Too often, though, a severe lack of resources and time test our commitment to provide public defense:

• In Idaho, appointed defense lawyers across the state in any of the 44 different county structures are overworked and underpaid, carrying hundreds more cases than national caseload standards contemplate, and forcing defense attorneys to "meet ‘em and plead ‘em" at a record pace.
• In New York, defense counsel are paid far less than prosecutors on the other side of the table who do the same, or less, work.
• In Mississippi, lawyers without specialized training and knowledge of complicated cases are assigned to represent those clients anyway.
• In Pennsylvania, the state does not provide a dime to fund indigent defense and no one oversees the quality of counsel individuals receive – recall the juvenile court judge who traded "cash for kids" with a for-profit juvenile facility builder.
• In Missouri, a divorcing couple represented a capital defendant where the prosecutor edited police reports to match the confession beat out of the defendant, and the defendant was sentenced to death.
• In Utah, an individual charged with shoplifting a loaf of bread may receive appointed counsel in one county but not the other.
• In Alabama, the small town judge who presides over a criminal case appoints defense counsel to represent the indigent and can refuse to appoint the same lawyer to subsequent cases if the lawyer "too zealously" represents her client. This system creates a conflict of interest – the defense counsel faces the dilemma of ensuring his livelihood or honoring the defendant's constitutional rights.
• In completing its investigation, Governor Snyder's Indigent Defense Commission was shocked to learn how little information was available about where state money goes in Michigan's 83 different public defense delivery systems.

Most, if not all, of these phenomena are likely occurring somewhere in your state too. Only 24 states have statewide public defender systems and most of those are fraught with under-funding issues – and the balance of the country is a free-for-all.

All of this leaves the client out in the cold – and a frigid day it is. Prison sentences are 636% (seven times) higher now than in 1963, when Clarence Gideon was sentenced to 2 years for stealing drinks and some cash from a pool hall. Today, one in 34 U.S. adults is under some form of correctional control. There are more Black people in prison today than were enslaved in this country in 1850. In fact, to this day, African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites.

In private cases, clients pay hundreds of dollars an hour for a lawyer to defend them. Do the lives and liberty of disproportionately Black and brown people matter that much less?

We all believe in the Constitution – how about we start applying it properly to criminal defendants? Nationally, we have had several hundred exonerations, including 142 from death row. That should at least give us pause, if not compel us to completely revamp the system to prevent such horrendous mistakes from occurring.

There, but for the grace of God, go I … or you. Wouldn't you rather have a properly paid, well-trained, prepared, willing, and resourced lawyer in your corner?

Stay tuned over the next year as we share more stories about the current state of indigent defense, fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright.

Learn more about criminal law reform and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom."
Clarence Darrow, 1920

Yesterday, we honored the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright, in which the high Court held that a poor person facing criminal charges is entitled to counsel at the expense of the state. Fifty years after this decision, 80% of criminal defendants nationwide cannot afford their own lawyer. It's time to take stock of what we need to do going forward, as our Constitutional imperative to provide an adequate defense to those in need remains as pressing as ever.

In the 50 years since the Gideon decision, we have certainly made some strides – but do not be fooled. Yes, an indigent defendant's right to counsel has now been expanded to cover not only felony trials, but pretrial-proceedings, sentencing, misdemeanors, appeals, children charged with a juvenile offense, and attaches at the commencement of adversarial judicial proceedings. But, 50 years later, the true promise of Gideon is far from being fulfilled. The right to counsel has been twisted and shredded in many jurisdictions across the country so as to have become almost unrecognizable.

Like many other true believes in the necessity of this work, I did not become a criminal defense lawyer to get ensnared in a system that disrespects us and our clients so completely. Instead, we seek to trumpet the "obvious truth" that the average defendant stands little chance without a well-resourced, experienced defense attorney next to her. We have specialized skills and abilities to match our commitment to justice – we must insist the right to counsel mean what the Supreme Court has said it means.

Too often, though, a severe lack of resources and time test our commitment to provide public defense:

• In Idaho, appointed defense lawyers across the state in any of the 44 different county structures are overworked and underpaid, carrying hundreds more cases than national caseload standards contemplate, and forcing defense attorneys to "meet ‘em and plead ‘em" at a record pace.
• In New York, defense counsel are paid far less than prosecutors on the other side of the table who do the same, or less, work.
• In Mississippi, lawyers without specialized training and knowledge of complicated cases are assigned to represent those clients anyway.
• In Pennsylvania, the state does not provide a dime to fund indigent defense and no one oversees the quality of counsel individuals receive – recall the juvenile court judge who traded "cash for kids" with a for-profit juvenile facility builder.
• In Missouri, a divorcing couple represented a capital defendant where the prosecutor edited police reports to match the confession beat out of the defendant, and the defendant was sentenced to death.
• In Utah, an individual charged with shoplifting a loaf of bread may receive appointed counsel in one county but not the other.
• In Alabama, the small town judge who presides over a criminal case appoints defense counsel to represent the indigent and can refuse to appoint the same lawyer to subsequent cases if the lawyer "too zealously" represents her client. This system creates a conflict of interest – the defense counsel faces the dilemma of ensuring his livelihood or honoring the defendant's constitutional rights.
• In completing its investigation, Governor Snyder's Indigent Defense Commission was shocked to learn how little information was available about where state money goes in Michigan's 83 different public defense delivery systems.

Most, if not all, of these phenomena are likely occurring somewhere in your state too. Only 24 states have statewide public defender systems and most of those are fraught with under-funding issues – and the balance of the country is a free-for-all.

All of this leaves the client out in the cold – and a frigid day it is. Prison sentences are 636% (seven times) higher now than in 1963, when Clarence Gideon was sentenced to 2 years for stealing drinks and some cash from a pool hall. Today, one in 34 U.S. adults is under some form of correctional control. There are more Black people in prison today than were enslaved in this country in 1850. In fact, to this day, African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites.

In private cases, clients pay hundreds of dollars an hour for a lawyer to defend them. Do the lives and liberty of disproportionately Black and brown people matter that much less?

We all believe in the Constitution – how about we start applying it properly to criminal defendants? Nationally, we have had several hundred exonerations, including 142 from death row. That should at least give us pause, if not compel us to completely revamp the system to prevent such horrendous mistakes from occurring.

There, but for the grace of God, go I … or you. Wouldn't you rather have a properly paid, well-trained, prepared, willing, and resourced lawyer in your corner?

Stay tuned over the next year as we share more stories about the current state of indigent defense, fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright.

Learn more about criminal law reform and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Medical Professionals Urge Legislature Not to Pass Any Further Bills Blocking Access to Women's Health Services

March 18, 2013

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

FARGO, N.D. – At a press conference held today, thirteen physicians and other medical professionals in North Dakota called on the governor to veto a law that would ban most abortions in the state and urged the legislature not to pass proposed laws that would ban all abortions, prohibit IVF activities and force abortion providers in the state to close.

"As a physician, I treat complicated patients, including cancer survivors who are facing infertility from chemotherapy. These patients often require IVF to achieve their dream of having a family," said Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a medical doctor in Fargo. "These laws would force me to turn families away. As a doctor and a North Dakota citizen, I am deeply dismayed that legislatures are limiting women's access to reproductive health care."

Last week, the North Dakota legislature passed a bill that, if signed into law by the governor, would be the strictest abortion ban in the country. The ban takes effect very early in pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. In addition to the press conference, doctors and medical professionals signed a letter to the legislature opposing the slate of proposed laws that would place further limits of reproductive health care. The North Dakota Medical Association also opposes the bills.

"These dangerous laws do nothing to protect the women and families of North Dakota," said Zach Packineau of the ACLU of North Dakota. "Nobody can predict what will happen during a pregnancy, and a woman should have the peace of mind knowing that all safe medical options are open to her if she and her doctor have to make a difficult decision."

