May, 17 2010, 01:11pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or
549-2666; media@aclu.org
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of
Arizona, (602) 773-6006 or 418-5499
Laura Rodriguez, MALDEF, (310)
956-2425; lrodriguez@maldef.org
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213)
674-2832; delatorre@nilc.org
Karin Wang, APALC, (213) 241-0234 or
999-5640; kwang@apalc.org
Leila McDowell, NAACP, (202) 463-2940
ext. 1021
ACLU and Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge to Arizona Racial Profiling Law
PHOENIX
The American Civil Liberties Union and a
coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging
Arizona's new law requiring police to demand "papers" from people they
stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. The extreme
law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of
color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.
The coalition filing the lawsuit
includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU
of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the
Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) - a member of the Asian
American Center for Advancing Justice.
"Arizona's law is quintessentially
un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that
believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest
simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a
staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This law
violates the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are
confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect."
The lawsuit charges that the Arizona
law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over
immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law
enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and
prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth
Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and
others in Arizona.
"This discriminatory law pushes
Arizona into a spiral of fear, increased crime and costly litigation,"
said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF Senior National Counsel. "We expect that
this misguided law will be enjoined before it takes effect."
One of the individuals the coalition
is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born 70-year-old
American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee asserts that he
will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that, although
the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped twice
by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his
"papers."
Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtemoc
Villa, is a resident of the state of New Mexico who is currently
attending Arizona State University. The state of New Mexico does not
require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a
driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want
to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries
about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that
would prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot
supply proof upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest
and detain him.
Several prominent law enforcement
groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose
the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement's
primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public
safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between
local police and immigrant communities.
"This ill-conceived law sends a clear
message to communities of color that the authorities are not to be
trusted, making them less likely to come forward as victims of or
witnesses to crime," said Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC.
"Arizona's authorities should not allow public safety to take a back
seat to racial profiling."
"African-Americans know all too well
the insidious effects of racial profiling," said Benjamin Todd Jealous,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP. "The government
should be preventing police from investigating and detaining people
based on color and accent, not mandating it. Laws that encourage
discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for anyone."
"This extreme law puts Arizona
completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality,"
said Julie Su, Litigation Director of the APALC. "In a state where U.S.
citizens of Japanese descent were interned during World War II, it is
deeply troubling that a law that would mandate lower-class treatment of
people of color, immigrants and others seen to be outsiders would pass
in 2010."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
labor, domestic violence, day laborer, human services and social justice
organizations, including Friendly House, Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), SEIU Local 5, United Food and Commercial
Workers International (UFCW), Arizona South Asians for Safe Families
(ASAFSF), Southside Presbyterian Church, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network,
Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Muslim American Society,
Japanese American Citizens League, Valle del Sol, Inc., Coalicion De
Derechos Humanos, and individual named plaintiffs who will be subject to
harassment or arrest under the law and a class of similarly situated
persons.
"Day laborers have repeatedly
defended their First Amendment rights in federal courts and successfully
established their undeniable right to seek work in public areas," said
Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of NDLON. "Arizona's effort to
criminalize day laborers and migrants is an affront to the Constitution
and threatens to disrupt national unity, and we are confident that
federal courts will intervene to ensure the protection of our bedrock
civil rights."
Even prior to the passage of the
statute, local enforcement of federal immigration law has already caused
rampant racial profiling of Latinos in Arizona, most notably in
Maricopa County. The ACLU, MALDEF and other members of the coalition
have several pending lawsuits against government officials in Arizona
because of civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens and immigrants.
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: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon,
Nina Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limon and Nicholas
Espiritu; - NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. 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 and Lisa Kung;
- NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul
J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd and
Yuval Miller; and - Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero,
Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
The complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-complaint
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
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Environmental and Indigenous Groups Mobilize to Stop 'Alligator Alcatraz'
"This scheme is not only cruel, it threatens the Everglades ecosystem that state and federal taxpayers have spent billions to protect," said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades.
Jun 30, 2025
As Florida's Republican government moves to construct a sprawling new immigration detention center in the heart of the Everglades, nicknamed "Alligator Alcatraz," environmental groups and a wide range of other activists have begun to mobilize against it.
Florida's Republican attorney general, James Uthmeier, announced last week that construction of the jail, at the site of a disused airbase in the Big Cypress National Preserve, had begun. According to Fox 4 Now, an affiliate in Southwest Florida, construction has moved at "a blistering pace," with the site expected to be done by next week.
Three environmental advocacy groups have launched a lawsuit to try to halt the construction of the facility. And on Saturday, hundreds of protesters flocked to the remote site to voice their opposition.
Opponents have called out the cruelty of the plan, which comes as part of U.S. President Donald Trump's crusade to deport thousands of immigrants per day. They also called out the site's potential to inflict severe harm to local wildlife in one of America's most unique ecosystems.
Florida's government has said the site will have no environmental impact. Last week, Uthmeier described the area as a barren swampland. He said the site "presents an efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter. People get out, there's not much waiting for 'em other than alligators and pythons," he said in the video. "Nowhere to go, nowhere to hide."
But local indigenous leaders have said that's not true. Saturday's protest was led by Native American groups, who say that the site will destroy their sacred homelands. According to The Associated Press, Big Cypress is home to 15 traditional Miccosukee and Seminole villages, as well as ceremonial and burial grounds and other gathering sites.
"Rather than Miccosukee homelands being an uninhabited wasteland for alligators and pythons, as some have suggested, the Big Cypress is the Tribe's traditional homelands. The landscape has protected the Miccosukee and Seminole people for generations," Miccosukee Chairman Talbert Cypress wrote in a statement on social media last week.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, have disputed the state's claims that the site will have no environmental impact. On Friday, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Everglades, and Earthjustice sued the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They argued that the site was being constructed without any of the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
"The site is more than 96% wetlands, surrounded by Big Cypress National Preserve, and is habitat for the endangered Florida panther and other iconic species. This scheme is not only cruel, it threatens the Everglades ecosystem that state and federal taxpayers have spent billions to protect," said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades.
Governor Ron DeSantis used emergency powers to fast track the proposal, which the Center for Biological Diversity says has left no room for public input or environmental review required by federal law.
"This reckless attack on the Everglades—the lifeblood of Florida—risks polluting sensitive waters and turning more endangered Florida panthers into roadkill. It makes no sense to build what’s essentially a new development in the Everglades for any reason, but this reason is particularly despicable," said Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director and attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Reuters has reported that the planned jail could hold up to 5,000 detained migrants at a time and could cost $450 million per year to maintain. It comes as President Trump has sought to increase deportations to a quota of 3,000 per day. The majority of those who have been arrested by federal immigration authorities have no criminal records.
"This massive detention center," Bennett said, "will blight one of the most iconic ecosystems in the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kristi Noem Took Personal Cut of Political Donations While Governor of South Dakota: Report
"No wonder Pam Bondi gutted the public integrity section of DOJ. To protect utterly corrupt monsters like Kristi Noem."
Jun 30, 2025
The investigative outlet ProPublica revealed Monday that Kristi Noem secretly took a personal cut of funds she raised for a nonprofit that boosted her political career—and then did not disclose the income when President Donald Trump selected her to serve as head of the Department of Homeland Security.
ProPublica reported that in 2023, while Noem was governor of South Dakota, the nonprofit group American Resolve Policy Fund "routed funds to a personal company of Noem's that had recently been established in Delaware." The company is called Ashwood Strategies, and it was registered in June 2023.
"The payment totaled $80,000 that year, a significant boost to her roughly $130,000 government salary," according to the outlet. "Since the nonprofit is a so-called dark money group—one that's not required to disclose the names of its donors—the original source of the money remains unknown."
Experts told ProPublica that the arrangement and Noem's failure to disclose the income were unusual at best and possibly unlawful.
"If donors to these nonprofits are not just holding the keys to an elected official's political future but also literally providing them with their income, that's new and disturbing," Daniel Weiner, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works at the Brennan Center for Justice, told ProPublica.
Noem's lawyers denied that she violated the law but did not reply to ProPublica's questions about whether the Office of Government Ethics was aware of the $80,000 payment.
Unlike many Trump administration officials, Noem is not a billionaire. But "while she is among the least wealthy members of Trump's Cabinet, her personal spending habits have attracted notice," ProPublica observed, noting that she was "photographed wearing a gold Rolex Cosmograph Daytona watch that costs nearly $50,000 as she toured the Salvadoran prison where her agency is sending immigrants."
"In April, after her purse was stolen at a Washington, D.C. restaurant, it emerged she was carrying $3,000 in cash, which an official said was for 'dinner, activities, and Easter gifts,'" the outlet continued. "She was criticized for using taxpayer money as governor to pay for expenses related to trips to Paris, to Canada for bear hunting, and to Houston to have dental work done. At the time, Noem denied misusing public funds."
Political scientist Norman Ornstein wrote Monday that it was "no wonder [Attorney General] Pam Bondi gutted the public integrity section of DOJ."
"To protect utterly corrupt monsters like Kristi Noem," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Caving to Trump, Canada Drops Tax on US Tech Firms
One journalist accused Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney of chickening out.
Jun 30, 2025
Acquiescing to pressure from the Trump administration, the Canadian government announced on Sunday that the country will rescind the digital services tax, a levy that would have seen large American tech firms pay billions of dollars to Canada over the next few years.
The Sunday announcement from the Canadian government cited "anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement" as the reason for the rescission.
"Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the statement.
The digital services tax impacts companies that make over $20 million in revenue from Canadian users and customers through digital services like online advertising and shopping. Companies like Uber and Google would have paid a 3% levy on the money they made from Canadian sources, according to CBC News.
The reversal comes after U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday blasted the digital services tax, calling it a "direct and blatant attack on our country" on Truth Social.
Trump said he was suspending trade talks between the two countries because of the tax. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period," Trump wrote. The United States is Canada's largest trading partner.
Payments from tech firms subject to the digital services tax were due starting on Monday, though the tax has been in effect since last year.
"The June 30, 2025 collection will be halted," and Canada's Minister of Finance "will soon bring forward legislation to rescind the Digital Services Tax Act," according to the Sunday statement.
"If Mark Carney folds in response to this pressure from Trump on the digital services tax, he proves he can be pushed around," said Canadian journalist Paris Marx on Bluesky, speaking prior to the announcement of the rescission. "The tax must be enforced," he added.
"Carney chickens out too," wrote the author Doug Henwood on Twitter on Monday.
In an opinion piece originally published in Canadian Dimension before the announcement on Sunday, Jared Walker, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Canadians for Tax Fairness, wrote that all the money generated for the tax could mean "more federal money for housing, transit, and healthcare transfers—all from some of the largest and most under-taxed companies in the world."
Walker also wrote that the digital service tax could serve as a counterweight to the so-called "revenge tax" provision in Trump's sprawling domestic tax and spending bill.
Section 899, called "Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes," would "increase withholding taxes for non-resident individuals and companies from countries that the U.S. believes have imposed discriminatory or unfair taxes," according to CBC. The digital services tax is one of the taxes the Trump administration believes is discriminatory.
"If 'elbows up' is going to be more than just a slogan, Canada can't cave to pressure when Donald Trump throws his weight around," wrote Walker, invoking the Canadian rallying cry in the face of American antagonism when it comes to trade.
"But this slogan also means the Carney government has to make sure it is working on behalf of everyday Canadians—not just the ultra-rich and big corporations that are only 'Canadian' when it's convenient," Walker wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular