News & Commentary

In recent months, we have witnessed a historic wave of Black Lives Matter protests for racial justice — examining the racism in the criminal legal system and every other aspect of society, from education, to healthcare, to housing. A number of corporate leaders in the United States, Canada, and around the world have recognized the growing public anger at systemic racism and have made historic statements committing to change. We commend these statements — and also recognize how important it is that these words are backed up by action.   Take, for instance, Prem Watsa. Watsa is the CEO and chairman of Fairfax Financial and is often referred to as “Canada’s Warren Buffett.” Earlier this month, he joined as a co-chair of the “Canadian Council of Business Leaders Against Anti-Black Systemic Racism” and issued a statement that: “[t]he time for passing the buck is over. As business leaders in Canada, we have a responsibility to not only recognize that anti-Black systemic racism exists in this country but also take meaningful steps to end it.”   On Monday, Watsa spoke at the BlackNorth Initiative Summit where he and other Canadian business leaders committed to take substantive actions to end anti-Black systemic racism. Watsa’s leadership on this issue is important and should be celebrated. It also calls into question the business practices of Fairfax Financial, which is by far the largest insurer of the for-profit bail industry in the U.S.   The ACLU and Color Of Change have called on Watsa to immediately exit the predatory bail insurance industry in the United States, which disproportionately impacts communities of color, prolonging incarceration for those who cannot afford bail, and trapping others in cycles of debt.   Every day, hundreds of thousands of people sit trapped behind bars in the United States — innocent in the eyes of the law, yet incarcerated because they cannot afford bail. There is no path to ending mass incarceration in the United States without ending this current system of wealth-based, pretrial detention.   The U.S. is one of just two countries in the world where a for-profit bail system allows private corporations to be the arbiter of freedom, basing decisions on who to set free and who to detain on the ability to pay. This criminalizes poverty and reminds us that our “justice” system is more often designed with profit in mind. A 2017 report unmasked a small group of insurance companies — of which Fairfax Financial is by far the largest — that sit behind the thousands of storefront bail bond agencies, taking a cut of each bond.   But the tide is shifting. The recent divestment of three of the four largest companies backing the for-profit bail industry — Endeavour Capital, Tokio Marine, and Randall & Quilter — suggests that companies are starting to realize it is financially and politically untenable to stake their profits on the exploitation of people by the criminal legal system.   Fairfax continues to hold out, expanding its bail presence, and fighting reforms, even as the industry shrinks and becomes rightfully marginalized. The Canadian insurance conglomerate has become the largest backer of bail bonds in the U.S. Not only has it refused to divest from the predatory industry, it has expanded, stepping in to take the place of others that have made the responsible decision to exit. The website of Fairfax Financial’s US subsidiary features a “Fight Bail Reform” page, and Fairfax has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight bail reform.   It’s companies like Fairfax Financial that are keeping the bail bonds industry alive in the United States, despite the fact that for-profit bail is not even legal in Canada and behavior that mimics it is met with harsh punishment. In Canada “selling bail bonds can earn you two years in prison on a charge equivalent to bribing a juror” and is considered an obstruction of justice. We’re calling on Fairfax Financial and its founder Prem Watsa to stop participating in this shrinking pariah of an industry.   The mass exodus from bail by most major financial actors comes after the industry has been repeatedly exposed for the ways it exploits Black and Brown communities, props up injustice, and often relies upon extortion, conspiracy, and other illegal practices in order to conduct its business. It comes after bail bond advertising was banned from Google and Facebook due to the industry’s role exploiting desperate families. And it comes as states and counties across the United States —  with the help of legislators, courts, and progressive prosecutors — are dramatically reducing or ending the use of money bail altogether.    As important as Fairfax is to the U.S. bail industry, bail insurance represents a tiny part — 0.16 percent — of its overall insurance business. It could divest easily and quickly. Doing so would put Prem Watsa’s money where his mouth is.   We applaud Watsa’s commitment to taking meaningful action to end anti-Black systemic racism. He should begin by ensuring that his company halts its efforts to fight bail reform and exits the predatory bail insurance industry.

