May, 26 2011, 04:53pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Josh Bell, ACLU, (212) 549-2508 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 400-7822; delatorre@nilc.org
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 418-5499; ameetze@acluaz.org
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Employment Law in Narrow Ruling
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court today upheld a 2007 Arizona law on employer sanctions and employment verification, finding that the Arizona law was expressly authorized by a provision of federal law. The decision does not apply to or address other state or local immigration laws, such as Arizona law SB 1070.
The Arizona law addressed in today's decision imposes licensing penalties on businesses that have knowingly employed workers who are not lawfully authorized to work in the U.S. but only if the federal government confirms the lack of employment authorization. It also requires Arizona employers to participate in the federal E-Verify program. The law was challenged by a broad coalition of civil rights and business groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, MALDEF, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
The following quotes can be attributed as stated:
Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:
"Today's decision is a narrow one that only upholds Arizona's specific law on employment verification. The decision has nothing to do with SB 1070 or any other state or local immigration laws. We are disappointed with today's decision and believe it does not reflect what Congress intended."
Linton Joaquin, NILC's general counsel:
"We're deeply disappointed that the Court has allowed this law, which has proven to have serious economic ramifications for Arizona's workers and employers, to remain in effect. However, the ruling does not grant states the right to enforce immigration law - the issue at the heart of current legal challenges to SB 1070, Arizona's racial profiling law. State legislators considering this decision a free pass to enact and implement legislation targeting immigrants are gravely mistaken."
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs Valle del Sol, Chicanos por la Causa and Somos America include Omar Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag and Jennifer Chang Newell of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Daniel Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; Jonathan Weissglass and Stephen Berzon of Altshuler Berzon LLP; Valenzuela Dixon of MALDEF; and Joaquin and Karen C. Tumlin of NILC.
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
Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down 'Archaic' 1849 Abortion Ban
While welcoming the "monumental win," the ACLU of Wisconsin's leader also stressed it's no time to back off the fight. "The political attacks on reproductive justice will not slow down, and we must remain vigilant."
Jul 02, 2025
Rights advocates celebrated Wednesday after the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's abortion ban from 1849, but campaigners also emphasized that threats to specific healthcare providers and reproductive freedom in general persist.
After the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationdecision nixed nationwide abortion rights, the Badger State's anti-choice movement argued that the old ban, § 940.04(1), was back in effect. However, the Wisconsin top court concluded 4-3 that it is not, pointing to the state Legislature's actions between Dobbs and Roe v. Wade in 1973.
"We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the 'who, what, where, when, and, how' of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion," Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet wrote for the majority. "Accordingly, we hold that the legislature impliedly repealed § 940.04(1) as to abortion, and that § 940.04(1) therefore does not ban abortion in the state of Wisconsin."
"With this new ruling from our state's highest court, it's time for Wisconsin Republicans to stop forcing their way into our exam rooms."
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin initially stopped providing abortions due to uncertainty over the old ban but resumed care a few months after Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in July 2023 that "there is no such thing as an '1849 abortion ban' in Wisconsin." Joel Urmanski, Sheboygan County's Republican district attorney, asked Schlipper to reconsider her decision, but she reaffirmed it that December. Urmanski then turned to the state's top court, resulting in Wednesday's ruling.
"Today's ruling is another important step forward in protecting and expanding access to abortion in Wisconsin," Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin said on social media. "Since the overturning of Roe, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin has maintained that Wis. Stat. 940.04 could not be enforced against abortion providers. This final ruling again confirms this."
"While we celebrate this ruling, there is more to be done. We will continue essential work to help protect and expand reproductive freedom in Wisconsin so that everyone who needs comprehensive reproductive healthcare in our state can get the nonjudgmental and compassionate care they deserve," the group added, thanking Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul "for their leadership and efforts to protect reproductive freedom in Wisconsin."
