At Liberty

Today, on April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine the future of emergency abortion care. At issue in the case of Idaho v. United States is whether or not doctors in states where abortion is banned have to continue to deny abortion care—even in emergency settings—despite the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires all hospitals to provide life saving and medically stabilizing health care to anyone who shows up at their emergency room. Currently, medical providers in Idaho can only perform an abortion in the event that the pregnant person will imminently die without one. Even if a pregnant person will incur permanent disability or undue harm to their life without an abortion, the procedure is still banned. As you can imagine, these two laws have put doctors in a precarious position in Idaho. The circumstances are even more dire for pregnant patients in the state, particularly those with disabilities. Disabled pregnant people are far more likely to necessitate this kind of care than their non-disabled peers, as most disabled pregnant folks already have high risk pregnancies. Disabled people know all too well the risks of not accessing care when it's needed, and the hardship, pain, and suffering that can escape the claw of “imminent death.” So, today we're talking about the intersection of disability and abortion rights, in regard to this case and more broadly. Joining me to discuss this is Dr. Robyn Powell, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, specializing in disability and family law. She's also a co-investigator at the National Research Center for Parents with Disabilities.

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass, the most significant court case about the rights of people experiencing homelessness in decades. At its core, Grants Pass will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for things like sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket—even when there are no safe shelter options—posing potentially great risk to the 250,000 Americans who sleep outside on any given night. This case comes at a time when the affordable housing market is strapped with a deficit of 6.8 million affordable housing units needed nationwide for extremely low-income families. Moreover, according to a recent Harvard study, one in four renters, or 11.2 million households, are “severely burdened by rents that took up over half their incomes.” These millions of renters living paycheck to paycheck are at significant risk of losing their home at the turn of a rainy day, with Americans of color, disabled Americans and queer and trans Americans at even greater risk. With so many folks on a razor thin edge of experiencing housing instability these days, all eyes are on Grants Pass. Joining us to talk more about the case and the broader systemic issue of housing instability, homelessness, and what it would take to make a meaningful dent in both, is Jennifer Friedenbach, the Executive Director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco.

From the ACLU, this is At Liberty. I'm Kendall Ciesemier, your host. A month ago, we visited one of our favorite spots, the library. You know, at the ACLU, we love a good library. So much so that we even spent a recent Saturday night at the Brooklyn Public Library, along with some 5,000 others, for their annual enrichment event, Night in the Library. The theme for this year's event was Out of Darkness, and it included an all-night lineup of performances and conversations focused on what it means to face hardship head-on, and what we gain from confronting life's challenges with honesty, curiosity, and compassion, and understanding. When we were invited to host a conversation during the event, we knew immediately who we wanted to share with our neighbors in Brooklyn: Ian Manuel. You might remember Ian from our episode back in January when he joined us to talk about juvenile life without parole, solitary confinement, and restorative justice. Ian is an author, poet, activist, and absolute visionary, working to change our criminal legal system after facing 18 years in solitary confinement himself and 26 years in prison, beginning when he was only 14 years old. He knows firsthand what it's like to face darkness in life and move through it and he credits his practice of magical thinking for helping him.  This is the idea that we used as the basis for our Night in the Library conversation. And with it being both National Library Week and National Poetry Month, right now, I can't think of a better time to share it. So I invite you to cozy up with us between the bookshelves and enjoy the highlights from The Light of Magical Thinking, live from the Brooklyn Public Library.

Last December, Texas lawmakers passed Senate Bill 4, one of the most extreme pieces of anti-immigrant legislation to emerge from any state legislature. Under S.B. 4, local and state law enforcement can arrest people they suspect to have entered Texas without federal authorization. It also permits Texas judges, who are not trained in immigration law, to order the deportation of migrants to ports of entry along the Texas-Mexico border, regardless of which country they are from. Additionally, individuals may face charges under a new state crime of “illegal entry,” or “illegal re-entry,” as well as refusal to comply with deportation orders, with some charges carrying penalties of up to 20 years in prison. Since S.B. 4 passed, a whirlwind of court orders have stopped it from being enforced or allowed it for a very short time, which has caused widespread confusion. States do not have the constitutional authority to deport people, and an unconstitutional law like S.B. 4 only imposes added threat to migrants’ livelihoods and path to asylum.  Here to give us the latest news on S.B. 4 and our fight against it is David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas working on immigration.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine if nationwide restrictions are imposed on access to mifepristone, a safe medication used in more than half of all U.S. abortions, and for miscarriage treatment. What the court decides later this year will have significant implications on our ability to access abortion, no matter where you live, even in states with legal protections for abortion. The decision could also impact how other medications are protected from interference -- that is, the court could decide that anyone who doesn’t like a certain medication can levy a lawsuit to block access to the drug. To unpack what we heard, we have Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project who is on site in Washington, D.C. and is joining us just hours after hearing the arguments live.

The United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world, with hundreds of thousands more seeking asylum and citizenship. America would not be what it is today if not for immigration and the contributions of millions of those who have come here, bolstering the population, strengthening the economy, and weaving their cultures into the fabric of this nation. And yet, despite this truth, many immigrants in the U.S. and those seeking entry at our borders continue to face a bureaucratic, dangerous system that often casts them aside. From the costly and complicated citizenship process to the anti-immigrant rhetoric that plagues today’s politics, immigrants often find themselves jumping through hoops to stay in this country. That’s the situation that Alejandro Martinez, an aspiring toymaker and Hasbro hopeful, finds himself in when he moves from El Salvador to New York City. One mistake puts him out of a job and left to scramble for new employment that will sponsor him for a work visa. The journey to get a work visa is anything but conventional. This is the basis of “Problemista” a new A24 movie starring, written and directed by comedian Julio Torres. Torres, who is an immigrant himself, plays Alejandro and through his trials, offers a glimpse into a dizzying and absurd reality of the immigration process. You may also know him from his Emmy-nominated writing for SNL, the show “Los Espookys,” and his comedy special “My Favorite Shapes” on HBO. Today, he joins us to talk about “Problemista” and the experiences that led to its creation.

The “American dream” has long been regarded as the pinnacle of success, rewarded to all who display hard work and pick themselves up by their bootstraps when life knocks them down. This might be our culture’s prevailing narrative, but it actually rarely bears out this way. The truth is that our system is full of inequities that put large swaths of people in our country at significant odds with building wealth. Intergenerational wealth, or the passing on of wealth within generations of a family, gives a notable advantage to those who have it, and often leaves those who don’t economically burdened. Income inequality in the U.S. continues to persist and the median income of white people largely outsizes that of people of color. This disparity has plagued generations, greatly reducing the ability of people of color to start businesses, pursue higher education, and buy homes. Enter baby bonds, an economic policy in which every child at birth receives an income-dependent government-funded savings account, managed by federal, state, or local governments until adulthood. The end goal? Breaking the cycle of poverty and closing the racial wealth gap to ensure economic stability for future generations. In this episode we’re exploring baby bonds and the national legislation that is seeking to create systemic equality nationwide. Joining us first is economist Darrick Hamilton, founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School, who has been at the helm of the progress on this idea. Then we speak with U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) about the American Opportunities Account Act, a bill introduced by her and Sen. Cory Booker that would implement baby bonds on a national scale. To learn more about baby bonds and Darrick Hamilton's economic justice work, visit: https://racepowerpolicy.org/baby-bonds/

At the end of 2023, migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit a record high of 250,000, with a surge of individuals and families entering cities like Chicago, Denver, New York, Houston, and Los Angeles. Despite this, politicians and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to struggle to meet demands and refuse to compromise on border policies, leaving the wellbeing of asylum seekers in jeopardy. In early February, a sweeping supplemental funding package for national security failed in the Senate. This package would have eviscerated protections for people seeking asylum, in exchange for unrelated foreign aid by imposing shutdowns to the U.S.-Mexico border and an unprecedented increase in funding for punitive immigration policies through taxpayer dollars, among other harsh measures. We know that cruel immigration policies do not stop migration — they simply put more people in danger. As the conversation about border control and immigration becomes steeped in election year politics, it’s imperative for us to mobilize lawmakers and political leaders to pass humane and effective immigration policies that meet the dire needs of the current moment. Joining us to give an update on the state of immigration policy today and its significance for this election year is Naureen Shah, deputy director of governmental affairs for the ACLU’s Equality Division.

On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law, meaning the embryo has rights consistent with a person living in the United States. While this marks the first time a frozen embryo has been granted personhood, it is not the first time we’ve seen anti-abortion lawmakers elevate and amplify the idea of so-called “fetal personhood,” in an attempt to strip away rights from people who can become pregnant and people who are. While contained to the state, the decision out of Alabama is making waves across the country for what it means for both Alabamians and for the future of reproductive rights in this nation entirely. Joining us to discuss the implications of this decision and explain the concept of fetal personhood are Alison Mollman, legal director of the ACLU of Alabama, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.

On August 10th, 2009, the North Carolina legislature passed the Racial Justice Act, or RJA. A first of its kind law that allows people on death row to challenge their sentences if they could show race played a factor at the time of their trial. This historic legislation allowed us at the ACLU to successfully bring claims on behalf of four people back in 2012, getting their sentences changed to life without parole. This momentum was short lived, because a year later, the North Carolina Supreme Court repealed the RJA. Then, in 2020, the court ruled that those who had already filed their cases under the RJA were entitled to move forward despite the repeal. The same year the RJA was passed, Hasson Bacote was sentenced to death in a Johnston County courtroom. As a Black man in a deeply segregated county with a history of racial terror, Bacote’s fate was all but sealed, well before the jury issued his death sentence. Now, more than a decade after the law was passed, he will be the first to challenge his death penalty sentence under the RJA since 2020. Beginning February 26th, Bacote's team will argue that race not only played an impermissible role in this case but in all capital cases in Johnston County and across the state of North Carolina. The success of this case could determine our future ability to reverse more sentences and end the death penalty in the state. Joining us today to discuss Hasson Bacote’s landmark hearing and our ongoing work to fight against the death penalty is Henderson Hill, Senior Counsel for the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project.

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been integral to protecting people of color at the polls. But in recent decades, the strength of the VRA has been diminished by decisions like Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and the subsequent influx of voter restrictions imposed by states. Despite this, there are ways we can fight back in the courts. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in certain language minority groups. It is the right of private individuals to challenge discriminatory voting practices and of organizations like the ACLU to support those who raise these challenges. But now, the right to bring these crucial cases before the courts is being threatened. On January 30, we received a decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it will not rehear Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, a case which challenges the Arkansas House district map for unlawfully stifling the voting strength of Black Arkansas residents. This decision upholds a 2022 lower court ruling in the case that radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2. This is unprecedented—more than 400 Section 2 cases have been litigated in federal court in the past four decades to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities, and private plaintiffs have brought the vast majority of them. In today’s episode, you’ll hear from Barry Jefferson, Dorothy Nairne, and Khadidah Stone, three plaintiffs from Section 2 cases. They’ll discuss their experiences challenging racially gerrymandered district maps in their respective states, what compelled them to take action, and how we can all be voting rights advocates. To learn more about redistricting, the cases we mentioned in this episode, and the ACLU’s efforts to protect voting rights, click here: https://www.aclu.org/redistricting/redistricting-101#slide2

Free speech on campus, book bans, education gag orders, the overturn of affirmative action, the resignation of former Harvard president Claudine Gay. All of these issues center on one hot-button topic: DEI. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has become a staple in national vocabulary after the so-called “racial reckoning” of 2020 brought demands for racial justice to the top of institutional priorities. From schools to Fortune 500 companies to the film industry, DEI efforts had a steady surge…until they didn’t. The burgeoning anti-DEI movement, also coined the “war on woke,” has gone from a once-fringe conservative crusade to a political machine. Already this year, about three dozen bills restricting DEI efforts, like critical race theory, have been proposed in states across the country, with more likely to emerge. Need we again mention the overturn of affirmative action? But how did we go from a public seemingly-committed to DEI to one that denounces it in the span of just a few years? Joining us to help answer this question are Alvin B. Tillery, professor of political science at Northwestern University and director of the university’s Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy, and Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program. Together, we’ll trace the rise of the anti-DEI machine and its political ramifications for the year to come. For more context on the ACLU’s litigation efforts against education gag orders, check out Leah’s law review article: https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2023/09/HLC208_Watson.pdf

As the gang conspiracy trial of rapper Young Thug and his famed rap collective, YSL, extends past 20 days in Atlanta, we’re bringing you a conversation about the use of rap lyrics in court. Despite a groundswell of activism and legal opposition against the legal admissibility of Young Thug’s lyrics, a judge ruled in November that lyrics from Young Thug and other YSL artists can be used by the state against them as evidence pointing to the gang’s existence and the members’ attitudes towards the crimes they are charged with. We’re revisiting an episode from our archive about how the use of an artist’s creative work in court allows for implicit bias to run roughshod on rappers’ lives and lead to wrongful convictions. Joining us to discuss the evolution of this practice is Erik Nielsen, professor at the University of Richmond and co-author of the book “Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America.” We are also joined by New Orleans rapper, songwriter, and former member of the 504boyz, Mac Phipps who experienced firsthand how the use of lyrics on trial can lead to a wrongful conviction.

This week, At Liberty is coming to you live from the 2024 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, hosting a discussion with queer and transgender storytellers. The conversation delves into the challenges they face while navigating an onslaught of bills targeting trans people nationwide and censoring their narratives. This dialogue follows a recent decision by the Utah state House to advance HB 257, a bill that would criminalize trans people for using the bathroom—a stark example of the many threats against the trans community that have surged in recent years. Nationwide, 22 states have banned gender-affirming care for trans minors, and over 300 new anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in 2024. We're fighting back in the legislatures and the courts, but this is also a fight in the public discourse, one that demands us to fight back in cultural organizing. We must own our narratives and tell our stories because the queer and trans community will not be invisible. In this episode, we're joined by Lío Mehiel, an actor, filmmaker, and multidisciplinary artist known for starring in the films “Mutt” and “In the Summers,” both of which premiered at Sundance. We’re also joined by Jules Rosskam, a filmmaker, artist, and educator who has directed several films including “Transparent,” “Against a Trans Narrative,” and the recent Sundance premiere “Desire Lines." Last, but certainly not least, we have Gillian Branstetter, our very own communications strategist for the ACLU's LGBT and HIV project. Together, we spoke about the efforts threatening queer and trans storytelling, and how we persist in spite of them. If you want to join us and the ACLU of Utah in fighting back against HB 257, sign this petition: https://secure.everyaction.com/Ql111CGWmUiOqyG_qjNrWw2

This year marks the 51st anniversary since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, protecting the constitutional right to abortion in 1973. Unfortunately, this anniversary is marred by the overturn of Roe by the Supreme Court in 2022, resulting in the continued denial of the power to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy for millions of people in states across the country. In 2024, our fight for reproductive freedom continues. In the last several weeks, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear two abortion-related cases this term, potentially impacting access to medication abortion and whether people can receive care when facing medical emergencies. This fight requires all of us, and today we’re excited to speak with two advocates about what we can all do to advance reproductive rights in our communities. First up, we have actor and writer Busy Philipps, who is joining the ACLU as an artist ambassador for reproductive freedom. You may recognize Busy from shows like “Freaks and Geeks,” “Girls 5Eva,” and “Busy Tonight,” and the new remake of the movie “Mean Girls.” Offscreen, Busy has engaged in years of advocacy with the ACLU in states like Ohio and Texas. She joins us today to share her journey as an activist alongside J.J. Straight, the ACLU’s national campaigns director for reproductive freedom, who has led many of our state and nationwide fights for abortion access and been busier than ever since the overturn of Roe. Together, we’ll discuss what the new year has in store for reproductive freedom and our continued fight for bodily autonomy at large.

Last year, states passed a record number of bills restricting health care, athletics, public accommodations, expression, and educational materials for trans people — trans kids, more specifically. With the turn of a new year, the situation continues to grow dire. Laws threatening access to gender-affirming care went into effect in several states on January 1, 2024. The ACLU is calling on the Supreme Court to block a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans people under the age of 18, and to reject a case concerning a transgender student’s access to restroom facilities that correspond with their gender identity at an Indiana school. As this unprecedented surge in attacks on the trans community rages on, we need to stay vigilant in watching what’s happening and fighting back. Here to update us on what’s going on and what’s to come is Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s deputy director for trans justice with the LGBT & HIV Project.

“Imagine that you, at age fifteen, have been sentenced to social death, life without parole, in a space nine feet by seven—the size of a freight elevator—where for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day you are trapped; where in a deadly daily routine you sleep, wake up, shit, piss, eat—food slipped through a slot as if you were an animal, where you are denied the possibility of human contact except as physical or mental abuse; where visual and sensory stimuli—the stuff of life—are only a memory or a dream; where who you are is defined only by your willingness or unwillingness to be disciplined and punished. Imagine life without hope in a brutal hellhole of sameness designed to break your spirit and challenge your sanity.” This is an excerpt from Ian Manuel’s 2022 memoir “My Time Will Come: A Memoir of Crime, Punishment, Hope and Redemption” where Manuel recounts his real life experience spending 26 years in prison—18 of those years in solitary confinement—before advocacy efforts from the Equal Justice Initiative led to his release in 2016. Since his release, Manuel has made waves as an activist, poet, and motivational speaker. His memoir recounts his journey from his teenage years to the present. He joins us today to talk about juvenile life without parole, solitary confinement, and restorative justice.

For a special year-end holiday episode, we’re bringing you our third edition of “ACLU kids take over At Liberty.” Kids of ACLU staff spoke to their parents about what they do at work and how they fight for civil rights and civil liberties. They also had some hot takes about how they can do better — at everything. We hope you enjoy it.

2023 is coming to a close, and we have weathered so much this year. At the ACLU, we continue to fight for civil rights and civil liberties across the country. We’re prying open every opportunity for abortion access and reproductive health care following the overturn of Roe, blocking trans health care bans nationwide, filing lawsuits to curb the rise in book bans and educational censorship, and advocating for racial equity after the elimination of affirmative action and continued attacks on voting rights. So today, we're highlighting some of the most notable episodes from the year, which also happen to be some of our favorites. We’ll chat about what we enjoyed, how they came to be, and where the issues we reported on stand today. We hope you enjoy it.

Free speech is one of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy and one of our fundamental constitutional rights. At the ACLU, we know that it's precisely in times of crisis and fear when free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent are most important. Over the last few months, as the world continues to witness the catastrophe in Israel and Palestine, protests in support of Palestine are being silenced and censored on college campuses. In early November, the ACLU sent out an open letter to the administrative leaders of each state's public college system that reached over 650 colleges and universities, expressing our strong opposition to any efforts that stifle free speech on college campuses, and urging universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights. In Florida, State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues already issued an order in consultation with Governor Ron DeSantis to deactivate Students for Justice in Palestine chapters in the state. In response, we and our partners at the ACLU of Florida and Palestine Legal are suing Governor DeSantis and Florida university system officials on behalf of the University of Florida’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine to block the deactivation order from taking effect. Joining us to discuss this important lawsuit are Shaiba Rather, the Nadine Strossen fellow with the ACLU’s National Security Project and Tyler Takemoto, the William J. Brennan fellow with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

On January 21, 2017, a day after the inauguration of former President Donald Trump, activist and journalist Raquel Willis approached the podium at the inaugural Women’s March in Washington, D.C. to share her story at what became one of the largest single-day marches in U.S. history. With this momentous platform, Willis was determined to galvanize the crowd to support liberation for all women, namely Black trans women like herself. Not even three minutes into her speech, after calling out the erasure of trailblazing women of color from feminist history, Willis’ microphone was cut off. Unfortunately, this silencing was something that she knew all too well through her work in supposedly progressive movements and newsrooms. This experience only fueled her fire to make intersectionality the baseline of all liberation efforts. Willis has made waves in her work as the former executive editor of Out Magazine and national organizer for the Transgender Law Center, demonstrating her dedication to uplifting the voices of transgender people of color. In her new memoir, “The Risk It Takes To Bloom: On Life and Liberation,” her voice takes center stage. The book explores Willis’ history and journey with identity, education, grief, community, and remembrance. Her recount honors not only her past and present, but that of the trans community worldwide. Today, Willis joins us to shed light on her story and vision for the future of liberation.

The holiday season is upon us. This week, we are revisiting our conversation with author and activist Glennon Doyle. In this conversation, Doyle and host Kendall Ciesemier discuss how to bring loved ones into our understanding of equity and justice through the use of storytelling, imagination, and conversation. It’s an episode fit for such a time as this and we hope you enjoy.

If you’re staying up to date with the news, you may have noticed that unions are having a moment. This summer alone, strikes by members of the WGA, UAW, SAG-AFTRA, UPS, Starbucks, Amazon, and Kaiser Permanente unions, among others, have made headlines and signaled solidarity between workers across the nation. Last year, public support for unions hit a 57-year high, with 71% of Americans expressing a favorable opinion.  However, unions themselves are not a utopia. At the ACLU, we’ve sided with and against unions to secure worker’s rights, specifically those of women and pregnant people. There’s still much work to be done to ensure that all workers are treated fairly, but one thing remains clear: unions can be a powerful force for securing civil rights and civil liberties.  Journalist Kim Kelly is a firm believer in the power of organized labor. After years of reporting on the nationwide labor movement, she released “Fight Like Hell: The Untold History of American Labor.” The book chronicles historical labor movements across several industries, focusing on the people from marginalized groups who led them, along with their wins and their losses. Kelly joins us today to help us connect our past to our present and deepen our understanding of the ongoing fight for worker’s rights.

On Tuesday, people across the country took to the polls and made one thing crystal clear: abortion rights matter to voters. In Ohio, voters passed an amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, making it the seventh state to protect abortion access through the ballot box. In Virginia, voters elected a full pro-abortion rights majority in their state General Assembly, and in Pennsylvania, voters maintained a pro-abortion majority in their state supreme court. As we look to 2024, abortion rights will continue to be on the ballot, meaning that anti-abortion opponents may continue to chip away at voting rights as a mechanism to block the will of voters, using tactics like racial gerrymandering and voter intimidation. All voters deserve an equal opportunity to exercise their rights and participate in democracy. Today, we’ll get an election results update from Jessica Arons, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, who has been working to secure victories for reproductive freedom at the ballot box. Then, we’ll speak with Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, to talk about how her team is using a recent voting rights victory at the Supreme Court to fight battles all across the country.

On October 24, Britney Spears released her tell-all memoir, “The Woman in Me.” In the book, she traces her journey from childhood stardom to living 13 years under the control of a conservatorship, a court-sanctioned arrangement that strips people with disabilities of their civil liberties. In Spears’ case, her dad, who she characterizes in the book as abusive and an addict, was able to gain legal rights over her life and her business when Britney was 26-years-old. This included forcing her to work, surveilling and controlling her daily life habits, and making all of her healthcare choices. Spears’ conservatorship initially made global headlines in 2021, catapulting conservatorship as a legal construct into public dialogue and calling into question its use in the lives of more than one million other Americans with disabilities. Britney’s success in terminating her conservatorship propelled the state of California to sign meaningful legislation into law, requiring courts to consider alternatives to conservatorship, and making it easier for others to terminate their own. Today, we are checking in with Zoe Brennan-Krohn, who we originally spoke to in 2021 when this case first made headlines. Zoe is a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Disability Rights Project who has worked on conservatorship for many years, including filing amicus briefs in support of Britney. We’ve read the memoir and we’re ready to discuss.

On November 7th, Ohio voters will decide whether to pass Issue 1, which would protect their decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and abortion. The fact that this amendment is even on the ballot is a huge feat. Ohioans had to submit hundreds of thousands of signatures to get the reproductive freedom amendment on the ballot this fall. Fearing that voters will take power into their own hands to protect reproductive rights, anti-abortion politicians forced a different amendment onto the ballot in August to raise the threshold for passing any future ballot measure from a simple majority to 60 percent of the vote. This thinly veiled attack on democracy and Ohioans' voting power to protect abortion failed by wide margins. Now, Ohioans will finally have the opportunity to weigh in directly on reproductive freedom in their state over the next several weeks. Early voting started on October 11th, and election day is on November 7th. As we approach the election, our friends at the ACLU of Ohio and Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights are engaged in efforts to get Ohioans to vote “yes” on Issue 1. Voting “yes” is imperative because there is so much on the line. Joining us today to share their campaign experience are Elizabeth Chasteen Day, statewide organizing director for the ACLU of Ohio, and Alexis Morrisroe, an educator and campaign volunteer.

October marks LGBTQ History Month, and this week on At Liberty we are honoring the legacy of LGBTQ activism throughout the AIDS epidemic. Throughout the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, AIDS claimed the lives of thousands of New Yorkers per year, with city, state, and national governments doing little to address the crisis. In response to government inaction and homophobia, a group of New York City activists founded ACT UP, a grassroots, queer-led protest movement to urge action, call for change, and stand in the gap as thousands of queer people died. Due to their dogged persistence, steadfast unity in diversity, and pointed demonstrations, ACT UP achieved lasting victories in medical treatment, health care access, and more. Today, in classrooms across the country, this history has largely gone untold. In our broader public discourse, the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. and the subsequent movement that rose to fight for LGBTQ lives is often overlooked. Enter Sarah Schulman, a novelist, journalist, playwright, and AIDS historian, who is fighting to ensure that we remember. Schulman is the author of 20 books, her latest being “Let the Record Show: A Political History of ACT UP, New York 1987-1993,” which documents the people and tactics behind ACT UP’s success. Sarah is also the co-director of the ACT UP Oral History Project. She joins us today to share her expertise and remember the movement.

This May, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 264, a law that restricts Chinese nationals from acquiring property in the state of Florida under the guise of protecting national security. But the issue is actually pretty clear — Chinese people are not the Chinese government, and conflating the two is just the latest iteration of anti-Asian land laws and anti-Asian discrimination that date as far back as the 1880s. Rather than protecting national security, the law will shatter the dreams of Chinese families, students, and business owners hoping to build a life in the Sunshine State. So we at the ACLU, along with our partners, are suing Florida over SB 264, arguing in Shen v. Simpson that the law legitimizes and expands housing discrimination against people of Asian descent and therefore violates both the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. Joining us today to discuss the case are Bethany Li, legal director of the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund and one of our co-counsels in the case, and Echo King, an immigration lawyer and co-founder of the Florida Asian Americans Justice Alliance, a group which rallies the support of Floridians against this kind of discrimination.

Today’s young people have a lot to deal with. Pandemic interruptions, social isolation, climate change, political polarization, ever-changing technology — all on top of the typical turbulence of adolescence. Studies on youth mental health outcomes show increasing loneliness and hopelessness, illustrating one thing: the kids are not alright. We all want a silver bullet for the youth mental health crisis, and some lawmakers are claiming they have one: the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA for short. After failing to gain traction in 2022, this bipartisan bill has been revised and re-introduced by Congress — but like most solutions that claim to solve all our woes with the stroke of a pen, KOSA is too good to be true. If passed, KOSA would allow each state’s attorney general to individually decide what parts of the internet kids can and cannot access. In fact, KOSA proponents have even openly admitted that they plan to use KOSA to block kids from LGBTQ content online. We at the ACLU, along with other civil rights organizations and parents of queer and trans youth, have spoken out against the bill for all the ways it overreaches, suppresses our right to free information, and targets LGBTQ people. As anti-LGBTQ legislation continues to rise, KOSA is one of many censorship tools masquerading as a kids safety solution. Joining us today to explain the consequences this bill could have for us all are Evan Greer, director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, and Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the ACLU.

Last month, a district court judge in Montana ruled in favor of 16 youth plaintiffs in a landmark climate lawsuit. In Held v. Montana, young Montanans ranging from ages 5 to 22 sued the state, arguing that lawmakers have consciously prioritized the development of fossil fuels over the well-being of Montana’s residents and the protection of natural resources. This case marks the first time that a U.S. court has declared a government’s constitutional duty to protect people from climate change. Not only does this case model how young people can engage with the legal system, it also sets precedent for similar lawsuits, proving state constitutions as a viable pathway to scoring seemingly unlikely civil rights victories. Joining us today is Mat dos Santos, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, the legal nonprofit group that brought the case on behalf of the youth, and Claire Vlases, one of the plaintiffs. They’ll explain what it took to get this case off the ground and what implications it could have for the future.

“The United States, the richest country on earth, has more poverty than any other advanced democracy. Why?” That’s the question that underscores Pulitzer Prize-winning sociologist Matthew Desmond’s new book, “Poverty, by America.” America is a country that purports equality as one of its highest values. Economic opportunity and the long touted American dream have driven millions to emigrate and settle here for centuries. In reality, however, gross economic inequality undergirds every facet of American life: education, the criminal legal system, health care, and housing. Affordable housing is foundational to American life. Because America is rife with poverty, it’s also rife with housing inequality. This is Desmond’s focus of study. Desmond’s work at Princeton University’s “Eviction Lab” and his 2016 book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” continue to shape the conversation about housing and poverty today. His new book takes his exploration one step further, seeking to examine and address the roots and responses to housing insecurity and its threat to American life. Today, we are running a conversation between Desmond and the ACLU’s Sandra Park, senior staff attorney for the Women’s Rights Project, who also works on these issues. Together, they’ll break down the complexities of American poverty and how poverty as a societal force threatens the accessibility of our civil rights and civil liberties.

We’re continuing to feature major stories impacting students as the back-to-school season is underway. Today, we confront one troubling question: Why are students being fined by police in schools? Across the nation, students are being disciplined through tickets with shocking frequency, burdening them with hefty fines and subjecting them to the juvenile justice system, all of which greases the skids on the school-to-prison pipeline. The state of Illinois has become a hotbed for ticketing in schools, to such an extent that legislators and activists have proposed a House bill to end the practice. But as we await the passage of this law, students continue to pay the price. Last year, the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica published an investigation on this issue, finding that nearly 12,000 tickets were written to Illinois students over three school years, with Black students twice as likely to be ticketed compared to their white peers. 20-year-old Amara Harris is one of those students. She’s entering her senior year at Spelman College, finally free from an alleged theft fine that she received as a high school student in Naperville, Illinois. Now, the state is considering legislation to end fees and fines in schools on the backbone of cases like Amara’s. She joined us to explain how a misunderstanding over a pair of lost AirPods led to a trial four years in the making. Then, Ghadah Makoshi, advocacy and policy strategist with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, discusses her research on ticketing in Pittsburgh public schools and how we can disrupt school-based pathways to the juvenile justice system.

Back-to-school season is upon us and here at the ACLU we’ve been following the nationwide campaign to censor education, be that the censorship of important historical and social context in curriculums, or the recent rise in book bans. All of these efforts threaten students' right to learn. As we chart this issue, our eyes are on Texas. The state is banning more books than any other, eliminating libraries, and through these decisions, targeting low-income students of color. This year, some students in the Houston Independent School District — the largest district in Texas — may be heading to schools with no libraries or librarians. In August, the state announced plans to convert libraries into disciplinary centers, eliminating librarian positions at 28 elementary and middle schools. Another 57 schools are being assessed for the same outcome, with the goal of addressing low academic performance in certain schools. This alarming change comes as part of a sweeping reform program led by the HISD’s new superintendent Mike Miles, and a new state-imposed school board, both of which replaced the district's former elected school board and superintendent in the spring. We're joined by Becky Calzada and Deborah Hall, two Texas librarians who are advocating for students and the future of their profession. Then, we hear from ACLU of Texas attorney Chloe Kempf, to help explain how the rise in education censorship infringes on students’ civil rights.

Across America, 68 percent of incarcerated people with a medical condition go without care in local jails. Put simply, incarcerated people are often denied life sustaining and life-saving health care treatment. To make matters worse, carceral facilities are increasingly used as a response to “treat” those with mental and physical illnesses. But, in reality, they are doing the opposite. After an arrest, those who can’t immediately post bail can spend days on end without medical services. Until they can gather enough money to buy freedom, incarcerated people can suffer from poor health care with dire consequences, including in some cases death. Nothing reveals this experience more than the story of 54-year-old Dexter Barry. Last year, in November of 2022 Dexter was experiencing a renewed sense of health and stability in his life. This was all thanks to a heart transplant that he received after waiting for an organ for 12 years while battling ongoing heart complications. That month, Barry got into a verbal dispute with his neighbor in Jacksonville, Florida. The incident resulted in a misdemeanor arrest that kept him in jail for two days without anti-rejection medication for his transplant, despite several pleas for it. Three days after he was released from jail, he died from cardiac arrest that was caused by an acute rejection of his heart. Dexter’s story is reflective of sweeping failures in the carceral system. Unfortunately, his story is one of many. We’re joined by his children Janelle King and Dexter Barry Jr., who are amplifying their dad’s story to get justice and prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else.

On Tuesday, June 27, more than a decade after its first introduction in a congressional committee, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act went into effect, changing the landscape of work for all pregnant people. Before this law, many pregnant workers had to decide between protecting their jobs and protecting their health. While there have been efforts in the past to protect pregnant workers, employers have always found loopholes to avoid providing accommodations. Against their judgment and against their doctors’ judgment, pregnant workers have had to lift heavy objects, stand for hours on end, and expose themselves to hazardous chemicals. This will no longer be the case thanks to national advocacy efforts, including those from us here at the ACLU. Today, we’re speaking with Vania Leveille, senior legislative counsel in the ACLU’s National Political Advocacy Department, who will share more about the mammoth undertaking that moved the law to its passage, and Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, who will detail what the act looks like in practice.

Ten years ago this July, Opal Tometi, Alicia Garza, and Patrisse Cullors tweeted #BlackLivesMatter in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s death. The hashtag helped galvanize a movement calling out the racism that has deeply affected the lives and deaths of Black people in America since its founding. The Black Lives Matter movement calls for the reimagination of institutions like policing, housing, education, and health care, with the hope of redressing the harms done to historically marginalized communities and building a more just country for all. As we look back on the last 10years since the movement began, and three years since its resurgence following the murder of George Floyd, we want to better understand the history of Black Lives Matter and how it continues to shape American life.  We are joined by Wesley Lowery, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, who is widely regarded as the nation’s leading reporter on the Black Lives Matter movement. Wesley has been covering BLM since the year it began and has written two books on race in America. His latest, American Whitelash: A Changing Nation and the Cost of Progress, is a timely account of white Americans’ backlash against evolving discourses on race, identity, and equity. We are excited to speak with him about Black Lives Matter’s evolving legacy, the fervent backlash against it, and where the movement stands today.

Another Supreme Court term has come to a close. This year, the court delivered major decisions on voting rights, free speech, Indigenous sovereignty, and racial justice, among other issues. The ACLU was involved in cases throughout the term and in many ways, our wins exceeded our expectations. However, in the last two days of the term, the court dropped decisions overturning affirmative action, codifying discrimination in the name of “free speech,” and blocking President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Here to help us reconcile our wins and losses and break down the term is returning favorite, David Cole, ACLU’s national legal director.

On Thursday, June 29, in the cases of Students for Fair Admissions. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court — in a 6 to 3 decision — overturned affirmative action in higher education, restricting universities’ ability to fully address systemic racial inequalities that persist in higher education. Affirmative action in higher education has been in place since the 1960s. This decision is the latest in the Supreme Court’s move to break with decades of precedent and undo long-held civil rights. Joining us to unpack the decision is ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program.

Nearly one year ago, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court released its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case concerning abortion access in the state of Mississippi. Instead of following decades of precedent set by decisions in other cases involving abortion access that had thus far kept Roe v. Wade intact, five justices broke from precedent, overturning Roe, and with it the federal constitutional right to abortion. For 49 years, Roe granted foundational access to abortion, allowing people who could become pregnant to choose what’s best for them and their families. Since its overturn, states across the country have quickly moved to ban abortion, leaving so many without access. In the last year, we’ve lived the consequences. Losing the right to a legal abortion is calling much of our lives into question, forcing tens of millions of us to contend with a new reality. A few weeks ago, we at the ACLU asked you to share how your life has been impacted by the overturn of Roe and the abortion bans that followed. We received hundreds of submissions from folks all across the country. Your lives have changed in innumerable ways since just this time last year.

This year has brought a new level of anti-democratic behavior, particularly in state houses and legislatures. In March, Rep. Mauree Turner from Oklahoma was censured for offering a protester the use of an office in the aftermath of an arrest. In April, two Tennessee state representatives, Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, were ousted for speaking up for their constituents protesting against gun violence. And then in May, Rep. Zooey Zephyr was censured for her vocal opposition to a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors. The retaliation experienced by these elected officials hints at the growing vulnerability of the right to express dissent in politics and government, a worrying trend. The rise in bans attacking the LGBTQ community is being met with protest, the foundational American mechanism we have for showing disapproval and standing up for our values in our representative democracy. When that right to dissent is threatened, we all are threatened, and the LGBTQ community is put even further at risk. Joining us today to talk about this silencing effect are Rep. Zooey Zephyr from Montana and Rep. Mauree Turner from Oklahoma.

As legislatures across the country enact anti-LGBTQ bills, one group has taken center stage in our national conversation: trans youth. Of the 491 anti-LGBTQ bills that we are tracking in this legislative session, 118 are bills seeking to restrict or ban gender-affirming care for trans kids. In the midst of all of this we are losing sight of the big picture. Trans kids are simply kids. And they’d like everyone else to let them be that. They don’t want to have to grow up fast, or be thrust into the spotlight. They want to manage their cheer team, build robots in their bedrooms, and go to homecoming with their friends. So today, we’re passing them the mic, because well, the adults are talking too much and need to sit down and listen.

On this podcast, we have covered book banning and education censorship a few times before, but the way we see it, bans and revisionist histories thrive in our silence. Despite the recent attention surrounding the onslaught of CRT bans, the suppression of certain histories isn’t new. Indigenous history and Indigenous issues have long been underreported and even erased, sidelining Indigenous folks and their experiences from the national conversation. This is one of the most active mechanisms of oppression of Indigenous Americans — erasure — erasure of history, culture, and language. Make no mistake, CRT bans are just the latest euphemisms — and violent tools — for cultural genocide. This story is playing out across the country, especially in South Dakota where the governor and state legislature of South Dakota have introduced multiple bills over the last two years aiming to dramatically dilute Indigenous history and culture in the school curriculum. Today, we will be hearing from Wyatt Hunter, a recent high school graduate from South Dakota and Sarah White, Founder & Executive Director of the South Dakota Education Equity Coalition (SDEEC), about the fight for Indigenous education in South Dakota.

Today, we are celebrating the ending of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month with a conversation with legendary drag performer Sasha Colby. For the last 20 years, Colby has been one of the most celebrated names in drag and last month, she added another accolade to the list: winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race. Colby’s win is historic, marking the first time a first trans woman of color and a Native Hawaiian contestant has won the competition. Colby’s victory comes at a fraught time for the communities she proudly represents. Towards the end of 2022, lawmakers in six states proposed bills to ban drag in public or in the presence of minors. On April 1st, Tennessee became the first state in the country to ban drag performances anywhere in the presence of someone under 18 years old, which thankfully was temporarily blocked by a judge. So far in 2023, politicians across the country have introduced nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ bills overwhelmingly targeting trans people and trans youth specifically. All of these efforts rely on antiquated anti-LGBTQ ideas and tropes that are dangerous. Now more than ever, representation of trans people living and thriving is important, and Sasha has dedicated herself and her craft to this for nearly two decades. Sasha Colby joins us today to talk about what it means to be the first Native Hawaiian winner of Drag Race, her storied career, and what drag means in America right now.

Today, we're focusing on Chicago — the country's third largest (and one of the most diverse) cities, and a city that has been a blueprint for housing segregation. While the discriminatory practice of racial redlining was officially outlawed in 1968, the practice still reverberates throughout the city today. For every dollar loaned by banks in Chicago’s white neighborhoods, they invest just 12 cents in the city’s Black neighborhoods, and 13 cents in Latino areas, according to a 2020 study by WBEZ and City Bureau. A typical household’s wealth in the richest area of Chicago is 206 times higher than a typical household’s wealth in the poorest area. This continued inequity lies at the crux of the city’s ongoing struggles against gun and gang violence, unemployment, and homelessness, but are often overlooked. The system was designed to create these problems, and has worked as intended. Now, it’s time to learn how so many Chicagoans were set up to struggle, and how we can all be a part of undoing the legacy of racism that pervades the city’s maps. Here to talk to us about Chicago’s infamous housing history, ongoing consequences, and nationwide influence, is Mike Amezcua, associate history professor at Georgetown University and author of “Making Mexican Chicago: From Postwar Settlement to the Age of Gentrification.”

The social media platform TikTok has had a meteoric rise. The app has become a hub for educators, activists, and creatives to influence all aspects of culture. From launching dance trends, catapulting decades old books onto best sellers lists, to educating voters and organizing changemakers, TikTok has become key to how over 150 million users across the United States create, engage, and learn. But a new movement has risen to ban the app, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. Lawmakers at the state and federal level are growing concerned over the prospect of American users' data becoming accessible to the Chinese government. While data privacy is a concern across all social media apps, the singling out of TikTok out points to an anti-Asian sentiment that is racist. What’s more: The banning of a social media app would be a dangerous act of censorship on the free speech of so many Americans. Today, we will hear from three TikTok creators about what brought them to TikTok and why the platform has become a nexus of organizing, education, and entertainment for young Americans. Then Ashley Gorski, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s National Security Project will help us unpack the bans.

As soon as a week from today, the Biden administration could implement a policy that would force people to seek asylum and wait for an answer in Mexico, or another country they passed through, with limited exceptions. The proposed change is based off of a Trump-era policy that the ACLU fought in court, and which President Biden previously condemned. It also stands in direct violation of United States asylum laws and will lead people fleeing violence and persecution to face avoidable harm. President Biden campaigned on promises to restore and strengthen the asylum process. Instead of re-committing the United States to its promise of upholding international humanitarian practices, his administration plans to replace the inhumane Title 42 policy enacted under the Trump administration with a similarly dangerous one, taken straight from the Trump administration's playbook. Baine Bookey, legal director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, and Katrina Eiland, managing attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants' Rights Project, join us today to unpack this rule, the harm it will cause thousands of people, and to explain what the asylum process should look like.

The ACLU is tracking 452 anti-LGBTQ bills in the U.S. this legislative session. Of those 452, 118 are anti-trans health care bills, and there’s a slew of trans athlete bans, public accommodations bans, drag bans, and education gag orders about gender identity, sexuality, and expression. We’re experiencing an unprecedented surge in attacks on trans people in particular, and trans kids most specifically. In Missouri, the attorney general announced new restrictions on trans healthcare that are the first of their kind, limiting care for both kids AND adults. The rule is currently scheduled to take effect Monday and while the ACLU of Missouri and their partners have filed a petition to seek a temporary restraining order to block implementation of the rule, we haven’t heard back yet. It’s still pending in court. So many attacks are being levied at once against trans people all across the country. It’s hard to keep up. The speed and viciousness are at a level beyond what we’ve witnessed in our history. So today, we’re getting an update from Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s Deputy Director for Trans Justice with the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project, because losing track of what’s happening or losing energy in the fight against these attacks is not an option.

This 4/20, we want to talk about a tool that can be used to address the horrific consequences of the war on drugs: clemency. Throughout U.S. history, presidents, and governors have had the power to grant clemency, either by pardoning people of their crimes or reducing their sentences. Clemency can be used as a check on the criminal legal system, which often imposes unjustifiably harsh sentences and disproportionately criminalizes Black and Brown people, disabled people, and poor people. As Americans grapple with the racism and punitive spirit that fueled mass incarceration, more and more advocates have called on chief executives to use their power to confront racial injustice and end imprisonment that is no longer just or justified. Few issues highlight the importance of clemency more than the unequal treatment of drug convictions. Of the 1.9 million people who are currently incarcerated in the U.S.,191,000 are in jail or prison for drug related convictions. Today, many of these convictions would be erroneous, as many states adopt public health approaches to drug use and move towards legalizing marijuana in particular. Today, we are going to look at the redemptive hope clemency can provide, both to people and the criminal legal system as a whole. We are joined by Kemba Smith, who received clemency in 2000 and has been a prominent criminal justice reform advocate ever since, and Cynthia Roseberry, Acting Director of the ACLU’s Justice Division and key leader on Clemency 2014, a historic initiative of more than 4,000 lawyers who represented over 36,000 clients as they went through the presidential clemency process.

On Friday, April 7th, the Tennessee state legislature voted to expel two out of the three state representatives, Representatives Justin Pearson and Justin Jones, who protested on the chamber floor in the wake of a mass shooting that killed six people, including three nine-year-old children. Now, their expulsion was an unprecedented move, completely disregarding typical norms of democracy and also the will of voters. No Tennessee House member has ever been removed from elected office for simply violating decorum rules. This week, both Representative Pearson and Jones were reinstated to their elected seats in the State House, but the damage has been done. Here to unpack all that has happened in Tennessee this week. As Jeff Preptit, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee.

The U.S. is the only developed democracy that strips voting rights from its people on the basis of a criminal conviction. An estimated 4.6 million Americans across the country are barred from casting ballots. Now to give a sense of scope — this number is larger than the voting-eligible population of New Jersey. At the ACLU, we believe that when we suppress the voting rights of any group of people, our democracy weakens. In order to live up the full ideal of a constitutional democracy, everyone must be given the right and access to vote. The good news is that many states are starting to agree with us. In the last 10 years, we’ve seen states slowly improve access to those formerly or currently incarcerated and all of these movements, are victories worthy of celebration. That’s why today, we are taking a moment to recognize a big victory in Minnesota where the state passed the Restore the Vote bill just about a month ago, giving 55,000 Minnesotans the power to cast their vote in the next local, state, or federal election after they serve their time but before they finish their parole or probation. We are joined by Jennifer Schroeder, an advocate and plaintiff in an ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota lawsuit that challenged the previous voting restriction, and Julie Ebenstein, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, to discuss how this change has a meaningful positive impact on everyone.

This Friday, we celebrate International Transgender Day of Visibility, an opportunity to celebrate the many contributions trans people have made to society as well as raise awareness for the work that needs to be done to achieve gender equality for all.  We are currently witnessing a wave of anti-trans legislation across the country, but the criminalization of trans people is nothing new. For over 20 years, Louisiana’s Crime Against Nature by Solicitation law (or CANS for short) made offering certain sexual acts for money a felony, with penalties including up to 5 years in prison, hard labor, and mandatory registration on the sex offender database. These harsh penalties never applied to the state’s other anti-sex work laws, and were specifically designed to target queer people, especially Black trans women. Louisiana strengthened CANS in 1992 and by 2011, 40 percent of people on the New Orleans sex offender registry were convicted under CANS. Of that, 75 percent were women, and 79 percent were Black. Our guests today have been fighting to make New Orleans a safer place for transgender and gender non-conforming people in the face of this pernicious law that targets and criminalizes them. In addition to building spaces for Black trans women to rest, learn, live and thrive, Wendi Cooper and Milan Nicole Sherry have dedicated their lives to repealing the law that once threatened their own lives. A recent documentary, "CANS Can’t Stand," highlights Wendi, Milan, and others’ fight against CANS and efforts to build community for trans women in New Orleans and beyond. We are so excited to speak with them all about their tenacious activism and the experience of releasing “CANS Can't Stand” at a time of such backlash against LGBTQ rights and representation.

Keeping kids safe is one of our greatest responsibilities as adults. But what if the main tool we use to protect children is actually preventing everyone from getting the resources they need? Every state in the nation has mandatory reporting laws that require professions such as teachers, coaches, nurses, and more to report any suspected or observed instances of child abuse to the state. While this sounds logical, its application has effectively made a surveillance apparatus out of educators, health care, and social workers, which leaves the families most in need of help afraid to ask for it, at the risk of opening an investigation.    The pitfalls of mandatory reporting are especially evident in Pennsylvania. In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Pennsylvania lawmakers passed sweeping reforms expanding mandatory reporting and the definition of child abuse to include low-level neglectful circumstances that often arise from poverty. Since reforms were implemented in 2014, reports have skyrocketed, but recent studies have shown that this increase has not turned up any additional victims of child abuse but has rather over-stretched the system. Within the first five years of the reforms, one million calls were made to the state’s child abuse hotline. 800,000 regarded low-level neglect allegations stemming from poverty, and nine in ten were dismissed following traumatic housing searches and family questioning that disproportionately target Black and brown families.  Here to help explain the mandatory reporting system and its consequences are Director of Client Voice at Philadelphia’s Community Legal Services, April Lee, who experienced firsthand how mandatory reporting can traumatize families, and Anjana Samant, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project

Today we are talking about one of the most revolutionary forces in America — teenage girls. Throughout history, teenage girls have consistently stood on the frontlines for change. At 16, Sybil Ludington outran Paul Revere in warning American troops of the impending threat of the British. At 15, Barbara Johns staged a school boycott that helped initiate Brown v. Board of Education. At 19, Heather Tobis tried to help herself and other girls around her navigate a pre-Roe world by starting Jane — a clandestine network that connected young women with access to safe abortions. Never heard of these girls? Yeah, neither had we. The achievements and contributions of girls and young women are often under-recorded and dismissed. A new book, "Young and Restless: the Girls who Sparked America’s Revolutions," by Mattie Kahn interrupts this cycle of erasure. Mattie brings to the forefront girls' and young women’s trail-blazing activism, from the labor movement of the late 19th century to the fight against climate change now. Author, writer, and editor Mattie Kahn joins us today to talk about the revolutionary power of girls, the challenges they face, and how they rise up consistently to meet the moment.

It’s March, which means it’s Women’s History Month. This month, we’ll speak with women about their activism and resistance to fight for their rights and those around them. Today, we’re talking about the very sexy idea of constitutional interpretation. The Constitution, like any text, is open to interpretation. Where this gets hairy is when different judges, or justices, have vastly different methods of interpretation, typically based on their own bias, education, and lived experience. Where it gets even hairier is when women’s rights are on the line, and when one certain theory of constitutional interpretation is applied — one in which women aren’t even people in the eyes of the law. It’s called originalism. Originalism dictates that present day readings of the Constitution should be dependent on the document’s “original public meaning,” meaning that we have to look back to the time of the Constitution’s writing and ratification to interpret its intent. The problem is that only certain people at that time had civil rights at all: white, land-owning men. While initially this was a fringe theory, originalism has grown to become a dominant legal framework, one followed by five of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. Many legal scholars are alarmed at its increased use because the stakes are so high. In decisions across the country, originalism is being used to threaten the safety of women and bodily autonomy at large. As our guest Madiba K. Dennie wrote, “American law has not historically been good to women, and whatever progress there once was is now vulnerable to regression.” Madiba K. Dennie, former counsel at the Brennan Center’s Democracy program, recently explored the consequences of using the Constitution in this way in an article for The Atlantic, “Originalism is going to get women killed.” She joins us today to discuss.

Housing is the bedrock of American society, and one of the major determinants for life outcomes like health, income, and educational opportunity. Because of its importance, housing has long been the site of discriminatory policies aimed at marginalizing Black and Brown people in America, be it through zoning, redlining, crime free housing ordinances, racial steering, and more. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 aimed to address this history and outlaw discrimination, but vague guidelines and weak enforcement mechanisms have left a lot unaddressed. In January, the Biden administration reinstated the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, which adds federal heft to the Fair Housing Act and mandates that localities submit plans for actively addressing segregation and proposes that cities and states that fail to meaningfully work towards their stated goal could face loss of funding. Throughout her career in civil rights law, ACLU President Deborah Archer has studied housing discrimination and infrastructure. She’s the Associate Dean and Co-Director of Clinical and Advocacy Programs, Professor of Clinical Law, and Co-Faculty Director of the Center on Race, Inequality and the Law — all at the NYU School of Law. We’re excited to have her here today to give us a primer on housing discrimination and explain why it’s part of the ACLU’s push for equitable systems across so many facets of society.

Today, we’re digging into the archives and sharing one of our most celebratory episodes, because we all need a little joy, right? Please enjoy former ACLU staff attorney Lizzy Watson and her conversation with award-winning artist, Jon Batiste. You may have seen him on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” where he’s been the music director and bandleader since 2015. You may have heard him on the soundtrack of the Pixar-animated film “Soul” where he performed and composed the jazz portion of the score. Or you may have experienced his live performances in the streets of New York City with his band Stay Human during the pandemic lockdown, the protests of 2020, or during one of his “love riots” – a spontaneous show in the streets where the musicians stand among the crowd and exchange in the energy of the music and the moment. We’ll talk to him about his New Orleans roots, his most recent album “We Are,” and his commitment to creating music that celebrates his culture and aims to unite us all.

Over the past two years, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of books being banned or challenged in school districts across the country. While here's a long history of book banning and censorship in America, over the 2021 to 2022 school year book banning reached an unprecedented high. What's even more worrying about this increased censorship is which stories are being censored. The majority of the books being targeted by these bans contain LGBTQ storylines and protagonists of color. Here today to talk with us about book banning and how we can all show up in the fight against censorship is George M. Johnson. Their memoir, All Boys Aren't Blue, explores themes of gender identity, sexual orientation and race. As Johnson shares their experience growing up black and queer in New Jersey and Virginia. All Boys Aren't Blue was published in 2020 and has become one of the top five most banned books in the country.

Since the repeal of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the fight for reproductive freedom has increasingly centered on medication abortion. The two pill regimen allows pregnant people to safely terminate pregnancies, with medicine alone. Since the FDA approved one of the medications used, mifepristone, in 2000, the method has grown to now account for 54% of abortions performed nationwide. For that reason, anti-abortion advocates view it as a threat and are looking to take mifepristone off of shelves across in the U.S. That is the goal behind a lawsuit filed in November 2022 by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The ADF is suing the FDA to rescind its approval of mifepristone. If the suit is successful, it could drastically limit access to medication abortion across the country and force millions of Americans seeking abortions to undergo operations, carry unwanted pregnancies to term, not have access to miscarriage care, and more. This nightmare is already playing out and causing pain and trauma for people who can get pregnant in the 12 states where abortion is banned, and this lawsuit could bring these realities to all 50 states. The stakes are so high. Here to talk with us about this dangerous lawsuit, the importance of mifepristone for reproductive healthcare, and how the ACLU is showing up to preserve reproductive care nationwide is Andy Beck, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project.

February marks Black History Month, an opportunity to celebrate the contributions Black Americans have made to society. And today, we're going to be celebrating that. But before that. Given the themes of this episode, we want to acknowledge the brutal murder of Tyree Nichols and the violence towards high schooler Tauris Sledge, both by police. This horrific violence only adds to the urgent call for alternatives to policing in America. And this conversation today is about imagining and realizing those alternatives. As it turns out, it's been done before, and Black Americans have always led the way. This conversation was recorded before recent events, so we don't address them directly, but we do dive into the possibility of a better vision for our country. Advocates are rightly calling for communities to slash police budgets and reinvest that funding into community health services. These calls have been met with varying degrees of buy in, with some claiming that they are too idealistic or even naive. But all we need to do is to look to Black history to prove that these naysayers are wrong. This has been done before. This is the story of our country's first ambulance service, an alternative to policing that became a model used across the country. Freedom House was founded in Pittsburgh's historically Black neighborhood, The Hill, in 1967. Back then, police were responding to all health emergencies, a service they were not effectively providing, particularly to Black communities at a time when the US was deeply segregated and reeling from the civil rights movement. Freedom House provided both life saving health care and career advancement for Hill residents who are both underserved and often overlooked by society. Here to talk with us about the Freedom House, its ongoing legacy, the importance of community based emergency response, and why alternatives to policing are both so important and so possible, are John Moon, former Freedom House EMT and retired assistant chief of Pittsburgh's Emergency Medical Service, and Brandon Buskey, director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project.

Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola Prison, is the largest maximum-security adult prison in the US. Angola is the perfect symbol for the criminal legal system’s ongoing legacy of racism. It’s transformed from a slave plantation to a camp for mostly Black laborers exploited by convict leasing, all before becoming a prison. For over a century, Angola has been a site of human rights abuses, which continue to this day. This fall, a new chapter of horror began on its grounds: the detention of children in the same cell block that once held incarcerated people awaiting the death penalty. In August, the ACLU and partner organizations filed a class action suit, Alex A v. Edwards, seeking to block the transfer of children to Angola. The lawsuit is pending, and in October, the state began moving children as young as 14 into Angola, a move that violates state and federal laws. Here to talk to us about how we got here and how the ACLU and community partners are continuing to fight the avoidable and unconstitutional detention of children in Angola are Gina Womack, executive director and co-founder, Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children, and Tammie Gregg, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project.

January 22nd marks the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that codified the right to an abortion. But this year on January 22nd, we’ll largely remember this anniversary as the one that wasn’t. For 49 years, Roe helped to allow people who could become pregnant decide what was best for them and their families, but on June 24th, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Since then, bans on abortion have taken effect in 13 states, and courts have blocked abortion bans in 9 others, according to the New York Times abortion ban tracker, though this is constantly changing. On this anniversary episode, we are going to look at the reality that people are facing in a post-Roe America, both those seeking care and those providing it. Without Roe, a key component of reproductive care has become illegal or restricted for more than 20 million people, throwing many into painful and life-threatening situations. We are joined by Community Organizer, Kaitlyn Joshua, who experienced firsthand how new restrictions on abortion endanger the lives and wellbeing of pregnant people and Dr. Jennifer Lincoln, an ob/gyn, reproductive health educator, author, and Executive Director of Mayday Health, an organization focused on providing information on abortion access and options for people, regardless of where they live.

Last year, the LGBTQ community faced an onslaught of scrutiny and threats, from bills banning trans youth from participating in sports, to bans on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Towards the end of the year, another front for legislative and violent attacks emerged: drag shows. As drag reality competitions and drag brunches become increasingly popular, backlash in the form of armed protests and intimidation of drag performers has followed. In November, an Oklahoma bakeshop had a molotov cocktail thrown through its window after hosting a drag show. Later that same month, a shooter entered a Colorado Springs drag show and opened fire, killing five people and injuring over 20 more. In December, far right groups such as the Patriot Front and Proud Boys showed up to a drag story hour in Columbus, Ohio, armed while others held up signs with slogans like "groomers not welcome" and "groomers are child abusers." These are, unfortunately, not one offs. GLAAD reported that drag events faced 141 protests and serious threats in 2022. Towards the end of 2022, lawmakers in six states proposed bills to ban drag in public or in the presence of minors. Amidst this wave of anti-drag legislation and violence, drag performers and host venues across the country are moving to higher security or cancel performances altogether. Despite this risk, drag performers are mobilizing to resist this most recent wave of discrimination and can count on the ACLU to support the fight against drag censorship. Here to talk with us about drag censorship and the tools to defend this expression are Peppermint, notable drag performer and ACLU's Artist Ambassador for Transgender Justice, and Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Speech Privacy and Technology Project.

Happy New Year. It's so good to be back with you. Often on At Liberty, we detail what is happening in the field of civil rights and public interest law, from an issue perspective. This week we're doing something a little different. We're highlighting the people behind that work, specifically the contributions of women and non-binary people to the movement of resistance law. Women weren't always allowed to be lawyers. In fact, in 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court said that women had no constitutional right to practice law. Thanks to women who fought back, that is no longer our reality. And actually, it's quite the opposite. Women are now seen, celebrated and remembered at the highest levels of the practice. This advancement is due to the work of hidden figures throughout history, like Pauli Murray, for example, who you'll hear more about today. We're sharing a conversation between two women lawyers. ACLU's very own senior staff attorney, Gillian Thomas, is in conversation with Dahlia Lithwick, legal journalist and author of the new book Lady Justice. Together, they discuss Dahlia's new book that traces the history of women in law and highlights the work of women lawyers, most notably since 2016, who've taken up the mantle to fight back against injustice that oppresses the most marginalized and threatens all of us. Dahlia argues that in a constitutional democracy, like our own power is for the taking and that women have heeded that call and stepped into their arena to fight.

For this special holiday episode, we handed the reins over to the ACLU kids. Together, with their adults, they talk about what we do to fight for civil rights and civil liberties. You’ll hear from our ACLU family all across the country and they have some pretty interesting insights to share. We hope you enjoy!

As we near the end of the year, we are bringing you an episode of reflection. A lot has happened in the world, in our country and in our work at the ACLU. While we have weathered devastating losses like the overturn of Roe v. Wade this past summer, there are still meaningful victories we can celebrate this year and build on in the coming year. We’ve successfully fought back in courts all across the country on behalf of abortion access, racist and homophobic education gag orders, immigrant rights, voting rights and so much more. So today we are regrouping with the ACLU’s National Legal Director, David Cole, to talk through where we can find hope this year and also where we can continue to press forward.

In August of this year, President Biden followed through on a campaign promise to help debt-drowning college students pay off their loans. He announced a loan forgiveness program acknowledging that the total cost of both four-year public and private college has nearly tripled over the last 40 years…and that’s after accounting for inflation. A variety of court cases have been brought against Biden’s plan blocking the U.S. Department of Education from moving forward. Just last week, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on one of them -- Nebraska v. Biden, that will determine whether or not the Biden administration overstepped its authority in using the HEROS Act -- an act that allows the administration to change payments on student loans during times of national emergency -- to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for nearly 40 million Americans. The oral arguments are set for February. Thankfully while this issue pends in court, the administration extended a pause on federal student loan payments so that borrowers are protected. At the ACLU, we believe the student debt crisis is a racial justice issue depriving Black and Brown Americans important social and economic mobility. Here to discuss how we got here, the litigation at hand, and why this issue is one of racial justice and systemic equality is Persis Yu. She is the Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel at the Student Borrower Protection Center, a group leading the charge in advocating for forgiveness.

When Ice-T and his band, Body Count, released the song “Cop Killer” in 1992, it spurred outrage. At the time, Bill Clinton and George Bush were running for president, and condemning “Cop Killer” was among the handful of stances where they found common ground. Officials and police departments called for a complete boycott of Time Warner Inc. for refusing to halt the sales of the song. In response, Time Warner publicly stated its unshakable commitment to stand by freedom of expression and argued that “Cop Killer” is an "artist's rap on how a person in the street feels." "It's a shout of pain and protest," and "raw with rage and resentment." Professor Carrie Fried of Winona State University conducted a long study that year in an attempt to contextualize this dialogue in research; she found that participants exhibited several implicit biases. they were more likely to find one of two songs with the same lyrical content more threatening and offensive if they thought it came from a Black artist or fell under the genre of rap. She also found that participants were quick to pin violent lyrics on the rap genre, even when they came from folk songs. So what happens when these implicit biases sit on the jury in a real criminal case? Across the country, rap lyrics are on trial as prosecutors pull from the expressive words of artists, and judges deem these songs to be admissible evidence in court. Joining us today to discuss this evolution of this practice is Erik Nielson, professor at the University of Richmond and co-author of the book Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America. We are also joined by New Orleans rapper, songwriter, and former member of the 504boyz Mac Phipps, who experienced firsthand how the use of lyrics on trial can lead to a wrongful conviction.

This week as we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, we want to challenge our listeners to acknowledge and honor the day as a National Day of Mourning for indigenous people. The truth of this holiday isn’t that white people from Europe and the Wampanoag people in Plymouth, Massachusetts sat down to eat a nice meal together, celebrating a fall harvest. The true story of Thanksgiving is one of brutal genocide, theft of land, and the beginning of a relentless assault on native people and culture. This is a hard truth, but it is one we must acknowledge in order to reconcile our past and do better in the future. As we gather with family and friends, we encourage you to bring this conversation to bear. Today we’re running a conversation from our archive featuring indigenous artist and educator Josué Rivas in conversation with Molly Kaplan, one of At Liberty’s old hosts. Josué is a visual storyteller, educator, creative director, and self-described “Indigenous futurist.” He descended from the Mexica Otomi peoples. He aims to challenge the “mainstream narrative about Indigenous peoples,” and to “be a visual messenger for those in the shadows of our society.” His work has appeared in The Guardian, The New York Times, and National Geographic — to name a few publications. He is also the founder of the 2018 Standing Strong Project, a tribute to the Water Protectors at Standing Rock, North Dakota, and co-founder of Natives Photograph, a database for photo editors looking to hire indigenous photographers in North America.

This week, we are re-airing a conversation we had with Alok Vaid-Menon in early June, before we had the final Dobbs decision. Alok’s work is always salient but with the recent midterm election results showing an overwhelming affirmation of reproductive access, we believe their call for transformative thinking around gender essentialism and bodily autonomy is a way both to celebrate the wins at the polls and drive us towards a more expansive and imaginative vision of what’s possible from here. Alok Vaid-Menon is a nonbinary writer, performer, public speaker, activist and artist exploring the themes of trauma, belonging, and the human condition. They are the author of Femme in Public, Beyond the Gender Binary, and Your Wound/My Garden. Alok has done a lot of work to interrogate their history, our collective history, and to probe beneath the surface of what we’ve come to accept as the norm. They challenge us all to use our imagination to re-wire what we believe is possible for ourselves and society around us. This is a really special conversation and our team, quite honestly, all felt gob-smacked by Alok’s perspective. We let this conversation run long because we wanted you all to experience it and take it in as we did.

This week, voters went to the polls to elect their representatives at every level of government. Most notably for us at the ACLU, the midterms are the first opportunity to get a national sense of where voters are sitting on abortion access since the June overturn of Roe v. Wade. We are also on guard watching for voting rights violations and are eager to make sure every ballot is counted. So far we are cautiously optimistic and hopeful about the positive progress for civil rights and civil liberties and so today we are checking in with the experts, the morning after election day, to see how they’re feeling about the future of our reproductive freedom and voting rights work. Joining us are J.J. Straight, the ACLU’s Liberty Division Deputy Director and Zara Haq, a Senior Campaign Strategist, both J.J. and Zara sit in our National Political Advocacy Department. Text ACT to 82623 to sign up for ongoing, automated text alerts from ACLU and its affiliates about ways to take action and support the ACLU Organizations. Msg & Data Rates May Apply. Text STOP to cancel or HELP for info. https://www.aclu.org/privacypolicy

The midterm elections are just around the corner. On Tuesday, November 8th, all across the country will vote for our representatives in Congress and in our state government. On the ballot, we have 435 House seats, 35 Senate seats, 27 secretary of state seats, and many more positions to vote for. We know that midterms can be hard to piece through. There's so much information. Down ballot races don't get a lot of airtime, and many states have important ballot initiatives to consider. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization, so we don't tell voters who to vote for, but we do inform voters about what's at stake in an election. So here is what's at stake. Abortion access is on the ballot, and so are LGBTQ rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and criminal, legal and criminal legal reform. To help break it all down. We have a special episode today that will arm you with all that you need to know in order to vote your values at the polls. Joining as our resident guide is Kary Moss, the ACLU's Acting National Political Director and the Director of Affiliate Support and Nationwide Initiatives. Additional Resources: https://go.peoplepower.org/signup/vote-your-values/?redirect=volunteer https://www.aclu.org/vote-your-values?redirect=voteyourvalues

On November 9th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Brackeen vs. Haaland. At the center of the case are the future of Indigenous rights and tribal sovereignty. The case involves the Indian Child Welfare Act, otherwise known as ICWA, an act that was passed in the 1970s to protect native children from removal from their community and culture and to keep families together. Texas, together with individual plaintiffs, allege that ICWA is unconstitutional because they say it violates the Equal Protection Clause and discriminates against non-native families looking to adopt native children. But honoring tribal sovereignty isn't about discrimination or race. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of Indigenous rights. To learn more about the case, the threat to Indigenous rights and the reasons that ICWA was enacted in the first place, we spoke with Jamie Nelson, a Choinumni Yokuts man and a survivor of pre-ICWA separation abuse, and Stephanie Amiotte, Legal Director for the ACLU of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case this term that could upend the very foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections. In the case of Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legislature’s gerrymandered congressional map for violating the state’s Constitution. The North Carolina legislators are arguing for an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — known as the "independent state legislature theory” — that would render the state’s other branches of government and their checks and balances powerless in matters relating to federal elections, giving full power to partisan-majority state legislatures to determine how votes are cast and counted. While this all may sound a little weedy, the stakes loom large. If the court sides with the North Carolina State legislature, Moore v. Harper, could change the face of our national elections and the rules that govern them. Joining us today to help break it all down are the ACLU’s National Legal Director David Cole and Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, Ari Savitzky, who also happened to write the ACLU’s amicus brief for the case.

It’s October, which means it’s LGBTQ History Month, a time to remember, look back and celebrate the history of LGBTQ activism and the resulting progress. It’s also a time to acknowledge the work still to be done and understand the roots of systemic discrimination and inequality. To that end, our fight continues. On October 17th, the ACLU is headed to District court in Arkansas to argue the case of Brandt v. Rutledge, where we are challenging Arkansas’s law banning health care for transgender adolescents. Today, we have a special conversation for you. We’re hearing from Gillian Branstetter, communications strategist for the ACLU’s gender justice work in conversation with Chase Strangio, Deputy Director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project and Jules Gill-Peterson, an Associate Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University and author of The Histories of the Transgender Child. Together, they’ll break down the case ahead of us and the history that brought us here.

If you live in a state where abortions have been banned since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, accessing abortion is a huge challenge. But unfortunately, access is not the only challenge -- pursuing an abortion without leaving a trace poses another huge hurdle. If you search for resources online, if you get in your car and travel, who you text, if you ship pills to your house -- will the state find out? In our daily lives, many of our actions are tracked for consumption and utilization by various companies and organizations. That data could now be used against you if you seek an abortion. We are used to hearing people shrug off data surveillance concerns. The saying from digital privacy naysayers goes: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But now, we maybe have something new to hide, and therefore maybe something new to fear. Today, we are digging into data privacy in a post-Roe world and learning both what we individually can do to best keep our data safe and what we can ask of data collectors and government officials to help us in our pursuit of privacy. Joining us is Jennifer Granick, Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel, for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. Additional Resources: From the Digital Defense Fund, How to Keep Your Abortion Private & Secure: https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-guides/abortion-privacy From the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Surveillance Self-Defense: https://ssd.eff.org/en

On October 4th, the Supreme Court is set to hear Milligan v. Merrill, a case that would undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. At question is Alabama’s new congressional map, a map that underwent what is called racial gerrymandering or racial redistricting, diluting Black Alabamans’ voting power. The case’s outcome will determine the future of voting rights in America. Joining us today, our plaintiff in the case Shalela Dowdy, Organizer, Veteran, law student and resident of Mobile and Davin Rosborough, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project who is on the litigation team for the case.

On August 2nd, voters in Kansas came out in droves to protect abortion access in the state through a ballot measure. It was the first opportunity for voters to cast their support for abortion access since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. For many, Kansas was proof in the pudding: Americans overwhelmingly support reproductive rights. This November, a slew of other states have ballot measures that will similarly allow the people to decide if abortion will be protected in their state. In Michigan, the measure was only just recently added to the ballot after 750,000 people signed a petition to ensure that Michiganders would have a choice to protect abortion access in their state Constitution. To protect abortion access in a post-Roe reality, we need to pursue every avenue possible, including at the ballot box. Today, we’re speaking with Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom who led the ballot measure to a sweeping victory for reproductive rights. And, also, Connie Kross, a retiree-turned-repro-rights-champion who volunteers for Reproductive Freedom For All, the ballot measure campaign in Michigan. These two have rolled up their sleeves and recruited their friends, family and neighbors to do the same. They are not turning back. And neither are we.

It’s back to school season! And, this week we are digging into the wild world of dress codes. Clothes, like most things, have the power we give them. Sometimes they are a way to craft or express identity and sometimes they are just pieces of fabric stitched together to help us get through our days. In school, certain kinds of clothes are given more power and more scrutiny than others. In school, certain kinds of clothes and style can get you in trouble. At the ACLU, we believe that school dress codes are tricky and they can be ripe venues for the discrimination and censorship of young people. In this episode we will hear from Kayla, a track athlete originally from Albany High School who found herself and her teammates suspended for their dress code violation. We’ll also chat with Linda Morris, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project who will break down why we got involved.

It’s September and we’re back! Did you miss us? We missed you. So happy to be back and bringing you a very timely episode for the back to school season. In August, the ACLU along with partner organizations, filed a challenge to Florida's Stop W.O.K.E. Act, a censorship law which restricts educators and students from learning and talking about issues related to race and gender in the classroom. This isn’t the first law we’ve seen like this: education gag orders have been introduced in 40 states, and nearly 20 states across the country have passed these kinds of laws. Florida’s law, we argue, violates the First and 14th Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on educators and students that are both vague and discriminatory. Additionally, the laws violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black educators and students. Today we’re digging in and speaking with two of our clients who are impacted by this law as well as one of the ACLU’s lead attorneys on the case.

Last month, the California Reparations Task Force released an interim report detailing California’s history of slavery and its impact on the state. The task force was created in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. Its goal is to examine what a reparations program in the state could look like. The idea of reparations for slavery itself is not new. It stems from the value of enslaved labor, which, in 1860, was estimated at over 3 billion dollars. This forced labor built the backbone of the American economy but enslaved people nor their descendants have ever seen the economic benefit from their labor. In fact, Black Americans have systematically been denied opportunities to build and accumulate wealth since the country’s founding.Advocates of reparations argue this is one of the most effective ways to decrease the racialized wealth gap. Joining us today Tammerlin Drummond, a communications strategist at the ACLU of Northern California and Brandon Greene, director of the racial and economic justice program at the ACLU of Northern California, Brandon Greene. Tammerlin is also the host of Gold Chains, a podcast that explores California’s ties to slavery, and Brandon worked with the California Reparations Task Force, helping build the interim report. To learn more about the Gold Chains project, visit: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/goldchains/index.html

Today, we are bringing you a conversation celebrating Disability Pride Month, which is July. This conversation with actress and singer Ali Stroker was recorded last year, but we think it has the same resonance today. We talk to Ali about disability identity and representation in the media. We hope you enjoy the conversation. Roll the tape! Across the top 100 movies of 2019 only 2.3% of all speaking characters had a disability. What’s more, the rare times we do see a character with a disability, they aren’t played by someone with a disability. In fact, one study found that in the top 10 TV shows for 2018 only 12% of disabled characters were played by disabled actors. In contrast, around 133 million Americans live with visible or invisible disabilities — that’s 40% of the public. To put it plainly, there’s A LOT of room for improvement. Enter Ali Stroker, a singer and actress phenom who became both the first person using a wheelchair to perform on Broadway and the first person using a wheelchair to win a Tony award. Ali, in many ways, has put disability on the media map, landing roles in film, television, theater and even writing a children’s book. She joins us on At Liberty to discuss the importance of the representation and celebration of disability in the entertainment industry and beyond.

It was a few days after the overturn of Roe v. Wade when a doctor in Louisiana prescribed a medication to make the insertion of an IUD, a form of birth control, less painful for a patient. The medication has several uses. One of them is to act as the second part of a two-drug protocol used to terminate a pregnancy. The pharmacy called the prescribing physician to ask if the prescription was for an abortion. When she told them it was for an IUD insertion, the pharmacist still refused to give out the medication, leaving the patient without the medication for her procedure. This is one of the ways Roe’s overturn has already impacted access to other kinds of reproductive care. We worry this will not only continue but get worse. Today we are going to dig into the new landscape of reproductive healthcare in a post-Roe world by talking with two physicians who have dedicated their lives to helping people who can get pregnant navigate their vast pool of healthcare needs. From deciding how to prevent pregnancy and how to manage harmful periods to how to recover from a miscarriage and how to deal with infertility, these doctors know better than most, and certainly better than the Supreme Court, that the full spectrum of reproductive care is of vital importance to the lives of millions of Americans. Joining us today are Dr. Colleen Denny, the Medical Director of Women's Health Services at Bellevue Hospital in NYC and an Assistant Clinical Professor at the NYU School of Medicine who provides OB-GYN care that includes abortion, and Dr. Lucky Sekhon, a double board-certified OB-GYN and Reproductive Endocrinologist & Infertility Specialist at RMA of New York, a fertility clinic. She is an assistant clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow. Please visit aclu.org/keepfighting. To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit aclu.org/abortionactivist.

It’s a precarious time for American democracy. This year, the Supreme Court term resulted in a number of concerning opinions that rollback civil rights and civil liberties across many facets of American life, most notably the decision in the Dobbs case that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, the congressional hearings around the violent attack on the capitol on January 6, 2021, have revealed a dangerous and unabashed attempt to subvert our electoral system. When people don’t have trust in their government or its institutions, when our electoral system is riddled with fractures, it can be hard to mount meaningful change. One of our most powerful mechanisms of change is voting. So... we’re at an impasse, and we’re going to acknowledge that today and explore ways to surmount the challenges ahead of us. Joining us to discuss is the ACLU’s Executive Director, Anthony Romero. Anthony has been at the helm of the organization since 2001 and has seen our work through a number of inflection points. He knows, better than most, that progress is possible, even after major setbacks. RSVP to the ACLU’s Abortion Activist Training: www.ACLU.org/abortionactivist To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

On Friday, June 24th, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and with it, the constitutional right to an abortion. In the immediate, we spoke with our legal experts Louise Melling, Jen Dalven and Ria Tabacco Mar, about the opinion and the legal concerns ahead. Check out that episode. It’s called Post Roe: The Supreme Court Won’t Stop at Abortion, and it’s worth a listen if you missed it. But today, we are doing something a little different. We are talking with Jessica Arons, senior policy counsel for the ACLU, about all the different avenues we, as individuals, can explore when trying to plug in and do something to help. We know it’s confusing. There’s a lot of information out there. It’s also so easy to feel dejected and disempowered. It’s understandable to feel like our efforts won’t matter when there is so much we are up against, but we need you in this fight. So today we’re going to walk through the different avenues you can use to fight back whether that’s through voting, donating, volunteering, or just talking with your loved ones. You’re going to want to share this episode with your people. RSVP to the ACLU's Abortion Activist Training:  www.ACLU.org/abortionactivist Other organizations mentioned in this episode:  https://keepourclinics.org/ https://www.ifwhenhow.org/ More resources listed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRqbxh96ynlqdYUInUZB5GWrE2GIcW3FEXdtxO_n2BXMAd2HOkNssn3aP77zSXBN43TIJ3Xab2ih9vE/pub?s=04&fbclid=IwAR0OJetoWqvi9lKb-N-OYEuACRuCCOC7WpCZVyIo-Sv47mHVlHB5R9VcSbk

In a landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court has voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating a 50-year precedent and the constitutional right to an abortion. We expect half of the states across the country to ban abortion either immediately or in the coming days, weeks or months. Pregnant people in these states will now be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. This decision was expected in some ways, a draft opinion for the case was leaked in May, revealing the intent to overturn the right to access an abortion in the U.S. but I’m not sure anything could truly prepare us for the reality we are now facing. So much is at stake. Joining us to help us break down the decision and discuss what we all can do in response are Jen Dalven, Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, Ria Tabacco Mar, Director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, and Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty at the ACLU. To donate to support our fight against this attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit aclu.org/keepfighting. To join our new abortion activist training RSVP at aclu.org/AbortionActivist.

Over the last few weeks, a surge of texts and phone calls have gone out from local politicians. Most of them focus on one issue: crime. Worried about the rising crime? Want to keep you and your family safe? Vote for me. I'll make sure to fund the police and get the riffraff off our streets, direct quote. Crime is being used as a wedge issue this midterm season, and candidates are stoking fears in hopes to mount a meaningful backlash to recent progress in both policing and criminal legal reform. At the same time, state and national leaders are hard at work seeking to criminalize access to healthcare for trans and pregnant folks. This interest in criminalizing new behaviors while holding the line on age old crime and punishment tactics is a worrying trend. Joining us today to discuss is Somil Trivedi, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. Loyal listeners of At Liberty will remember Somil from his time guest hosting earlier this year.

This week, we are bringing you an important conversation about the state of abortion care in Texas. In September, Texas passed SB8, a bill that banned abortions at 6 weeks of pregnancy and deputized private citizens to enforce the ban. Since then, it’s been an “all hands on deck” operation to provide care to those in Texas still eligible in-state, while also helping shuffle others to states still with broader access. We can look to Texas to see some of what a world post-Roe v. Wade could look like for many other states. To that end, we’re enlisting Cecile Richards, former President of Planned Parenthood and native Texan to speak to folks on the ground in Texas, those mobilizing and creating systems that we can all learn from as we all seek to navigate abortion access in a new legal climate. Joining Cecile we have Anna Rupani, the Executive Director of a Texas abortion fund called Fund Texas Choice, Dr, Bhavik Kumar, an abortion provider in the state, and Reverend Dr. Daniel Kanter, Senior minister of First Unitarian Church of Dallas.

June 12th, 2022 marks the 55th anniversary of the landmark case Loving v. Virginia which made interracial marriage legal across the United States. We also know this day as Loving Day. This year, Loving Day has a bit of a weightier feel to it. In the recent Supreme Court leaked draft opinion on the Dobbs case, the legal reasoning that Justice Alito used to overturn Roe could be applied to undo Loving v. Virginia, signaling a new threat to interracial marriage as we know it. To those who say Loving v. Virginia will never be overturned, be cautious and vigilant. The United States has a long history of criminalizing, surveilling, and controlling Black and brown families and the mixing of races. We must both celebrate and honor our right to marry whomever we want and work to ensure its protection in the future. Today we’re celebrating Loving and discussing its connectivity to the broader attacks on our ability to build our families how we see fit. We’re joined by Dr. Michele Goodwin, a constitutional law scholar at the University of California, Irvine School of Law where she started and runs the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy. She’s the host of On the Issues, a podcast by Ms. Magazine. Michele is also an ACLU Executive Committee member.

This year brings an unprecedented surge of anti-trans legislation banning everything from sports participation to healthcare access. So far, we’re tracking roughly 280 state bills that have been filed ahead of or during this legislative session. At the same time, the Supreme Court is on the precipice of delivering a final decision that will likely overturn Roe v. Wade, blocking people who can get pregnant from abortion care. These attacks are actually all part of the same movement, a movement against bodily autonomy and our ability to live freely no matter our model or make, a movement to re-entrench gender hierarchy and binary thinking. To that end, we’re bringing you a conversation with Alok Vaid-Menon, a nonbinary writer, performer, public speaker, activist and artist exploring the themes of trauma, belonging, and the human condition. They are the author of Femme in Public, Beyond the Gender Binary, and Your Wound/My Garden. Alok has done a lot of work to interrogate their history, our collective history, and to probe beneath the surface of what we’ve come to accept as the norm. They challenge us all to use our imagination to re-wire what we believe is possible for ourselves and society around us. This is a really special conversation and our team, quite honestly, all felt gob-smacked by Alok’s perspective. We let this conversation run long because we wanted you all to experience it and take it in as we did. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

Supreme Court decision season is upon us, and with that, we wait for the final opinion in the Mississippi abortion ban case that could overturn Roe v. Wade. The idea of living in a post-Roe world is terrifying, the impacts will be broad and almost everyone will feel them in one way or another. This is the truth that activists and organizers on the ground in states like Mississippi, Florida, and Texas know all too well. They’ve been warding off anti-abortion attacks for decades, all while mounting a resistance focused on community conversation and education. They are, in many ways, the leaders of the reproductive rights movement. Amidst all the reasons to quit, they continue to fight -- individual action turns into collective action turns into political action. We can learn a lot from activists and organizers like Tyler, Crishelle, and Vienna, which is exactly why we are having them join us today. We’ll discuss how they have weathered the hardest of times on the ground in their own communities and highlight their work as a playbook for us all moving forward. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

May marks Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month and Mental Health Awareness Month. To mark the importance of this month and how it intersects our work at the ACLU, we are bringing you this conversation with Malaysian American award-winning writer and audio producer, Stephanie Foo. Stephanie is the author of the new book, What My Bones Know, a memoir about intergenerational trauma and complex post-traumatic stress disorder, or c-PTSD. In the book, Stephanie details her path of healing from the physical and emotional abuse she endured from both of her parents and explores the kind of trauma that she says had a widespread impact on her immigrant community growing up. She joins us to discuss how learning her ancestors’ history and the history of her community helped her reconcile her individual struggles.

Last week, the draft opinion for the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked. Justice Alito wrote the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Everything about what has happened is remarkable: the leak, the decision, and the reasoning. The repercussions for what it means for people who can get pregnant are dire, and if that wasn’t enough, the repercussions may extend far beyond. Last week, we focused our conversation on what the draft opinion would mean for reproductive access. Today, we’re going to focus on the second tier of impact: what this precedent could mean for other civil rights and civil liberties and what this means for the institution of the court itself. For this episode, we’re bringing in our resident constitutional expert, David Cole. David is the national legal director of the ACLU and has argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court himself.  To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

This is “Ask an Expert,” a special mini-series where our constitutional experts answer your civil rights and civil liberties questions. For our first edition, we are diving deep into Free Speech, and talking to expert Ben Wizner, the Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project. We have been sourcing free speech questions from you over email, social media, and our phone line. We’ve sorted through the questions and categorized them into a few episodes. So far, we've found our free speech footing and also logged in to how speech plays out online. For our final episode, Ben is back to educate us on the speech that happens on school grounds, education and book bans, student speech and more.

On Monday night, the news publication Politico leaked a draft of a majority Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Alito. The draft details the highly anticipated decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, known to the public as the case that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court decisions typically don’t come out until June, but this leaked draft, confirmed by Justice Alito himself, has sent early shockwaves across the country. In the draft majority opinion, Justice Alito writes that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that have been on the books for up to 50 years, are overturned, making access to abortion no longer a legally protected right. Should this draft hold, this decision would turn back the clock on progress for people who can get pregnant and call into question much more than access to abortion. Joining us to help us understand is Brigitte Amiri, the Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. We have a long fight ahead of us—but the ACLU was made for moments like this. To donate to support our fight against this attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit aclu.org/keepfighting. Thank you for stepping up and working together with us.

This is “Ask an Expert,” a special mini-series where our constitutional experts answer your civil rights and civil liberties questions. For this edition, we are diving into free speech and talking to expert Ben Wizner, the Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology project. Last week for our first episode, we established our free speech footing, defining exactly what free speech is and isn't. This week, Ben is back to break down free speech as it exists online and on social media in 140 characters or less, just kidding. Social media has undoubtedly presented new free speech challenges to consider, and consider them we will. We have been sourcing free speech questions from you over email, social media and our phone line. We've sorted through the questions and we're ready to dive right in.

For years now, pain has been the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting more than 50 million Americans annually. This isn’t the kind of pain you endure when you trip onto the pavement, scab, bruise and heal. It’s the persistent gnawing, aching, throbbing that happens over a long period of time. This is chronic pain. One of the most powerful and effective forms of treatment for pain is the safe use of opioids. Opioids in combination with other therapies have allowed those hindered by pain to live full and vibrant lives, but the stigma around opioid use was exacerbated in 2016 due to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, that both seriously discouraged doctors from prescribing these drugs and also over attributed the prescription of them as the cause of addiction and overdose. While opioids are not a one-size fits all pain reliever, the rollback on prescriptions has disproportionately impacted people with disabilities, people of color, women, and incarcerated folks. Kate Nicholson, founder of the National Pain Advocacy Center, believes now is the time to course-correct. Pain relief, in her view, is a civil right. Listener Note: There is still time to submit a question for our “Ask an Expert” podcast series on all things free speech. To submit a question for our final episode on education and book bans, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at podcast@aclu.org.

This is "Ask an Expert," a special mini-series where our constitutional experts answer YOUR civil rights and civil liberties questions. For our first edition, we are diving deep into Free Speech, and talking to expert Ben Wizner, the Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project. Free Speech is widely considered the bedrock of democracy, but still, many Americans feel both conflicted and confused by what actually constitutes free speech, what we can say, where we can say it, and who can stop us. We have been sourcing free speech questions from you over email, social media, and our phone line. We’ve sorted through the questions and categorized them into a few episodes. On today's episode, we’re getting back to the basics with Free Speech 101 addressing hate speech, misinformation, government regulation of corporate speech, cancel culture, and why we defend free speech.

On June 1, 2020, Black Lives Matter protesters gathered in Lafayette Square Park near the White House to protest against police brutality and the police killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. In a violation of civil rights and what the New York Times named “one of the defining moments of the Trump presidency,” then President Trump and his administration called upon law enforcement to use force and violence to remove protesters from the area, without warning. A short while later, President Trump walked across the street to a nearby church St Johns for a photo opp. Protesters were hurt, media personnel were attacked, and church volunteers and clergy were pushed off the patio of St. Johns and tear gassed. In response, the ACLU of DC filed to sue President Trump, Attorney General Barr, Secretary of Defense Esper, the D.C. Metropolitan Police department and numerous other federal officials on behalf of Black Lives Matter D.C. and other plaintiffs affected. And while what happened on June 1st shocked many of us, for civil rights activists it was a very familiar story, something to add to a long list of similar incidents. Freedom of speech and assembly are important tools in the fight for civil rights, but these rights, when exercised by Black Americans, are frequently met with violent pushback from authorities. Today, we are looking back on this event in light of the ACLU of DC’s case against federal officials and in light of the Biden administration’s new policy changes meant to ensure that this never happens again. Case Update: https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/civil-rights-groups-push-appeal-hold-federal-officials-financially-accountable-attack Listener Note: We’re launching a three-week “Ask an Expert” podcast series about all things free speech: online censorship and deplatforming, campus speech and cancel culture and education and book bans. So here’s where you come in. We want to answer your questions! What does the law say about social media companies deplatforming users? Does our constitution support cancel culture? If you have a question you’d like us to answer, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at podcast@aclu.org.

Lawmakers, parents, think tanks, and conservative pundits have waged a war over how to teach students about systemic racism. As a result, school board members have been ousted, and some educators have resigned over the death threats, social media bullying, and harassment they’ve received from those who are adamant that teaching a more inclusive history harms students. These activists and lawmakers have centered much of their anger on a framework called Critical Race Theory. Though they’ve used it as a catchall for wokeness, political correctness, and leftist indoctrination, the term actually refers to a body of legal scholarship from the 70s and 80s that says racism is not just a result of individual prejudice, but something embedded in the legal system and in government policy. Kimberlé Crenshaw was among the scholars who developed the theory. She also coined the term “intersectionality,” a framework that takes into account how a person’s identities combine to create unique forms of discrimination or privilege. She is a Distinguished Professor of law at Columbia University and at UCLA, co-founder of the African American Policy Forum at Columbia, and host of the podcast “Intersectionality Matters.” Listener Note: We’re launching a three-week “Ask an Expert” podcast series about all things free speech: online censorship and deplatforming, campus speech and cancel culture and education and book bans. So here’s where you come in. We want to answer your questions! What does the law say about social media companies deplatforming users? Does our constitution support cancel culture? If you have a question you’d like us to answer, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at podcast@aclu.org.