News & Commentary

In recent months, at least seven children have either died in custody or died after being detained by federal immigration agencies at the border. These children came to the United States desperate for shelter and safety, but found inhumanity and suffering, under our government’s care, instead. Their deaths reveal just how dire the

In recent months, at least seven children have either died in custody or after being detained by federal immigration agencies at the border. These children came to the United States desperate for shelter and safety, but found inhumanity and suffering, under our government’s care, instead. Their deaths reveal just how dire the

This week, President Trump kicked off his re-election campaign by tweeting a threat to deport millions of immigrants, apparently referring to his administration’s plans for mass raids on families across the country. Meanwhile, news continues to break about what his administration is already doing, as dizzying as it is horrifying: A six-year-old girl dying in the Arizona desert on the way to seek asylum, a premature baby languishing at a border holding site, a trans woman dying from pneumonia after asking to be deported rather than remain in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention without proper medical care. What’s remarkable is that in the midst of the extreme rhetoric and reality, people across the country are finding common ground on immigr

Today, the Supreme Court announced that a governmental display of a 40-foot-tall Latin cross as a war memorial for all veterans does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision ignores our constitutional commitment to official religious neutrality and is a slap in the face to non-Christian veterans. There is, however, a small silver lining: The opinion itself was narrow, making clear that the ruling is not an invitation for government officials to erect new religious displays.In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the court concluded that the Bladensburg Cross — originally built to honor a Maryland county’s World War I dead — is constitutional for a combination of reasons, including its nearly hundred-year history and the court’s belief that the cross has somehow taken on an “added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials.” But there are several flaws in the court’s reasoning.First, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Alito cites the rows of white crosses that memorialize fallen American service members in World War I cemeteries overseas. Yet those crosses are tied to the individual faith of each soldier. Notably, the graves of Jewish service members in those cemeteries are marked with the Star of David, not a Latin cross. That’s because the Latin cross is inextricably linked to the Christian belief in the crucifixion of Jesus, the resurrection, and the promise of eternal life—a point emphasized in friend-of-the-court briefs filed by both the Baptist Joint Committee and the American Jewish War Veterans for the United States of America. As Justice Ginsburg explains in her dissent, the Latin cross is an “exclusively Christian symbol.” It is “not emblematic of any other faith,” and it certainly has “never shed its Christian character.”Second, the Bladensburg Cross does not stand as a memorial to fallen World War I soldiers alone. Although the cross was erected in the 1920s on private land as a World War I memorial, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission went out of its way in 1961 to acquire the cross and the land on which it sits — for the purpose of preserving the monument and, purportedly, to address traffic-safety concerns. But the Commission wasn’t satisfied with merely maintaining the cross’s connection to World War I; instead, it spent $100,000 renovating the monument, and then, in 1985, held a religious ceremony featuring prayer by a Catholic priest to rededicate the cross to veterans of all wars.Finally, a constitutional violation shouldn’t be granted safe harbor merely because it has endured over time. The Bladensburg Cross was privately built and owned, and could have stood forever, undisturbed and without controversy. When individuals express religious beliefs or display religious symbols on private property — however prominently — it is perfectly constitutional. That changes, though, once the government decides to meddle with private religious expression by taking ownership over it. Here, the cross became a symbol of official religious preference for Christians when the Commission got involved. That the Bladensburg Cross has remained in place for so long, displayed and maintained by the government, only compounds and amplifies this message of religious exclusion.Nevertheless, the court’s misguided focus on the monument’s age and the meaning of the cross as it relates to World War I necessarily limits the reach of today’s ruling. The decision merely permits the display of this specific monument given the unique circumstances surrounding it. It is not a license for government officials to put up religious symbols whenever and wherever they want. As the court’s majority emphasized, “retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones.”Those who value the separation of church and state must remain vigilant. In rewriting the meaning of the Latin cross and treating it as a secular icon, even in these limited circumstances, the court has eroded fundamental constitutional principles. If the government can redefine the most recognizable and sacred of religious symbols and practices, and then co-opt them for official purposes, the Establishment Clause’s ban on government promotion of religion — and government preference for one faith — could soon become a relic of the past.

After seeing states like Alabama and Georgia pass one extreme abortion ban after another, other states are starting to push back. Last week, governors in Illinois, Maine, and Vermont signed historic bills to protect abortion rights or expand access to abortion care in their states. This follows action last month in Nevada; other states, including California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, may not be far behind.

Ava Duvernay’s new miniseries, When They See Us, retells the harrowing story of the five Black and Latinx boys wrongfully imprisoned for the rape and near murder of a young woman in New York’s Central Park in 1989. In this telling, she tackles racist practices that echo to the past, but are very much present in the current era of mass incarceration. The story is as complex as it is damning. Duvernay chronicles how police, prosecutors, judges, jailers, and the media worked in concert to

President Trump announced today that former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director Thomas Homan will return to his administration as “border czar,” a new post he described during an interview with “Fox & Friends.”The news comes immediately after we’ve learned even more shocking revelations about the treatment of migrant families and children in U.S. custody, including along the border. But Homan’s appointment will likely intensify the cruelty of the administration’s border policies.Homan was one of three administration officials, including current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who signed a memo to now-former  Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen which paved the way for the family separation policy. The memo stated that DHS could “permissibly direct the separation of parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be prosecuted.”  It also recommended that the department “pursue prosecution of all amenable adults who cross our border illegally, including those presenting with a family unit, between ports of entry.”  Thousands of parents and children continue to suffer the consequences of this viciously cruel decree.While Homan was the one who recommended the policy of family separation, he tried to blame everybody but himself. He claimed that “you’d have to put the blame on the parents” for family separation and echoed Trump’s

Since taking office, the Trump administration has launched a systematic attack on laws that exist to protect all of us from discrimination when we seek basic health care.  Today, we’re taking them back to court over it. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) resurrected a policy that allows health care providers — including hospital

As we mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day this week, we honor the ultimate sacrifice that so many have made for this great country. The men and women who join our armed forces and put themselves in harm’s way to defend this nation are beacons of courage. Their gender, the color of their skin, or whom they love should have no bearing on their ability to serve. Nor should their religion.That’s why, today, we celebrate the latest milestone in our quest for true religious diversity and equality in the military: the U.S. Air Force’s recent granting of an accommodation to our client, Harpreetinder Singh Bajwa, to be the first Sikh active-duty airman to serve with a beard, turban, and unshorn hair.Even though Sikhs have long served in the armed forces of some of our closest allies — including Canada, Great Britain, and India — opportunities in the United States military today have been uneven at best. The Army has led the way in granting religious accommodations, though it took an ACLU lawsuit in 2015 to solidify that progress. After reviewing hundreds of pages of evidence, a federal court dispelled the myth that grooming and uniform accommodations granted to soldiers may impede the military’s ability to achieve its mission or cause any other danger or harm.Indeed, the U.S. military has already granted hundreds of thousands of exceptions to its appearance policies, allowing everything from full-sleeve tattoos to beards for those with a sensitive-skin condition. As a result, the court explained, the Army could not legally justify denying our client a religious accommodation.Slowly, the Air Force has followed suit.In 2018, an ACLU client became the first Air Force officer authorized to wear hijab during her training and service. She has subsequently been so successful that she was awarded “Airman of the Week” honors by her colleagues and featured in an NBC documentary. Later that year, the Air Force granted its first religious accommodation allowing for a beard to a Muslim airman. Having heard about these successes, Airman 1st Class Bajwa, crew chief at the McChord Air Force Base in Washington, contacted the Sikh American Veterans Alliance and the ACLU, who helped secure this historic accommodation.But it shouldn’t take a cadre of ACLU lawyers and more than four months of military review to process every such request.To make good on its commitment to religious diversity, the Department of Defense should make the religious accommodation process easier and faster. Given the variety of accommodations already granted, as illustrated above, grants of similar requests should be nearly automatic. Likewise, the department’s policy promising final review of accommodation requests “within 30 days” must become lived reality, not just words on paper.And, without further ado, it’s time for the other branches to fall in line. No American should have to choose between following her faith and serving her country, whether as a soldier or airman, or as a sailor, Marine, or Coast Guardsman. The members of our armed forces put their bodies on the line to defend the ideals of liberty and equality upon which this country was founded — now it’s up to the government to live up to those same ideals.