http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/

Tired of advertisers telling you what's wrong with your body, skin, hair, face? Fed up with the media's narrow portrayal of women? Help NOW Foundation promote positive, inclusive images of women and girls. Start planning events now for Love Your Body Day on Oct. 20. Learn more about the campaign. Enter the contest to design next year's poster.

http://www.now.org/ratifywomen/index.html

Check out NOW's new campaign to get CEDAW, the Women's Rights Treaty, ratified at last in the U.S.

http://now.org/press/08-10/08-26.html

Ninety years ago today women were given the right to vote when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was signed into law. However, women are still denied the one thing that would make us truly equal to men -- equal protection of the law, which all men receive thanks to the 14th Amendment.

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5996/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=4288

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who this week called Social Security "a milk cow with 310 million tits," is unfit to continue as co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. If he doesn't have the decency to resign, President Obama should fire him. Join NOW's "Tits for an Ass" campaign.

http://now.org/press/08-10/08-25b.html

Alan Simpson is not fit to lead the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The ugliness of his disrespect for women is matched only by his dogged determination to dismantle Social Security. NOW urges President Obama to take a stand on this issue and replace Simpson immediately.

http://www.now.org/press/08-10/08-25.html

The National Organization for Women applauds Representative Kendrick Meek for his impressive victory in Florida's Democratic primary last night. Meek defeated billionaire investor Jeff Greene, despite Greene's estimated $25 million campaign spending and his particularly malicious attacks on Meek. NOW's Political Action Committee enthusiastically endorsed Meek, who now becomes the first African American Senate nominee from the state of Florida. Meek will face the GOP candidate, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, as well as Governor Charlie Crist, who is running as an independent, in the general election.

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/geithner_letter_082010.pdf

Read NOW President Terry O'Neill's letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, urging him to call on President Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/082010media_mergers.html

When big media companies merge or partner it's rarely a good thing. Sure, it might be profitable for those at the top and stockholders. But generally it's bad news for the little people -- otherwise known as their viewers, listeners, readers and users. The proposed Comcast-NBC merger and the new deal between Google and Verizon are a feminist issue. Read why.

http://now.org/press/08-10/08-09.html

Under protest from LGBT rights activists, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized on Aug. 5 for donating $150,000 to a group that supports an anti-gay marriage, anti-quality candidate for governor in Minnesota. That same day, NOW had sent a letter to Steinhafel objecting not only to the company's political donation, but also to his personal stance against an eating disorder treatment facility opening up in his community.

Companion Bill Awaits Vote In The Senate

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

WASHINGTON – A bill creating a bipartisan commission tasked with examining the nation's criminal justice system was passed today in the House. The bill, the National Criminal Justice Commission Act, would task the commission it creates with devising reform recommendations in a number of important areas designed to prevent, deter and reduce crime and violence.

Identical legislation was introduced in the Senate last year and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in this January.

America’s current criminal justice system continues to include pervasive racial and socioeconomic disparities and an over-reliance on incarceration to address nonviolent offenses. According to a 2008 report by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States, for the first time in U.S. history, more than one in every 100 adults in America is either in prison or jail.

The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“The National Criminal Justice Commission Act will be a solid first step toward overhauling our badly broken justice system and its unacceptable inequality issues. Over time, our lawmakers have created a severely unbalanced system that is disproportionately affecting our nation’s minorities with misguided policies including the many harsh, one-size-fits-all mandatory minimum sentences. Too many of our citizens are behind bars needlessly and too often their rights are ignored. The National Criminal Justice Commission Act may be the first step in correcting these problems, and we urge the Senate to swiftly pass its companion bill.”

The ACLU’s letter of support for the National Criminal Justice Commission Act can be found here: www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-letter-support-h-r-5143-national-criminal-justice-commission-act-2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

The Rhode Island ACLU has today filed suit against the City of Pawtucket, charging city officials with blatantly violating a state law that restricts random drug testing in the workplace.

The lawsuit, filed in RI Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi, is on behalf of Romana Ramos, a veteran 17-year city employee who works as a police matron and court interpreter. On April 6, Ramos was advised by the City's Employee Benefits Coordinator, Maria Xiarhos, that she had to immediately submit to a random urine drug screen test. When Ramos objected, she was called into a meeting with Police Chief George Kelly III and Major Paul King who advised her that, pursuant to instructions from the city solicitor, if she refused to take the test she would be immediately suspended without pay for 30 days. Faced with that choice, Ramos agreed to take a urine test as well as a breathalyzer test as she was ordered to. Both tests were negative for drugs or alcohol.

Rhode Island law allows drug testing in the workplace, but in recognition of its invasiveness, intrusion on basic privacy rights and potential inaccuracy, it allows testing of employees only when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is impaired on the job. Random drug testing is prohibited, and has been for over 20 years. In fact, the suit notes, it is a crime for an employer to subject an employee to an illegal drug test.

The ACLU lawsuit seeks a court order declaring the city's actions illegal, an injunction barring officials from imposing any further illegal testing demands on Ramos, and an award of compensatory and punitive damages.