The North Dakota ban was passed a week after the Arkansas legislature passed another extreme ban over that governor's veto. The Arkansas ban prohibits almost all abortion care after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

"Every woman, no matter where she lives in our country, has the right to make deeply personal decisions about her family and her health without the intrusion of politicians," said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Medical professionals also have the right to treat their patients in accordance with their best medical judgment, not with legislators' political judgment. Lawmakers around the country need to pay attention to doctors, and get politics out of the exam room."

Medical Professionals Urge Legislature Not to Pass Any Further Bills Blocking Access to Women's Health Services

March 18, 2013

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

FARGO, N.D. – At a press conference held today, thirteen physicians and other medical professionals in North Dakota called on the governor to veto a law that would ban most abortions in the state and urged the legislature not to pass proposed laws that would ban all abortions, prohibit IVF activities and force abortion providers in the state to close.

"As a physician, I treat complicated patients, including cancer survivors who are facing infertility from chemotherapy. These patients often require IVF to achieve their dream of having a family," said Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a medical doctor in Fargo. "These laws would force me to turn families away. As a doctor and a North Dakota citizen, I am deeply dismayed that legislatures are limiting women's access to reproductive health care."

Last week, the North Dakota legislature passed a bill that, if signed into law by the governor, would be the strictest abortion ban in the country. The ban takes effect very early in pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. In addition to the press conference, doctors and medical professionals signed a letter to the legislature opposing the slate of proposed laws that would place further limits of reproductive health care. The North Dakota Medical Association also opposes the bills.

"These dangerous laws do nothing to protect the women and families of North Dakota," said Zach Packineau of the ACLU of North Dakota. "Nobody can predict what will happen during a pregnancy, and a woman should have the peace of mind knowing that all safe medical options are open to her if she and her doctor have to make a difficult decision."

The North Dakota ban was passed a week after the Arkansas legislature passed another extreme ban over that governor's veto. The Arkansas ban prohibits almost all abortion care after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

"Every woman, no matter where she lives in our country, has the right to make deeply personal decisions about her family and her health without the intrusion of politicians," said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Medical professionals also have the right to treat their patients in accordance with their best medical judgment, not with legislators' political judgment. Lawmakers around the country need to pay attention to doctors, and get politics out of the exam room."

Should law enforcement agents have to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS tracker to a vehicle and track its movements? Several months ago we asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider our argument that they should (you can read our amicus brief here). Today, we will be in court arguing that point in the case of Harry, Mark, and Michael Katzin.

In 2010, hoping to confirm their suspicion that the Katzins had robbed a number of Rite-Aid pharmacies, FBI agents attached a GPS tracker to Harry Katzin’s car to track its movements. The agents did not seek a warrant from a judge before attaching the GPS device. They used the tracker to follow the Katzins as they drove to and from another Rite-Aid, and then arrested them shortly afterwards.

Last year the Supreme Court unanimously decided that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking it constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, but the Court did not address whether law enforcement needs a warrant before conducting GPS tracking. Today, we will argue that the government cannot engage in this type of tracking without going to a judge for a warrant first, since warrantless searches are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless they fall within one of the few limited exceptions to the warrant requirement. In this case, the government claims the “automobile exception” applies, but that exception was created to ensure that contraband concealed in cars would not escape detection, not to permit tracking of individuals. The automobile exception was also created because of the practical difficulty of securing a warrant before the car drives away, and that purpose for the exception also does not apply to GPS tracking.

Warrants are essential because, as the Supreme Court has written, they provide “the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, which is a more reliable safeguard against improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” This safeguard is particularly important when it comes to GPS tracking because the technology is cheap, convenient, difficult to detect, and highly intrusive. Given how easy and inexpensive it is to track a suspect using GPS, neither cost nor effort will stop the government from using it in cases where it isn’t reasonable. The courts must impose strict limitations on the use of this technology in order to protect the right of all Americans to go about their daily lives without being tracked by the government. Essential elements of our privacy are at stake: as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,

A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups—and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.

