FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE               
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

ELON – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) today announced the successful resolution of a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of John W. Paylor, a resident of Elon and a 55-year-old grandfather who was shot twice with a Taser by Elon police officers on June 18, 2006. The officers had surrounded the home of Mr. Paylor in order to serve him with a misdemeanor arrest warrant for using profanity on a public highway and for reckless driving. A videotape of the incident shows that Mr. Paylor was unarmed, in his underwear, and presented no threat to the officers. Nevertheless, an Elon police officer shot Mr. Paylor with a Taser, causing him to fall from his porch. Then, while Mr. Paylor was lying on the ground, unable to move from the shock of being tased and from the fall down his steps, the officer tased him a second time. Mr. Paylor has sustained permanent physical scarring from the incident. The ACLU-NCLF filed a lawsuit against the Elon Police Department and the individual Elon police officers involved on behalf of Mr. Paylor for excessive use of force in March 2009.    

A settlement agreement was finalized and executed this morning, and cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NCLF have filed papers in court ending the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Elon Police Department will implement measures designed to prevent excessive and unnecessary use of Tasers in the future. In particular, Elon police officers will undergo improved annual training on a new Taser policy and on Elon's more general use-of-force policy.  Elon's new Taser policy must be consistent with policies in place in other North Carolina localities that include protections the ACLU believes are important to safeguard against excessive use of Tasers. For example, these policies prevent the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who are not actively resisting officers. These policies also prohibit the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who could potentially receive a secondary injury resulting from falling off an elevated location, and they also limit the number of times an individual can be tased.  Other settlement terms include the following: (1) the officer who tased Mr. Paylor will undergo additional use-of-force and Taser training at the North Carolina Justice Academy; and (2) the Elon Police Chief will instruct all officers that anyone with a personal interest relating to the subject of a misdemeanor warrant shall refrain from serving such warrant in person, unless safety or exigent circumstances require that person to be present. Additionally, the Elon Police Department made a $50,000 settlement payment to Mr. Paylor for his physical, emotional and constitutional injuries.

"I am happy with this outcome," said John Paylor. "What these officers did to me was wrong, and my hope is that this settlement will prevent others from having to suffer what I suffered at the hands of Elon police."

The lawsuit named as defendants certain individual police officers of the Elon Police Department, including Officer Harold T. Dunn, and contended that the officer used his Taser to retaliate against Mr. Paylor for a verbal exchange that occurred between him and Mr. Paylor the day before. The lawsuit further alleged that the other officers who were present failed to intervene to stop Officer Dunn's unlawful actions and therefore likewise violated Mr. Paylor's constitutional right to be free from excessive force. Finally, the lawsuit contended that the Town of Elon bears responsibility for its failure to properly train its officers in the use of Tasers and for a pattern and practice of permitting its police officers to employ Tasers in an excessive and reckless manner. After the lawsuit was filed, other Elon residents came forward and described instances in which they too had been tased unnecessarily by the Elon Police Department.

"We are happy with the settlement, as this was a flagrant abuse of authority by members of the Elon Police Department," said attorney Mark J. Prak, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU-NCLF, who represented Mr. Paylor. "John Paylor did nothing to deserve this treatment as the police videotape clearly demonstrates. This was a case of an officer abusing his position as a police officer to satisfy his own ego."

The ACLU-NCLF is a founding member of the North Carolina Taser Safety Project, a coalition of nonprofit organizations advocating for the proper use of Tasers by law enforcement and for better training for officers on the weapons' potential risks. These risks are especially pronounced when used on certain vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, the disabled, obviously pregnant women, and people in certain situations that place them at greater risk of harm, such as people standing atop a flight of stairs – as Mr. Paylor was here – who are at risk of injury from falling if shot with a Taser. The Taser Safety Project produced a report in 2008 which can be found online at http://acluofnc.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.
 
"Tasers are becoming increasingly common in North Carolina and across the country," said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU-NCLF. "It is important that as officers employ these potentially deadly weapons, they do so only when necessary and that they exercise restraint. These weapons are not toys."

Mr. Paylor was represented by Mark J. Prak, Charles E. Coble and Charles F. Marshall of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. in Raleigh, North Carolina, and C. Scott Holmes of Brock, Payne & Meece, P.A. in Durham, North Carolina, as Cooperating Attorneys for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, as well as by Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. A copy of the settlement agreement is available upon request.