Ramos said today: “I felt humiliated and stripped of my dignity when I was forced to take this test for no reason at all. I hope my suit will prevent other employees from having to submit to this offensive practice.” ACLU attorney Sinapi added: “Over twenty years ago, the General Assembly determined that random, post employment urine and blood testing was an unacceptable intrusion on the privacy of employees. An employer in Rhode cannot subject an employee to urine or blood testing without cause. The law was designed to fairly balance the privacy interest of employees with the legitimate business interests of employers. It is unfortunate that city officials in Pawtucket so cavalierly saw fit to violate this important, longstanding law.”

Michigan State Law Passed In 2008 Protects Employees Who Use Marijuana To Treat Debilitating Diseases

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

BATTLE CREEK, MI – The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Michigan, in partnership with the law firm of Daniel W. Grow, PLLC, filed a lawsuit today against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and the manager of its Battle Creek store for wrongfully firing an employee for using medicinal marijuana in accordance with state law to treat the painful symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor and cancer.

The lawsuit charges that Joseph Casias, 30, the Battle Creek Wal-Mart's 2008 Associate of the Year, was fired from his job at the store after testing positive for marijuana, despite being legally registered to use the drug under Michigan's medical marijuana law. In accordance with state law, Casias never ingested marijuana while at work and never worked while under the influence of marijuana.

"Medical marijuana has had a life-changing positive effect for Joseph, but Wal-Mart made him pay a stiff and unfair price for his medicine," said Scott Michelman, staff attorney with the ACLU. "No patient should be forced to choose between adequate pain relief and gainful employment, and no employer should be allowed to intrude upon private medical choices made by employees in consultation with their doctors."

Casias has suffered for more than a decade from sinus cancer and a brain tumor in the back of his head and neck that was the size of a softball when it was first diagnosed. His condition has forced him to endure extensive treatment and chemotherapy, interferes with his ability to speak and is a source of severe and constant pain. Nonetheless, he had been successfully employed for more than five years by Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, where he began as an entry-level grocery stocker in 2004 and worked his way up to inventory control manager.

"For some people, working at Wal-Mart is just a job, but for me, it was a way of life," said Joseph. "I came to Wal-Mart for a better opportunity for my family and I worked hard and proved myself. I just want the opportunity to continue my work."

In 2008, Michigan voters enacted the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, which provides protection for the medical use of the drug under state law. The pain medication Casias' oncologist had previously prescribed for him provided only minimal relief and as a side effect caused Casias to suffer from severe nausea. After the law was enacted, Joseph's oncologist recommended that he try marijuana as permitted by state law, and so Casias obtained the appropriate registry card from the Michigan Department of Community Health. The results were immediate and profound: his pain decreased dramatically, the new medicine did not induce nausea and Casias was able to gain back some of the weight he had lost during treatment.

"Joseph is exactly the kind of person whom Michigan voters had in mind when they passed the state's medical marijuana law," said Daniel W. Grow, a St. Joseph, Michigan-based attorney. "Medical marijuana is legal in this state because voters recognized its ability to alleviate the pain, nausea and other symptoms associated with debilitating medical conditions, and no corporation doing business in Michigan should be permitted to flout state law."

Michigan's medical marijuana law protects patients registered with the state of Michigan from "arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner" for the use of medicinal marijuana as prescribed by a doctor and also protects employees from being disciplined for their use of medical marijuana in accordance with the law. The law does not require employers to accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in the workplace and does not protect employees who work under the influence of the drug. 

The outcome of today's lawsuit, filed in Calhoun County Circuit Court, could have ramifications beyond Michigan.

"Today, 14 states and the District of Columbia provide protections for patients who use marijuana as recommended by a doctor," said Kary L. Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "This case will be closely watched by patients across the country who rely on this medicine for pain relief and on their state laws for protection against unscrupulous employers." 

Lawyers on the case include Grow, Michelman, Moss and Dan Korobkin and Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan.

A copy of the today's complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/casias-v-wal-mart-complaint

Additional information about the ACLU's work to reform drug laws is available online at: www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform

Additional information about the ACLU of Michigan is available online at: www.aclumich.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Augusta – Today the MCLU testifies in opposition to some of the proposed rules governing medical marijuana.  The Department of Health and Human Services is holding a public hearing at 1 pm in Room 209 of the Cross Office Building in Augusta today to hear public comments regarding the state’s new medical marijuana rules.

"The move to set up dispensaries and the appropriate regulatory scheme surrounding dispensaries should not create barriers to individual patient access to medical marijuana," wrote MCLU Public Policy Counsel Alysia Melnick in her in the MCLU comments to the Department of Health and Human Services.  "Unfortunately, some of the proposed rules threaten patient health, privacy and due process."

Maine voters approved a referendum in November allowing medical marijuana dispensaries.  Unfortunately, the legislature approved amendments to that law that now require all medical marijuana patients and their caregivers to register with the state.  The proposed Rules raise six key concerns for the MCLU.