Should law enforcement agents have to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS tracker to a vehicle and track its movements? Several months ago we asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider our argument that they should (you can read our amicus brief here). Today, we will be in court arguing that point in the case of Harry, Mark, and Michael Katzin.

In 2010, hoping to confirm their suspicion that the Katzins had robbed a number of Rite-Aid pharmacies, FBI agents attached a GPS tracker to Harry Katzin’s car to track its movements. The agents did not seek a warrant from a judge before attaching the GPS device. They used the tracker to follow the Katzins as they drove to and from another Rite-Aid, and then arrested them shortly afterwards.

Last year the Supreme Court unanimously decided that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking it constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, but the Court did not address whether law enforcement needs a warrant before conducting GPS tracking. Today, we will argue that the government cannot engage in this type of tracking without going to a judge for a warrant first, since warrantless searches are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless they fall within one of the few limited exceptions to the warrant requirement. In this case, the government claims the “automobile exception” applies, but that exception was created to ensure that contraband concealed in cars would not escape detection, not to permit tracking of individuals. The automobile exception was also created because of the practical difficulty of securing a warrant before the car drives away, and that purpose for the exception also does not apply to GPS tracking.

Warrants are essential because, as the Supreme Court has written, they provide “the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, which is a more reliable safeguard against improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” This safeguard is particularly important when it comes to GPS tracking because the technology is cheap, convenient, difficult to detect, and highly intrusive. Given how easy and inexpensive it is to track a suspect using GPS, neither cost nor effort will stop the government from using it in cases where it isn’t reasonable. The courts must impose strict limitations on the use of this technology in order to protect the right of all Americans to go about their daily lives without being tracked by the government. Essential elements of our privacy are at stake: as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,

A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups—and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.

We have all heard cops in Hollywood assure suspects that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. But is this promise actually fulfilled for people in the real world? This blog series presents the real stories about the state of indigent defense fifty years after the right was first recognized in Gideon v. Wainwright.

You must install Flash to hear this clip.

Benjamin Rush, Jr. is a public defender in Memphis, Tennessee. Lawyers in his Shelby County office have caseloads that are three to four times larger than the national average, and Rush reports that he is often able to spend only minutes with his clients before they enter the courtroom. Not only are public defenders in Shelby County strapped for time and resources, but, according to Rush, "we face problems that regular criminal justice attorneys don't face – and that's poverty."

Many of Rush's clients cannot afford to bond out of jail while they wait for trial. Fighting a case, then, would mean time spent sitting in a cell, missing work and time with one's kids. Faced with this choice, Rush reports that many clients accept a time served offer in exchange for a guilty plea because they are "willing to settle the case for anything."

For Rush, this flawed incentive structure is upsetting:

When you really care about your clients and you see them pleading to things they should not be pleading to, it bothers you, and it's something you have to deal with personally.

In this podcast, Rush describes some of the problems he sees with indigent defense in Shelby County, fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed legal representation regardless of one's ability to pay. Today, the ACLU begins a year of stories about the state of indigent defense following the 50th anniversary of Gideon. To begin this series, the ACLU is happy to spotlight Rush, as he is exactly the type of dedicated, competent and zealous advocate indigent defendants deserve.

Listen to Benjamin Rush on our Gideon podcast.

Stay tuned over the next year as we share more stories about the current state of indigent defense, fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright.

Learn more about criminal law reform and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

We have all heard cops in Hollywood assure suspects that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. But is this promise actually fulfilled for people in the real world? This blog series presents the real stories about the state of indigent defense fifty years after the right was first recognized in Gideon v. Wainwright.

You must install Flash to hear this clip.

Benjamin Rush, Jr. is a public defender in Memphis, Tennessee. Lawyers in his Shelby County office have caseloads that are three to four times larger than the national average, and Rush reports that he is often able to spend only minutes with his clients before they enter the courtroom. Not only are public defenders in Shelby County strapped for time and resources, but, according to Rush, "we face problems that regular criminal justice attorneys don't face – and that's poverty."

Many of Rush's clients cannot afford to bond out of jail while they wait for trial. Fighting a case, then, would mean time spent sitting in a cell, missing work and time with one's kids. Faced with this choice, Rush reports that many clients accept a time served offer in exchange for a guilty plea because they are "willing to settle the case for anything."

For Rush, this flawed incentive structure is upsetting:

When you really care about your clients and you see them pleading to things they should not be pleading to, it bothers you, and it's something you have to deal with personally.

In this podcast, Rush describes some of the problems he sees with indigent defense in Shelby County, fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed legal representation regardless of one's ability to pay. Today, the ACLU begins a year of stories about the state of indigent defense following the 50th anniversary of Gideon. To begin this series, the ACLU is happy to spotlight Rush, as he is exactly the type of dedicated, competent and zealous advocate indigent defendants deserve.

Listen to Benjamin Rush on our Gideon podcast.

Stay tuned over the next year as we share more stories about the current state of indigent defense, fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright.

Learn more about criminal law reform and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

U.S. officials have acknowledged that human trafficking is a problem of "crisis proportions," both outside and inside America's borders. Yet despite professed intent to end this scourge, including with the help of a "zero-tolerance, one strike approach," human trafficking remains a pervasive and ongoing problem in this nation. As part of ongoing efforts to combat the phenomenon, the ACLU and a coalition of anti-trafficking organizations submitted a written statement last week to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council, urging the U.S. government to translate its words into actions.

The statement was submitted on the heels of a hearing entitled "Measures on Human Trafficking in the United States" before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In his testimony, the ACLU's Steven Watt commended recent efforts by the U.S. government to close loopholes that enable human trafficking on federal government contracts, such as an executive order on human trafficking and a provision in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which codifies many of these essential protections. Still, Watt cautioned:

This legislation and the E.O. are important first steps to ending trafficking on government overseas contracts. Together they improve oversight of the contracting process and allow for more effective enforcement of anti-trafficking laws and policies.  However, they will only achieve their objectives if properly implemented.

As the ACLU and Yale Law School documented in our 2011 report, Victims of Complacency, since 2003 thousands of foreign workers (known as Third Country Nationals or "TCNs") hired to work on U.S. government contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have been subjected to illegal recruitment, trafficking, and forced labor, in stark violation of U.S. and international law. Disturbingly, although these abuses are well known, the U.S. government has utterly failed to hold those responsible accountable: in fact, in the past decade the government has yet to prosecute one single contractor for involvement in trafficking and forced labor.

In our submission to the FAR Council, we recommend the adoption of standards essential to ensuring better oversight of the government contract process so that trafficking does not occur. These include the elimination of recruitment fees, which place workers in a situation of debt bondage and make them more vulnerable to abuse by their employers; provision of written contracts to workers and use only of licensed recruitment agencies; the implementation of grievance procedures so that workers are able to report violations without fear of retaliation; independent verification to ensure recruitment of TCNs follows ethical guidelines; training programs to educate contractors about human trafficking; and the development of a wage compliance program to verify that employees are actually paid the wage they are promised.

Implementation of regulations incorporating these standards is vital to ensuring that the executive order and the new statutory provision are not empty promises. As Watt said before the Inter-American Commission hearing on trafficking, "Only then, will the government's oft touted zero-tolerance on trafficking become a reality for TCNs working for the government and the American public."

Learn more about human trafficking and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

U.S. officials have acknowledged that human trafficking is a problem of "crisis proportions," both outside and inside America's borders. Yet despite professed intent to end this scourge, including with the help of a "zero-tolerance, one strike approach," human trafficking remains a pervasive and ongoing problem in this nation. As part of ongoing efforts to combat the phenomenon, the ACLU and a coalition of anti-trafficking organizations submitted a written statement last week to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council, urging the U.S. government to translate its words into actions.

The statement was submitted on the heels of a hearing entitled "Measures on Human Trafficking in the United States" before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In his testimony, the ACLU's Steven Watt commended recent efforts by the U.S. government to close loopholes that enable human trafficking on federal government contracts, such as an executive order on human trafficking and a provision in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which codifies many of these essential protections. Still, Watt cautioned:

This legislation and the E.O. are important first steps to ending trafficking on government overseas contracts. Together they improve oversight of the contracting process and allow for more effective enforcement of anti-trafficking laws and policies.  However, they will only achieve their objectives if properly implemented.

As the ACLU and Yale Law School documented in our 2011 report, Victims of Complacency, since 2003 thousands of foreign workers (known as Third Country Nationals or "TCNs") hired to work on U.S. government contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have been subjected to illegal recruitment, trafficking, and forced labor, in stark violation of U.S. and international law. Disturbingly, although these abuses are well known, the U.S. government has utterly failed to hold those responsible accountable: in fact, in the past decade the government has yet to prosecute one single contractor for involvement in trafficking and forced labor.

In our submission to the FAR Council, we recommend the adoption of standards essential to ensuring better oversight of the government contract process so that trafficking does not occur. These include the elimination of recruitment fees, which place workers in a situation of debt bondage and make them more vulnerable to abuse by their employers; provision of written contracts to workers and use only of licensed recruitment agencies; the implementation of grievance procedures so that workers are able to report violations without fear of retaliation; independent verification to ensure recruitment of TCNs follows ethical guidelines; training programs to educate contractors about human trafficking; and the development of a wage compliance program to verify that employees are actually paid the wage they are promised.

Implementation of regulations incorporating these standards is vital to ensuring that the executive order and the new statutory provision are not empty promises. As Watt said before the Inter-American Commission hearing on trafficking, "Only then, will the government's oft touted zero-tolerance on trafficking become a reality for TCNs working for the government and the American public."

Learn more about human trafficking and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

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

PHILADELPHIA – The American Civil Liberties Union will argue in federal appeals court tomorrow that the Constitution requires law enforcement to get a warrant from a judge before tracking people's cars with GPS devices.

In the case, the FBI – without a warrant – attached a GPS tracker to the vehicle of three men suspected of burglarizing pharmacies. Following the January 2012 Supreme Court ruling that doing so constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, the district court issued a decision suppressing the evidence produced by the location tracking.

The Justice Department appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing in part that even though attaching the device is a search, a warrant is not needed because of a rule called the "automobile exception." The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the lower court's opinion, joined by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"Just because a technology wasn't around when the Constitution was written doesn't mean that it's not covered," said Catherine Crump, the ACLU attorney who will argue Tuesday before a three-judge panel. "The fundamental privacy rights established by the Fourth Amendment require that police justify their actions and show probable cause to a judge before they can conduct invasive surveillance like constant location tracking. The 'automobile exception' was created so police could find contraband hidden in cars, not so they could monitor a person's movements nonstop for days or even months on end."

The ACLU’s amicus brief is at: aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-katzin-amicus-brief

The government’s appeal brief is at: aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-katzin-government-appellant-appeal-brief

The district court’s ruling is at: aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-katzin-district-court-opinion

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

PHILADELPHIA – The American Civil Liberties Union will argue in federal appeals court tomorrow that the Constitution requires law enforcement to get a warrant from a judge before tracking people's cars with GPS devices.

In the case, the FBI – without a warrant – attached a GPS tracker to the vehicle of three men suspected of burglarizing pharmacies. Following the January 2012 Supreme Court ruling that doing so constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, the district court issued a decision suppressing the evidence produced by the location tracking.

