ACLU National

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

WASHINGTON – "This new rule reaffirms the vitality of the discriminatory effects standard under the Fair Housing Act, which has been one of the most powerful tools of civil rights enforcement for decades," said Dennis D. Parker, Director of ACLU's Racial Justice Program. "Discrimination today often takes subtle forms, and the HUD rule ensures that people will be able to battle discrimination."

View the HUD announcement here.

ACLU and Housing Discrimination

Litigation
Last fall, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Manhattan to hold Morgan Stanley accountable for its collaboration with the subprime lender New Century, which supplied Morgan Stanley with a steady stream of irresponsible, high-risk loans issued in communities of color that were particularly vulnerable to economic ruin. For more information on this case (Adkins et al. v. Morgan Stanley), see here.

The ACLU Women's Rights Project has also been a leader in using disparate impact claims to address housing discrimination against survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Landlords often blame victims for the abuse occurring at the property, and evict them and their children. Because the majority of domestic violence victims are women, these practices have a discriminatory effect based on gender and violate the Fair Housing Act. For more, see here.

Report
Last fall, ACLU issued a report called Justice Foreclosed that looked at how Wall Street's demand for loans encouraged predatory lending in communities of color; how that in turn fueled the housing crisis, and how the bust will continue to affect these communities for years, if not generations, to come.

A special post for our friends and followers in New York City.

With a flare for innovation fit for Steve Jobs, the New York Civil Liberties Union has empowered anyone who can download Doodle Jump to protect their neighbors from the NYPD's abusive stop-and-frisk tactics.

Today, the NYCLU unveiled an iPhone version of Stop and Frisk Watch – our free smart-phone app that allows bystanders to document stop-and-frisk encounters and alert community members when a street stop is in progress.

Stop and Frisk Watch, which has been available on Android phones since June, has three primary functions:

• RECORD: Users can film a police encounter with audio. When filming stops, the user immediately receives a brief survey allowing them to provide details about the incident. The video and survey is sent to the NYCLU.
• LISTEN: This alerts users when someone in their neighborhood is being stopped by the police. It's especially useful for community groups that monitor police activity.
• REPORT: This prompts the survey, allowing users to report a police interaction they saw or experienced, even if they didn't film it.

In neighborhoods throughout New York City, an innocent trip to the corner store or subway carries the risk of enduring a humiliating and intimidating police stop. The NYPD's very own data shows that hundreds of thousands of innocent New Yorkers are stopped and frisked each year. Nearly nine out of every ten people stopped are black or Latino.

The information collected through Stop and Frisk Watch documents how the NYPD's abusive stop-and-frisk tactics corrode trust between police and communities. The NYCLU reviews every video and report, and investigates all relevant submissions to the fullest extent possible.

Since June, nearly 20,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the app on Android phones. We've received hundreds of videos documenting police incidents. In addition, New Yorkers have submitted more than 1,000 written reports, including documentation of police officers being verbally abusive and even drawing weapons during street stops.

These submissions have confirmed many of our concerns about the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices. The app is helping to rally support for much-needed reforms to end abusive and discriminatory policing in New York City.

For more information about Stop and Frisk Watch, please visit www.nyclu.org/app.

This app can only be used in New York City, but apps that help to promote police accountability are a growing national trend. Check out the ACLU of New Jersey's Police Tape app, for example.

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

Last week, the Obama administration released a proposed rule implementing the requirement that insurance plans cover birth control as part of "Obamacare." The proposal implements an accommodation announced last year, which allows nonprofits with religious affiliations to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage while ensuring that employees and dependents will get such coverage directly from insurance companies.

What does this mean for women? It means the administration continues to stand up for us to make sure we have access to basic health care. The Department of Health and Human Services recognized that the overwhelming majority of women use contraception at some point of their lives, and that it's essential preventive care for women—which is why they adopted the rule in the first place. As things move forward and details get worked out, it's important to make sure that women get this coverage seamlessly, without burdens or hurdles.

What does this mean for employers opposed to contraception? Although the original rule (which did not make this accommodation for nonprofits that objected to providing contraception) was perfectly legal and completely consistent with religious freedom principles, the administration has now gone out of its way to provide modifications for nonprofit institutions with religious objections. Under the proposed rule, those nonprofit employers could decide not to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for birth control coverage. Their employees will, however, be provided coverage, through their insurer, under the proposal. For-profit businesses—such as Hobby Lobby, a national retail chain currently suing the administration—will still have to comply with the original rule, and can't withhold contraceptive coverage from their workers. As the Obama administration explained, these entities don't get accommodations under other nondiscrimination laws, so the proposal is consistent.

You'd think the nonprofits opposed to the rule would be satisfied, right? Think again. Sarah Lipton-Lubet, ACLU policy counsel, said last week:

Over the last year, we've seen a disturbing number of instances where employers are trying to impose their religious beliefs on a diverse workforce that does not share them, and opponents of the law have made it clear that they won't rest until no insurance plan, whatever the source, is required to cover contraception.

That's because from the start, this has never been a fight about religious liberty. It's always been about whether women will have affordable birth control and equal access to benefits. And in 2013, apparently that's a fight we're still having.

The fight over the contraception rule is just one piece of a larger issue that's been popping up around the country where institutions and individuals are trying to use religion to discriminate. Companies withholding access to birth control coverage are just one example. We've also seen inns and bakeries refuse to provide rooms and cakes to same-sex couples celebrating their relationships. Religious freedom means we all have the right to hold our own beliefs, but it does not give one group the right to impose its beliefs on its employees or customers. That's not religious freedom—that's discrimination plain and simple.

In the News:

• AP: Obama offers faith groups new birth control rule
• New York Times: A Good Compromise on Contraception
• USA Today: HHS issues proposed contraception coverage rule
• Bloomberg: Critics Want More Exemptions From U.S. Birth-Control Rule
• NBC News: White House tries for new compromise on birth control
• BBC: White House unveils new contraception opt-out

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

Case Is Latest Example of State Attempting to Target and Drive Out Immigrants

February 7, 2013

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

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A coalition of civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit today to block a portion of Alabama's anti-immigrant law requiring state officials to publicly post an online list of immigrants who may be undocumented.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court on behalf of four Latino immigrants in Montgomery County who were arrested for allegedly fishing without a license – a misdemeanor offense. The law does not give immigrants any way to dispute their inclusion in the database.

Justin Cox, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, pointed out that the "black list" — which has also been called the "scarlet letter" provision — was controversial when it was pushed through by one Alabama legislator. "Sen. Scott Beason should never have been allowed to hijack the state legislature with his anti-immigrant agenda. This law violates privacy laws and basic constitutional rights, as well as conflicts with fundamental American values of fairness and equality. Instead of moving forward with a mean-spirited law that is doomed to fail, Alabama should join the rest of the country and focus on common-sense reforms that benefit citizens and immigrants alike."

Kristi Graunke, staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: "This part of Alabama's anti-immigrant law represents an unfortunate effort to bully and intimidate immigrants into leaving Alabama. It is designed to permanently brand, humiliate and otherwise make life difficult for immigrants regardless of status. It conflicts with federal privacy requirements and burdens the already cash-strapped state court system. Sadly, laws like this show that Alabama has yet to turn away from the devastation its anti-immigrant laws have caused."

Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, said: "While the rest of the country focuses on how best to make Americans at heart become Americans on paper, Alabama continues to tread down a discriminatory, anti-immigrant path. This lawsuit proves once again that Alabama's policies aren't just unconstitutional, but also out of touch with the political mainstream."

The latest attack on immigrants in Alabama is part of HB 658, a package of revisions to the state's notorious anti-immigrant law, HB 56. HB 658 effectively doubled-down on the draconian nature of the original law, enacted in 2011. Section 5 of HB 658 requires the state to compile and post on a public website the names and other information clearly identifying certain immigrants when they are detained on any state charge, no matter how minor, and appear in state court. The plaintiffs in this case and even those charged with minor traffic violations would fall within this requirement and be unconstitutionally added to the "black list."

Section 5 requires the posting of private information that the federal government has declared confidential and not subject to public disclosure. Moreover, once a person is named on the list, the law provides no means to remove their name or change their information if the listing is inaccurate, the person obtains permission to live in the United States, or even becomes a citizen.

The Alabama Administrative Office of Courts is charged with compiling the list. All individuals falling into a new and vague category of immigration status created by the law are added to the list, even if their cases are later dismissed. The law also provides no notice to people that their names and information will be listed online.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has already blocked key provisions of Alabama's original law — the most extreme in the nation — after finding that it conflicted with federal immigration law. The revision mandating the "black list" also violates federal law, and encourages discrimination by targeting immigrants.

For a copy of the complaint: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/doe-v-hobson-complaint

For more information about Alabama's original anti-immigrant law: www.aclu.org/crisis-alabama-immigration-law-causes-chaos

Bertha Mejia is a 53-year-old grandmother who fled political violence and sexual abuse in her native El Salvador as a girl. She has four U.S. citizen children and is the primary caretaker for her 9-year-old grandson, Pablo. The victim of rape at the hands of her employer, Ms. Mejia has a strong case for a "U-visa," a type of visa for victims of crime who cooperate with law enforcement. The police have already certified that Ms. Mejia is a victim who has assisted the police in apprehending the perpetrator.

Unfortunately, Ms. Mejia also has a shoplifting problem. She began stealing food as a child to feed her brothers and sisters. She has had a series of minor offenses, mostly related to stealing food items, and was diagnosed with kleptomania in 2011. Ms. Mejia has no violent criminal history and has strong claims for legal immigration status, yet she has spent the last 16 months in immigration detention solely based on her shoplifting offenses. Her detention is based on a 1996 law that purports to authorize prolonged mandatory detention during immigration proceedings even for individuals who pose no threat to public safety.

Today, the ACLU of Northern California, along with Ms. Mejia's immigration attorney Rosy Cho, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking Ms. Mejia's release. We argue that Congress could not have authorized prolonged detention based only on a record that includes a crime of "moral turpitude" (like shoplifting or writing a bad check), without requiring the government to convince a neutral judge that prolonged detention is justified because the detainee poses a danger to the community or is a flight risk.

Ms. Mejia has no violent criminal history and poses no danger to the community. Her loved ones all live in the vicinity of where her immigration court proceedings are held. While her application for the U-visa is pending, Ms. Mejia has every reason to appear at all court hearings and pursue immigration relief. And yet, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has the discretion to release her with any conditions that they find suitable, such as bond or electronic monitoring, refuses to do so. The immigration judge who presides over her case has ruled that he has no authority to release her and so Bertha Mejia languishes in the Yuba County Jail.

Ms. Mejia is only one of many immigrants confined in an irrational detention system. On any given day, over 30,000 immigrants are locked up in facilities around the country as they fight their deportation cases. Many are subject to mandatory detention and are denied even a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether their detention is justified. This overuse of incarceration not only shatters immigrant families, but also squanders taxpayer money.

As almost everyone acknowledges, our immigration system is in need of reform. In addition to providing a pathway toward citizenship to the many who already contribute to our culture and communities, reform must also include common sense solutions to our current unconstitutional, inhumane, and wasteful immigration detention practices.

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 06, 2013

CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – President Obama has reportedly ordered the Justice Department to give the House and Senate intelligence committees the secret legal opinion justifying the extrajudicial killing of American citizens suspected of being a threat to the United States.

“While this is a small step in the right direction, democratic transparency requires President Obama to make the full memo available to the public. The United States is not a nation of secret laws, and a memo authorizing the killing of American citizens is too important to keep from the American people,” ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Christopher Anders said. “Everyone – not just select members of Congress – has a right to know when the government believes it can kill American citizens. This concession has taken far too long and falls far short of President Obama's commitment to transparency he pledged to abide by since becoming president.”

Confirmation Hearing on John Brennan for CIA Director Provides Opportunity to Examine Brennan’s Role in Harmful Programs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 06, 2013

CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – At Thursday's confirmation hearing of John Brennan to lead the CIA, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee should push for more details about the U.S. government’s targeted killing program and his role in its development and implementation, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. These issues, raised anew by the leak of a government white paper, are on top of the longstanding concerns about what role Brennan may have played in torture, extraordinary rendition, and secret prisons during his tenure at the CIA.

“No one should be satisfied with a 16-page summary white paper instead of the 50-plus page original Justice Department opinion. The senators should ask John Brennan what is in the more than 30 missing pages of analysis – which was apparently significant enough that the Obama administration went to the trouble of writing a new shorter memo instead of simply releasing the original memo,” said ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Christopher Anders. “Brennan has been something of a Forrest Gump of toxic national security policies, having been in the room when everything from torture to the killing of an American citizen was being debated. Senators should not be legislating in the dark, and they should not vote on his nomination until all Americans know whether the decisions Brennan made at CIA headquarters and in his White House office comply with our laws and uphold basic American values.”

Brennan, the White House advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, has repeatedly been described in the press as an architect of the Obama administration’s expansive killing program. This week NBC News released a Justice Department white paper that summarizes a secret memo outlining the government’s framework for targeting and killing American citizens suspected of terrorism far from any battlefield and without due process, judicial review, or any “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” The ACLU said the white paper is a chilling document that demands a complete explanation from Brennan, as well as the full release of the original Office of Legal Counsel memo supporting the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.

“The Senate has to get to the bottom of the killing program. Under Brennan’s leadership, the killing program has left in its wake three dead American citizens, thousands of others dead across two continents, and an abandonment of the rule of law. The widespread killing of people far from any battlefield, based only on the orders of a high-level official, not only endangers American values – it creates a more dangerous world,” said Anders.

Last year was jam-packed with stories of companies making costly mistakes on user privacy and free speech. To help companies get a fresh start in 2013, the ACLU of California has just released the new edition of Privacy and Free Speech: It's Good for Business.

This primer (and companion website) is a practical, how-to guide illustrating how businesses can build privacy and free speech protections into their products and services – and what can happen if they don't.

The guide features dozens of real-life case studies from A(mazon) to Z(ynga) and updated recommendations for policies and practices to take the guesswork out of avoiding expensive lawsuits, government investigations, and public relations nightmares. It walks companies through essential questions and lays out steps to spot potential privacy and free speech issues in products and business models and address these issues head-on.

No company wants to get insta-hate for poorly thought-out policy decisions, lose tens of thousands of domain customers like Go-Daddy, or get hit like Google with a $22.5 million dollar fine by the Federal Trade Commission. It's far better to be on the flip side, garnering praise like small search engine DuckDuckGo for having strong privacy practices or Twitter for safeguarding the free speech of users. The tips in the ACLU guide can help companies start 2013 off right, avoid preventable mistakes, and build customer loyalty.

Five things companies can do to protect user privacy and free speech:

• Respect your data.
  Companies should carefully evaluate the costs of collecting and retaining data to avoid the fallout, lawsuits, and government fines that Path suffered for silently uploading users' contacts.
• Stand up for your users' rights.
  Companies can earn public praise and user trust for protecting user privacy rights like Amazon or for supporting free speech like Facebook.
• Plan ahead.
  Incorporate privacy and security from start to finish, and evaluate these practices as the company grows.
• Be Transparent.
  Give users the ability to make informed choices by letting them know what data you collect, and how it can be used, shared, or demanded by the government. Transparency reports like Google's are important tools.
• Encourage users to speak freely.
  Give users control over the content they access and the tools they use rather than censoring content like PayPal.

Baking in strong privacy and free speech protections isn't just the right thing to do – dozens of recent controversies highlight just how important it is for business too. By learning from other companies' mistakes and building on their privacy and free speech successes, businesses can hopefully make 2013 a profitable and privacy and free speech-friendly year for everyone.

View the primer online at aclunc.org/business/primer or download a pdf copy.

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

In April 2011, the White House set forth a proposed "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace," or NSTIC. The document was a proposal to create a mechanism by which people could identify themselves online to another party with certainty—a long-elusive goal that has been talked about and pursued by the private sector and "identity community" for many years, without success.

I explained my initial take on this proposal in this January 2011 blog post, and little has changed. In brief, the creation of a rigorous online identity system, even though it is not envisioned as being government-run, has a very real potential to become a de facto mandatory online national ID and to eviscerate online anonymity, which has been such an important part of the internet's vibrancy. On the other hand, such a tool could have good applications, and if the administration's vision does not take hold, there is a strong chance that Facebook Connect or some other private sector alternative may fill the gap—and without any of the privacy protections that the administration has consistently said should be part of this system. Amazing new cryptographic privacy techniques have been developed that, if incorporated into an identity system, would not only be better than what private-sector alternatives are likely to generate, but conceivably could be better than what now exists.

The bottom line is that if everything is done perfectly, an online identity system could be a good thing.

Otherwise, it's likely to be a disaster.

The administration has launched one of its "multi-stakeholder processes" to attempt to create actual concrete proposals and standards for this online identity "ecosystem" (it is envisioned as being made up of a variety of private parties operating under shared standards, not a single centralized government or private operator).

As I have noted before, this concept of a multi-stakeholder process is the ultimate expression of an interest group liberalism theory of government, in which the sum total of all the vectors of private interests produces the public good. But there's no particular reason to believe that that will be the case. In theory it sounds good to get all interested parties together in a room and let them hammer out a compromise solution that works for all of them. There are, however, several problems with this:

• It requires enormous time and resources to fully participate in this process. Stakeholders are now gathered in Phoenix for a third multi-day meeting, and the process has consumed countless other hours of participants' time in meetings of numerous committees—and up to this meeting has really only so far addressed procedural questions about the ground rules.
• The outcome of such a process may be heavily dependent on who shows up, and in what numbers. The NSTIC process is open to all, and the corporate sector makes up a very large proportion of the participants (I don't know exactly how large). Companies can afford to devote personnel and other resources that pose much more significant burdens on nonprofit public interest groups. (That said, the interests of the corporations represented do vary, and many individual corporate representatives are very thoughtful about privacy issues.)
• There is an overarching public interest that may not be adequately or proportionately represented by the powerful interest groups that are able to participate in such a process.
• Sometimes, conflicting interests just can't be squared. When different stakeholders' interests are diametrically opposed, there is nothing magic about getting representatives of those interests together in a room. Their desires may still be zero-sum.

An extended, cumbersome, time-consuming process for trying to hammer out solutions to highly contentious issues is also, one suspects, the perfect refuge for politicians who (as is so often the case due to the nature of their job) are trying to please all sides in a dispute and delay being forced to take sides. It may be a new variation on the old political fudging tactic: "when in doubt, create a commission."

All that said, a multi-stakeholder process may be a somewhat natural fit in this case. Since we don't want the government running an online identity system, and any successful identity network will have to consist of a broad ecosystem with multiple providers rather than a narrow system run by one company, it does makes sense to figure out what kind of proposal will fit with enough diverse parties' interests to be a real, viable thing. Nevertheless, many of the problems I list above appear to apply. At the same time, the administration seems to recognize this fact, and has done a good job in helping shape the process to compensate. For example, the process includes a privacy committee (which I am on) that has special powers to review work product. (Of course, the privacy committee is itself open to all).

I am in Phoenix this week for the third plenary meeting of the Identity Ecosystem Steering Group, or IDESG, as the multi-stakeholder group is called. The group is finally moving beyond process issues, and actually begin trying to build a proposal. Although as I've said we are deeply concerned about this project of creating an online identity system, we are engaging in the process because if it is done right it could be neutral—or just possibly even a plus—for online freedom. Stay tuned!

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

This was originally posted on the American Constitution Society blog.

The Hill broke a fascinating story last week: many major email providers are already requiring a warrant for the content of the communications they hold. What you say, this doesn't sound fascinating at all? It really is—just bear with me.

For the last several months the Senate Judiciary Committee has been fighting over this precise issue: how to update the nearly three-decades-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has long sought a standard where all communications and content must meet the warrant standard. That would mean information in Gmail accounts, Amazon cloud storage and text messages sent through Verizon would all have to meet the same standards—a warrant based on probable cause—that police currently need to search a home. But when Leahy brought the issue before the full committee last Congress, the response from law enforcement was that the proposal would have a dire impact on police practices.

Some local law enforcement claimed it would delay investigation in cases of missing children. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association expressed "profound disappointment," and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association worried it "could hamstring critical law enforcement efforts." Legislation to amend the statute with a warrant was voted out of committee but never got to the floor for a vote. While the vote was bipartisan, some Republicans expressed reservations about the legislation and the expectation that all of this should be revised in the new Congress.

Now here's what's fascinating. After Google released its transparency report, highlighting how many law enforcement orders it gets and the need to reform ECPA, The Hill called several other providers. It turns out that—in addition to Google—Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo all require a warrant. It seems that they were persuaded by a 2010 appellate court decision (a case called United States v. Warshak) that ruled that not requiring a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

So which is it? Is the sky falling as law enforcement seems to maintain or is this the de factolaw already, at least for some providers? The answer is a big deal. As Americans move everything online—photos and correspondence, office memos and friend lists—they are also moving it to an area with uncertain legal protections, one where police have often argued that they can see these communications without a warrant. The stakes are high. As the scandal that resulted in the resignation of General Petraeus emphasizes, the contents of emails can ruin lives and careers, even (or especially) when no one is ever actually arrested or charged with a crime. The need for privacy in an individual's communications is why the Fourth Amendment guarantees an individual the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."

As this debate goes forward, at least one senator has already cast doubt on whether the providers' practices are okay. Law enforcement has said they are "butting heads and rulebooks with both the email providers" on warrants for electronic communications. It's clear that there will be further debate, but given that the status quo seems to be one where privacy is protected and law enforcement isn't unduly hindered, shouldn't we make it the clear and unequivocal law so everyone is guaranteed the protections of the Constitution?

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.

Yesterday, the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) issued a comprehensive report laying out the scope of the CIA's extraordinary rendition, secret prison and torture program. The report, following up on the ACLU's 2012 Torture Report, traces the evolution of the program, through which the CIA kidnapped terrorism suspects from around the world, flew them secretly to "black sites" – where they were held incommunicado without charge or trial – and tortured them. The OSJI report reveals that 54 nations, more than a quarter of the world, directly participated in the torture program, including through housing CIA prisoners on their soil, where they were often tortured; helping kidnap terrorism suspects and ship them overseas without any legal process; and allowing CIA planes to use their airspace and airports for those kidnapping missions. (Check out the report to learn which countries participated, and what types of assistance they offered). And it compiles the largest, most detailed list yet of the men and women thrown into these horrific black holes, naming 136 victims, many of whose whereabouts remain unknown today.

But even the impressive OSJI report is not the full story; the CIA continues to cloak the entire truth in shameful secrecy, including suppressing the statements of torture victims who remain in United States custody (with the acquiescence of a military commissions judge). We are urging the Senate Intelligence Committee to release a 6,000-page classified report it has adopted that details the CIA torture program, to ensure that Americans know all the facts about what was done in our names (click here to add your voice).

While President Obama outlawed the torture techniques used by the CIA, he has to date refused to hold anyone accountable for these egregious violations of domestic and international law, stating, "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." That decision has sent the dangerous message has not only prevented accountability, but set a terrible example for the world, eroded America's reputation and undercut our claims to uphold the rule of law.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of accountability efforts for these violations of domestic and international law, through our groundbreaking Freedom of Information Act requests, which have forced the government to release tens of thousands of pages of documents on the torture program. Our efforts have also included litigation on behalf of victims; advocacy to honor the courageous public servants who stood against the torture program; and pressure for a full criminal investigation of those who devised, orchestrated and implemented the torture program, followed by prosecutions where there is sufficient evidence. We will continue to press on all these fronts until the United States returns to the rule of law and provides adequate redress to the dozens and dozens of people so brutally abused.

Learn more about U.S. sanctioned torture and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

The courts have a crucial role to play in determining the lawfulness of U.S. drone killings of three American citizens in Yemen in 2011, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights argued in a brief filed last night in a lawsuit challenging the killings (you can read the brief here).

Our lawsuit charges that U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi were killed in violation of the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law. In December, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing, in essence, that the courts should not be involved in determining the lawfulness of the targeted killing of U.S. citizens. As we say in the brief filed yesterday:

This case concerns the most fundamental right the Constitution guarantees to citizens: the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. Defendants respond with various arguments for dismissal of the case, but they all boil down to a single assertion: The Executive has the unilateral authority to carry out the targeted killing of Americans it deems terrorism suspects—even if those suspects do not present any truly imminent threat, even if they are located far away from any recognized battlefield, and even if they have never been convicted (or even charged) with a crime.

The filing of the brief came just one day after the release by NBC News of a Justice Department white paper, which summarizes a secret Department of Justice legal memo purportedly justifying the addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to the government's secret kill lists. (We're separately seeking that legal memo in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit).

The unchecked authority the government claims is dangerous, and the potential for abuse is clear. Under our Constitution and its system of checks and balances, the executive branch cannot decide alone that it can strip a citizen of the right to life. As the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, "[w]hatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake."

The targeted killing program is conducted in near-total secrecy. In our lawsuit, the defendants argue, in essence, that the government can kill citizens without presenting evidence to any court before or after a killing is carried out and without even acknowledging to any court that their claimed authority to kill has been exercised.

But as we say in response, "Defendants' argument that the Judiciary should turn a blind eye to the Executive's extrajudicial killing of American citizens misunderstands both the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the courts' constitutional duty to safeguard those rights from encroachment."

For more on 16 year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi's killing, watch this video of his grandfather, one of our clients.

Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

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

The Obama Administration recently underwent its first U.N. treaty body review, and the resulting concluding observations made public yesterday should be a cause for alarm. The observations, issued by independent U.N. experts tasked with monitoring compliance with the international treaty on the rights of children in armed conflict (formally known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict or "OPAC"), paint a dark picture of the treatment of juveniles by the U.S. military in Afghanistan: one where hundreds of children have been killed in attacks and air strikes by U.S. military forces, and those responsible for the killings have not been held to account even as the number of children killed doubled from 2010 to 2011; where children under 18 languish in detention facilities without access to legal or full humanitarian assistance, or adequate resources to aid in their recovery and reintegration as required under international law. Some children were abused in U.S. detention facilities, and others are faced with the prospect of torture and ill-treatment if they are transferred to Afghan custody.

By ratifying OPAC in 2002, the U.S. committed to guaranteeing basic protections to children in armed conflict zones, and to submit periodic reports on the implementation of its treaty obligations to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child. We wrote about the latest U.S. report, released in November, which revealed that over 200 children have been held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan since 2008, some for lengthy periods of time. During its review of the U.S. on January 16, the Committee posed critical questions about the treatment of children by the U.S. military and issued recommendations to remedy these human rights violations.

These recommendations include taking "concrete and firm precautionary measures [to] prevent indiscriminate use of force" particularly against children, and ensuring all allegations of unlawful use of force are "investigated in a transparent, timely and independent manner" and that "children and families victims of attacks and air strikes do always receive redress and compensation." In regard to the detention of juveniles, the Committee urged the U.S. to ensure that all children under 18 are detained separately from adults and guaranteed access to free and independent legal assistance as well as an independent complaints mechanism. Importantly, considering the previous U.S. response to the Committee revealed that the average age of children detained by U.S. forces is only 16 years old and the average length of stay for juveniles in U.S. military custody has been approximately one year, the Committee recommended children be detained only "as measures of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time and that in all cases alternatives to detention are given priority."

The Committee also stressed that allegations of torture and other forms of mistreatment must be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, and that no child should be transferred to Afghan custody if "there are substantial grounds for the danger of being subject to torture and ill treatment." The Committee specifically mentioned the case of Omar Kadr, a former child soldier who was detained by U.S. forces at the age of 15 and was subjected to torture and a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations at the American prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram.

The U.S. government's human rights obligations do not end with the release of a periodic report or the completion of a treaty body review. In order to give meaning to the words of the children's rights treaty, the U.S. must work diligently to implement the Committee's recommendations and ensure that our military forces, intelligence agents, and other government officials treat children in the war zones of Afghanistan and elsewhere in accordance with international law.

Learn more about children's rights and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

I am a doctor in North Dakota, and I love my work. One of the most rewarding aspects of my job is helping cancer survivors who are now facing infertility from their lifesaving chemotherapy and radiation treatments achieve their dream of having a family. Some of these patients require in-vitro fertilization to have a baby, but others must rely on donor sperm or donor egg. However, if some of our lawmakers have their way, I will have to turn away cancer survivors and as well as many other couples with infertility.

A series of measures pending before the North Dakota legislature would interfere with the private, personal decisions of families all across North Dakota. These measures aim to ban abortion in all circumstances, and, if enacted, could prohibit IVF, outlaw most donor sperm and donor egg, and threaten access to several forms of contraception. By limiting women's safe reproductive health care options, politicians could put women's lives and health at risk.

As a physician and a concerned citizen, I see this as an ominous step for a state government. Not only are several states attempting to tell women how and when they can end a pregnancy, in North Dakota, lawmakers are telling women how and when they can or can't conceive that pregnancy, too.

But the battle for keeping health care decisions in the hands of patients won't stop at the North Dakota border. The people pushing these measures have their sights on other states, too. That's why we all need to pay attention to the efforts at our state capitols, wherever they may be. If you are in North Dakota, call your Senator today. If you are not in North Dakota, this battle for health care privacy may be coming to your state.

This week, we will see if politicians get the message. The State Senate is expected to vote on these anti-health care measures on Thursday.

Will our state lawmakers listen to the voices of local North Dakota residents and reject measures that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship? Or will they bow to outside extremists who are pushing a radical agenda in states across the country? The answer matters – not only for families in North Dakota but for families all across America.

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

On Thursday, John Brennan, the White House deputy national security advisor for homeland security and counterterrorism, will come before the Senate to interview for one of the most powerful jobs in the world: director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan's nomination is by no means a fait accompli.

Brennan, who served in the top echelons of the CIA during the key early years of the Bush administration, still has many questions he hasn't answered regarding the agency's role in torture, indefinite detention and kidnapping during his time there. And he has at least as many questions to answer about his role running the killing program in the Obama White House.

Today, the ACLU and a coalition of other human rights and religious organizations sent a letter (.pdf) to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) urging both senators to ask Brennan tough and probing questions regarding any role he had in the CIA's interrogation, detention and extraordinary rendition practices.

After then-President-Elect Obama passed over Brennan for CIA director four years ago because of torture concerns, Brennan protested that he opposed the agency's torture program during the Bush administration and had no decision-making authority when the United States plunged into the torture abyss. That may be so, but according to Reuters, the Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000 page report on the CIA torture program shows that Brennan knew intimate details of the program. Complicity isn't only attained by setting policy or issuing orders; one can be complicit by carrying out orders as well. Here is where the Senate can set the record straight regarding Brennan's role in the United States government's lawless embrace of the dark side.

Regardless of his 2008 statement of moral objections to torture tactics, Sens. Feinstein and Chambliss should ask Brennan whether he helped develop, carry out, advise on, or implement policies that that included torture, abuse, extraordinary rendition, and secret prisons. In the past, other members of the intelligence community, such as Bush nominees for CIA general counsel and for deputy attorney general, had their nominations denied or withdrawn because of their roles in CIA interrogation, detention and extraordinary rendition practices.

John Brennan should be held to the same standard.

Read the full letter here.

Information on the ACLU's work on accountability for torture can be found at: www.aclu.org/national-security/torture

Learn more about U.S. sanctioned torture and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

On Thursday, John Brennan, the White House deputy national security advisor for homeland security and counterterrorism, will come before the Senate to interview for one of the most powerful jobs in the world: director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Brennan's nomination is by no means a fait accompli.

Brennan, who served in the top echelons of the CIA during the key early years of the Bush administration, still has many questions he hasn't answered regarding the agency's role in torture, indefinite detention and kidnapping during his time there. And he has at least as many questions to answer about his role running the killing program in the Obama White House.

Today, the ACLU and a coalition of other human rights and religious organizations sent a letter (.pdf) to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) urging both senators to ask Brennan tough and probing questions regarding any role he had in the CIA's interrogation, detention and extraordinary rendition practices.

After then-President-Elect Obama passed over Brennan for CIA director four years ago because of torture concerns, Brennan protested that he opposed the agency's torture program during the Bush administration and had no decision-making authority when the United States plunged into the torture abyss. That may be so, but according to Reuters, the Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000 page report on the CIA torture program shows that Brennan knew intimate details of the program. Complicity isn't only attained by setting policy or issuing orders; one can be complicit by carrying out orders as well. Here is where the Senate can set the record straight regarding Brennan's role in the United States government's lawless embrace of the dark side.

Regardless of his 2008 statement of moral objections to torture tactics, Sens. Feinstein and Chambliss should ask Brennan whether he helped develop, carry out, advise on, or implement policies that that included torture, abuse, extraordinary rendition, and secret prisons. In the past, other members of the intelligence community, such as Bush nominees for CIA general counsel and for deputy attorney general, had their nominations denied or withdrawn because of their roles in CIA interrogation, detention and extraordinary rendition practices.

John Brennan should be held to the same standard.

Read the full letter here.

Information on the ACLU's work on accountability for torture can be found at: www.aclu.org/national-security/torture

Learn more about U.S. sanctioned torture and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin has an anti-discrimination policy that reads pretty much like any other high school's anti-discrimination policy: It is the policy of the School District of La Crosse . . . that no person on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional, or learning disability, may be denied . . . participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any curricular . . . program . . . And, we're happy to report that Central High is finally back in the business of living up to its policy.

You see, back in October, we had to remind the La Crosse School District of their commitment to equality and fairness. Despite their policy promising not to discriminate, the Central High had been singling out girls for a girls-only English class and a girls-only algebra class in ninth grade. Even though the Constitution and Title IX set a high bar for justifying sex separation in schools, the district never articulated why the girls needed to be taught math and English separately from the boys. But it did tell parents that if they wanted to learn more about the single-sex programming, they should visit the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE) website.

You remember NASSPE and its founder, Leonard Sax? He's the chief proponent of single-sex education whose theories have been characterized as "pseudoscience," and who was recently accused by a federal court in West Virginia of leading schools "astray." He trains teachers, for example, to speak loudly and directly to boys using surnames, but softly to girls, using terms of endearment. He further advocates that because of purported differences in the ways boys and girls process emotion, English teachers should not ask boys about characters' emotions, but should only focus on what the characters actually did, while they should focus on characters' relationships and emotions when teaching girls. That must have been one touchy-feely girls-only English class. As an ACLU investigation recently documented, these troubling theories are prevalent in single-sex classes being taught in schools around the country.

Fortunately, there's now one less school on that list; we received a message on Monday, January 28 that as a result of ACLU's October letter to La Crosse School District, "there will be no single-gender course offerings starting next school year (2013 2014)."

This is wonderful news, and we're grateful to La Crosse for doing the right thing. Of course, the real winners are the Central High students, particularly the ninth grade girls, who will, starting in the fall, have classes that teach all students as individuals, not as stereotypes.

Learn more about single-sex education and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin has an anti-discrimination policy that reads pretty much like any other high school's anti-discrimination policy: It is the policy of the School District of La Crosse . . . that no person on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional, or learning disability, may be denied . . . participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any curricular . . . program . . . And, we're happy to report that Central High is finally back in the business of living up to its policy.

You see, back in October, we had to remind the La Crosse School District of their commitment to equality and fairness. Despite their policy promising not to discriminate, the Central High had been singling out girls for a girls-only English class and a girls-only algebra class in ninth grade. Even though the Constitution and Title IX set a high bar for justifying sex separation in schools, the district never articulated why the girls needed to be taught math and English separately from the boys. But it did tell parents that if they wanted to learn more about the single-sex programming, they should visit the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE) website.

You remember NASSPE and its founder, Leonard Sax? He's the chief proponent of single-sex education whose theories have been characterized as "pseudoscience," and who was recently accused by a federal court in West Virginia of leading schools "astray." He trains teachers, for example, to speak loudly and directly to boys using surnames, but softly to girls, using terms of endearment. He further advocates that because of purported differences in the ways boys and girls process emotion, English teachers should not ask boys about characters' emotions, but should only focus on what the characters actually did, while they should focus on characters' relationships and emotions when teaching girls. That must have been one touchy-feely girls-only English class. As an ACLU investigation recently documented, these troubling theories are prevalent in single-sex classes being taught in schools around the country.

Fortunately, there's now one less school on that list; we received a message on Monday, January 28 that as a result of ACLU's October letter to La Crosse School District, "there will be no single-gender course offerings starting next school year (2013 2014)."

This is wonderful news, and we're grateful to La Crosse for doing the right thing. Of course, the real winners are the Central High students, particularly the ninth grade girls, who will, starting in the fall, have classes that teach all students as individuals, not as stereotypes.

Learn more about single-sex education and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

During our nation's prolonged economic downturn, most of us have been impacted by foreclosures, unemployment, or a significant loss of savings. These hardships, however, haven't fallen equally across the backs of all Americans – minorities have borne a disproportionate share of the burden. Minority families are twice as likely to lose their home through foreclosure during the Great Recession. And, since these households relied on home equity for a greater proportion of their household wealth, the foreclosure crisis has substantially increased the wealth gap between whites and ethnic minorities. Discrimination, not neutral market forces, explains many of these disparities. Thus, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) recently issued Ability-to-Repay rule is a welcome first step towards protecting the civil rights of all Americans, so that every individual can achieve the American dream of homeownership on a fair and level playing field.

The significance of the CFPB's rule comes into focus when you hear the story of ACLU client Rubbie McCoy. Rubbie, a single mother of four and a plaintiff in the ACLU's case Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, received a toxic loan from a subprime lender, which was immediately sold and packaged into a mortgage-backed security. Excessive fees and costs were imposed on Rubbie's loan, which significantly increased the total mortgage loan, and a prepayment penalty made it difficult to refinance. The lender even received a financial incentive to steer her into a higher interest rate loan than she qualified for. Rubbie and her family now face the risk of foreclosure on a daily basis.

Rubbie's experience wasn't just unfair; it was a consequence of discriminatory practices spurred on from the highest echelons of Wall Street. The ACLU's challenge to these practices is based on one simple principle: Wall Street isn't above our nation's anti-discrimination laws. Fortunately, the effort to protect homeowners like Rubbie was bolstered by the CFPB's Ability-to-Repay rule.

Many of Rubbie's predatory loan features – including excessive points and fees and prepayment penalties – will be limited and subject to stricter oversight and monitoring by the CFPB as the provisions of this rule go into effect in January 2014. While implementation of this rule will benefit all Americans, it is particularly important to African-American and Hispanic borrowers, who were disproportionately targeted for predatory loans doomed to result in foreclosure. (It is for this reason that the ACLU urged the CFPB to implement stronger protections against predatory lending in its rulemaking).

In order to understand the civil rights dimensions of predatory lending, consider the statistics. During the housing boom, the majority of subprime borrowers were eligible for prime rate loans, based on their credit score. African Americans were statistically more likely to receive these subprime loans than white borrowers with similar credit qualifications, down payment ratios, and residential property locations. Lest you think this phenomenon only impacted low-income borrowers, wealthier African Americans were actually more likely to receive subprime loans under this same analysis.

Much of the disparity in foreclosure rates stems from residential segregation, produced by decades of housing discrimination and banks' longstanding practice of "redlining," or refusing to lend in predominantly minority communities. During the housing boom, however, a new phenomenon – reverse redlining – emerged. Reverse redlining takes advantage of the absence of traditional credit institutions in communities of color by targeting them for loans that are unfair, predatory, and likely to result in a foreclosure.

Reverse redlining flourished during a ground-shift in the housing finance market. After generations of holding mortgage loans on their balance sheets, and cautiously making fixed-rate mortgage loans, risk-based pricing was introduced—leading to the growth of subprime loans. The emergence of the private securities market then enabled lenders to rapidly sell their mortgages, which were packaged as mortgage-backed securities. Mortgage brokers and loan officers often received additional compensation for steering a consumer into a higher interest rate loan than that individual could qualify for based on credit factors. And Wall Street had a seemingly bottomless desire for subprime loans to securitize, as the Government Accountability Office noted that these types of loans increased from 43 to 71 percent of securitizations over only a four year period.

CFPB's new rule is no panacea, and it does not help the many Americans who were victimized by discrimination and ended up losing their home. But it is a first step to better prevent and address predatory lending. When it goes into effect next year, lenders will be required to make an ability-to-repay determination, based on objective and verifiable criteria and the assumption that the loan will be repaid in substantially equal payments (rather than qualifying the borrower based on the initial rate). The final rule also creates an incentive for lenders to make loans without layers of risk factors, by creating a presumption that the creditor met the ability-to-repay requirements when making a "qualified mortgage." The criteria for a "qualified mortgage" generally – with a few exceptions –exclude "no-doc" loans, made without verifying income or assets; loans with negative amortization or interest-only payments; loans with balloon payments; or loans with points and fees exceeding 3 percent of the total loan amount. Further, prepayment penalties will be generally prohibited. Together, these new provisions will go a long way towards reducing predatory lending, and eradicating the kind of rampant discrimination that battered minority communities in recent years.

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

During our nation's prolonged economic downturn, most of us have been impacted by foreclosures, unemployment, or a significant loss of savings. These hardships, however, haven't fallen equally across the backs of all Americans – minorities have borne a disproportionate share of the burden. Minority families are twice as likely to lose their home through foreclosure during the Great Recession. And, since these households relied on home equity for a greater proportion of their household wealth, the foreclosure crisis has substantially increased the wealth gap between whites and ethnic minorities. Discrimination, not neutral market forces, explains many of these disparities. Thus, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) recently issued Ability-to-Repay rule is a welcome first step towards protecting the civil rights of all Americans, so that every individual can achieve the American dream of homeownership on a fair and level playing field.

The significance of the CFPB's rule comes into focus when you hear the story of ACLU client Rubbie McCoy. Rubbie, a single mother of four and a plaintiff in the ACLU's case Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, received a toxic loan from a subprime lender, which was immediately sold and packaged into a mortgage-backed security. Excessive fees and costs were imposed on Rubbie's loan, which significantly increased the total mortgage loan, and a prepayment penalty made it difficult to refinance. The lender even received a financial incentive to steer her into a higher interest rate loan than she qualified for. Rubbie and her family now face the risk of foreclosure on a daily basis.

Rubbie's experience wasn't just unfair; it was a consequence of discriminatory practices spurred on from the highest echelons of Wall Street. The ACLU's challenge to these practices is based on one simple principle: Wall Street isn't above our nation's anti-discrimination laws. Fortunately, the effort to protect homeowners like Rubbie was bolstered by the CFPB's Ability-to-Repay rule.

Many of Rubbie's predatory loan features – including excessive points and fees and prepayment penalties – will be limited and subject to stricter oversight and monitoring by the CFPB as the provisions of this rule go into effect in January 2014. While implementation of this rule will benefit all Americans, it is particularly important to African-American and Hispanic borrowers, who were disproportionately targeted for predatory loans doomed to result in foreclosure. (It is for this reason that the ACLU urged the CFPB to implement stronger protections against predatory lending in its rulemaking).

In order to understand the civil rights dimensions of predatory lending, consider the statistics. During the housing boom, the majority of subprime borrowers were eligible for prime rate loans, based on their credit score. African Americans were statistically more likely to receive these subprime loans than white borrowers with similar credit qualifications, down payment ratios, and residential property locations. Lest you think this phenomenon only impacted low-income borrowers, wealthier African Americans were actually more likely to receive subprime loans under this same analysis.

Much of the disparity in foreclosure rates stems from residential segregation, produced by decades of housing discrimination and banks' longstanding practice of "redlining," or refusing to lend in predominantly minority communities. During the housing boom, however, a new phenomenon – reverse redlining – emerged. Reverse redlining takes advantage of the absence of traditional credit institutions in communities of color by targeting them for loans that are unfair, predatory, and likely to result in a foreclosure.

Reverse redlining flourished during a ground-shift in the housing finance market. After generations of holding mortgage loans on their balance sheets, and cautiously making fixed-rate mortgage loans, risk-based pricing was introduced—leading to the growth of subprime loans. The emergence of the private securities market then enabled lenders to rapidly sell their mortgages, which were packaged as mortgage-backed securities. Mortgage brokers and loan officers often received additional compensation for steering a consumer into a higher interest rate loan than that individual could qualify for based on credit factors. And Wall Street had a seemingly bottomless desire for subprime loans to securitize, as the Government Accountability Office noted that these types of loans increased from 43 to 71 percent of securitizations over only a four year period.

CFPB's new rule is no panacea, and it does not help the many Americans who were victimized by discrimination and ended up losing their home. But it is a first step to better prevent and address predatory lending. When it goes into effect next year, lenders will be required to make an ability-to-repay determination, based on objective and verifiable criteria and the assumption that the loan will be repaid in substantially equal payments (rather than qualifying the borrower based on the initial rate). The final rule also creates an incentive for lenders to make loans without layers of risk factors, by creating a presumption that the creditor met the ability-to-repay requirements when making a "qualified mortgage." The criteria for a "qualified mortgage" generally – with a few exceptions –exclude "no-doc" loans, made without verifying income or assets; loans with negative amortization or interest-only payments; loans with balloon payments; or loans with points and fees exceeding 3 percent of the total loan amount. Further, prepayment penalties will be generally prohibited. Together, these new provisions will go a long way towards reducing predatory lending, and eradicating the kind of rampant discrimination that battered minority communities in recent years.

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