• The rules allow the Department to revoke a patient’s registration card without an appeals hearing or sufficient due process.
• The new rules impose annual registration fees of $75 to $100 for patients and caregivers without providing for a waiver for those who are not able to pay.
• The new rules lack patient confidentiality protections including purging of the information once a patient ceases to use medical marijuana.
• The new rules require mandatory drug testing for dispensary employees, not required in the actual legislation.
• Both the law passed by the legislature and the proposed rules contain a discrepancy between the number of plants patients are allowed to grow (6) and the amount of marijuana they are allowed to possess (2.5 ounces) creating a Catch-22 for patients who want to abide by the law.
• The law and the rules allow disclosure of confidential patient information to law enforcement without a warrant.

"The new law and the proposed rules are a step backward for patients who have been safely accessing medical marijuana for the last decade," said MCLU Executive Director Shenna Bellows.  "Maine voters time and time again have approved medical marijuana.  It is wrong for the State to contradict the will of the voters by enacting unnecessary regulations that infringe upon patient health and privacy."

On Saturday, the MCLU participated in a statewide medical marijuana conference where patients, caregivers, and lawmakers gathered to discuss the new law.  This evening the MCLU will attend the Portland City Council meeting to oppose a new moratorium on growing of medical marijuana in the city.  

"The City of Portland, much like DHHS and the legislature, are punishing patients with new regulations written for dispensaries," said MCLU Public Policy Counsel Alysia Melnick.  "Any changes in policy at the state and local levels should maintain the patient access and privacy protections that have been in place for years."

A complete copy of the comments is available upon request.

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit challenging the state Department of Correctional Services' refusal to disclose public records about its use of ion scanning technology to screen prison visitors for exposure to drugs.

After receiving numerous complaints about the accuracy of ion scanning devices and following studies questioning the high rate of false positives associated with the test, the NYCLU in September 2009 requested access to public records concerning the technology through the state Freedom of Information Law.  In response, the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) provided a single 12-page document that ignored the bulk of the NYCLU's request.

"DOCS cannot hide from legitimate concerns about the accuracy of ion scanners at state prisons," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. "Thousands of New Yorkers travel long distances, often at great personal expense, to visit loved ones in state prisons. They must not be wrongfully denied the right to visit their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives or children because of faulty scanners. DOCS must make its ion scanning program available for public scrutiny."

Ion scanners are electronic devices that aim to detect traces of drugs on clothing, body parts and other surfaces. If visitors test positive, or if they refuse the test, they are not allowed to enter prison. Photographs of visitors and their IDs are attached to positive scan results and circulated to prison officials to identify those persons during future visits.

In the decade since DOCS began using the scanners, the NYCLU has received many complaints concerning their accuracy, particularly their propensity to trigger false positive results after a visitor has handled non-contraband items, such as money, clothing or prescribed medication. 

Concerns about the scanners' accuracy were confirmed in April 2008 when all Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities suspended the use of ion scanning. The bureau reinstated the ion scanning program in October 2009 under limited conditions and after implementing policy and equipment changes deemed necessary to improve the program's effectiveness.

After failing to respond fully to the NYCLU's records request, DOCS ignored an administrative appeal the filed in January and a follow up letter sent in March. 

"It is unfortunate that DOCS has flouted its obligations under the Freedom of Information law and forced litigation on this matter," said Corey Stoughton, NYCLU senior staff attorney and upstate litigation coordinator. "A thorough, independent analysis of the department's ion scanning program requires access to these records, and we are confident the courts will compel DOCS to provide them."

The NYCLU filed the lawsuit, an Article 78 petition, in State Supreme Court of Albany County.

Working with Stoughton on the case are Katharine Bodde, Christopher Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg, all of the NYCLU.

To read the full complaint and the memo of law, visit: www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-sues-state-department-of-corrections-information-about-controversial-method-screening-pri

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The NYPD is on track to stop and interrogate a record number of totally innocent New Yorkers in 2010, according to police reports analyzed by the New York Civil Liberties Union. During the first half of 2010, police made more than 276,000 stops of completely innocent New Yorkers – the overwhelming majority of whom were black and Latino.

"A practice that wastes an officer's valuable time with a 90 percent fail rate – while at the same time humiliating hundreds of thousands of black and brown New Yorkers – is not a wise or effective policing technique," said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The NYPD is turning black and brown neighborhoods across New York City into Constitution-free zones. It is not a crime to walk down the street in New York City, yet every day innocent black and brown New Yorkers are turned into suspects for doing just that."

The NYPD stopped and interrogated New Yorkers 169,403 times between April 1 and June 30. Nearly nine out of 10 of these stops resulted in no charges or citations. This record number of stops fell disproportionately on the city's communities of color – 99,628 of those stopped were black and 43,754 of those stopped were Latino, while only 15,229 were white.

Between January 1 and March 31, police stopped and interrogated New Yorkers 149,753 times. Overall, this record number of stops represents a 2.5 percent increase from the stops conducted during the half of 2009. If stops continue at this pace, the NYPD will conduct a record number of stops in 2010. In 2009, the current record, police stopped New Yorkers 575,304 times.

For the first time since the Department began collecting this data, the NYPD may not record the names and personal information of the vast majority of people stopped in a suspect database. Last month, Governor Paterson signed legislation that protects New Yorkers' privacy rights by ending the NYPD's practice of keeping a computer database of completely innocent people who have been stopped, questioned or frisked by police officers. The NYCLU had been raising alarms about the issue since 2007.

"That law should have sent a clear message to the Police Department that government officials are now ready to challenge the NYPD's abusive stop-and-frisk practices," said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn. "More legislation and perhaps Justice Department scrutiny is on the way if the Department doesn't make serious reforms."

The new law allows police to keep electronic databases of generic information about stop-and-frisk encounters, such as the gender and race of individuals stopped, and the location of the stops. This data is necessary to independently analyze the NYPD's stop-and-frisk activity and identify whether officers are engaging in a pattern of racial profiling.

The database legislation complements a lawsuit filed by the NYCLU in May challenging the NYPD's refusal to clear its stop-and-frisk database of individuals who were stopped by police, arrested or issued a summons, and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. The lawsuit, which is ongoing, maintains that this practice violates the state's sealing statute.

To read the full NYPD stop-and-frisk reports for the first and second quarters of 2010, visit: www.nyclu.org/news/nypd-track-interrogate-record-number-of-innocent-new-yorkers-2010-new-stop-and-frisk-numbers-sh

Para su difusión inmediata
CONTACTO: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – Al prohibir ayer disposiciones clave de la ley de caracterización racial de Arizona, que entró en vigor el 29 de Julio, mientras se emite un fallo determinante respecto a su constitucionalidad, una juez del tribunal federal en Phoenix garantizó que los cuerpos policiacos de Arizona no se vean obligados a exigir "documentos" de las personas a quienes intercepten y quienes sospechen se encuentran en el país de manera ilegal. El fallo se produjo en una demanda entablada por el Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos impugnando la ley de Arizona. Dicho fallo reivindica reclamos semejantes hechos por la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles y una coalición de grupos de derechos civiles, mediante una demanda distinta que impugna esta ley discriminatoria.

Los artículos de la ley que se suspenden incluyen las siguientes disposiciones:

• El requisito que los oficiales de la policía investiguen la condición migratoria de todos los individuos a quienes detengan si los oficiales sospechan que se encuentran en el país de manera ilegal;
• La reclusión obligatoria de individuos que sean arrestados, incluso por infracciones menores que normalmente resultarían en una multa, si no pueden verificar que tienen permiso para estar en los Estados Unidos;
• La nueva disposición que impone sanciones estatales de tipo penal contra individuos que no sean ciudadanos y no se registren ante el Departamento de Protección a la Patria, o Homeland Security, o que no lleven consigo los documentos de su registro;
• La disposición para el arresto sin necesidad de que medie una orden, de individuos quienes los oficiales de la ley, ya sea estatales o locales, sospechen que se les puede deportar; y
• La nueva disposición estatal que califica como delito el hecho que los inmigrantes indocumentados trabajen.

La juez suspendió la disposición que habría creado una prohibición estatal contra la posibilidad de que las personas indocumentadas soliciten o desempeñen cualquier trabajo. Sin embargo, la juez no suspendió la disposición que prohíbe que se contrate a jornaleros si el hecho de contratarlos obstaculiza el tránsito de vehículos. La coalición de derechos civiles sostiene que dichos artículos de la ley violan las garantías al derecho de expresión y confían que en última instancia dichos artículos también se prohibirán por ser anticonstitucionales, de acuerdo a la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución.

La coalición de derechos civiles que también impugnó la ley incluye a la ACLU, MALDEF, el Centro Nacional de Derecho Migratorio (National Immigration Law Center, o NILC, por sus siglas en inglés), el Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC, por sus siglas en inglés) -un integrante del Asian American Center for Advancing Justice- la ACLU de Arizona, la National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON, por sus siglas en inglés) y la Nacional Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP, por sus siglas en inglés). El despacho jurídico Munger, Tolles y Olson LLP también actúa como abogado adjunto en este caso.

La demanda de la coalición, archivada el 17 de mayo y para la cual se presentaron alegatos el mismo día en que la causa del gobiDepartamento de Justicia, impugna la SB 1070 por motivos jurídicos que también se plantean en la demanda del Departamento de Justicia, así como por otros motivos jurídicos, incluyendo que la ley fomenta la caracterización racial contra las personas de color, viola la Primera Enmienda e interfiere con las leyes federales. Según la coalición, la ley haría que una enorme cantidad de personas, tanto ciudadanos como no ciudadanos, a la caracterización racial, a las investigaciones indebidas y al encarcelamiento. Las siguientes citas se pueden atribuir a miembros de la coalición, quienes se nombran a continuación.

Anthony D. Romero, Director Ejecutivo de la ACLU:

"Este es un paso importante que ayudará a proteger a los residentes de Arizona contra la caracterización racial y la discriminación racial, y el gobierno de Obama merece elogios por su decisión escrupulosa de impugnar esta ley a pesar de las presiones para que se quedara callado. No se puede permitir que la frustración de un solo estado ante las políticas del gobierno federal vaya a chantajear a la autoridad federal ni dictar las prioridades del gobierno federal al grado de impedir que se haga cumplir debidamente la ley, se amenacen los derechos tanto de las personas que son ciudadanas como de aquellas que no lo son, y se violenten los principios fundamentales de los estadounidenses."

Nina Perales, Abogada de MALDEF para la Región Sudoeste:

"El fallo del día de hoy subvierte el esquema migratorio anticonstitucional que Arizona quería imponer. El fallo de la juez demuestra además que la Ley SB 1070 es un intento anticonstitucional por parte del estado de adueñarse del sistema federal al interior de las fronteras de Arizona. Los estados de todo el país deben darse cuenta que cualquier intento parecido no tendrá éxito."

Linton Joaquín, Abogado General de NILC:

"Con el fallo de hoy, la Juez Bolton otorgó un amparo contra las disposiciones más atroces de la Ley SB 1070, una promulgación peligrosa que amenaza los derechos fundamentales de un sin número de residentes de Arizona y visitantes al mismo. Otros estados que sigan las pautas erróneas de Arizona deben considerarse bajo advertencia: no se puede permitir ningún intento de atropellar los derechos constitucionales de las comunidades de color en este país. Estamos ansiosos de demostrar, mediante nuestra demanda, que esta ley tan dañina deben eliminarse de manera permanente del régimen jurídico de Arizona."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Directora Ejecutiva de la ACLU de Arizona: 

"Este es un primer paso hacia la victoria para las libertades civiles en Arizona. Estamos ansiosos de demostrarle a la juez que esta ley reaccionaria de caracterización racial quebranta la Constitución, para que podamos comenzar el verdadero trabajo de elaborar soluciones prácticas que respondan a las inquietudes que tiene el país respecto a la inmigración, en lugar de violentar los valores fundamentales de los estadounidenses."

Julie Su, Directora de Litigios de APALC:

"Elogiamos a la juez por haber visto lo peligroso que habría sido que se promulgara esta ley. La SB 1070 presenta un esquema inmigratorio distinto y separado que contradice las leyes y políticas federales, y tendría un efecto devastador en los asiático-americanos, las personas provenientes de las islas de Pacífico, los latinos y otras personas de color en Arizona. De hecho, ya se han comenzado a sentir esos efectos negativos. Este fallo deja claro que intimidar a las comunidades de inmigrantes, el pedir que las personas se detengan con el pretexto de pedirles "documentos" y los pronunciamientos acerca de quiénes son los que tienen derecho a estar en Arizona y quiénes no, so pretexto de hacer cumplir la SB 1070, deben cesar de inmediato."

Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON:

"Si la historia nos sirve de referencia, el camino que nos queda por delante en Arizona, es muy largo. El día de hoy fue una parada en el camino, y aunque confiamos plenamente en el proceso judicial para que en última instancia se defienda la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, no debemos cantar victoria hasta que se le ponga el alto a la SB 1070 por completo, y hasta que los derechos civiles de todos los habitantes de Arizona queden completamente protegidos."

La organizaciones y abogados del caso, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., incluyen:

• Proyecto de los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de la ACLU: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam y Harini P. Raghupathi;
• MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu e Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
• NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal y Ghazal Tajmiri;
• Fundación ACLU de Arizona: Dan Pochoda y Annie Lai;
• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi y Carmina Ocampo;
• NDLON: Chris Newman;
• NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer y Benjamin Maro;
• Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

La petición para un interdicto preliminar se pueden consultar en: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-

Puede ver un video nuevo de la ACLU acerca de cómo la SB 1070 fomenta la caracterización racial en: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers

Para mayores datos acerca de la ley de Arizona, vaya a: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

UPDATED

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

PHOENIX – Ensuring that Arizona law enforcement will not be required to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S., a federal court in Phoenix today blocked key provisions of Arizona's racial profiling law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging the Arizona law. The ruling vindicates similar claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit challenging the discriminatory measure.

The blocked sections under the law include the following provisions:

•    The requirement that police officers investigate the immigration status of all individuals they stop if the officers suspect that they are in the country unlawfully;
•    The mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested, even for minor offenses that would normally result in a ticket, if they cannot verify that they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
•    The new statute imposing state criminal penalties for non-citizens failing to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
•    The provision for warrantless arrest of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and
•    The new state statute making it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.

The court blocked the provision that would create an Arizona ban on undocumented persons applying for, soliciting or performing work. However, the court did not block the provisions that prohibit day laborers from being hired if the party hiring them impedes traffic. The civil rights coalition maintains these sections violate free speech protections and are confident that they too will ultimately be barred as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.*
 
The civil rights coalition that also challenged the law includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.

The coalition's lawsuit, filed on May 17 and argued the same day as the Justice Department's case, challenges SB 1070 on legal grounds raised in the Justice Department's lawsuit as well as others including that the law invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.

The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"This is a major step that will help protect the residents of Arizona against racial profiling and discrimination, and the Obama administration deserves praise for its principled decision to challenge this law despite pressure to stay silent. A single state's frustration with federal policy cannot be allowed to hijack federal authority or dictate federal priorities in ways that impede effective law enforcement, threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and violate core American values."

Nina Perales, Regional Counsel Southwest Region for MALDEF:

"Today's ruling guts the unconstitutional immigration scheme that Arizona wanted to establish. The judge's decision further shows that SB 1070 is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to take over the federal immigration system within Arizona's borders. States around the nation should take heed that any similar efforts will not succeed."

Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:

"With today's ruling, Judge Bolton enjoined the most egregious provisions of SB 1070, a dangerous enactment that threatens the fundamental rights of countless Arizonans and visitors. Other states following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned: attempts to trample on the constitutional rights of communities of color in this country must not be permitted. We look forward to showing, through our lawsuit, that this pernicious law should be taken off Arizona's books permanently."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:

"This is a first step toward a victory for civil liberties in Arizona. We eagerly anticipate proving to the court that this reactionary racial profiling law violates the Constitution so we can begin the real work of crafting practical solutions that address our nation's immigration concerns rather than violate fundamental American values."

Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:

"We applaud the judge for seeing the imminent danger of having this law enacted. SB 1070 presents a distinct and separate immigration scheme that conflicts with federal law and policy, and would have a devastating impact on Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos and other people of color in Arizona. Indeed, some of those negative effects have already been felt. This ruling makes clear that intimidation of immigrant communities, pretextual stops to ask for 'papers,' and rhetoric about who belongs in Arizona and who doesn't under the guise of enforcing SB 1070 should cease immediately."

Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON: 

"If history is any guide, the road ahead in Arizona will be a long one. Today was one stop along the way, and we while we have complete faith in the legal process to ultimately defend the United States Constitution, we will not declare victory until SB 1070 is stopped in its entirety and until civil rights of all people in Arizona are fully protected."

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:

•    ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
•    MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
•    NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
•    ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
•    APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
•    NDLON: Chris Newman;
•    NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
•    Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro;
•    Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-

A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers
 
More information about the Arizona law can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

* This paragraph was rewritten to better explain the decision.

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

PHOENIX – At a hearing today in a federal court in Phoenix, the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups argued that Arizona's discriminatory new law, known as SB 1070, should be blocked pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.

The U.S. Department of Justice, in a separate lawsuit, will also ask the court to block SB 1070 in a hearing later today. The court, in the civil rights coalition's case, will also hear arguments on the state of Arizona's motion to dismiss the case.
 
The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice – ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.
 
Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project and Nina Perales, Southwest Regional Counsel for MALDEF, argued the case on behalf of the civil rights groups.

In May, the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the extreme law charging that it invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. Friday's filing seeks to halt implementation of the law while the case is litigated.
 
The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.

Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:

"We are asking the court to block SB 1070 right now because if this discriminatory law went into effect for even one day, it would be one day too many. Any law that requires law enforcement to ask people they stop and suspect of being undocumented for their ‘papers' violates the U.S. Constitution and the American values of fairness and equality. This law is a clear invitation for racial profiling, and we're confident that the court will understand the importance of preventing it from ever taking effect."

Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:

"Judge Bolton heard from lawyers representing organizations ranging from small non-profit service providers to the federal government, asking her to block the implementation of this pernicious law. Inaction on SB 1070 will lead to widespread fear and threatens the constitutional rights and societal values of all Arizonans. Unified voices of civil rights leaders, law enforcement officers and interested citizens are fighting to keep this unconstitutional law from hurting countless Arizonans and undermining our nation's values of fair treatment under the law."

Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:

"We are here today in Arizona to ensure that SB 1070 does not take effect next week, as this fundamentally unconstitutional law opens the door for law enforcement to discriminate against Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and other people of color who look or sound 'foreign.' We have faith the court understands that immigration enforcement is solely the responsibility of the federal government and that it will block this modern-day version of the Chinese Exclusion Act."
 
Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:

"While proponents of SB 1070 would have us believe that they have a monopoly on the rule of law, the federal court remains the arbiter of justice in this case. The courageous plaintiffs who have come forward to challenge this unconstitutional racial profiling law are optimistic that the judge will strike down this discriminatory law, which has already resulted in the harassment of innocent people."

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:

•  ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
•  MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
•  NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
•  ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
•  APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
•  NDLON: Chris Newman;
•  NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
•  Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro;
•  Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminary-

A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers
 
More information about the Arizona law can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

ACLU of Florida Supports Obama Administration's Challenge to Law; Criticizes Attorney General McCollum's Intervention in Arizona Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org

MIAMI – The ACLU of Florida today urged legislative leaders not to expand next week's special session.  Some Florida legislators are pushing legislation to bring an Arizona-style immigration law to Florida, and the legislation could be taken up during next week's special session that was called to address off-shore oil drilling. A PDF of the ACLU's letter to Speaker Cretul and Senate President Atwater can be downloaded here: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/AZ-style_071610.pdf  

The ACLU of Florida also sent an action alert to 18,000 of its members and supporters asking them to tell legislative leadership not to expand the session to include such anti-civil liberties measures as an Arizona-style immigration law. You can view that alert here: action.aclu.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=69381&em_id=69364.0

"The brand of legislation introduced in Florida targets people who fail to carry their papers or who look like they don't belong.  Sadly, rather than making our communities safer, these proposals, if enacted into law, would divert scarce resources away from law enforcement's primary responsibility of public safety, while encouraging racial profiling in blatant disregard of America's most fundamental values of fairness and equality," said Courtenay Strickland, ACLU of Florida Public Policy Director. "If our state legislators want to improve our immigration system, they should work with their Congressional counterparts to achieve fair and just solutions at the federal level rather than play on people's fears."

The ACLU also denounced Attorney General McCollum's decision to submit a brief in U.S. District Court in Arizona Wednesday in opposition to the Obama administration's lawsuit and supporting SB1070, the discriminatory "show me your papers" racial profiling law. Other attorneys general on the brief include those from Michigan, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

"You would think that those who declare themselves opponents of big and oppressive government would oppose  a state law that gives police such unprecedented authority. We are deeply disappointed not only that Attorney General McCollum has filed a brief supporting Arizona's extreme ‘show me your papers' law, but that some of our state legislators would consider going outside the purpose of the special session to enact  a law in Florida that would legitimize racial profiling," said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida Executive Director. "That the Attorney general and state legislators would use the public's concern about our broken immigration system for some perceived political advantage is a disgrace." 

"Directing the police to enforce a law that can only be enforced by racial and ethnic stereotyping and profiling does nothing to protect the integrity of the nation's borders, does nothing to find a way for the approximately 11 million undocumented people in this country to come out from the shadows, or in any other way fix our broken immigration system," he added.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other leading civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona "show me your papers" racial profiling law on May 17. The lawsuit charges that the law invites the racial profiling of people of color, and interferes with the federal government's responsibility to enforce the nation's immigration laws. The federal government's lawsuit against the Arizona law was filed on July 6.

Some Florida legislators, however, appear determined to ignore the clear signal from the Obama administration that interference with the federal government's Constitutional responsibility to enforce immigration laws will not be tolerated.  If some Florida legislators have it their way, you could soon hear this phrase from local and state law enforcement officials: "May I see your proof of citizenship please?" Even though Governor Crist called the special session to deal specifically with oil drilling in Florida's waters, some legislators have taken it upon themselves to push for Arizona-style immigration enforcement in Florida, without occasion for public input, and without expert review.

"Florida is an extraordinarily diverse state, and many people would be unjustly ensnared by this law – solely on the basis of their racial and ethnic identity. We will fight hard to make sure that Florida does not follow Arizona's shameful lead," Simon concluded.

For more information on the ACLU of Florida's work to prevent Arizona-style immigration laws in Florida, visit here: www.aclufl.org/travelalert/

ACLU of Virginia vows to keep Virginia from passing a similar law.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Richmond, VA –  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. District Court in Arizona supporting that state's controversial new law requiring police to check the immigration status of any person they detain and have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country illegally. 

In May, the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other leading civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the law on grounds that it invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment, and interferes with federal law.  Last week, the Obama administration filed a separate lawsuit claiming that the law unconstitutionally usurps federal authority.

Joining Cuccinelli on the brief are attorneys general from Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.

"While not completely surprised, we are disappointed that Attorney General Cuccinelli is supporting Arizona's anti-immigrant law," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.  "Laws that encourage discrimination based on race or nationality have no place in a nation that values fairness and equality." 

"In recent years, Virginia's lawmakers have rejected anti-immigrant legislation that would have increased racial profiling," added Willis. "But the attention generated by the new Arizona law and now the Attorney General's support for it are cause for concern.  Prior to the 2011 General Assembly, we'll be mobilizing our members and allies to make sure that Arizona's law does not come to Virginia."

The passage of the Arizona law recently led Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart to launch his statewide "Rule of Law" campaign to bring a similar law to Virginia.  Stewart wants state laws that increase police powers to conduct background checks and make arrests without warrants.  He also wants to prohibit day laborers from soliciting for work.

Stewart was an instigator of a nationally-watched proposal in Prince William County in 2007 to give police the authority to conduct immigration status checks on anyone they had detained whom they suspected of being unlawfully present.  Stewart's proposal, which was modified after the ACLU of Virginia and other rights groups opposed it, would have required proof of citizenship in order to use public services, such as parks and libraries.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Culminating a campaign started by the New York Civil Liberties Union in 2007, Gov. David Paterson today signed legislation that will protect New Yorkers' privacy rights by ending the NYPD's practice of keeping a computer database of completely innocent people who have been stopped, questioned or frisked by police officers. 