BREAKING: We won! In a lawsuit we brought more than three years ago now, the Wisconsin Supreme Court just ruled to protect reproductive freedom in our state and preserve Wisconsinites' access to abortion care.My statement below ⬇️
[image or embed]
— Governor Tony Evers (@govevers.wisconsin.gov) July 2, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Melinda Brennan, executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, had a similar reaction to the new decision, saying in a Wednesday statement that "we have been waiting for this moment since the United States Supreme Court overturned our constitutional right and generational expectation to abortion."
"Since then," she said, "pregnant people in Wisconsin have dealt with the catastrophic consequences of having their bodily autonomy stripped from them—including forced pregnancy, denial of critical medical care for pregnancy-related complications like miscarriage, and having to leave home just to get the treatment they need and deserve. Even though that right was restored by lower courts, the fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has now rendered the criminal abortion ban unenforceable means Wisconsinites no longer have to fear the archaic 1849 ban could go back into effect."
"With the ban struck down, Wisconsin is a more free and more just place to live," she added. "But that doesn't mean it's time to back down. The political attacks on reproductive justice will not slow down, and we must remain vigilant to make sure everyone who can get pregnant has access to the full range of reproductive healthcare, no matter where in the state they live. Politicians will keep trying to legislate away and restrict our reproductive rights, as well as roll back LGBTQ rights, freedom of expression, and more. While we should celebrate this monumental win, we can't let up."
Great news! The Wisconsin Supreme Court finally struck down an 1849 law that stripped women's rights through a near-total abortion ban. This move protects women's access to medical care and their right to control what happens to their own bodies.
— Rep. Mark Pocan (@pocan.house.gov) July 2, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Lucy Ripp of A Better Wisconsin Together, a progressive research and communications hub affiliated with ProgressNow, responded to the ruling by urging elected Republicans in the state to stop attacking reproductive freedom.
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling in this case is a historic step forward in protecting and expanding abortion rights in Wisconsin," said Ripp. "We applaud the progressive majority on the court for taking this case and ruling to protect Wisconsinites' right to access abortion care."
"In the face of relentless attacks from Republicans, the vast majority of Wisconsinites have said time and time again that decisions on abortion should be made between a patient and their doctor, not politicians," she declared. "With this new ruling from our state's highest court, it's time for Wisconsin Republicans to stop forcing their way into our exam rooms and finally put an end to their repeated attacks on our access to reproductive healthcare."
The swing state's highest court has attracted national attention in recent years, including with an April election to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who joined Wednesday's majority opinion. This spring, Susan Crawford defeated far-right Brad Schimel, securing liberals' majority until 2028. Crawford is set to be sworn in at the beginning of August.
Because the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision is rooted in state law, SCOTUS cannot reverse it. Reproductive freedom has been restored in Wisconsin … but only for as long as its citizens continue to elect liberal state Supreme Court justices.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) July 2, 2025 at 9:56 AM
While the Wisconsin Supreme Court just affirmed the right to abortion in the state, access to such care remains at risk, in part due to recent action at the federal level. This week, Republicans in Congress are working to pass President Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which critics call the "Big Ugly Bill" because of provisions including one to "defund" Planned Parenthood by blocking Medicaid payments to abortion providers.
After the U.S. Senate sent the megabill back to the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Planned Parenthood Action Fund president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson blasted it as "a backdoor abortion ban," warning that "this bill threatens to close nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers and will create devastating gaps in our healthcare infrastructure by putting the full range of reproductive care, like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatments out of reach for many."
In Wisconsin specifically, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelreported Monday, "it would mean more than half of Planned Parenthood's revenue would vanish. Health centers would close and staff would be laid off, senior leaders have said. And the nearly 1 in 5 Wisconsin residents who are enrolled in Medicaid would no longer be able to receive care at Planned Parenthood."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Downright Orwellian': In Midst of Planetary Emergency, Trump Admin Takes Down Website Hosting Influential US Climate Report
"This is the modern version of book burning," said one scientist.
Jul 02, 2025
Amidst an ever-worsening climate emergency, the Trump administration this week took down the website hosting the U.S. government’s preeminent climate assessment, sparking outcry from experts who have worked previous versions of the report.
Considered the definitive body of research about how planetary warming is transforming the nation, the National Climate Assessment—which is required by Congress to be published every few years—gives a rundown of how global warming is impacting different sectors of the economy, ecosystems, and communities.
The five assessments that have been published so far were previously available through the website globalchange.gov, but the address stopped working Monday afternoon, according to The New York Times. As of Wednesday morning the website was still down.
However, it is still possible to access some of the climate research. The fifth assessment is available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. An archived version of the fifth assessment is also available via Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. According to a NASA spokesperson who spoke to NPR, all five editions of the assessment will also be available on NASA's website, though it's not clear when.
"It's critical for decision-makers across the country to know what the science in the National Climate Assessment is. That is the most reliable and well-reviewed source of information about climate that exists for the United States," Kathy Jacobs, a University of Arizona climate scientist who coordinated the 2014 version of the assessment, toldThe Associated Press.
"This is evidence of serious tampering with the facts and with people’s access to information, and it actually may increase the risk of people being harmed by climate-related impacts," she added.
“They're public documents. It's scientific censorship at its worst," said Peter Gleick, a California water and climate scientist who worked on the version of the assessment published in 2000, toldThe Los Angeles Times. "This is the modern version of book burning."
Howard Crystal, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity's energy justice program, said in a statement on Tuesday that "it's downright Orwellian for the Trump administration to take the nation's premier climate reports and just yank them offline."
"Hiding these congressionally mandated reports won't make climate change go away, but it will leave Americans uninformed and unprepared," he said.
Earlier in April, the Trump administration enacted cuts to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which oversees the production of the National Climate Assessment, and later that month dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts working on the next version of the report, the 6th National Climate Assessment.
Meanwhile, a new budget document outlining fiscal year 2026 spending for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) details deep cuts to climate research at the agency, including the elimination of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, though some of its activities would be transferred to the National Ocean Service and the National Weather Service.
The budget proposal "eliminates all funding for climate, weather, and ocean Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes. It also does not fund Regional Climate Data and Information, Climate Competitive Research, the National Sea Grant College Program, Sea Grant Aquaculture Research, or the National Oceanographic Partnership Program," according to the document.
With the termination of Climate Competitive Research, which funds academic institutions to do climate-related research, "NOAA will no longer support climate research grants," the document also states.
"That's it—with that statement, the administration signals its intent to have NOAA, arguably the world's leading oceanic and atmospheric governmental organization, completely abandon climate science," wrote Alan Gerard, a meteorologist who previously worked for NOAA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Is Welcome Here' Signs Banned From Idaho Schools as 'Political' Statement
"To say that 'Everyone is Welcome' in a public school system is not political, it's the law," said one Idaho teacher.
Jul 02, 2025
The Idaho attorney general's office has declared schools in the state will no longer be allowed to post signs declaring that "Everyone is welcome here" on the grounds that they are purportedly a political message aimed at criticizing the policies of President Donald Trump.
Idaho Ed Newsreported Monday that the office has found that signs stating "Everyone is welcome here" violate Idaho House Bill 41, a law passed back in March that bars schools from flying flags or displaying signs that represent "a political viewpoint, including but not limited to flags or banners regarding a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender, or a political ideology."
In explaining its rationale, the Idaho attorney general's office claimed that "these signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota following the 2016 election of Donald Trump" and added that "since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic Party as a political statement. The Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts.”
The signs became an issue after Sarah Inama, a teacher in Idaho's West Ada School District, had refused to take them down from her classroom in the wake of Idaho House Bill 41's passage because she did not believe that a sign welcoming students regardless of their race or ethnicity should be considered political.
In a statement to Idaho Ed News, Inama once again expressed bewilderment that anyone could find the signs to be a political statement, especially given that government institutions are already legally barred from engaging in racial discrimination.
"To say that 'Everyone is welcome' in a public school system is not political, it's the law," Inama told the publication.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular