Conservative Equivalent to the ACLU?

[Garinold]

What would you say is the Conservative equivalent to the ACLU? I know some of you might be thinking of the Heritage Foundation, but I don't think so. The Heritage Foundation seems to be more of a political, and academic, advocacy group. I know the ACLU brings court challenges across the country on a host of legal issues, and seems to be solely a legal advocacy group. I don't think the Heritage Foundation brings anywhere near the number of legal battles that the ACLU does.

What do you guys think?

 

[Nik]

The ACLU isn't a "liberal" organization. Its an organization designed to provide and fight for peoples rights. Unfortunately those rights seem to be significantly more important to liberals than conservatives and so it gets labeled as a "liberal" organization.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no conservative equivilant to the ACLU.

 

[editec]

What would you say is the Conservative equivalent to the ACLU? I know some of you might be thinking of the Heritage Foundation, but I don't think so. The Heritage Foundation seems to be more of a political, and academic, advocacy group. I know the ACLU brings court challenges across the country on a host of legal issues, and seems to be solely a legal advocacy group. I don't think the Heritage Foundation brings anywhere near the number of legal battles that the ACLU does.

What do you guys think?

I think there's a hell of a lot of very conservative people who are in the ACLU.

So I think you are mistaking the ACLU for a liberal organization.

The ACLU defends the bill of rights.

That's a very conservative thing to do.

But if the conservatives want to create another ACLU, why not?

I think it would be a good thing to do, actually.

The more organizations defending the bill of rights from being violated the better.

 

[Garinold]

I define this organization as being liberal because it does things like argue in Federal court that the card-board boxes setup by the homeless in NYC train stations are considered "homes" and that they are afforded the same expectation of privacy as any other house. For those of you that have even the scantest command of Constitutional law, you should know that I don't need to bother going over why a card board box, located in a NYC train station, has little to no expectation of privacy...not to mention the reason why zoning & housing laws can completely invalidate their entire Constitutional argument.


I define this organization as being liberal because 2 ACLU lawyers came to my college a year ago and were up in arms about the fact that the patriot act allows the FBI to investigate *public* library records. However, these 2 ACLU lawyers didn't give a sh*t about how the IRS has the power to investigate every single aspect of an individual's financial life (tax, credit, banking, business records...etc) without warrants, oversight, or meeting any even marginal standard of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.......If I need to explain why the ACLU lawyers are acting like "liberals" in this case don't bother posting.

I define this organization as being liberal because it wages legal battles across the country in attempts to get all manner or religious displays, even during holiday seasons, off public grounds. A conservative would recall the words "congress shall make no law.....respecting an establishment of religion". While there is case law that would suggest the "respecting an establishment of religion" part of Amendment 1 would prohibit a religious display on lets say the property of a firehouse, a conservative would interpret the 1st Amendment to suggest that Congress, or a state legislative body (as they are require to abide by the bill of rights through the doctrine of incorporation), "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and would thus include laws.....not simple displays for holiday celebration and commemoration. The ACLU is clearing being "liberal" with its interpretation of the religion clause of the 1st Amendment.

In general I would define this organization as being liberal because while it does a good job of defending political rights such as speech, assembly, expression, fair & speedy trial....etc, it doesn't give a fly sh*t about economic rights. When was the last time the ACLU sent a team of lawyers to defend a group of people facing immanent-domain? When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of certain regulatory entities (such as the new "pay tsar")? When was the last time the ACLU defended someone that had their credit & business records investigated by the IRS without warrant or even reasonable suspicion? When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve board? Has the ACLU been concerned in the slightest with the delegation of Congressional power to regulate inter-state commerce to the Presidency?

Here's a good one... When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of the Social Security program? I am not going to tell you way the Constitutionality of Social Security is questionable, but I'll give you a hint. Think about how money flows from one group to another in the program, then think about the doctrine of substantive due process, and the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment. This is a pretty unorthodox challenge to make, since it has become almost heretical to speak badly of social security in political discourse. However, if you think critically about this program, it is questionable.


I can go on and on. The fact is the ACLU definitely does have a liberal slant whether those of you that support it like it or not. If you pay attention to what they get worked up about, and what they don't give a rat's ass about, you'd know better.

 

[Agnapostate]

The ACLU isn't "liberal" to begin with. The ACLU is merely broadly civil libertarian (which often aligns it with socially progressive ideology), and opposes elements of "liberal" doctrines, such as hate crime legislation. A rightist equivalent would undoubtedly be the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), however.

 

[frazzledgear]

o

 

[Agnapostate]

The existence of socialism is indeed a necessary condition for the establishment of any true libertarian commonwealth because the elimination of the subordination of labor under capital is just as integral to liberty as the elimination of the subordination of a citizenry under the state. However, the ACLU's agenda is not presently centered around any economic agenda, nor even around a broader social agenda than is relevant to the Constitution and fundamental elements of liberty.

But congratulations on ignoring the reference to the ACLJ regardless; we can always count on you to do that.

 

[frazzledgear]

The ACLU isn't a "liberal" organization. Its an organization designed to provide and fight for peoples rights. Unfortunately those rights seem to be significantly more important to liberals than conservatives and so it gets labeled as a "liberal" organization.

Ignorance is not bliss. The ACLU is a communist founded institution that has stayed true to its original mandate and agenda - which has nothing to do with "protecting" our rights -but with bastardizing them in order to further the communist agenda laid out by its founders -just as is spelled out in the Communist Manifesto. (For those who have never bothered to read it, I suggest you do -a real eye opener.) The ACLU doesn't give a shit about your rights, sorry.

The Constitution didn't charge any private organization with "protecting" our rights -and the ACLU doesn't. Which is why the there isn't any conservative equal to the ACLU -because there is no role for such organizations under our Constitution in the first place. There is no shortage of constitutional and civil rights lawyers willing to take on any case involving the infringement of individual or civil rights -with literally thousands of them willing to take on such cases for free. None of whom are employed by the ACLU which will only take on specific kinds of cases that fulfills some aspect of its platform statement.

The Constitution specifically charges a branch of government with protecting our rights -not some private organization with its own agenda. Pretending the ACLU actually exists in order to somehow SAVE this country and that IT ALONE stands between you and a government that would strip you of your rights entirely -is worse than ignorance. Its dangerous. I'm convinced the ignorant, a class which seems to be only growing with each generation -will be the death of this country. If you are looking for a good education for your children -you won't find it in our public school system. Or people like you would have already known about the ACLU and not been repeating mindless claptrap that they exist to protect people like you when they will do no such thing. Not unless you are a member of NAMBLA and insisting that publishing instructions on how to seduce and rape little boys is a constitutional right of course.

The ACLU was founded for another purpose entirely. Protecting anyone's constitutional rights wasn't even on their list.

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin, co-founder ACLU

“The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on.” William Z. Foster, then National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, ACLU co-founder and author of Toward Soviet America

 

[Immanuel]

What would you say is the Conservative equivalent to the ACLU? I know some of you might be thinking of the Heritage Foundation, but I don't think so. The Heritage Foundation seems to be more of a political, and academic, advocacy group. I know the ACLU brings court challenges across the country on a host of legal issues, and seems to be solely a legal advocacy group. I don't think the Heritage Foundation brings anywhere near the number of legal battles that the ACLU does.

What do you guys think?

The only one that I know of is "The American Center for Law and Justice" aka ACLJ.

ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice

Immie

 

[Father Time]

Hey frazzledgear do you have any quotes from the last 50 years or not since they've purged themselves of commies a long time ago.

Also do you have any actual solid fucking proof that the ACLU is a communist organization today, or not?

 

[Garinold]

The existence of socialism is indeed a necessary condition for the establishment of any true libertarian commonwealth because the elimination of the subordination of labor under capital is just as integral to liberty as the elimination of the subordination of a citizenry under the state. However, the ACLU's agenda is not presently centered around any economic agenda, nor even around a broader social agenda than is relevant to the Constitution and fundamental elements of liberty.

But congratulations on ignoring the reference to the ACLJ regardless; we can always count on you to do that.

Agnapostate you haven't responded to a single thing that I have stated. If you actually know how to read you should go back and read what I wrote and respond to some of the accusations. If you are to lazy to do that, which I am certain you are, I'll make it easy for you. The ACLU does have an agenda because they have picked their Constitutional battles against the Gov't on very limited grounds. They don't fight the Gov't when it infringes on religious freedom (only when it displays religion), they ignore the 2nd Amendment, and they don't give a flying F&*k about economic rights.

Just ask yourself two simple questions instead of trying to sound smart bloviating about using socialism to establish a libertarian commonwealth. What does it say about an organization that fights the Government when it violates about half of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, but allows the Government to run rough-shot over the other half? What does it say about an organization that has the resources to challenge the expansion of Government power, well beyond what is outlined in the articles of the Constitution, sits back and does nothing?

For the life of me I have never met a group of people that actually were foolish enough to believe that the ACLU doesn't have a liberal agenda. That this organization is actually completely balanced and objective. Not even liberals I have met in collage have actually tried to argue this bullsh&t with me. I suppose they at least were smart enough to realize that an organization that protects political freedoms that exist in the Constitution, but does nothing to protect economic freedoms protected by the Constitution, has an agenda of some kind.

 

[editec]

I define this organization as being liberal because it does things like argue in Federal court that the card-board boxes setup by the homeless in NYC train stations are considered "homes" and that they are afforded the same expectation of privacy as any other house. For those of you that have even the scantest command of Constitutional law, you should know that I don't need to bother going over why a card board box, located in a NYC train station, has little to no expectation of privacy...not to mention the reason why zoning & housing laws can completely invalidate their entire Constitutional argument.


I define this organization as being liberal because 2 ACLU lawyers came to my college a year ago and were up in arms about the fact that the patriot act allows the FBI to investigate *public* library records. However, these 2 ACLU lawyers didn't give a sh*t about how the IRS has the power to investigate every single aspect of an individual's financial life (tax, credit, banking, business records...etc) without warrants, oversight, or meeting any even marginal standard of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.......If I need to explain why the ACLU lawyers are acting like "liberals" in this case don't bother posting.

I define this organization as being liberal because it wages legal battles across the country in attempts to get all manner or religious displays, even during holiday seasons, off public grounds. A conservative would recall the words "congress shall make no law.....respecting an establishment of religion". While there is case law that would suggest the "respecting an establishment of religion" part of Amendment 1 would prohibit a religious display on lets say the property of a firehouse, a conservative would interpret the 1st Amendment to suggest that Congress, or a state legislative body (as they are require to abide by the bill of rights through the doctrine of incorporation), "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and would thus include laws.....not simple displays for holiday celebration and commemoration. The ACLU is clearing being "liberal" with its interpretation of the religion clause of the 1st Amendment.

In general I would define this organization as being liberal because while it does a good job of defending political rights such as speech, assembly, expression, fair & speedy trial....etc, it doesn't give a fly sh*t about economic rights. When was the last time the ACLU sent a team of lawyers to defend a group of people facing immanent-domain? When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of certain regulatory entities (such as the new "pay tsar")? When was the last time the ACLU defended someone that had their credit & business records investigated by the IRS without warrant or even reasonable suspicion? When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve board? Has the ACLU been concerned in the slightest with the delegation of Congressional power to regulate inter-state commerce to the Presidency?

Here's a good one... When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of the Social Security program? I am not going to tell you way the Constitutionality of Social Security is questionable, but I'll give you a hint. Think about how money flows from one group to another in the program, then think about the doctrine of substantive due process, and the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment. This is a pretty unorthodox challenge to make, since it has become almost heretical to speak badly of social security in political discourse. However, if you think critically about this program, it is questionable.


I can go on and on. The fact is the ACLU definitely does have a liberal slant whether those of you that support it like it or not. If you pay attention to what they get worked up about, and what they don't give a rat's ass about, you'd know better.

In other words...you define them as leftist because they do things you don't believe are right.

I define that as typical right-think. Anything you righties (who don't understand conservative thinking as well as you imagine you do) object to is defined by you folks as leftist.

Pure nonsense of course.

Being left has a very specific meaning involving economic theory and how those economic theories play out in society as a whole.

As to the ACLU, I wasn't thrilled that they were defending the NAZI marches but their defence of the FIRST AMENDMENT doesn
t make them a NAZI organziation, either.

 

[Garinold]

I define this organization as being liberal because it does things like argue in Federal court that the card-board boxes setup by the homeless in NYC train stations are considered "homes" and that they are afforded the same expectation of privacy as any other house. For those of you that have even the scantest command of Constitutional law, you should know that I don't need to bother going over why a card board box, located in a NYC train station, has little to no expectation of privacy...not to mention the reason why zoning & housing laws can completely invalidate their entire Constitutional argument.


I define this organization as being liberal because 2 ACLU lawyers came to my college a year ago and were up in arms about the fact that the patriot act allows the FBI to investigate *public* library records. However, these 2 ACLU lawyers didn't give a sh*t about how the IRS has the power to investigate every single aspect of an individual's financial life (tax, credit, banking, business records...etc) without warrants, oversight, or meeting any even marginal standard of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.......If I need to explain why the ACLU lawyers are acting like "liberals" in this case don't bother posting.

I define this organization as being liberal because it wages legal battles across the country in attempts to get all manner or religious displays, even during holiday seasons, off public grounds. A conservative would recall the words "congress shall make no law.....respecting an establishment of religion". While there is case law that would suggest the "respecting an establishment of religion" part of Amendment 1 would prohibit a religious display on lets say the property of a firehouse, a conservative would interpret the 1st Amendment to suggest that Congress, or a state legislative body (as they are require to abide by the bill of rights through the doctrine of incorporation), "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and would thus include laws.....not simple displays for holiday celebration and commemoration. The ACLU is clearing being "liberal" with its interpretation of the religion clause of the 1st Amendment.

In general I would define this organization as being liberal because while it does a good job of defending political rights such as speech, assembly, expression, fair & speedy trial....etc, it doesn't give a fly sh*t about economic rights. When was the last time the ACLU sent a team of lawyers to defend a group of people facing immanent-domain? When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of certain regulatory entities (such as the new "pay tsar")? When was the last time the ACLU defended someone that had their credit & business records investigated by the IRS without warrant or even reasonable suspicion? When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve board? Has the ACLU been concerned in the slightest with the delegation of Congressional power to regulate inter-state commerce to the Presidency?

Here's a good one... When was the last time the ACLU challenged the Constitutionality of the Social Security program? I am not going to tell you way the Constitutionality of Social Security is questionable, but I'll give you a hint. Think about how money flows from one group to another in the program, then think about the doctrine of substantive due process, and the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment. This is a pretty unorthodox challenge to make, since it has become almost heretical to speak badly of social security in political discourse. However, if you think critically about this program, it is questionable.


I can go on and on. The fact is the ACLU definitely does have a liberal slant whether those of you that support it like it or not. If you pay attention to what they get worked up about, and what they don't give a rat's ass about, you'd know better.

In other words...you define them as leftist because they do things you don't believe are right.

I define that as typical right-think. Anything you righties (who don't understand conservative thinking as well as you imagine you do) object to is defined by you folks as leftist.

Pure nonsense of course.

Being left has a very specific meaning involving economic theory and how those economic theories play out in society as a whole.

As to the ACLU, I wasn't thrilled that they were defending the NAZI marches but their defence of the FIRST AMENDMENT doesn
t make them a NAZI organziation, either.

Well Edict if you actually think critically about all of my points, and explored the issues I brought up in it, instead of stating "you think their leftist because they do things you don't like" you would have made a more intelligent post. You would also arrive at the inevitable conclusion that they are in fact leftist. Its not simply "right think" read through the lines.

 

[William Joyce]

What would you say is the Conservative equivalent to the ACLU? I know some of you might be thinking of the Heritage Foundation, but I don't think so. The Heritage Foundation seems to be more of a political, and academic, advocacy group. I know the ACLU brings court challenges across the country on a host of legal issues, and seems to be solely a legal advocacy group. I don't think the Heritage Foundation brings anywhere near the number of legal battles that the ACLU does.

What do you guys think?

The only one that I know of is "The American Center for Law and Justice" aka ACLJ.

ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice

Immie

They are OK. There is also...

The Thomas More Law Center (also religious freedom)

The Institute for Justice (Libertarian)

The regional law centers like The Pacific Legal Foundation, The Atlantic Legal Foundation (proud grad!) and the biggie, The Washington Legal Foundation

But of course none compare to the awesome power of the ACLU.

 

[caterpillar]

What would you say is the Conservative equivalent to the ACLU? I know some of you might be thinking of the Heritage Foundation, but I don't think so. The Heritage Foundation seems to be more of a political, and academic, advocacy group. I know the ACLU brings court challenges across the country on a host of legal issues, and seems to be solely a legal advocacy group. I don't think the Heritage Foundation brings anywhere near the number of legal battles that the ACLU does.

What do you guys think?

There are a number of groups, one I can think of off the top of my head is the American Center for Law and Justice, which is a religious liberties legal advocacy group.

Unfortunately, as "the right" if such it can be called, it a loose collection of submovements and sometimes conflicting agendas, there is no unified group like the ACLU. Mainline liberalism, being a narrow "small tent" movement that expects conformity to its orthodoxy, has no trouble getting all the ducklings to line up behind a big momma duck like the ACLU.

 

[caterpillar]

The ACLU isn't "liberal" to begin with. The ACLU is merely broadly civil libertarian (which often aligns it with socially progressive ideology), and opposes elements of "liberal" doctrines, such as hate crime legislation. A rightist equivalent would undoubtedly be the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), however.

Last I heard it was all for "hate crime" laws.

 

[Gunny]

What would you say is the Conservative equivalent to the ACLU? I know some of you might be thinking of the Heritage Foundation, but I don't think so. The Heritage Foundation seems to be more of a political, and academic, advocacy group. I know the ACLU brings court challenges across the country on a host of legal issues, and seems to be solely a legal advocacy group. I don't think the Heritage Foundation brings anywhere near the number of legal battles that the ACLU does.

What do you guys think?

Are you implying the ACLU is only for liberals?

 

[Gunny]

The ACLU isn't a "liberal" organization. Its an organization designed to provide and fight for peoples rights. Unfortunately those rights seem to be significantly more important to liberals than conservatives and so it gets labeled as a "liberal" organization.

Conservatives rights are just as important them if not moreso than the left's are to them. We like to exercise our own, not have the federal government do it for us.

I do agree it's not supposed to be a leftwing organization.

 

[Agnapostate]

Agnapostate you haven't responded to a single thing that I have stated. If you actually know how to read you should go back and read what I wrote and respond to some of the accusations. If you are to lazy to do that, which I am certain you are, I'll make it easy for you. The ACLU does have an agenda because they have picked their Constitutional battles against the Gov't on very limited grounds. They don't fight the Gov't when it infringes on religious freedom (only when it displays religion), they ignore the 2nd Amendment, and they don't give a flying F&*k about economic rights.

Try again.

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Cases Defending Religious Freedom

The following selected recent cases (mostly since 1995) show that the ACLU defends the rights of those who identify themselves as Christians (Part I) as well as those who have other beliefs (Part II).

Part I - Defending the Rights of Those Identifying Themselves as Christian

The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
ACLU/SC Protects The Rights Of Those Who Feed The Poor

The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual's right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/NetherlandAmicus060408.html

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas(2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state's commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. Neither Texas law nor the U.S. Constitution allows the state to separate children and their parents based on purported cultural harm alone or on the state's disapproval of the families' religious beliefs. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Submits Brief In Texas FLDS Case Saying State Can't Separate Families Based Solely On Beliefs
American Civil Liberties Union : Judge Orders Children Returned To Their Families

The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf

The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
ACLU of Oregon: Nakashima v. Board of Education
http://www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/Lit_OSAA_mtgmry_3_07.pdf?docID=1861

The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
ACLU-WV: press release 07/19/07

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) challenged a North Carolina Department of Corrections policy making all religious services in prison English-only, thereby denying access to many inmates. The North Carolina Division of Prisons agreed to review the policy and the need for religious services in languages other than English in the state correctional system.

The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
http://www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/rights_of_women/20070201_Pharm_Refusal_amicus_complete.pdf

The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song

The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
Court rejects government's attempt to deport Egyptian to torture :: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was told he could not drink wine during communion services while confined at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its communion policy to comply with federal law.

The ACLU of Georgia (2007) filed a federal lawsuit to help obtain a zoning permit for a house of worship on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church after the city of East Point denied the request. The city has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
ACLU of Georgia | Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself

The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.

(This case is also listed in Part I.)

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represented Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs led her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Eastern Missouri Challenges Law Banning Pickets and Protests One Hour Before or After a Funeral

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) assisted with the naturalization of a Jehovah's Witness who was originally denied citizenship based on his conscientious refusal to swear an oath that he would be willing to bear arms on behalf of the country.

The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the First Circuit, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again. Inmate can preach at ACI again | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2007) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia's policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights.
ACLU-NCA

(This case is also listed in Part I.)

The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement after filing a federal suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of an inmate who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). The inmate, Norman Sanders, was denied access to religious services and religious texts including The Book of Mormon.
ACLU of Louisiana Protects Religious Liberty for All

The ACLU of Texas (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU of Texas urged the court to reverse a decision that prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas

The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There."

ACLU Hails Victory For Christian Protestor
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Louisiana Files Lawsuit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protestor

The ACLU of Nevada (2006) defended the free exercise and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. When the County government refused to change its unconstitutional policy, the ACLU filed suit in federal court.
Street Preachers Arrested for Obstructing Pedestrian Traffic

The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of a student teacher who objected to classroom prayers and other religious activitiesled by her supervising teacher. After she voiced disagreement with her supervisor's unconstitutional practice of telling children how to pray, the student teacher received a failing grade and was not permitted to graduate from the teaching program. Under the settlement obtained by the ACLU of Louisiana, the university removed the failing grade and allowed the student to complete her graduation requirements.
firstamendmentcenter.org: news
ACLU Pleased with Settlement in Student Teacher Case

The ACLU and its affiliates (1999-2006) have been instrumental supporters of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which gives religious organizations added protection in erecting religious buildings and enhances the religious freedom rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons. The ACLU worked with a broad coalition of organizations to secure the law's passage in 2000. After the law was enacted, the ACLU (2005) defended its constitutionality in a friend-of-the-court brief before the United States Supreme Court and the ACLU of Virginia (2006) opposed a challenge to the law before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
American Civil Liberties Union : Cutter v. Wilkinson, 03-9877
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Virginia Defends Federal Law Guaranteeing Religious Rights of Prisoners

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2005) defended the rights of two teenage girls who, for religious reasons, sought to wear anti-abortion t-shirts to school after school officials threatened to punish them.
American Civil Liberties Union : Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) helped release a street preacher who had been incarcerated in Roosevelt County jail for 109 days. The case was brought to the ACLU by the preacher's wife and was supported by the American Family Association.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison

The ACLU of Michigan (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, a Roman Catholic who was punished for not completing a drug rehabilitation program run by a Pentecostal group whose religious beliefs he did not share. Part of the program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming one's salvation at the altar, and being tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff confiscated Mr. Hanas's rosary beads and told him Catholicism was witchcraft.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

The ACLU of Southern California (2005) defended an evangelical scholar who monitored the fundraising practices of several ministries and their leaders after a defamation suit was brought against him in order to silence him.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2005/101364/

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004-2005) won two cases on behalf of predominantly African-American churches that were denied permits to worship in churches previously occupied by white congregations. In 2005, the ACLU of Pennsylvania settled a case against Turtle Creek Borough brought on behalf of Ekklesia church. After the ACLU of Pennsylvania's advocacy, the Borough of West Mifflin granted Second Baptist Church of Homestead an occupancy permit in 2002 and, in 2004, agreed to pay it damages and compensate it for its losses.
Racism stalls sale, church claims Church's race bias claim goes to court
Homestead church, West Mifflin settle their legal feud
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church

The ACLU of New Jersey (2004) appeared as a friend of the court to argue that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution by striking individuals from a jury pool after deciding that they were "demonstrative about their religion." One potential juror was a missionary; the other was wearing Muslim religious garb, including a skull cap. The ACLU-NJ also argued that permitting strikes based on jurors' display of their religion would often amount to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities.
State v. Lloyd Fuller :: ACLU of New Jersey

(This case is also listed in Part I.)

The ACLU of Nebraska (2004) defended the Church of the Awesome God, a Presbyterian church, from forced eviction under the city of Lincoln's zoning laws. The ACLU of Nebraska also challenged city ordinances requiring religious organizations to meet safety standards not imposed on non-religious groups.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004) prevailed in its arguments that the government had to allow Amish drivers to use highly reflective gray tape on their buggies instead of orange triangles, to which the drivers objected for religious reasons.
Amish appeal buggy ruling

The ACLU of Virginia (2004) threatened to file suit against the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority after the Park Authority enacted an unconstitutional policy prohibiting religious activity in the park and the Park Manager stopped a Cornerstone Baptist Church minister from conducting baptisms in the park. Under pressure from the ACLU, the Park Authority revoked the prohibition and allowed baptisms in the park.
American Civil Liberties Union : Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
washingtonpost.com: Agency Ponders Policy After Blocking Baptism
American Civil Liberties Union : Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

The ACLU of Washington (2004) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, who wanted to preach to the public and distribute leaflets on the sidewalks around a downtown bus station in Spokane, WA.
ACLU of Washington | Settlement Protects Freedom of Speech at Spokane Transit Plaza

With the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (2004), an Episcopal social services group was able to keep its program of feeding the homeless running. The County Health Department reversed its decision that meals served to homeless people in a church must be cooked on the premises, as opposed to in individual homes. Had the decision not been reversed, the ministry would have been forced to cease the program.

The ACLU of Virginia (2004) told the city of Richmond that it would file suit unless Richmond officials reconsidered their decision to close a Sunday meal program for the homeless at a local church because of zoning violations. "[T]he right of a church to perform a core function of its religious mission," the ACLU wrote, "is protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993."
ACLU News Wire -- 09/11/96: ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle

The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, whom school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for wearing T-shirts with religious messages.

The ACLU of Michigan (2004) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Stevenson High School, whose yearbook entry, a Bible verse, was deleted because of its religious content. A settlement was reached under which the school placed a sticker with Moler's original entry in the yearbooks and agreed not to censor students' yearbook entries based on their religious or political viewpoints in the future.
American Civil Liberties Union : After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit on behalf of the Old Paths Baptist Church against the City of Scottsburg after the city repeatedly threatened to cite or arrest members who held demonstrations regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were told they could not sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women's prison in Cranston, Rhode Island.

The ACLU of Virginia (2002) and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell prevailed in a lawsuit arguing that a Virginia constitutional provision banning religious organizations from incorporating was unconstitutional.
American Civil Liberties Union : In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate

The ACLU of Ohio (2002) filed a brief in support of a preacher who wanted to protest abortion at a parade, but was prohibited from doing so in an Akron suburb.
freedomforum.org: ACLU backs abortion protester cited for graphic poster

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) filed a friend-of-the court brief supporting a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

The ACLU of Nebraska (2002) filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenging a Nebraska Liquor Control Commission regulation that defined "church" in a manner that excluded all religious organizations that do not own property. ACLU lawyer Amy Miller argued that the "definition of a church established by the Liquor Control Commission violated the rights of members of the House of Faith to the free exercise of their religion."
freedomforum.org: Nebraska high court: Church needn't own property to be a church

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the "one true religion." The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and refused to sell additional advertising space to the church. American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways

The ACLU of Virginia (2000) represented Charles D. Johnson, a street preacher who was convicted under Richmond's noise ordinance. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in 2000.

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2000) defended inmate Peter Kane's right to exercise his religious beliefs after prison officials confiscated his rosary beads. The rosary beads were black and white and prison rules allowed only solid-colored beads. Prisoner's Right to Keep Rosary to Be Decided by Court

The ACLU of Virginia (1999) represented Rita Warren and her right to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued that restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. LEXIS®-NEXIS® Academic Universe - Document
404 Not Found

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (1999) secured a favorable settlement for a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel pin on her uniform.

The ACLU of Virginia (1999) filed suit against the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management on behalf of Michelle Hall, a Jehovah's Witness who was fired from her job as a produce worker at the Fort Belvoir commissary because she refused to sign a loyalty oath. Ms. Hall objected to a phrase in the oath, that she would "bear true faith and allegiance to" the Constitution, because it contradicted her undivided allegiance and faithfulness to Jehovah. In a settlement, Ms. Hall was reinstated and given back pay.
freedomforum.org: Jehovah's Witness files First Amendment challenge to loyalty oath

The ACLU of Florida (1999) filed the first case under Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The suit sought to prevent the removal and destruction of religious symbols, including crosses, stars of David, and other religious symbols placed on the gravesites of the plaintiffs' family members.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Defends Florida Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Cemetery

(This case is also listed in Part I.)

The ACLU of West Virginia (1999) represented a minister in the Church of the Firstborn at New Jerusalem in his suit seeking a religious exemption to the state's requirement that he take a photograph on his driver's license. The minister's religious beliefs prohibit the use of "graven images," including photographs.
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Defends Religious Freedom Of West Virginia Minister

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) represented Carlyn Kline, a fundamentalist Christian woman who challenged the legality of a mandatory divorce-counseling program conducted by Catholic Charities. Her religious beliefs prohibited her from attending "non-Christian" counseling.

The ACLU of Iowa (1997) represented Conservative Christians in Clarke County and won the right to force a county referendum on gambling. American Civil Liberties Union : Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) intervened on behalf of a Mennonite nurse and prevented his state employer from firing him for refusing to shave his beard for religious reasons. The employer demanded the nurse shave his beard so the state-issued mask to guard against tuberculosis would fit tightly despite the employee's offer to purchase a more expensive mask approved for work with T.B. patients that would fit properly with his beard intact. After receiving telephone calls and letters from the ACLU, the employer agreed to accommodate his religion.


The Arizona Civil Liberties Union (1997) brought suit jointly with Children of the Rosary, a pro-life religious organization, challenging a Phoenix policy banning all non-commercial advertising on city transit buses.
ACLU Press Release - 01/23/97 -- Phoenix Bus Advertising Policy Challenged

The ACLU of Massachusetts (1996) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on behalf of two women who were fired for refusing, on religious grounds, to work at a racetrack on Christmas Day.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) represented a 17-year-old foster child who was being forced to attend her foster family's church. The foster child was Methodist and the church she was being forced to attend was not of the Methodist faith. After the ACLU threatened to sue, the county allowed the child to attend a Methodist church and placed her in a different foster home.

The ACLU of Vermont (1995) brought suit on behalf of a family that held sincere religious beliefs preventing them from obtaining social security numbers for their children. The Vermont Human Services Board agreed with the ACLU of Vermont and ordered the Social Welfare Department to make an exception to its general rule requiring children who receive government benefits to have social security numbers.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) secured the right of a minister from the United Methodist Church to hold meetings in the Harmony Township Borough building that was open for use by community groups.

The ACLU of Iowa (1995) represented and vindicated the free speech and religious expression of a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo, who had been denied access to broadcast her message on public television. American Civil Liberties Union : Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

Amish farmers benefited from the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter's letter (1995) threatening a lawsuit if the Elk Lick Township failed to rescind a municipal ordinance prohibiting farm tractors with steel wheels from traveling on or over the township's roads. Amish religious beliefs dictate that they maintain steel wheels on their tractors; the ordinance prevented Amish farmers from moving their tractors from one farm to another, and in some cases from one part of their property to another. The township rescinded the ordinance in 1995 and dropped all charges against the various persons charged under the ordinance.

The ACLU of Idaho (1980) represented Evangelical Christian parents of public school students at North Fremont High School who disputed their school's decision to hold graduation ceremonies at a Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Although the proposed church was larger than other available facilities and was air conditioned, the parents believed that their children should not be required to attend a public high school graduation in a Mormon facility. The federal judge agreed. (This case illustrates the same principle as the ACLU of New Jersey (2007) case (cited below) that was brought by a Muslim student who did want his graduation to be held at a church.)
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/religion/reimannvfreemont_acluidaho.pdf