On March 2, 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a law allowing law enforcement authorities to store telephone and Internet data is inconsistent with the right to privacy under the German Constitution. The law allows data on calls and e-mail exchanges to be retained for six months, and made available for use by criminal authorities. The court found that the law went beyond the original intent of the directive the European Union enacted in March 2006. EPIC has documented the impact of data retention requirements. For more information, see EPIC’s webpage on data retention.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: Paul Cates, pcates@aclu.org

New York –Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights today released a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide for same-sex couples in Maryland who married out of state.

These leading advocacy groups have jointly released the following statement along with the FAQ.

“This FAQ follows a favorable opinion by Maryland Attorney Douglas Gansler that says recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples is consistent with Maryland law, and a response by Maryland's Governor assuring residents that they should expect state agencies to comply. This is a big step forward for Maryland and should bring greater security, protections, and peace of mind for many married couples living, working, and visiting in Maryland —though true equality will come only when same-sex couples in Maryland can marry in their home state. In the meantime, couples who married in other jurisdictions should live their lives as all married couples do and expect to receive respect in Maryland in a broad range of areas.

"This is a new and emerging area of law and this FAQ addresses just the tip of the iceberg. This is an exciting time as state and local governments, private parties, and members of our communities assess all the ways that marriage recognition brings protections to same-sex couples in Maryland and how to implement it, but we should be aware that many answers await further developments and analysis.

”Legal conflicts may arise, but rushing into court may not be the answer, as we work to clarify all that marriage recognition brings to Maryland families. Litigation on this issue could have widespread impact for many couples and should be considered with care. If you are denied a service or protection to which married couples are entitled, please contact one of our organizations for assistance.”

A copy of the FAQ is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/frequently-asked-questions-about-marriag...

On February 23, 2010, the Maryland Attorney General issued an opinion confirming that marriages between same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions may be recognized under Maryland law. In response to the opinion, Maryland 's Governor stated: “[W]e will be guided by the Attorney General's thorough analysis and legal advice on this matter. . . . I expect all State agencies to work with the Attorney General's office to ensure compliance with the law.”

We should now expect validly entered out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples to receive respect in Maryland in a broad range of areas. This is a big step forward for Maryland and should bring greater security, protections, and peace of mind for many married couples living, working, and visiting in Maryland. This is an exciting time as State and local governments, private parties, and members of our communities assess all the ways that marriage recognition brings protections to same-sex couples in Maryland and how to implement it. While many answers await further developments and analysis, the legal organizations Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with Equality Maryland, have prepared preliminary responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about marriage recognition in Maryland. Check for updates to these FAQs, and let us know of questions and issues arising in your lives.

What did the Attorney General's decision say?
The 45-page opinion was issued in response to an opinion request from Maryland State Senator Richard S. Madaleno, Jr. asking whether Maryland may recognize marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in other jurisdictions, including other countries. The opinion concludes that such marriages may be recognized under State law.

The opinion reviews State statutes and case law addressing marriage rights within the State and the recognition Maryland has historically afforded different types of marriages validly entered in other jurisdictions even if they could not be entered within the State.

The opinion predicts how Maryland's high court, the Court of Appeals, would rule on the question whether validly entered out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are entitled to the same recognition under longstanding Maryland common law comity principles that have been applied in the courts over many decades. The opinion concludes that because recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples is neither barred by express statute nor in conflict with Maryland public policy, which already provides significant recognition and support for same-sex couples in many contexts, the Court of Appeals is likely to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple validly contracted in another jurisdiction.

The opinion asserts that State agencies will need to evaluate their existing policies to determine how the marriage recognition principle will apply going forward in the context of each agency's work.

The opinion says that it does not address how the rule of marriage recognition would specifically apply in contexts beyond the direct jurisdiction of the Attorney General and State government, such as whether the couple may obtain a divorce in Maryland — an area the courts handle and decide. (Nonetheless, the Attorney General's legal conclusion that the marriage recognition rule applies to same-sex couples in Maryland should hold true in other contexts as well.)

Finally, the opinion also observes that consideration will need to be given to whether a particular aspect of Maryland law is governed or impacted by federal law, such as the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage for federal purposes to different-sex couples, and whether that might prevent recognition of the marriage for a specific Maryland purpose.

Can we get married here in Maryland now?
No, unfortunately. Maryland same-sex couples cannot marry in their own home state until legislation is passed giving them the right to marry, and full equality will not have been won until that day comes. However, under the marriage recognition rule, the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples receive respect in Maryland.

Will the State government automatically start treating us as married?
State government is made up of many agencies that provide hundreds of services governed by different laws and regulations — so it may take some time for the Attorney General's opinion to be applied throughout Maryland State agencies. In some cases there may be existing State laws, regulations, policies, and forms that pose an issue for implementing the Attorney General opinion. These will have to be sorted out, and it will not all happen overnight. In some areas, issues may need to be fixed through advocacy or staff training. The Governor and Attorney General have said that this work is underway. Our organizations are advocating to help with this process and to see marriage recognition principles fully implemented as promptly as possible.

You should also be aware that it is possible Maryland may have some specific State statutes that expressly incorporate and piggyback off federal definitions of marriage, which restrict marriage to a male-female couple under the federal DOMA. State officials, and our organizations, are reviewing State laws to see if this may be the case and how conflicts for State agency recognition of marriages may be addressed.

The bottom line is that married same-sex couples should live their lives as all married couples do and expect to be treated as married. There may be instances where legal conflicts will arise, or where there is outright discrimination against married same-sex couples that will require legal advocacy. If you are denied a service or protection to which married couples are entitled, please contact one of our organizations for assistance.

Will our marriage be treated the same in Maryland if we are married in the District of Columbia, or in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, or New Hampshire, or in Canada or another foreign country?
Yes, it should be. So long as you entered into a valid civil marriage in the jurisdiction where your marriage occurred, the marriage is entitled to the same respect under Maryland law whether you married in the District of Columbia, a U.S. state, or a foreign country.

What if we were married in California before Proposition 8 passed in November 2009 denying the right to marry in that state?
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the civil marriages in California of the approximately 18,000 couples who wed prior to passage of Proposition 8 still remain valid under California law. Since your marriage was valid where entered, it should receive the same respect in Maryland as other marriages.

What kinds of protections, services, or obligations are affected by marriage recognition?
Marriage brings legal protections and obligations in potentially hundreds of ways, including access to spousal health insurance, death benefits for spouses of firefighters and law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, mutual obligations of spousal support, the ability to stay together in a hospital, protections for crime victims, presumptions of parentage regarding children born to a married couple, and many, many more. Some of these protections are conferred by State or local governments; others are matters between private parties and may involve enforcement by courts.

This is an evolving area of Maryland law, and in some senses same-sex couples will need to be pioneers. State agencies, as well as our organizations, will be analyzing in the weeks and months ahead the State protections and obligations that flow from marriage recognition. You should assume that your marriage is entitled to respect, though how exactly marriage recognition will apply may need to be determined based on the specific situation.

New York State has been widely applying the marriage recognition rule to out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples for several years already, as the Maryland Attorney General's opinion noted. We can look to precedents and developments there for guidance, while also analyzing specific Maryland laws and policies.

I would really like to be able to provide spousal health coverage to my spouse under my employer's policy. Can I do that?
Now that your marriage is recognized you may be able to access employer-provided spousal health insurance coverage. Of course, you may already have been eligible for domestic partnership coverage from your government or private employer anyway. Whether you are now entitled to spousal coverage from employers that did not offer domestic partner coverage may depend on where you work. If you work for a government employer, you should be entitled to the same coverage that different-sex married couples receive. If you work for a private employer, you can certainly ask for coverage and your employer can choose to treat you fairly and provide it to you. Whether your private employer is legally obligated to do so can depend on what kind of insurance plan your employer offers and the terms of the plan. Lambda Legal's publication Will Marriage Help Us Get Health Insurance explains this further, and you can contact our organizations if you have additional questions.

We are a married same-sex couple, but we have to file our federal income taxes as “single” because under DOMA the federal government does not recognize our marriage. What should we do about filing our Maryland State taxes?
How to handle tax filings and other tax matters is another area that will need to be resolved as a matter of Maryland law, with consideration of what if any impact federal law may have on tax issues. In the past Maryland taxpayers have generally been required to file their tax returns using the same “single” or “married” status they use on their federal returns. Because of the discriminatory federal DOMA, married same-sex couples have had to file their federal returns as “single.” Further analysis will be needed to determine whether married same-sex couples can file their State returns jointly as married. We know tax season is fast approaching and hope to get clearer guidance on this issue soon. In the meantime, you should consult your own tax adviser. Lambda Legal's publication Tax Considerations for Same-Sex Couples also offers additional information.