The Justice Department appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing in part that even though attaching the device is a search, a warrant is not needed because of a rule called the "automobile exception." The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the lower court's opinion, joined by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"Just because a technology wasn't around when the Constitution was written doesn't mean that it's not covered," said Catherine Crump, the ACLU attorney who will argue Tuesday before a three-judge panel. "The fundamental privacy rights established by the Fourth Amendment require that police justify their actions and show probable cause to a judge before they can conduct invasive surveillance like constant location tracking. The 'automobile exception' was created so police could find contraband hidden in cars, not so they could monitor a person's movements nonstop for days or even months on end."

The ACLU’s amicus brief is at: aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-katzin-amicus-brief

The government’s appeal brief is at: aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-katzin-government-appellant-appeal-brief

The district court’s ruling is at: aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-katzin-district-court-opinion

We're almost there – next week, on March 27, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Edie Windsor's case. Essentially DOMA requires the federal government to treat legally married same-sex couples differently from all other married couples. In June, the Court will rule on whether DOMA violates equal protection by treating married gay couples as unmarried in over 1,100 federal programs.

We are approaching a watershed moment in the marriage movement. And as we prepare for next week's argument, we know that we are not alone. The Supreme Court has been inundated with legal briefs from "friends of the court" supporting the ACLU's argument that DOMA is unconstitutional.  Edie has now been joined by 46 other briefs filed by one of the most extraordinary collections of "friends of the court" ever assembled.

Highlights of the people and organizations that have weighed in on the side of fairness include:

• Military leaders and families – Retired generals and officers explained how DOMA requires the armed forces to treat married gay service members differently from married straight service members, and how harmful that is to the military's culture of fairness.
• Religious leaders – Leaders of a range of religious faiths – from Episcopalians to Conservative Jews – wrote about their acceptance of marriage for same-sex couples, to rebut the common assumption that people of faith do not support the freedom to marry.
• Businesses – 278 companies, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Viacom, Walt Disney Co., Alcoa, and Marriott Int'l, wrote about how DOMA is bad for business.
• Members of Congress – 40 Senators and 172 Representatives signed a brief arguing that DOMA violates the Constitution.
• Former Senators who voted for DOMA – These Senators wrote about their own journey from supporting DOMA to opposing it, including the realization that all of the supposed justifications for DOMA proved, with the benefit of experience, to be meritless.
• Psychologists and Sociologists – The American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association each submitted briefs making clear that kids raised by gay parents do just as well as kids raised by straight parents, rebutting one of the primary arguments made by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives, which is defending DOMA in court.
• Political Scientists – The American Political Science Association filed a brief addressing the inability of lesbians and gay men to protect themselves in the normal political process (addressing one of the heightened scrutiny factors).
• Historians – The Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association wrote a detailed summary of the history of discrimination against lesbians and gay men (another one of the heightened scrutiny factors).
• Former Cabinet Secretaries – A wide range of former Executive branch officials wrote a brief explaining that DOMA was not necessary to ensure uniformity of federal benefits from state to state, since federal programs have long deferred to states' determinations of whether a person is married.

I could go on (there are so many briefs!) but you get the picture.

As exciting as it is to have so many people and groups sign on "officially" to the case, we also recognize that there are families around the country hurt by DOMA who have a real stake in the outcome of this case.

This week we want to shine a spotlight on just a handful of the many voices, including our amici and others, who can explain the range of ways that DOMA not only impacts same-sex couples, but the negative impact it has on children, businesses, and Americans from all walks of life.

Follow the Blog of Rights all week to hear these stories and then next week we're headed to court!

Learn more about the Defense of Marriage Act and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

We're almost there – next week, on March 27, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Edie Windsor's case. Essentially DOMA requires the federal government to treat legally married same-sex couples differently from all other married couples. In June, the Court will rule on whether DOMA violates equal protection by treating married gay couples as unmarried in over 1,100 federal programs.

We are approaching a watershed moment in the marriage movement. And as we prepare for next week's argument, we know that we are not alone. The Supreme Court has been inundated with legal briefs from "friends of the court" supporting the ACLU's argument that DOMA is unconstitutional.  Edie has now been joined by 46 other briefs filed by one of the most extraordinary collections of "friends of the court" ever assembled.

Highlights of the people and organizations that have weighed in on the side of fairness include:

• Military leaders and families – Retired generals and officers explained how DOMA requires the armed forces to treat married gay service members differently from married straight service members, and how harmful that is to the military's culture of fairness.
• Religious leaders – Leaders of a range of religious faiths – from Episcopalians to Conservative Jews – wrote about their acceptance of marriage for same-sex couples, to rebut the common assumption that people of faith do not support the freedom to marry.
• Businesses – 278 companies, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Viacom, Walt Disney Co., Alcoa, and Marriott Int'l, wrote about how DOMA is bad for business.
• Members of Congress – 40 Senators and 172 Representatives signed a brief arguing that DOMA violates the Constitution.
• Former Senators who voted for DOMA – These Senators wrote about their own journey from supporting DOMA to opposing it, including the realization that all of the supposed justifications for DOMA proved, with the benefit of experience, to be meritless.
• Psychologists and Sociologists – The American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association each submitted briefs making clear that kids raised by gay parents do just as well as kids raised by straight parents, rebutting one of the primary arguments made by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives, which is defending DOMA in court.
• Political Scientists – The American Political Science Association filed a brief addressing the inability of lesbians and gay men to protect themselves in the normal political process (addressing one of the heightened scrutiny factors).
• Historians – The Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association wrote a detailed summary of the history of discrimination against lesbians and gay men (another one of the heightened scrutiny factors).
• Former Cabinet Secretaries – A wide range of former Executive branch officials wrote a brief explaining that DOMA was not necessary to ensure uniformity of federal benefits from state to state, since federal programs have long deferred to states' determinations of whether a person is married.

I could go on (there are so many briefs!) but you get the picture.

As exciting as it is to have so many people and groups sign on "officially" to the case, we also recognize that there are families around the country hurt by DOMA who have a real stake in the outcome of this case.

This week we want to shine a spotlight on just a handful of the many voices, including our amici and others, who can explain the range of ways that DOMA not only impacts same-sex couples, but the negative impact it has on children, businesses, and Americans from all walks of life.

Follow the Blog of Rights all week to hear these stories and then next week we're headed to court!

Learn more about the Defense of Marriage Act and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Court Should Rule That Arizona's Law Interferes With Federal Law and Ensure Eligible Voters Can Register to Vote, ACLU Says

March 18, 2013

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

WASHINGTON — States should not be allowed to impose burdensome documentation requirements that restrict Americans' ability to register to vote in federal elections, the American Civil Liberties Union said today following an argument at the Supreme Court.

The court heard arguments in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, in which the ACLU and other organizations are representing individuals and organizations negatively impacted by Arizona's law, Proposition 200. The case centers on the question of whether the state law conflicts with the federal National Voter Registration Law, also called the "motor voter" law.

"Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act to encourage more people to vote in federal elections, but Arizona's law has precisely the opposite effect," said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "The lower court correctly held that Arizona's law was inconsistent with federal law, and we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree. States should not be erecting obstacles that restrict our democracy's electorate, but follow laws that ensure voter registration is accessible to all eligible American voters."

Congress enacted the NVRA in 1993 in order to streamline cumbersome state voter registration laws and make voter registration drives easier. The case before the court today stems from a 2006 lawsuit brought as a result of Proposition 200, a 2004 law that requires Arizona election officials to reject NVRA-mandated federal voter registration forms unless they include certain documents proving citizenship. The NVRA form requires only that an applicant sign a statement affirming citizenship.

Nationwide, an estimated 13 million people lack documentary proof of their citizenship. In Arizona, 90 percent of the over 31,000 U.S. citizens whose voter registration applications were denied were actually born in the United States.

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Arizona officials must accept the NVRA forms. The Supreme Court took up the case after the state of Arizona appealed that decision. A ruling following today's argument is expected in June.

For more information on the case: aclu.org/voting-rights/arizona-v-inter-tribal-council-arizona