"We applaud Governor Paterson for pulling the plug on the NYPD's sprawling database of innocent black and Latino New Yorkers," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "Innocent people stopped by the police for doing nothing more than going to school, work or the subway should not become permanent criminal suspects. By signing this bill, the Paterson administration has put itself on the right side of history and leaves an important legacy in support of civil rights, civil liberties and common sense."

The new law, which was sponsored in the Legislature by Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries (D-57th AD) and Sen. Eric Adams (D-20th SD), prohibits the NYPD from storing in a computer database the names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other personal information of individuals who have been stopped and/or frisked by police and released without any further legal action.

"We commend Assemblyman Jeffries and Senator Adams for their leadership on this important issue," said NYCLU Legislative Director Robert Perry. "Together they have taken an important stand for New Yorkers' privacy and due process rights. The NYPD should take heed: It's time to address the Department's racially-biased, unjust and counterproductive stop-and-frisk practices." 

Since 2004, the NYPD has stopped and interrogated people nearly 3 million times, and the personal information of those stopped has been entered into the department's database, regardless of whether the person had done anything wrong. Last year, NYPD officers stopped and questioned or frisked people more than 575,000 times, the most ever. Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped and questioned by police last year were neither arrested nor issued a summons. More than 80 percent were black or Latino. And nearly one in five people were subjected to the use of force by police.

"The governor's signature on this bill should serve as a wakeup call to the mayor, the Police Department and all of New York's elected officials: We have work to do," said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn. "The NYPD must not continue its campaign of excessive and racially lopsided policing. The database legislation is just the start of what we must accomplish."

The new law allows police to keep electronic databases of generic information about stop-and-frisk encounters, such as the gender and race of individuals stopped, and the location of the stops. This data is necessary to independently analyze the NYPD's stop-and-frisk activity and identify whether officers are engaging in a pattern of racial profiling.

The database legislation complements a lawsuit filed by the NYCLU in May challenging the NYPD's refusal to clear its stop-and-frisk database of individuals who were stopped by police, arrested or issued a summons, and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. The lawsuit, which is ongoing, maintains that this practice violates the state's sealing statute.

ACLU And Other Groups Also Challenging Law Laud Obama Administration's Action

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

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit today challenging Arizona's recently enacted racial profiling law known as SB 1070. In taking this extraordinary action, the federal government has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate state laws that invite racial stereotyping and profiling and interfere with federal immigration priorities and policies.

The American Civil Liberties Union, along with a coalition of leading rights groups, filed a lawsuit in May challenging the constitutionality of the law.

The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice – ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is serving as pro bono co-counsel in the case.

The following statements can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.

Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:

"We commend the Obama administration for taking this critical step to negate Arizona's unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling. The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach. We will continue to aggressively pursue our legal challenge and welcome the Justice Department's participation in the battle to preserve American values of fairness and equality."

Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:

"States planning to follow in Arizona's misguided footsteps should take note: the United States cannot and should not allow immigrants and communities of color to be targets of hateful racial profiling legislation that puts their civil liberties on the line. We are pleased to see that the government has exercised its legal right to protect the rights of those within its borders and ensure that federal issues remain squarely in the federal domain."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:

"The Obama administration's action against this 'show me your papers' law sends a loud and clear message against state laws that institutionalize racial profiling of Latinos and result in an erosion of trust between law enforcement and the community. There has been a long history of racial profiling of Latinos in our state, particularly in Maricopa County, causing witnesses and victims of crime to be less willing to come forward. We will fight vigorously to keep this law from going into effect, and welcome the administration's efforts toward the same goal."

Julie Su, Litigation Director, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice:

"We welcome the Department of Justice's action against Arizona's law that invites racial profiling of anyone who might be perceived as being foreign, including Asian Americans. We hope the DOJ's challenge to this discriminatory law signals a willingness on the part of the federal government to address the myriad ways that our country's broken immigration system affects Americans and those who seek a better life by coming to America. We need federal action to prevent more cities and states from introducing copycat measures that violate core American values of fairness and equality."

Chris Newman, Legal Director, NDLON:

"The Department of Justice has the legal and moral obligation to challenge SB 1070, not just to protect civil rights in Arizona but also to defend the federal government's exclusive authority to define and implement United States immigration policy."

Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP:

"In filing this lawsuit, the Obama administration has taken a strong and principled stand against Arizona's discriminatory law. African-Americans have the misfortune of being all too familiar with the pernicious effects of racial profiling, and we welcome the addition of the administration to the broad spectrum of organizations already challenging this unconstitutional law. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country. We are confident that the courts will prevent it from ever taking effect."

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:

•    ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi
•    MALDEF: Thomas A. Saenz, Nina Perales, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal
•    NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri
•    ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai
•    APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo
•    NDLON: Newman and Lisa Kung
•    NAACP: Laura Blackburne
•    Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro
•    Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

More information about the Arizona law, including an ACLU video and slide show, can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona