 |
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Current Docket
Free Speech Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman v. Bredesen, et al. Abdur’Rahman has a pending constitutional challenge to the lethal injection protocol which includes some First Amendment claims, as well as the Eighth Amendment “cruel and unusual” argument. ACLU-TN filed a brief in the case addressing only the First Amendment issues, arguing that (1) the Eighth Amendment and the First Amendment both mandate the public’s presence during the entire execution because the public’s perception is needed to determine whether an execution protocol meets evolving standards of decency; (2) courts assessing the constitutionality of execution methods partly rely on eyewitness testimony because it is crucial to the review of execution protocols which the courts frequently undertake; (3) the prevailing opinion that lethal injection is the most “humane and painless” available execution method may change with the evolution of technology and society’s perceptions; (4) eyewitness media reports provide the documentation needed for society to make its judgments; and (5) the protocol presently used in Tennessee violates constitutional mandates by preventing the public and the press from witnessing the execution through the use of a chemical called Pavulon. This chemical is a paralyzing agent that creates a “chemical veil” that masks suffering of people who aren’t fully sedated during execution. Pavulon makes the condemned look serene because of its paralytic effect on the muscles. The face muscles cannot move or contract to show pain and suffering. It therefore provides a chemical veil over the proceedings. Sidelines, the student press at MTSU, also joined on the brief. Oral arguments were on June 8, 2005, and a ruling is pending. ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorney Stephen Zralek drafted the brief, which was also signed by ACLU-TN Staff Attorney Mel Fowler-Green. American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, et. al. v. Bredesen In late May 2003, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a law authorizing the production of a A "Choose Life" license plate, as part of the state's specialty plate program. The program allows for the production of specialty plates, which cost the consumer $35 over the basic cost for registration. A portion of the extra funds benefit the group or organization sponsoring the plate. Approval of plates requires legislative adoption. The A "Choose Life" plate was sponsored by, and benefits, New Life Resources, Inc., a local anti-choice organization. The bill approving a A "Choose Life" plate was passed by the state legislature, then became law without Governor Bredesen's signature. On the other hand, the legislature failed to approve a A "pro-choice" specialty tag. In November 2003, ACLU-TN, the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project (RFP), and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) filed the lawsuit challenging not only the statute authorizing the A "Choose Life" plates but also the legislature's general policy and practice of approving specialty license plates. Several organizations intervened in the case, including New Life Resources, Inc. On summary judgment, ACLU attorneys argued that the law authorizing the “Choose Life” specialty license plate violates the First Amendment because it discriminates against opposing viewpoints. They also argued that the current policy allows the General Assembly to discriminate against those with viewpoints it does not condone. United District Court Judge Todd Campbell ruled that the statute creating the "Choose Life" license plate tag was unconstitutional. The court, however, did not strike down Tennessee's specialty license plate program. The intervenors, New Life Resources, Inc. appealed the decision to the 6 th Circuit, which overturned the lower court’s decision in March. Plaintiffs filed the petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. The petition was denied. Plaintiffs in the case include ACLU of Tennessee, Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, Inc., and three individuals. ACLU attorneys include Julie Sternberg and Carrie Flaxman of the ACLU RFP, and Mel Fowler-Green, staff attorney for the ACLU-TN. LGBT American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, et. al. v. Darnell, et. al. July 14, 2006: In April, 2005, ACLU-TN filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment.” The case seeks declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent the Tennessee Secretary of State and the Tennessee State Division of Elections from placing on the ballot in 2006 the proposed amendment to Article XI of the Tennessee Constitution contained in Senate Joint Resolution 31 because of serious procedural deficiencies. A proposed amendment must first be passed by a majority of the membership of each house during one term of the General Assembly. The Tennessee Constitution then specifically requires that the proposed amendment be published six months prior to the election of the next General Assembly. Then, during the next General Assembly term, each house must pass the amendment by a two-thirds majority vote. Only then may the amendment be put on the statewide ballot. The amendment must receive over half of the total votes cast in the gubernatorial election in order to be ratified. ACLU-TN argues that t he proposed amendment embodied in Senate Joint Resolution 31 was not published in compliance with Article XI, Section 3 and such failure to meet the six-month publication requirement renders Senate Joint Resolution 31 unconstitutional and invalidates the amending process. Shortly after the case was filed, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 91 state legislators. ADF is an Arizona-based conservative religious legal organization founded and funded by such groups as Focus on the Family. They have attempted to insert themselves in nearly every marriage equality case in the country. In August they were granted a permissive intervention and will now be parties in the case. The Chancery Court dismissed the case on summary judgment – finding in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a motion in the Tennessee Supreme Court asking them to take the case on direct and expedited appeal (by-passing the Court of Appeals). The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the request and placed the case on an expedited calendar. The court upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Plaintiffs include ACLU-TN , the Tennessee Equality Project, Representatives Larry Turner, Beverly Robison Marrero, and Tommie Brown, and several individual citizens (including Bruce Barry). The case is in front of Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle. Attorneys in the case are Abby Rubenfeld (Rubenfeld Law Office) and Anne C. Martin (Bone McAllester Norton), ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorneys, and Mel Fowler-Green, staff attorney.
Religious Freedom John and Jane Doe v. Wilson County School System On September 27, 2006 the ACLU-TN filed a lawsuit on behalf of John and Jane Doe and their son James Doe. The lawsuit alleges that Lakeview Elementary School violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by endorsing and promoting a range of sectarian religious activities. The plaintiffs allege that the Wilson County school system endorses and promotes a range of religious activities, including the "Praying Parents," "Prayer at the Flag Pole," the National Day of Prayer event, and teacher-led classroom prayers. For example, "The Praying Parents" are identified on the school website as a group of parents who meet monthly "to pray for our school, faculty, staff, and children." The group, who meets in the school cafeteria at the start of the school day, is endorsed in the school's monthly newsletter; their flyers are distributed to students; and their members enter the classroom to inform students that "the Praying Parents" have prayed for them. In addition, plaintiffs allege and have evidence of teacher-led prayer and religious songs in the classroom. The lawsuit was filed only after repeated attempts by the plaintiffs to end the religious activities in their child's school. Despite plaintiffs' requests, Wilson County School administrators continued to promote and sponsor the religious activities; furthermore, school administrators indicated to the parents that the school intended to continue to support the religious activities. ACLU-TN's lawsuit alleges that the school administrators went so far as to encourage the family to withdraw their child from Lakeview Elementary school. The family is now home-schooling their child. ACLU-TN's lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory or nominal damages, and attorney’s fees. A case management hearing took place on November 27, 2006 and a trial date for a preliminary injunction was scheduled for summer 2007 and a trial date on the merits for the Fall 2007. The defendants in the lawsuit include the Wilson County School System; Dr. Jim Duncan, Director of Wilson County Schools; Wendell Marlowe, Principal of Lakeview Elementary School; Yvonne Smith, Assistant Principal of Lakeview Elementary School; and Janet Adamson, teacher at Lakeview Elementary School. The attorney is Edmund J. Schmidt, III, ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorney.
American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and K.O. Herston v. Monroe County In January 2004, ACLU-TN filed a lawsuit challenging the posting of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the Monroe County Courthouse in Madisonville. The lawsuit, ACLU-TN et al. v. Monroe County, was filed on behalf of ACLU-TN members residing in Monroe County and K.O. Herston, an attorney practicing in Monroe County. In the lawsuit, ACLU-TN argues that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment, which prohibits government from promoting or supporting a religious doctrine. ACLU-TN asked that the plaque be taken down in order to protect and preserve religious freedom. On December 3, 2004, Judge Varlan stayed the proceedings pending a Supreme Court decision in two cases challenging governmental displays of the Ten Commandments. On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court struck down a display in two county courthouses. In ACLU v. McCreary County (an ACLU of Kentucky case), the Supreme Court held that a public governmental display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, even when it was accompanied by other presumably secular documents, when the intent of the display was religious. In the wake of the McCreary ruling, and on advice by counsel, Monroe County removed the unconstitutional display – without a court order. The issue of a permanent injunction and attorney’s fees still remain. A motion for summary judgment was filed in September 2005. The decision is pending. Attorneys in the case are ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorney K. O. Herston and Mel Fowler-Green, ACLU-TN staff attorney. American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, et. al. v. On behalf of concerned residents of Rutherford County, ACLU-TN filed a lawsuit in April 2002 arguing that a display of the Ten Commandments in the Rutherford County Courthouse violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The display was part of a larger "Foundations of American Law and Government" display, which included the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner, the Mayflower Compact, the National Motto, the Preamble to the state constitution, and a drawing and explanation of Lady Justice. The lawsuit pointed to the legislative history behind the posting as evidence that the Rutherford County Commission had a religious purpose for the display. As early as 1999, the Rutherford County Commission considered the first in a series of resolutions authorizing the posting of the Ten Commandments alone. In June 2002, United States District Court Judge Robert Echols granted a preliminary injunction in favor of ACLU-TN, ruling that the Ten Commandments plaque hanging in the Rutherford County Courthouse as part of the display was unconstitutional and must be taken down immediately. The Ten Commandments plaque was removed on Monday, June 24, 2002. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a permanent injunction. Judge Echols postponed any action in the case until the United States Supreme Court issued their ruling in the McCreary case, a 10 commandments case with a similar fact pattern out of Kentucky. The USSC ruled in June 2005 that the McCreary “Foundations of American Law and Government” display was unconstitutional, In Janaury 2006, ACLU-TN filed motions to lift the stay of all proceedings and for a permanent injunction. Judge Echols denied our application for a permanent injunction and scheduled a settlement conference in Ocotber 2006. Plaintiffs include Leann Anderson, Steve Cates, Joan Hill, Dawn Weiss Montgomery, Leon Nuell, Joseph Shaw, and Dale Tipps. ACLU-TN also is a plaintiff on behalf of its members in Rutherford County. Attorneys in the case are George Barrett and Edmund Carey ( Barrett, Johnston & Parsley) ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorneys. |
|||||||||||
Privacy/Use/Copyright | ACLU & ACLU Foundation | Search | ACLU-TN - P. O. Box 120160 Nashville, TN 37212 (615) 320-7142 |
|||||||||||