My spouse and I were planning to do a second-parent adoption so that we are both the legally-recognized parents of our children. Should we still go through with the adoption now that our marriage will be respected?
Yes, absolutely. Marriage recognition should bring additional protections to secure the relationship of a child born to a married parent who is unrelated by biology or adoption, but the scope of those protections has yet to be definitively determined in Maryland. And these protections may not in any event apply where the parents have married after the child is already born. The best way to ensure your child has the security of a legally recognized relationship with both parents is through adoption by the non-biologically or non-adoptively related parent. This may be critical as well to ensuring that the federal government and other jurisdictions where your marriage may not be recognized will nonetheless respect your child's parentage based on an adoption.

We were going to get wills, health care powers of attorney, and other legal documents to protect our relationship. Do we still need those if we are married?
It is still important to get these kinds of life planning documents to protect your family. Different-sex couples with marriages also rely on these protections, and they are especially important for same-sex couples, even as your marriage receives recognition in Maryland. Other jurisdictions continue to discriminate against same-sex married couples and refuse recognition of marriages. Legal documents like wills and health care powers of attorney remain crucial for married lesbian and gay couples. Lambda Legal's publication Take the Power: Tools for Financial and Life Planning offers additional information.

We are domestic partners. If we get married will we still receive the rights we had under Maryland law as domestic partners?
Maryland already has enacted some legal protections for domestic partners, such as rights to hospital visitation, to make health care and burial decisions, and exemptions from residential property transfer taxes and inheritance tax on a jointly owned primary residence. Those rights should continue to apply to domestic partners, including those who then marry out of state.

What if State agencies or other people still fail to treat us as married? What should we do?
In some situations simply asking for the particular protection and explaining why your marriage should be respected may solve the problem. Sometimes further advocacy and assistance from counsel will work. You should certainly feel free to reach out to one of our organizations for help.

It's important to bear in mind that rushing into litigation often is not the answer. Many problems can be worked out without resort to the courts. Others may someday need to be resolved through litigation, and important protections for same-sex couples ultimately may need to be vindicated in the courts. But with marriage recognition bringing many important rights for many families, any litigation that could have broader impact on how the marriage recognition rule applies should be the product of careful thought and planning. A bad ruling could have far-reaching negative impact for your marriage and the marriages of many other couples.

My partner and I are committed to one another and live in Maryland. We are trying to decide whether we should get married in another jurisdiction. Are there other considerations we should take into account?
You should start by asking yourselves such essential questions as whether you're ready to make this binding legal commitment, with many significant financial and other consequences.

There may also be concerns specific to your situation that may factor into your decision to marry. For example, if one of you is in the military or is in the United States on an immigration visa, getting married could be harmful under federal laws, such as “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” in the military context. Entering into a marriage also could be a problem if one of you is in the process of adopting a child in a jurisdiction that allows a single person but not a same-sex couple to adopt.

You should also be aware that while the jurisdictions where you might marry don't have residency requirements to enter into marriage, they do have residency requirements to obtain a divorce. If a Maryland same-sex couple's relationship should someday end, the parties can seek a divorce in Maryland courts. But until divorce cases are brought and divorces granted, uncertainty on access to divorce can't be entirely ruled out for Maryland couples. And if you should move from Maryland to a jurisdiction that does not recognize your marriage and later want to dissolve it, you may be denied access to the courts in your new home state.

Lambda Legal's publication Traveling to Another State or Country to Marry? offers additional information about these kinds of considerations.

We live in Maryland but already have a civil union from another state. Should we get married as well?
The Attorney General's opinion does not address the recognition a civil union might receive in Maryland, and there may be reasons for you to consider entering into a marriage. However, there could be issues depending on your specific situation that you should consider first. In addition, whether you can or should marry having already entered into a civil union may depend on the laws of the jurisdictions where you had your civil union and where you might marry.

Where can I go for further information or assistance?
You can contact our organizations for further information. You may also want to consult with a private attorney.

Here is how to reach us:

Lambda Legal: legalhelpdesk@lambdalegal.org; 866-542-8336 (toll-free) or 212-809-8585; www.lambdalegal.org.

ACLU of Maryland : 410-889-8555; www.aclu-md.org.

National Center for Lesbian Rights: info@nclrights.org; 800-528-6257 (toll-free) or 415-392-6257; www.nclrights.org.Legal info: www.nclrights.org/gethelp

Equality Maryland : info@equalitymaryland.org; 410-685-6567; www.equalitymaryland.org.

PLEASE NOTE: This document offers only general and preliminary information on an evolving area of law and is not intended to provide guidance or legal advice regarding anyone's specific situation.

In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) released more documents about body scanners in US airports. The documents include many complaints from travelers who went through the devices. Travelers reported that they were not told about the pat down alternative or that they were going to be subject to a body scan by TSA officials. Travelers also expressed concern about radiation risks to pregnant women and the image capture of young children without clothes. EPIC has previously obtained whole body imaging vendor contracts, operational requirements, and procurement specifications from TSA. EPIC and Ralph Nader have urged President Obama to suspend the program until an independent review is completed. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. 

The FTC has sent a letter to EPIC regarding the February 2010 EPIC complaint about Google’s recently launched social networking tool, Google Buzz. In the letter, the Bureau of Consumer Protection Director states that the complaint “raises interesting issues that relate to consumer expectations about the collection and use of their data.” Further, the FTC Director highlights the importance of having consumers “understand how their data will be used” and allowing consumers the “opportunity to exercise meaningful control over such uses.” EPIC has since filed an amended complaint with the FTC that describes how Google Buzz violated Google’s own privacy policy for Gmail. For more information, see EPIC: In re Google Buzz.

Group Makes Same Plea In Letter To President

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Rachel Myers, (646) 206-8643 or (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org 

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today published a full-page ad in the New York Times calling on President Obama not to back down from his administration’s decision to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in civilian courts. The ad comes in response to news reports that the Obama administration is on the verge of reversing Attorney General Eric Holder's November decision, turning instead to the discredited military commission system.

The ad features a picture of President Obama morphing into a picture of former President Bush.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“We placed this ad because it’s critical that Americans know what is at stake here: nothing less than America’s commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. The military commissions are seriously flawed and unprepared to handle these complex cases. If President Obama reverses his attorney general’s principled decision under political pressure, it will strike a devastating blow to American values and do serious damage to our nation’s credibility. We urge the president to do the right thing and keep these cases in federal court, where they belong.”

The ACLU also sent a letter to President Obama urging him to keep the 9/11 trials in civilian court and detailing the problems of the military commission system and its inability to provide fair, effective trials in these cases. The letter, signed by Romero, states:

"I believe that you will face few, if any, greater challenges to who we are as a nation and to our commitment to the rule of law than this question of sustaining the Attorney General’s principled decision to use federal criminal courts for these trials... The trials of the defendants alleged to have had roles in the September 11 attacks are the most important terrorism trials – and arguably the most important criminal trials – in the entire history of the nation. It would be a colossal mistake to reverse the administration’s decision to try these defendants in federal criminal court and again relegate these landmark trials to irretrievably defective military commissions."

The full letter can be found at: www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-letter-president-obama-regarding-federal-criminal-trials-911-defendants

The ACLU New York Times ad is available online at: www.aclu.org/aclu-ad-what-will-it-be-mr-president

The full text of the ad reads:

What will it be Mr. President?
Change or more of the Same?

Candidate Barack Obama vowed to change the Bush-Cheney policies and restore America’s values of justice and due process. Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obama is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court. Our criminal justice system has successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases compared to only 3 in the military commissions. Our criminal justice system will resolve these cases more quickly and more credibly than the military commissions.

President Obama can vigorously prosecute terrorists and keep us safe without violating our Constitution.

As president, Barack Obama must decide whether he will keep his solemn promise to restore our Constitution and due process, or ignore his vow and continue the Bush-Cheney policies.

Tell President Obama not to back down on his commitment to our justice system, and to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court.

Remind the world that America stands for due process, justice, and the rule of law.

More information about the ACLU’s call to use civilian trials to try the 9/11 suspects is available online here: www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-verge-reversing-decision-911-prosecutions

The Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law held a hearing on "Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law," which focused on information technology industry business practices in countries that restrict the internet . The Senate hearing came one month after Secretary Clinton delivered a speech on internet freedom. Following the speech, EPIC and 29 experts of technology and privacy wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, urging the United States to begin the process of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on Privacy, which seeks to protect fundamental human rights as technology advances. EPIC made the same recommendation in statements for the record for a House hearing on Google and U.S. Cyberspace Policy, and for the Senate hearing on Internet Freedom. For more information, see Letter from State Department regarding Clinton Letter and EPIC’s NSPD-54 complaint.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org   WASHINGTON – According to reports today, the Transportation Security Administration will expand the use of full body scanners to 11 more American airports over the next two years. The body scanners, or whole body imaging devices, create a strikingly revealing image of the human body. The American Civil Liberties Union believes that this technology greatly infringes on civil liberties and there are serious questions regarding its efficacy in protecting airline travelers.   In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day attack, the government has announced intensified airport screening and there have been calls for the across-the-board implementation of full body scanners for all travelers. Both the House and Senate have held multiple hearings on airport security since January.   The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:   “The Bill of Rights extends beyond curbside check-in and if the government insists on using these invasive search techniques, it is imperative that there be vigorous oversight and regulation to protect our privacy. There is no one measure or magic solution to keeping us safe, and while our government should strive for the best security possible, it must adhere to respect Americans’ civil liberties.   “Before these body scanners become the status quo at America’s airports, we need to ensure new security technologies are genuinely effective, rather than merely creating a false sense of security. It is far from clear whether this technology would have been able to foil the attempted Christmas Day attack and every resource we put into using these machines is a resource not spent on intelligence analysis or other law enforcement activity.”

The Senate confirmed Julie Brill, former Vermont Assistant Attorney General, to fill a vacancy for FTC Commissioner. Brill served for over 20 years as Vermont’s Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection and Antitrust, and currently serves as Senior Deputy Attorney General and Chief of Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the North Carolina Department of Justice. Brill has had experience with several important consumer protection issues, including tobacco, food and drug, antitrust, and privacy and identity theft. Senator Leahy (D-VT) expressed support for Brill’s confirmation, proclaiming, “We again have an FTC that is on the side of the consumers. Julie Brill will help revitalize an FTC that has languished while consumers’ interests have given way to special interests.”

Advisers To Recommend Abandoning Promise Of Civilian Trials For Military Commissions

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

NEW YORK – According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is on the verge of reversing itself on its earlier decision to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in federal criminal courts, opting for the military commissions system instead. The report indicates that the president's advisers will soon recommend to him that he overturn Attorney General Eric Holder's November decision to use civilian trials for the cases, and that an announcement could come in the next two weeks.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this regrettable reversal under political pressure will strike a blow to American values and the rule of law and undermine America’s credibility.

There have been over 300 terrorism-related convictions in the federal courts, while there have been only three in the military commissions, two resulting in sentences of less than a year.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values.

“If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law.

“Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fear-mongering. He should hold firm and keep these prosecutions in federal court, where they belong.”

More information on why terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts can be found online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/terrorism-cases-should-be-tried-federal-court

Legislation Would Also Create New System Of Interrogation   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org
  WASHINGTON – A bill introduced today in the Senate would hand the government the power to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without charge or trial, dealing a swift blow to due process and the rule of law.   The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), would also create an entirely new system of interrogation by requiring intelligence officials to be consulted about how to handle terrorism suspects after their capture. The bill was precipitated by misguided objections to the Obama administration’s correct decision to charge accused Christmas Day attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal court system. The legislation would have a “high value detainee” team, made up of members of different intelligence agencies, interrogate and determine whether alleged terrorist suspects are “unprivileged enemy belligerents.” If so, and if the suspect is then charged, the legislation would mandate the use of the discredited and unconstitutional military commissions.   The American Civil Liberties Union vigorously opposes the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act.   The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:   “The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act is a direct attack on the Constitution.   “Indefinite detention flies in the face of American values and violates this country’s commitment to the rule of law. Over the last decade, we have seen how disregard for the rule of law has disastrous results for America’s standing in the world, and it is unfathomable that Senators McCain and Lieberman would forget so recent a lesson. We must forever put an end to the false and dangerous assumption that sacrificing our principles makes us safe. We should never conclude that our ideals are not strong enough to withstand these threats.   “Contrary to what some in Congress may believe, there is no significant class of prisoners who simultaneously cannot be prosecuted or safely released. If evidence is too unreliable to prosecute someone, it is certainly too flimsy to detain them for the rest of their lives without an opportunity to defend themselves.”   The following can be attributed to Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel:   “Like indefinite detention, using military commissions is an abandonment of American values. Our time-tested federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while upholding due process. Federal courts have produced over 300 terrorism-related convictions while the discredited military commissions have produced only three. Using the commissions will result in years of delay due to legal challenges and will yield results mired in doubt. Americans deserve better.   “When it comes to terrorism, some lawmakers continue to underestimate the competence of our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system has proved repeatedly that it is capable of obtaining reliable intelligence from terrorism suspects, while that has not always been the case when we throw detainees into secret detention and discard all the rules. Denying due process rights to our enemies defies the values we are fighting to protect. The Constitution is not optional despite the efforts of these senators to render it so.”
More information on why terrorism suspects should be tried in federal court is available here: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/terrorism-cases-should-be-tried-federal-court  

EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging the Justices to protect the privacy of those who sign petitions. In Doe v. Reed, the Court has been asked to determine whether the state of Washington may force disclosure of the names of citizens who have signed petitions for ballot initiatives. EPIC's brief argues that revealing the names would subject signatories to the risk of retribution, that signing petitions constitutes anonymous speech, and that signing petitions is similar to casting a vote and should be protected accordingly. For more information, see EPIC Doe v. Reed.

Marc Rotenberg,
EPIC, Executive Director

Katitza Rodriguez,
CSISAC Liaison

Paris, France
March 9-11, 2010

Bill Comes As Government Officials Testify In House In Favor Of Repeal

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

WASHINGTON – Legislation was introduced today in the Senate to end the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The policy, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993, states that openly lesbian and gay individuals pose "an unacceptable threat to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability," and prevents gay and lesbian individuals from serving openly in the military. Today’s legislation, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 introduced by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and co-sponsored by several senators including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by the military.

An act of Congress is needed to repeal the law and the American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges Congress to make ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” a priority this year.

"The introduction of this bill signals a true commitment from Congress to finally put an end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “We cannot lose momentum. Congress must act quickly to ensure that lesbian and gay Americans can serve their country free from discrimination. When the president, our nation's top military leaders and the majority of our country have called for an end to this discriminatory policy, it is time to act. Congress must answer these calls with conviction.”

The Obama administration and several high-ranking military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, have called for an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.” There is a companion bill currently pending in the House, H.R. 1283, also titled the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. The House version’s lead sponsor is Patrick Murphy (D-PA) who is an Iraq war veteran.

Also today, the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee heard testimony from administration and armed services officials on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a 45-day period to examine steps the Pentagon could take on their own to lessen the impact of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" without having to wait for Congress to pass a full repeal. A Pentagon working group was also established to conduct a year-long assessment of the military’s ability to move forward with a repeal and how it might be carried out. The two co-chairs of that working group, General Counsel of the Department of Defense Jeh C. Johnson and USA Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe, General Carter F. Ham, testified today.

“Gay and lesbian Americans have been forced to live a lie in order to serve the country for nearly two decades,” said Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel. “With bills pending in both the House and Senate and the outspoken support of President Obama and military leaders, this year can and must be the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Our men and women in uniform deserve to be treated fairly. We urge Congress to move swiftly to end this shameful policy."

While the ACLU strongly supports ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as soon as possible, it is concerned about a provision in Senator Lieberman’s bill that would require the Defense Department to report to Congress about its efforts to force universities to accept Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) units on their campuses in order to receive certain funding. While ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should resolve the problem of ROTC discrimination based on sexual orientation, the ACLU still believes that denying funds to universities that might exclude ROTC for other reasons poses threats to academic freedom.

Declines Review Of Appellate Decision That Displays Improperly Endorse Religion

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

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a federal appellate court ruling that a United States Postal Service contract postal unit (CPU) cannot place religious displays on its postal counter and other areas serving postal patrons. By declining to review the case, the Supreme Court left undisturbed an August 2009 ruling by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, the national ACLU and local residents who use that post office.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court left intact previous rulings that held that religious outreach is out of place at a postal counter," said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of Connecticut. "Religious liberty is best protected when the government or those acting as governmental agents remain neutral on matters of faith."

The case was originally filed on behalf of Bertram Cooper, a Manchester, Connecticut resident for whom the CPU, operated by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church, was the closest post office, and pursued on appeal by two other local residents who had intervened. The ACLU argued that because the CPU functions as an extension of the federal government, pervasive displays of religious materials posted by the church amounted to unconstitutional governmental endorsement of religion. 

In its ruling, the Second Circuit ordered that the areas in the CPU where postal services are provided must be free of religious material.

CPUs are postal facilities operated by private parties on private land and furnish postal services to places where it is not otherwise geographically or economically feasible to build and operate official "classified" post offices.

"We are gratified that the Supreme Court has left in place the Second Circuit's ruling that using the machinery of the state to endorse a religious agenda is unconstitutional," said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Lawyers on the case include Mach, David McGuire of the ACLU of Connecticut and Aaron Bayer, Kevin Smith and Sabrina Houlton from Wiggin & Dana, LLP.

Additional information about the ACLU of Connecticut is available online at: www.aclu-ct.org
 
Additional information about the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion

The White House announced today that it has made a description of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) available online for public viewing. The12 CNCI initiatives cover a wide range of government activity, from cyber education to intrusion detection. However, the text of the underlying legal authority for cybersecurity still remains secret. EPIC has been involved in ongoing litigation regarding a Freedom of Information Act request for the text of the critical cybersecurity document NSPD 54 that President Bush signed in 2008. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC Sues NSA to Force Disclosure of Cyber Security Authority and EPIC: EPIC Seeks Records on Google-NSA Relationship.

EPIC has filed a supplement to its earlier complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, urging the FTC to investigate Google Buzz.  EPIC's original complaint cited clear harms to service subscribers, and alleges that the change in business practices "violated user expectations, diminished user privacy, contradicted Google's privacy policy, and may have violated federal wiretap laws." EPIC's supplemental complaint elaborates on the specific ways in which Google Buzz constituted a violation of Google's stated Privacy Policy for Gmail. For more information, see EPIC: In re Google Buzz.

Group Tells School Its Ban On Same-Sex Prom Dates Is Unconstitutional

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

FULTON, MS – The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition today demanded that Itawamba County School District officials reverse their decision to forbid a lesbian student from attending prom with her girlfriend and from wearing a tuxedo to the prom. Constance McMillen, a student at Itawamba Agricultural High School, said that school officials told her that she could not arrive at the prom with her girlfriend, also a student at IAHS, and that they might be thrown out if any other students complained about their presence.

“Prom is one of those high school moments everyone should get to experience and enjoy. I didn’t go to prom last year, so this is my only chance to go,” said McMillen, an 18-year-old senior at the school in Fulton, a small town of about 3,900 in the northeastern corner of Mississippi. “We just want to be able to be ourselves at our own prom.”

McMillen said she approached school officials shortly before a memo about prom was circulated at school on February 5 that said same-sex dates would not be allowed, because she knew same-sex dates had been banned from prom in the past. McMillen met with the assistant principal and later the superintendent, who told her that they would not be allowed to arrive together, that she would not be allowed to wear a tuxedo to prom, and that she and her girlfriend might be thrown out if their presence made any other students “uncomfortable” at the April 2 event.

“Prom is supposed to be about all students being able to express themselves, have fun, and make memories that will last the rest of their lives,” said Kristy Bennett, Legal Director of the ACLU of Mississippi. “Constance has a constitutional right to take the person she’s dating to the prom, just like any other student at any other public school.”

In today’s letter to Itawamba County School District officials, the ACLU cited federal court cases guaranteeing students’ First Amendment right to bring same-sex dates to school dances, and also pointed out that treating McMillen and other lesbian, gay, and bisexual students differently from other students violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. In addition to illegally barring McMillen and her girlfriend from attending the prom together, the ACLU said that the school further violated McMillen’s free expression rights by telling her that she can’t wear a tuxedo to the prom.

“We hope that informing the school about its legal obligations towards its students will make it think twice about treating Constance and her girlfriend any differently than it does any other student couple who wants to go to the prom,” said Christine P. Sun, Senior Counsel with the ACLU national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, who represents McMillen along with the ACLU of Mississippi. “Schools that discriminate against lesbian, gay, and bisexual students who want to bring same-sex dates to school dances need to know that by doing so they’re violating established federal law, and we will call them on it.”

The ACLU and the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition have given the school district until March 10, 2010 to respond to their letter.

Additional information, including a copy of the school’s prom memo and the ACLU’s demand letter, is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/fulton-ms-prom-discrimination.

The Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition was formed in the fall of 2008 to address discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, or students perceived to be LGBT, in Mississippi public schools and colleges. The MSSC works closely with the ACLU of Mississippi to educate teachers, students, and administrators about the rights of LGBT students with the aim of making schools safer for all. The MSSC is youth-led, and any questions about student rights at prom, starting a gay-straight alliance club, or any other safe schools issues can be directed to Ashley Jackson, facilitator, at ashley@mssafeschools.org.

 

Today the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order that will allow a privacy case against the Hustler Magazine to continue in lower courts. In March of 2008, less than a year after she was murdered by her wrestler husband, naked photos of Nancy Benoit were published in the magazine. Nancy Benoit's mother Maureen Toffoloni, sued the magazine, claiming that her daughter had asked immediately after the shoot to have the photos and video destroyed and believed that photographer Mark Samansky had done so. Hustler magazine asked the court to dismiss the action, arguing that publication of the pictures was protected by the First Amendment. The Appeals Court ruled against Hustler magazine in June, allowing the lawsuit to go forward. Hustler appealed the decision and the Supreme Court let stand the lower court's ruling.