January, 07 2011, 01:29pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 400-7822 or (213) 674-2832; delatorre@nilc.org
Rachel Myers, ACLU, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 418-5499; ameetze@acluaz.org
Laura Rodriguez, MALDEF, (310) 956-2425; lrodriguez@maldef.org
Karin Wang, APALC, (213) 241-0234; kwang@apalc.org
B. Loewe, NDLON, (773) 791-4668; bloewe@onpointconsortium.org
Leila McDowell, NAACP, (202) 463-2940
Civil Rights Groups Ask Court To Block Remaining Day Labor Provisions Of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
Coalition Files To Prevent SB 1070 From Unconstitutionally Curtailing Day Laborers' First Amendment Rights
PHOENIX, AZ
The
American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights
organizations today asked a federal court to prohibit Arizona from
enforcing two key sections of its racial profiling law (SB 1070)
targeting day labor, pending a final court ruling on the these
provisions' constitutionality. The law creates new criminal offenses,
ostensibly relating to traffic safety, that apply only to individuals
engaging in or receiving employment solicitation speech. According to
the coalition, these provisions cause irreparable harm to day laborers
and those who seek to employ them by curtailing their First Amendment
rights.
The groups filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona's racial profiling law
in May. The coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, the National
Immigration Law Center (NILC), the 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 firms of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Altshuler Berzon LLP, and
Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Orgtega are acting as
co-counsel in the case.
The following statements can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.
Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center:
"Arizona's attempt to prohibit peaceful efforts to seek day labor
employment throughout the state is not only illegal, but also immoral
during an economic downturn. Because of these unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, the families and communities that rely on
day laborers' economic contributions suffer enormous and unnecessary
hardship."
Omar Jadwat, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: "These
provisions of Arizona's racial profiling law improperly single out and
punish employment solicitation speech in violation of the First
Amendment. The state law's violation of fundamental constitutional
principles in order to express hostility to day laborers and immigrants
is both shortsighted and doomed to legal failure."
Victor Viramontes, MALDEF National Senior Counsel:
"Day Laborers have a right to peacefully seek work in order to feed
their families and themselves. The First Amendment guarantees them the
right to express their desire for work without fear of being harassed or
arrested."
Daniel Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona legal director: "This
provision is an unconstitutional attempt to further the agendas of
anti-immigrant legislators in Arizona. Singling out work solicitation
speech from all other types of speech belies the stated concern with
traffic problems and demonstrates an intent to target Latino day
laborers."
Julie Su, litigation director for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center:
"All workers have a First Amendment right to seek work, particularly in
public areas. The unconstitutional provisions of SB 1070 have severely
violated workers' free speech rights and restricted their ability to
earn a living."
Chris Newman, Legal Director and General Counsel for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network: "Free
speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment are vital to our
democracy, and they belong as much to day laborers as they do to
authors, corporations, and politicians. Other federal judges that have
examined similar anti-day labor laws have found them to be
unconstitutional, and we are confident these sections of SB 1070 will be
enjoined and ultimately struck down as well."
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang and Tanaz Moghadam
MALDEF: Thomas A. Saenz, Nina Perales, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon,
Viramontes, Gladys Limon, Nicholas Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal
NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney and Vivek Mittal
ACLU of Arizona: Pochoda and Annie Lai
APALC: Su, 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
Altshuler Berzon LLP: Stephen P. Berzon and Jonathan Weissglass
Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
The brief in support of the preliminary injunction is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-et-al-plaintiffs-motion-preliminar-0
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
Senate Tosses 'Dangerous Provision' Preventing State-Level AI Regulation From GOP Megabill
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry," said one advocate.
Jul 01, 2025
With a 99-1 vote early Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate decided to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation on artificial intelligence for 10 years from U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that is currently being debated in Congress.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was the lone lawmaker who voted to keep the moratorium in the bill.
While far from the only controversial part of the reconciliation package, the provision drew opposition from an ideologically diverse group that included Democratic and Republican state attorneys general; over 140 groups working to support children's online safety, consumer protections, and responsible innovation; and faith leaders.
Senators struck Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) AI measure from the megabill by adopting an amendment introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They voted on Blackburn's amendment during a session known as a vote-a-rama. Blackburn introduced the amendment after considering an agreement that would have watered down the provision.
According to The Verge, the measure that was rejected on Tuesday required states to avoid regulation AI and "automated decision systems" if they wanted to get funding for their broadband programs.
The provision would have been a major win for Big Tech, which has made the case that state laws around AI are obstructing their ability to do business.
Advocates and Democratic lawmakers cheered the decision to strip the provision.
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry. It shows that Americans are aware of the proliferation of AI harms in real time," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that "early this morning, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to reject a dangerous provision to block states from regulating artificial intelligence, including protecting kids online. This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."
In addition to concerns focused on Big Tech, experts recently told The Guardian that in the absence of state-level AI regulation, untrammeled growth of AI would take a toll on the world's "dangerously overheating climate."
Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, credited the "massive" defeat of Cruz's provision to the "incredible mobilizing by advocates to beat back Big Tech lobbying and last-minute bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular