

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Maria Archuleta,
(212) 519-7808;
media@aclu.org
In
celebration of the American Civil Liberties Union's 90th anniversary,
the ACLU launched a traveling nationwide exhibit today highlighting the
organization's rich history of defending constitutional freedoms. The
exhibit will be displayed in a number of states, including Nebraska,
Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Iowa,
Maine, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma, California, Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah as well as Washington, D.C.
In
celebration of the American Civil Liberties Union's 90th anniversary,
the ACLU launched a traveling nationwide exhibit today highlighting the
organization's rich history of defending constitutional freedoms. The
exhibit will be displayed in a number of states, including Nebraska,
Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Iowa,
Maine, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma, California, Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah as well as Washington, D.C.
"When the ACLU began as a small group of passionate idealists, the Bill
of Rights had little practical meaning for ordinary people. Over the
last 90 years, we've led the way to make the Constitution a living
document in the everyday lives of people all across America. The ACLU's
tireless work protecting fundamental freedoms has become so ingrained in
our society that it is hard to imagine an America without it," said
Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We are very excited
to share the story of the ACLU's past 90 years with people from all
walks of life. We are confident that after viewing the exhibit, visitors
will have a deeper appreciation of the positive impact that the ACLU
has had on the personal lives of individuals and on society as a
whole."
The traveling exhibit provides an historical overview of the ACLU's many
monumental achievements since its founding in 1920. The organization
was established in response to the notorious Palmer Raids in which the
Department of Justice, led by U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer,
began rounding up and deporting so-called radicals because of their
political views without warrants and without regard to constitutional
protections against unlawful search and seizure.
The exhibit includes the stories of some of the courageous people the
ACLU has represented, including John Scopes, a teacher accused of
violating a Tennessee state law against the teaching of evolution in the
1920s; Ozzie Powell, one of the "Scottsboro Boys" sentenced to death in
Alabama in the 1930s for allegedly raping a white woman, a crime he did
not commit; Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple charged
in the 1960s with violating the state's "Racial Integrity Act"; and
Diane Schroer, an Army veteran whose job offer by the Library of
Congress was rescinded when it learned that Schroer was in the process
of changing gender.
The exhibit also highlights the ACLU's key role in the passage of major
pieces of legislation, including the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, guaranteeing eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid
leave for family responsibilities; the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, prohibiting discrimination based on disability in employment,
public services, accommodations, transportation and technology; and the
periodic reauthorizations of several provisions of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, protecting every American's constitutionally guaranteed right
to vote.
Other civil liberties milestones showcased in the exhibit include the
ACLU's work overcoming legal obstacles to marriage for lesbian and gay
couples, defending women's reproductive freedom, upholding free speech
and privacy on the Internet and its post-9/11 work battling government
secrecy, abuses of power and human rights violations.
"While not everyone agrees with us on every issue, Americans have come
to count on the ACLU for its unyielding dedication to principle," said
Susan Herman, President of the ACLU. "The ACLU has always understood
that once the government has the power to violate one person's rights,
whoever that person is, it can then use that power against everyone.
Many of the stories featured in our exhibit vividly illustrate our
dedication to defending the civil liberties of everyone, no matter what their political affiliation or popularity."
The ACLU has evolved over the past nine
decades from a small group of idealists committed to protecting
Americans' civil liberties into an organization with more than 500,000
members, hundreds of attorneys - both staff and volunteer - and a
presence in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico. The exhibit showcases how the ACLU has used its unparalleled
infrastructure to litigate, educate and advocate at federal, state and
local levels.
"The times may change, but the need to vigilantly defend our individual
liberties does not," said Emily Tynes, ACLU Director of Communications.
"We hope that people will leave the 90th Anniversary Exhibit with a
deeper understanding of the phenomenal scope of the ACLU's work from
1920 to today and the assurance that we will continue to protect their
freedoms for generations to come."
More information about the ACLU's 90th anniversary is available at: www.aclu90.org
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) 549-2666"Just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the court today doubles down on chaos," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The US Supreme Court late Tuesday gave Alabama a green light to use an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map that a lower court said was "tainted by intentional race-based discrimination."
The unsigned decision, from which the high court's three liberal justices dissented, enables Alabama's Republican-dominated government to replace its current congressional map, which has two majority-Black districts, with a map that the US Supreme Court struck down in 2023. That map has just one majority-Black district.
In her dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the court today doubles down on chaos."
"In addition to being wrong on the merits, the court’s decision inflicts two grave harms on the public," wrote Sotomayor. "It debases the democratic process by upending Alabama’s entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against Black Alabamians. It also corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders."
The liberal justice noted that in order to switch to the map previously struck down by the high court, Alabama election officials "will have to reassign hundreds of thousands of voters across the state to new congressional districts."
"Three of Alabama’s counties will be particularly hard hit because they are split across two congressional districts," Sotomayor noted. "These counties have about 600,000 registered voters between them (roughly 15% of the state’s total number of registered voters).”
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, postponed US House primary elections in the wake of the Supreme Court's April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which severely narrowed the 1965 Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination and paved the way for Alabama and other states to impose new maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.
“The Supreme Court’s shameful ruling allowing Alabama to move forward with a gerrymander that was drawn with the explicit intent to dilute Black voting power—as found by a panel of judges that included two Trump appointees—is an absolute affront to the founding principles of our democracy, and wipes out whatever was left of the court’s credibility,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation. “This country deserves better, and we must continue to work toward federal legislation that not only bans partisan and racial gerrymandering but also ensures that our rights cannot be undermined by captured courts.”
The ruling drew condemnation from the two Democrats in Alabama's US congressional delegation. Rep. Shomari Figures, who was elected to the US House under the independently drawn map that Alabama Republicans are working to replace, said in a statement that "the Supreme Court has now confirmed that there is no longer a Voting Rights Act in America, and states are essentially free to discriminate against minority voters with no consequences."
"This is a dangerous ruling that sets the state and this nation back decades," said Figures.
Rep. Terri Sewell called the ruling "just the latest in a pattern of outrageous Supreme Court decisions that help Republicans desperately cling to power ahead of the midterm elections while diluting Black voices and erasing decades of hard-fought civil rights progress."
"No matter how hard Alabama state officials may try, they will not succeed in silencing our voices," said Sewell. "We will not go back to the Jim Crow era. The fight for fair representation continues."
“This decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece," one lawyer said.
A federal judge in the District of Montana last year "reluctantly" dismissed a lawsuit filed by young Americans challenging a trio of President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders and invited the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to correct him—but the panel on Tuesday again tossed the case.
Backed by attorneys at Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held of Held v. State of Montana, and 20 other children and young adults sued in May 2025 over Trump's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry, declaring a "national energy emergency," and calling on federal agencies to accelerate fossil fuel development.
After the first dismissal from US District Judge Dana Christensen, the young Americans and their lawyers vowed to appeal. However, the 9th Circuit on Tuesday found that "plaintiffs can only speculate that the executive orders are the cause of the many agency actions they allege will exacerbate climate change," and "they have not plausibly alleged that enjoining federal agencies from implementing the executive orders is substantially likely to prevent agencies from taking similar emissions-inducing actions under other lawful authorities."
Issuing an injunction sought by the plaintiffs "would effectively place one federal district court in charge of executive branch energy policy—'an extraordinary and unprecedented role' for a member of the 'unelected and politically unaccountable branch,'" the appellate court also concluded. "Further, by effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions."
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, declared in a Tuesday statement that "this decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece. That is not how the Constitution works."
"The court did not decide whether these executive orders are constitutional. It did not decide whether the federal government may knowingly endanger children," she explained. "Instead, it slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives and told them to file hundreds of cases against every agency action carrying out the president's unconstitutional executive orders. Courts do not become policymakers when they stop unconstitutional government action. That is their job. These young people deserve a court willing to do it."
The lead plaintiff, Lighthiser, stressed that "the court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn't real. They just said they wouldn't stop the harm."
"They had the power to act. and they chose not to," she continued. "By the time we are harmed enough to satisfy them, it will be too late. I am a young person. This is my life, my health, my future. And I deserve better than this. We all do."
The decision comes as Trump and his allies continue to serve the interests of the fossil fuel executives who helped him return to power, regardless of the consequences for people and the planet—from gutting key agencies and attacking clean power projects to dismantling a deep-ocean monitoring system that helps researchers understand the impacts of the climate crisis.
"The Trump administration is responsible for a children's health emergency by obligating federal agencies to take actions that dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and climate change," Dan Snyder, director of Public Justice's Environmental Enforcement Project, said Tuesday. "The 9th Circuit makes no mention of this emergency. Indeed, the 9th Circuit's decision is shocking in what it lacks."
"The court didn't even consider US Supreme Court decisions—or decisions from within its own circuit—which would require it to reach a very different decision than the one it did today," he highlighted. "The court ignored significant and undisputed facts that Trump's executive orders are causing real-world injuries to our children today. And the court ignores its most basic responsibility: finding workable remedies that provide relief to the uncontested injuries being inflicted by the Trump administration on our kids."
“We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
Republican US senators including Majority Leader John Thune on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of criticism in response to President Donald Trump's appointment of loyalist Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, despite an utter lack of relevant experience or expertise.
Thune (SD) was asked by a reporter what he thought of Trump's appointment of the private equity firm founder and homebuilder—who is currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—to the top intel post, which current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard will officially vacate on June 30.
“We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there," Thune said, according to The Hill. “If they nominate him to take the position permanently, he’ll have to go through a confirmation process and hearings and everything else, so we’ll see."
Thune added that Pulte would have "a lengthy road ahead of him" if Trump sought to make him the permanent DNI.
The majority leader wasn't the only Senate Republican who voiced opposition to Trump's move.
"The best I can tell you is he’s not qualified, but I don’t know anything about him other than that," said outgoing Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who last month lost a primary to Trump-backed Republican challenger Rep. Julia Letlow.
Sen. John Cornyn—who also lost his recent primary runoff in Texas after Trump backed his opponent, state Attorney General Ken Paxton—told reporters that “I see no evidence of any qualifications for that job" for Pulte, "but I’m willing to listen.”
Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday on Democratic opposition to Pulte's appointment, mostly over allegations that he's used his position at FHFA to target Trump's political foes for politically motivated mortgage fraud investigations.
Targeted individuals include two figures involved in Trump's two impeachments: Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.); former FBI Director James Comey, who oversaw an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election; New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a $450 million judgment against the president and his business in a civil fraud case; and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, whom the president has been attempting to oust so that he can fill the US central bank with loyalists.
Last November, a federal judge dismissed the cases against Comey and James, ruling that Trump's handpicked prosecutor was illegally installed. The following month, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office agreed to investigate whether Pulte and other FHFA employees "potentially misused federal authority and resources to publicly accuse prominent Democrats and President Donald Trump’s perceived political enemies of mortgage fraud."
Even more Democrats piled on Pulte later on Tuesday.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said on X: "As someone who helped set up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I oppose elevating Bill Pulte to acting director. He has no experience. Zero. And he is the wrong choice to help keep us safe."
"Mr. Pulte has weaponized his current agency against the president's critics, he's fired federal watchdogs looking into his allies, and he is under active investigation by the Government Accountability Office," she continued. "This all makes him an incredibly dangerous choice to be in charge of ODNI and have access to the tools of this office."
"As someone who has had the government weaponized against me, I cannot in good conscience support his elevation to such a sensitive post," added Slotkin, who drew Trump's ire and a federal probe with a video reminding US troops of their duty to not follow illegal orders. "The president should choose a serious nominee."
Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona—a retired Navy captain who was investigated by the Pentagon for comments similar to Slotkin's until a federal judge blocked the baseless probe—quipped, “If you’re good at drywall, you must be good at national intelligence."
"I don’t get it," he added. "This is an important job, you know. This is about the safety of all Americans.”
Advocacy groups also rejected Pulte's appointment, with the co-chairs of the Not Above the Law coalition issuing a statement reading, “This appointment is a reward, and has nothing to do with qualifications."
"At FHFA, Bill Pulte did one thing: hunt Trump’s perceived enemies," the statement by Public Citizen's Lisa Gilbert, Constitutional Accountability Center's Praveen Fernandes, MoveOn's Kelsey Herbert, and Stand Up America's Brett Edkins continued. "He ginned up mortgage fraud allegations against sitting officials, which federal investigators found baseless, and weaponized a housing regulator to punish those who tried to hold Trump accountable."
“If past is prologue, he will now do the same with the vast resources of the US intelligence community," the co-chairs asserted. "The agencies built to protect Americans, including our troops at home and abroad, will be turned into instruments of political retribution, betraying the men and women who serve those agencies and every American whose safety depends on them."
“Trump doesn’t staff his government with people who uphold the law," the statement adds. "He installs people willing to break it for him, and now he’s handing one of them the keys to our nation’s most sensitive information.”