For Black and Brown people, individuals with disabilities, and the LGBTQ community, any contact with the criminal legal system can be a life sentence of punishment. It is not just the precious time taken away from families and communities and turned over to a maze of arrests, convictions, or incarceration. That lifetime of punishment also includes the 48,000 systemic consequences triggered by those mechanisms, each of which creates nearly insurmountable barriers to housing, education, healthcare, family support, or other basic human needs.  Each year, approximately 5 million people are arrested in the United States, and between 70-100 million people have a criminal record. All of these people are routinely blocked from accessing stable housing, medical benefits, employment, financial support, food assistance, and even getting a driver’s license. And that was true before this country was overwhelmed by a global pandemic and the ensuing economic catastrophe.   The COVID-19 crisis has made people with criminal system contact more vulnerable by exacerbating these problems. The restrictions that already make reintegration to the community following incarceration difficult under regular circumstances create an impenetrable barrier to successful reintegration during a pandemic — a crisis that has created mass unemployment, a looming housing crisis, and stretched health care systems thin.   Despite what many have said, this pandemic and the generational harm it has exposed are not equal opportunity disasters. Because people of color, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ individuals are disproportionately targeted by the criminal legal system, they are also disproportionately and devastatingly impacted by underlying community frailty and systemic consequences. The longstanding exclusion of Black and Brown communities from quality and affordable health care, education, employment, and housing has been laid bare and worsened by the devastation that COVID-19 has unleashed on these communities. It is imperative to take immediate action to support people who have had criminal legal system contact, particularly those who are exiting detention facilities amidst the COVID-19 crisis with limited access to supportive services.   Consider the experience of a person leaving a jail or prison facility, or even a police station after their mug shot is shown to the public by the local media. Perhaps their health has worsened since they went to jail. They may have had a physically or mentally traumatic experience while in detention. This person, away from their family, the larger community, society, and certainly the job market, has had to learn to survive in a cage. Upon release, they may be given a few dollars and are forced to navigate a world that may look very different from what they remember.   In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and with the potential of a second surge of the virus in the fall, people leaving detention facilities are more vulnerable than ever. Given that most people exiting the criminal legal system have not had income for months or even years and are without a job, they must be able to access affordable and safe housing, food, mental, emotional and physical health care, and employment. Importantly, they will need a mentor or peer-to-peer support person who can help them successfully transition back into the community.   People leaving the criminal legal system also have to learn how to survive despite the thousands of restrictive laws, regulations, and other limitations applied to them. As a start, to address the harmful effects of this longstanding exclusion, state and local governments should offer people immediate access to transitional housing, health care, financial and food benefits, and other resources. This should include lifting restrictions on access to services based on an arrest, an open criminal case, or a criminal record. Additionally, every detention facility should collaborate with transitional services organizations, housing providers, and reentry organizations well in advance of a person’s expected release date. Funding should be directed to those community-based organizations specializing in reentry so that they can expand their efforts.   None of this is impossible. The lack of structural support that currently exists is the consequence of decades of deliberate decisions by policymakers and system actors, and society’s unwillingness to hold them accountable. It can be undone, and it must be. The criminal legal system exploits and exacerbates the gaps created in communities by generational divestment in local services and supports. In the long term, building or renewing our focus on filling those gaps is an absolute necessity if we are going to undo the harm the system has caused. In the immediate term, taking direct action to support people returning to the community through peer-to peer services, stable transitional housing, access to medical care, financial benefits, and food assistance is imperative. There are no perfect or quick solutions to these systemic challenges, but collective progress cannot wait.

The first time I voted was in 1968. As a blind man, I needed the assistance of a poll worker to cast my ballot. I’ll never forget the moment the poll worker looked at my ballot and said loudly, for everybody to hear, “You want to vote for who?”   The poll worker’s comment left me shocked, embarrassed, and wondering whether she marked the ballot the way I wanted. Years later, I would ask my wife to mark my ballot. She would joke with me, “I know you love me, but now I know you really trust me.” I knew my wife would mark my ballot the right way.   I’m lucky to have the help of someone I trust, but I shouldn’t need to rely on somebody else to exercise my constitutional right to vote. People with disabilities have the same legal right to a private, independent vote as anybody else. By forcing people with disabilities to compromise these rights, election officials are disenfranchising us and sending the message that our votes don’t matter — and breaking the law.   In the 50 years since I cast my first vote, there has been some progress in increasing accessibility for people with disabilities, due to reforms included in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Help America Vote Act, which aim to ensure accessibility. But our voting system will never be truly accessible until people with disabilities can vote without the assistance of another person, and without compromising their right to privacy. Unfortunately, that’s still not the case for the 35 million-plus eligible voters with disabilities, who face barriers that vary from state to state.   Here’s how I vote today as a Washington, D.C. resident: I request my ballot online and mark it electronically, using my screen reader. Then I must print the ballot, stamp it, and put it in the mail. The last part is feasible for me, but it may not be feasible for someone with paralysis or another disability that impedes mobility, or for someone without the financial means for a printer or computer. Due to hurdles like these, many people have to rely on a family member, poll worker, or even a stranger to cast their vote. Expanding access to vote by mail has been a major step toward accessibility because it allows people with disabilities to avoid the challenges of getting to the polls, waiting in line, and facing physical barriers at a polling place. It should also be an option for all voters, especially due to the dangers posed by in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. But for true accessibility, people with disabilities who vote by mail must be able to mark, verify, and cast their ballots privately and independently.   We should also have the choice to vote in person. In fact, voting in person can be the more accessible option for some voters, such as those with print disabilities. But it’s still far from being truly accessible. Too many times, I’ve encountered poll workers that don’t know how to operate accessible machines, even when they are available. This makes the process of voting take much longer than necessary. I don’t want to have to hold up a whole line of voters just because the poll worker isn’t properly trained on how to use a machine. I want to vote efficiently, and in secret.   Voting is one of our oldest, foundational rights, but voting laws are constantly changing. In some cases, it’s for the better. For example, a dozen states have expanded access to vote by mail for some elections this year. But there’s still more work to be done to make sure the right to vote applies to everyone, including people with disabilities.

Corporate anti-racism is all the rage these days. We’ve exposed the hypocrisy of companies from Amazon to Airbnb that have taken to social media in recent weeks to speak out against systemic racism and express support for the Movement for Black Lives, but refuse to adopt corporate policies to back up their claims. McDonald’s is the latest company we’ve called out for joining the chorus of brands releasing hollow solidarity statements and launching a full on woke-washing marketing campaigns to profit from the Movement for Black Lives, while doing nothing to change worker policies that perpetuate systemic racism. After the killing of George Floyd, McDonald’s produced a digital ad to honor Floyd and six other victims of police brutality. “We do not tolerate inequity, injustice, or racism,” reads the text that flashes momentarily on the screen before it ends with “Black Lives Matter.” 

I’ve been documenting violent and militarized police responses to protests in Portland for more than four years, but nothing prepared me for the unrestrained brutality I’ve witnessed and experienced in recent days.  Night after night, since the police killing of George Floyd, people have been taking to the streets to demand an end to racist policing and a new vision of public safety for our community, one that protects the safety of our Black community members. Police in Portland, who have their own history of killings, have been meeting those demands with violent attempts to silence the protests.

Recently, we’ve seen a reckoning in the culinary world around the whitewashing and co-opting of ethnic food. The industry has long been controlled by a limited number of people — many of them white — who have authored and then profited from the foods we eat and the stories we share. But the tide is turning. And our guest for this episode, Padma Lakshmi, is part of that movement. You’ve likely seen her tasting and critiquing some of the best chefs in the U.S. on Top Chef, sharing her favorite recipes across social media and advocating for immigrants rights and women’s rights. Padma has a long list of accomplishments. She sits on the Jane Spirit Leadership Committee, is an Emmy nominated host and executive producer, a New York Times best-selling author, founder of the Endometriosis Foundation, and is an ACLU artist ambassador for women’s rights and immigrants’ rights. She joined us on At Liberty this week to talk about her new Hulu show, “Taste the Nation,” where she breaks down important questions about the influence of immigration on American food and culture. “This show is about allowing assimilation while still giving credit, and letting those originators of those foods speak about the food themselves,” says Lakshmi.

Since Roger Stone’s commutation first made news, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been quick to condemn Donald Trump’s grant of clemency to his long-time confidant. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to threaten legislation that would curtail the president’s clemency powers, and other elected officials have shared similar outrage.   Their scorn is well-founded. “This is the most corrupt and crony-istic act in perhaps all of recent history,” legal expert Jeffrey Toobin told CNN, with his ire centered in part on the notion that Roger Stone will never have served any time in prison.   Yet for as livid as both the public and elected officials are with the president’s persistent amoral flouting of judicial norms and democratic ideals, part of that anger should stem from the fact that Trump could use his clemency powers to actually do good — to actually save lives by liberating people who, unlike Roger Stone, are trapped in prison. So, too, could governors.   Many governors possess the same clemency powers as the president, yet far too few have exercised that power to save the lives of people incarcerated in state prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. When clemency is exercised at the state level, it is often done in much the same way President Trump has done it: on an individualized, case-by-case basis, where only a lucky few are offered the shot at redemption that clemency uniquely offers. That must change, and the change starts with an honest assessment of what we have seen play out over the past few months.   The lack of gubernatorial response to the spread of COVID-19 in jails and prisons is a policy failure made all the more noticeable by the voice and volume of those who shed light on this issue. Since the outset of the pandemic, public health experts unequivocally stated that getting people out of jails and prisons must be part of any state’s response to the Coronavirus. Research proved that ignoring COVID-19 in carceral facilities would have

After a week of chaos, international students were able to relax after the Trump administration agreed to rescind its latest attack on immigrants: an attempt to ban international students whose classes would be entirely online this fall. The administration has normalized chaos, fear, and trauma over the last few years, beginning with airports all over the country during the Muslim ban and tearing children apart from their parents to attempting to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary Protected Status programs. In the last several months, the administration has repeatedly used the pandemic as a reason to further grind the immigration system to a halt, issuing orders to terminate more immigration programs and options. The administration’s reckless disregard for human life has been highlighted by its failure and unwillingness to address the pandemic — instead, President Trump focuses on ways to exploit the pandemic.   On July 6, the Trump administration took a swing at students, and missed. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under the government’s purview, announced that international students at universities and colleges that were exclusively online this fall would be denied visas, and those already in the United States must transfer schools, leave, or face removal. This announcement attempted to pull back a previous COVID-19 government policy, which indicated that students could attend classes remotely “for the duration of the emergency.”   Students’ lives and futures were shattered with just a short press release by ICE, the arm of the Department of Homeland Security charged with overseeing this student visa program. The announcement raised questions regarding why an enforcement agency oversees a student program, instead of USCIS, the immigration benefits agency. The short answer is that this program was legislated into a securitized monitoring system after 9/11 and eventually landed at ICE’s doorstep. This is yet another reminder that the over-policing of communities of color has been repeatedly embedded into our systems, resulting in lifetimes of unjust policies.   There are over 1 million international students in the U.S. who began to scramble after the announcement, worried about their next step. Students were left with impossible questions: Do they risk their safety in order to stay by attending in-person classes? Is their home country allowing entry for people coming from the U.S.? Will they have access to internet to attend online courses? Is their home country safe for them? What if they are placed in removal proceedings and into the U.S.’ horrific immigration detention centers, putting them at heightened COVID-19 risk?   The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee spent the week helping students around the country, many consumed with fear and uncertainty. One student from Lebanon, a country in the midst of an economic meltdown and on the brink of a humanitarian disaster, realized online learning would be a non-starter if he returned. Many parts of the country currently have no or limited access to electricity. That student was not alone, as others from Yemen, Syria, Palestine (Gaza), and other countries expressed similar concerns. Students from Haiti, Jamaica, Equatorial Guinea, Pakistan, Colombia, Russia, Vietnam, Chile, and Brazil also raised a range of hurdles such as civil war and hostilities, lack of essential services such as electricity and internet, and inability of their local government to provide the safety and security necessary for a safe learning environment.   Students, whose families worked for years to save money for them to study in the U.S., confronted the extreme strain and burden on their families if they were to return. Many students were also afraid to go back home, fearing repercussions for their lifestyles or political views. With COVID-19 infections raging in the United States, some also wondered how they could comply with the current travel restrictions.   International students have long been a part of our history and a part of educational learning for all students. They also constitute a significant portion of enrolled students at many educational institutions — reportedly as high as 30 percent of the student population at one institution in 2018. Their classmates, shocked by the administration’s ban, launched petitions for hybrid models and many professors and institutions shifted their practices to try to allow their students to continue their studies here. Several even filed lawsuits to protect their students from these attacks. In one of these court proceedings, the government announced it would rescind its announcement.   A victory for over 1 million students in the United States, their loved ones here and abroad, and educational institutions nationwide. These victories are rare, but the upheaval and uncertainty are not. As rumors surge about President Trump taking another shot at upending the lives of DACA recipients, international students wonder if the government will try again to take away their security too. Trump-manufactured crisis after crisis, impacting the well-being, safety, and peace of mind of so many.   President Trump will likely continue in his failure to protect the people in America by exploiting the pandemic for his hateful agenda to dismantle our immigration system, rather than creating a coordinated response for the future of our nation. Though at times we might lose ourselves in the darkness of these failures, this week reminds us that there are no small wins. Every victory is immeasurable in its ability to help someone.   When we all fight together, those numbers grow — this week, to over 1 million.

In just over 100 days, Americans will vote not just for an individual candidate to occupy the Oval Office, but for a vision of the next era of the United States. That vision will hold answers to a range of key questions: Will we continue to restrict access to abortion for the most vulnerable? Will we continue to force local law enforcement to do the job of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), regardless of the consequences? Will we continue our racist system of mass incarceration that has harmed Black and Brown communities for decades? Since March 2019, the ACLU’s Rights for All campaign has sought answers to these questions, getting presidential candidates on the record on key civil liberties issues and educating voters on their responses.  Our view is that it’s not enough for presidential candidates to talk generally about their values and offer platitudes on the campaign trail. We need to know what their specific policies would be, and how they would institute those policies — and advance rights for all — if they secure the presidency.  One indication we have on how Joe Biden, the presumed Democratic nominee, might perform is found in the recently released Biden-Sanders policy recommendations. While not a definitive plan, it provides us with key insights into what a Joe Biden presidency would prioritize — and the results are mixed in terms of rights for all. Take reproductive rights for instance. Back in May 2019, an ACLU volunteer asked Biden if, as president, he would end the Hyde Amendment, a ban on abortion coverage for people enrolled in Medicaid that has denied care to people with low incomes — disproportionately women of color — for more than 40 years. Biden said “yes.”   Biden’s pledge to our volunteer to end Hyde was a reversal from his decades-long held position. Now, the Biden-Sanders task force recommendations reaffirm that promise to repeal Hyde, but don’t offer much on how exactly he’ll do that.  And the details matter. That’s why we’re holding Biden’s feet to the fire on this commitment, and pushing him to move the nation forward and expand access to abortion. We want Biden to clearly outline how he’ll eliminate abortion coverage restrictions and ensure that people can access abortion, no matter how much money they have or how they get their insurance. For starters, we need him to make a firm commitment to remove all abortion coverage restrictions from his first budget, and tell Congress he won’t sign bills with abortion coverage restrictions, if he is elected.   Advancing rights for all also includes the 2.3 million individuals who are incarcerated in local, state, and federal prisons and jails nationwide. Everyday, our nation’s leaders deny millions of Americans their humanity and justice, further securing the United States’ title as the biggest jailer in the world.  So where’s Biden on ending mass incarceration? Just two months after Biden promised to end the Hyde Amendment, he also pledged to an ACLU volunteer to cut the country’s prison population in half. Reducing our incarceration rate by 50 percent is a long overdue step towards liberation for millions of Americans trapped in an oppressive system. And it should very much be a priority for Joe Biden, given his role in pushing the 1994 Crime Bill, which helped create this crisis. Unfortunately, this commitment is missing from the released Biden-Sanders recommendations.  The Biden-Sanders platform takes positive steps by recommending the end of private prisons, which create perverse incentives for increased incarceration. It discusses the elimination of cash bail, and terminating mandatory minimum sentences. But it is silent on the concrete  commitment to cut incarceration by 50 percent, and the component pieces referenced in the platform are unlikely to get us there. The nation is demanding transformational leadership in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, and we need Biden to send the right signals. Without reaffirming a north star of 50 percent decarceration, one is left to wonder what will be the impact of Biden’s agenda.  Moving the nation forward also requires a commitment to equality for our nation’s immigrants, who are ensnared in a racist system designed to target people of color. Our vision of rights for all calls for an immediate end to collaboration between ICE and local law enforcement. In July 2019, an ACLU volunteer asked Biden where he stood on this issue, and he pledged to remove local law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement, including by ending the use of detainers. In the Biden-Sanders platform, there is a call to reverse the unjust use of 287(g) and similar programs that force local law enforcement to take on the role of immigration enforcement. We need follow-through on this agenda. Especially in the face of a devastating pandemic, we need all members of our communities to trust local government officials, and that cannot happen if immigrants are constantly in fear that local government actors are immigration agents in disguise.   The Biden-Sanders platform moves the fight to ensure rights for all an important step forward, but it doesn’t go far enough. If we want to end Hyde and all abortion coverage restrictions, get to 50 percent decarceration, and cut forced collaboration between immigration enforcement and local police, we need to keep the pressure on the Biden campaign. We must demand that the Biden campaign adopt these policy recommendations and articulate how it intends to institute them. Anything short of a clear roadmap is unacceptable. America deserves leaders who will act with urgency to make the dream of freedom and justice for all real for every person in this country.