May, 09 2011, 04:34pm EDT

ACLU Argues Before Louisiana Supreme Court That Confederate Flag Outside Courthouse Taints Capital Punishment System
Presence Outside Caddo Parish Courthouse Creates Intolerable Risk That Capital Punishment System Cannot Be Fairly Administered Within Courthouse Walls
NEW ORLEANS
The American Civil Liberties Union today argued before the Louisiana Supreme Court that a murder conviction and death sentence should be overturned because the Confederate flag flying outside the Caddo Parish Courthouse prevents criminal justice from being fairly administered, particularly in death penalty cases.
The ACLU and other groups, along with dozens of religious leaders, historians and legal scholars, filed a friend-of-the-court brief last month saying the conviction and subsequent sentencing to death of Felton D. Dorsey in 2009 should be overturned because, among other reasons, the 11 whites and one African-American that comprised his jury walked past the flag dozens of times before rendering a verdict and voting on a sentence. Dorsey is African-American and African-Americans comprise nearly half of Caddo Parish's population.
"We hope that the court will recognize that racial bias has no place in the capital punishment system," said Anna Arceneaux, staff attorney with the ACLU Capital Punishment Project who delivered arguments today. "The Confederate flag is viewed by many people as a symbol of white supremacy and racism, and its presence outside the courthouse represents the legacy of lynching, terror and oppression of the African-American race. Flying the flag outside the courthouse risks diminishing the trust of African-Americans in the criminal justice system and priming white jurors to view African-American defendants and victims as second-class citizens."
The flag was raised on public land outside the courthouse in 1951 during a period often referred to as the "Second Reconstruction," as an act of resistance to the civic and civil rights advances of African-Americans. The flag flies beside a Confederate monument commissioned in 1903 by parish officials at a time of strong resistance to civil rights reforms promised by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed in the wake of the Civil War. The monument was meant to honor the parish as the last stand of confederate Louisiana.
According to the ACLU's brief, the flag outside the courthouse has a substantially adverse impact on the administration of justice inside the courthouse. It poses the intolerable risk that criminal justice can not be fairly administrated within its walls, particularly in death penalty cases, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The flag denied Dorsey a fair trial, according to the ACLU's brief, denied potential African-American jurors the opportunity to serve on Dorsey's jury and risked tainting with racial bias all jurors, potential jurors, witnesses and citizens who attended and participated in the court proceedings conducted underneath it.
In Dorsey's case, Shreveport resident Carl Staples, a potential African-American juror, was struck by the prosecutor in Dorsey's case after expressing frustration with the systemic injustices inherent in the nation's criminal justice system. He highlighted the presence of the Confederate flag outside the courthouse as symbolizing the pernicious realities that serve to undercut his faith in the system. As Staples told the court, to him, the flag represents "a symbol of one of the most . . . heinous crimes ever committed to another member of the human race, and I just don't see how you could say that, I mean, you're here for justice, and then again you overlook this great injustice by continuing to fly this flag which . . . put[s] salt in the wounds of . . . people of color."
According to the ACLU's brief, even if other African-American prospective jurors in Dorsey's case did not express similar concerns as Staples, at least some others were undoubtedly disturbed by the flag and may have sought to avoid jury service. African-American jurors who do serve on Caddo Parish juries may well be hesitant to return verdicts inconsistent with the principles the flag celebrates, especially in cases such as Dorsey's which involve an African-American defendant and a white victim.
Psychological research also shows that the flag creates an unacceptable risk that implicit racial bias could impact the trial process, particularly when the defendant is African-American. A recent study by a Florida State University social psychologist found that exposure to images of the Confederate flag increases the expression of negative attitudes toward African-Americans among whites.
"The Confederate flag represents for many people, and particularly for African-Americans, the public entrenchment of racism in Caddo Parish's judicial system and is an endorsement of historical efforts to deny African-Americans equality under the law," said Arceneaux. "Allowing it to fly outside the Caddo Parish courthouse sends a clear statement that capital punishment cannot be fairly administered within the courthouse walls."
A copy of the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief is available online at: www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-amicus-brief-support-new-trial-felton-d-dorsey-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