PROTECTING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN IDAHO SINCE 1988

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice (DOJ) today released federal regulations implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), representing the first time that the federal government has issued national standards to help end sexual abuse in prisons, jails and youth detention centers.

The ACLU supports the DOJ’s efforts to prevent sexual abuse. While these regulations represent strong national standards to protect child and adult prisoners, including LGBT inmates, they have left unclear whether there will be adequate protection for immigration detainees.

Protections for Child and Adult Prisoners

The following statement can be attributed to Amy Fettig, senior staff counsel, ACLU National Prison Project:

“Sexual abuse should never be a penalty for any crime – and today’s regulations are the first step to ending the shameful history of prison rape in our country.

To uphold Congress’s intent in passing PREA, regulations are not enough on their own. DOJ must ensure the regulations are enforced through regular and independent oversight. The administration must develop a proper national monitoring tool and work with state and local correctional systems and the federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure full implementation of the PREA standards.”

Protections for Immigration Detainees

The following statement can be attributed to Joanne Lin, ACLU legislative counsel:

“By tasking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to promulgate its own PREA regulations, the administration has further delayed and left unclear whether hundreds of thousands of immigration detainees – overwhelmingly Latinos – who are annually confined in DHS detention facilities will receive adequate protection.

"DHS has an abysmal track record of preventing and investigating the serious and systemic problems of sexual assault and abuse in its facilities. With the continuing problem of rampant sexual assault in immigration detention facilities across the country, it’s highly questionable whether DHS is able to police itself, particularly because its own internal standards that will serve as a blueprint for PREA compliance fall far short of PREA’s protections for detainee safety.

"DHS has asserted that it will promulgate regulations consistent with PREA in eight months that will go above and beyond its model internal standards. The ACLU will continue to press DHS to ensure it fulfills its obligation to extend PREA protections to all immigration detainees."

Protections for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Gender Non-Conforming Inmates

The following statement can be attributed to Leslie Cooper, senior staff attorney, ACLU LGBT Project:

“The rule includes significant protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming inmates, who the DOJ recognizes are at greater risk of sexual abuse in confinement. We are especially pleased that the rule requires that the determination of whether to house transgender and intersex inmates in male or female facilities must be made on a case-by-case basis, and bans searches of these inmates for the sole purpose of determining their genital status.”
 

Legislature’s Revision Leaves Worst Aspects of Draconian Law Intact

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

MONTGOMERY, AL – Alabama lawmakers today approved a slightly revised version to its notorious anti-immigration law, which the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama said did nothing to address the many flaws in the measure.

The bill was passed by both houses of the Alabama legislature and will now go to Governor Robert Bentley for signature.

“Alabama took a step backward in approving this ill-conceived measure,” said Olivia Turner, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “Lawmakers were deaf to the concerns of many residents, business owners and police who realize this law is a bad idea. Alabama will continue to pay a severe price for a law that is almost impossible to enforce properly and blatantly unconstitutional.”

Instead of meaningful reforms, Turner said, the bill:

• Maintains the requirement from the original bill, HB56, that schools check the citizenship status of their students.
• Continues to require police to detain and arrest people based only on a reasonable suspicion that they are undocumented immigrants. Turner said that would further tax overcrowded jails and strain the resources of law enforcement agencies already strapped for funds.
• Undermines public safety by failing to provide adequate protection for crime victims after they cooperate with law enforcement, thereby discouraging them from reporting crime for fear of being questioned about their immigration status.
• Continues to ban landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants.
• Creates a “Scarlet Letter” provision that would require the state Department of Homeland Security to publish on its website the names and locations of undocumented immigrants who have appeared in state courts.

“The Alabama Legislature has done virtually nothing to solve the civil rights disaster they created,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Two federal courts have already blocked key provisions of the law from going into effect, because they violate the U.S. Constitution.  If the Alabama legislature wants to avoid a loss, they should repeal the law.”

The federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked two provisions of HB56 on March 8. One voided contracts signed by undocumented immigrants. The other bans undocumented immigrants from obtaining licenses and certain other services from Alabama. The appeals court and a lower court had previously blocked other provisions of the law from going into effect.

The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups appeared before the 11th Circuit on March 1 and argued that HB56 and a similar law in Georgia endanger public safety; invite racial profiling of Latinos, Asians, and others who appear foreign; and interfere with federal law. The court said it would not rule until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in the challenge to Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. That ruling is expected in late June.

Judge Again Rules for Civil Libertarians in Struggle Over TRU-ID

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

Judge Paul Innes of Mercer County Superior Court today upheld a temporary restraining order obtained by the ACLU-NJ to suspend TRU-ID, New Jersey's implementation of the federal Real ID Act. This decision means that New Jersey citizens who do not wish to comply with TRU-ID may opt to obtain their licenses using the existing 6-point ID system instead, at least until a more complete hearing for a preliminary injunction scheduled for August 3. The ACLU-NJ expects the State to appeal today's ruling.

During today’s hearing, Judge Innes recognized the TRU-ID implementation as "a wholesale change in the requirement for issuance of a New Jersey driver’s license."

The ACLU-NJ filed its lawsuit against the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission on May 4 because the MVC failed to issue accompanying regulations as required by law, denying the public a chance to comment on the new licensing standards. The MVC first made its news public in early April.

The ACLU-NJ and many other groups have concerns about the national Real ID and New Jersey-based TRU-ID programs based on privacy, costs and personal safety.

ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs issues the following statement in response to today's ruling:

"Today’s decision reaffirms the fact that New Jersey can't impose a unilateral decision that affects the lives of all residents without first hearing citizens' concerns. Democracy means consent of the governed, not acquiescence to the government."
 

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

PORTLAND, Ore. – The American Civil Liberties Union will argue in a federal appeals court today that its challenge to the government’s secretive No Fly List should be reinstated. The ACLU represents 15 U.S. citizens and permanent residents, including four military veterans, who are banned from flying to or from the U.S. or over American airspace, causing great personal hardship. They have never been told why they are on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it.

The national ACLU, along with its affiliates in Oregon, Southern California, Northern California and New Mexico, filed the lawsuit against the FBI, which creates and controls the list. Last May, the district court in Portland dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the lawsuit should have been filed against the Transportation Security Administration, which administers the redress process for travelers denied boarding.

“It is unconstitutional for the government to put people on secret lists and deny them the right to travel without even basic due process,” said Nusrat Choudhury, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Without a meaningful way for people to challenge their inclusion on the list, there's no way to keep innocent people off it. We filed our case against the right agency, and the government’s effort to delay a hearing on the constitutionality of this unfair system is wrong.”

Being unable to fly has severely affected the plaintiffs’ lives, including their ability to be with their families, go to school, and travel for work. Plaintiff Abe Mashal, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and dog trainer, has lost the business of clients located outside of driving distance from his home in Illinois.

“I have no idea why I’m on the list,” said Mashal. “I should have the chance to clear my name and live my life normally. This has been a real hardship for me both personally and financially.”

Today’s arguments will be at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in Portland. In addition to Choudhury, attorneys on the case are Hina Shamsi of the national ACLU; Kevin Díaz and cooperating attorney Steven Wilker with the ACLU of Oregon; Ahilan Arulanantham and Jennie Pasquarella with the ACLU of Southern California; Alan Schlosser and Julia Harumi Mass of the ACLU of Northern California; Laura Ives of the ACLU of New Mexico; and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

More information on the case and legal documents are available at:
www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge...
 

UPDATED

Abuse of U.S. Citizens and Non-Citizens Alike Necessitates Greater Oversight and Accountability

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

SAN DIEGO – The American Civil Liberties Union today demanded a federal investigation into allegations of rampant abuse of individuals, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, by Customs and Border Protection agents at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a complaint filed today with the Department of Homeland Security, the ACLU and its border affiliates in San Diego, Calif., Arizona, New Mexico and Texas document 11 instances in which Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents disregard the civil and human rights of individuals crossing the border in apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law and agency guidelines. Most of the individuals complaining of abuse are U.S. citizens or are lawfully residing or visiting the U.S.

“There is simply no justification for the kind of needless abuse CBP officers inflict on many travelers,” said Sean Riordan, staff attorney for the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. “Far too many travelers are told by CBP officers that they have no rights. But the government must comply with basic and constitutional rights even when it is policing the border. It is unacceptable that CBP has not established sufficient oversight and accountability mechanisms to prevent officers from physically assaulting, detaining and psychologically abusing travelers.”

The ACLU’s complaint includes evidence of excessive force; unwarranted, invasive and humiliating personal searches; unjustified and repeated detentions based on misidentification; and use of coercion to force individuals to surrender their legal rights, citizenship documents and property.

In one example, Hernan Cuevas, a Chilean businessman who was attempting to enter the U.S. with a valid visa, was strip-searched and chained to a metal bench for three hours without explanation. One CBP officer told him, “This is my country now and when you are here, you listen to me. I don’t like your kind that takes our jobs and uses our system…”

“I could not believe I was in the U.S. I was completely perplexed,” said Cuevas. “The incident was so bizarre that it was a perfect fit for a ‘banana republic,’ a corrupt place without democracy.”

Many of the testimonies collected by the ACLU include CBP agents physically attacking women and men, some of whom were handcuffed at the time. Testimonies include unnecessary and invasive searches, which left some affected individuals feeling as though they had been sexually assaulted.

The conduct of CBP officers at or near the points of entry along the U.S. border has come under scrutiny in recent years after two high-profile deaths. In May 2010, Anastasio Hernandez-Rojas, a 42-year-old construction worker and father of five, died after being beaten and then tased by a group of up to 20 CBP officers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry near San Diego. And in June 2010, Sergio Adrían Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old boy, was fatally shot by a CBP officer after reportedly throwing rocks at officers near the El Paso Port of Entry. The Department of Justice last month announced it would not pursue criminal charges against the officer involved.

Despite there being fewer border apprehensions in 2011 than in any year since 1971, and despite border apprehensions dropping by 80 percent since 2000, the number of border patrol agents has more than doubled since 2004.

“There is an urgent need for CBP to be subjected to increased oversight and accountability in an effort to curb the abuses that are occurring regularly along the border,” said Judy Robinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “CBP officers are not exempt from adhering to basic constitutional requirements.”

The ACLU’s complaint calls for an investigation of each of the individual allegations of abuse, and calls for the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General to undertake a comprehensive investigation of ports of entry complaints and implement institutional changes in training, oversight and accountability that are necessary to prevent further abuses.

A copy of the ACLU complaint is available online at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/customs-and-border-protection-complaint

The complaint was filed by the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU of Arizona, the ACLU of New Mexico, the ACLU of Texas, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU Human Rights Program.