Discrimination

ACLU-NCA FILES NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO PORTION OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

October 18, 2011
Wagner v. Federal Election Commission

ACLU-NCA filed suit on October 19 challenging a federal campaign finance law that favors corporations over citizens.  2 U.S.C. § 441c makes it a crime for any person who has a contract with any agency of the federal government to make a contribution to any candidate for federal office or any political party or committee that is involved in federal elections.  By contrast, large corporations that have federal contracts can set up PACs to make contributions, but individuals cannot -- and the officers, employees, and stockholders of corporations with government contracts are bot barred from making political contributions using can their earnings from those contracts, but individual contractors cannot make contributions even from other sources of funds.  Moreover, federal employees are free to make political contributions (subject to the same statutory limitations that apply to everyone), but contractors who work alongside them and perform the same functions cannot.

We represent three individuals who have contracts to provide personal services to federal agencies, and are therefore prohibited from making political contributions. We ask the court to declare the statute unconstitutional as a violation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause and under the First Amendment.

*Protecting same-sex marriage

November 11, 2010
Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

As members of the Campaign for All DC Families, we added our support to its amicus brief defending same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and opposing a ballot initiative providing that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.” In July 2010 the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the proposed measure could not appear on the ballot because it violated the D.C. Human Rights Act, which prohibits diluting D.C. anti-discrimination laws through the ballot process.

In October 2010, the sponsors of the initiative filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review this decision. We think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will agree to do so. The Court will probably decide whether or not to hear the case in late 2010 or early 2011.

Defending the Voting Rights Act, II

September 11, 2010
Laroque v. Holder, Shelby County v. Holder, Georgia v. Holder

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District case, three new lawsuits were filed in early 2010 seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the “preclearance” provision (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As local counsel for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, we have successfully moved to intervene, on behalf of minority residents of the respective communities, to defend the constitutionality of Section 5. In the first of these cases, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Section 5, as reauthorized in 2006, unconstitutionally exceeds Congress’ authority to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution and itself violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

Defending the Voting Rights Act, I

September 11, 2010
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits government entities in certain states that have a history of voting discrimination from changing any election laws or rules without “preclearance” from the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. However, the Act allows certain jurisdictions to “bail out” of the preclearance requirement if they can show a history of non-discrimination and affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.

Fair representation for people with disabilities

September 11, 2010
In re: Alexandra Martel

We joined with other groups in filing an amicus brief in the D.C. Court of Appeals in this case, which involves a request by a person with moderate mental disability for a change in her guardian.

Disturbing the police II

September 11, 2010
Tuma v. District of Columbia

We represent Pepin Tuma, a young lawyer who was falsely arrested for disorderly conduct by D.C. police simply because he chanted “I hate the police” while walking near a group of police officers on the street. When Mr. Tuma asked why he was being arrested, the arresting officer explained, “Just shut up, faggot.”. Our lawsuit seeks compensation from the District of Columbia and the arresting officer, and “punitive damages” from the arresting officer for his outrageous conduct.

Fighting HIV discrimination

September 11, 2010
Doe v. Clinton

Our client is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces sergeant who had been HIV-positive but healthy for eight years when he was discharged from an overseas security job with a State Department contractor because of his HIV status. Our lawsuit challenged the State Department’s policy prohibiting the overseas deployment of contract employees who are HIV-positive (a violation of the Rehabilitation Act) and the contractor’s discharge of Doe (a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act). The case settled when the State Department agreed to remove from its contracts the requirement that personnel be “free from communicable diseases,” and to clarify that an individual assessment must be made as to any individual’s fitness to do the job. Details of the settlement with the contractor are confidential.