ACLU Statement on Expected Motion to Intervene in Marriage Litigation by NOM by Executive Director David Fidanque
April 22, 2014 - The ACLU will oppose the motion to intervene because it was not made in a timely manner. We are disappointed that the opponents of the freedom to marry waited to file this motion until just hours before oral arguments are scheduled before the court.
These cases were filed many months ago and their progress has been well covered by the news media. The court provided an opportunity for interested groups and individuals to file friend of the court briefs and that deadline passed in early April.
The opponents of marriage are making a last-ditch effort to justify discrimination and stand in the way of loving and committed couples. Treating people differently just because of who they are and who they love is discrimination and the time for that kind of discrimination has passed.
There has been a major shift in the views of voters nationwide and here in Oregon on the marriage issue over the past few years. Support for the freedom to marry in Oregon has risen to 55% which represents a major turnaround from 2004 when the marriage ban was approved.
April 17, 2014 - With their announcement that they intend to suspend the practice of honoring requests from federal immigration enforcement to hold individuals in their jail without probable cause, Sheriffs in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties acted today for the benefit of public safety in their communities. The ACLU applauds their action.
“We have long advocated that honoring warrantless ICE detainers is unlawful and also makes law enforcement’s job harder because it destroys trust in the community,” said David Fidanque, Executive Director. “We are thrilled that these Sheriffs are taking note of recent court decisions and abandoning a practice we believe violates state law and both the Oregon and United States Constitution.”
An “ICE detainer”—or “immigration hold”—has been a controversial tool use by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) routinely to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and state law enforcement agencies. An ICE detainer is a written request that a local jail or other law enforcement agency detain an individual for an additional 48 hours after his or her release date, for the convenience of ICE agents so that they can decide whether to take the individual into federal custody and begin formal deportation proceedings. The detainers generally are not accompanied with a warrant based on probable cause.
March 26, 2014 - Washington D.C. - The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Wood v. Moss, a case brought by us on behalf of a multi-generational group of peaceful protesters, who were forcibly moved on orders of the Secret Service to a place where their protests could no longer be seen or heard by President Bush. The protest took place during a visit to Jacksonville, Oregon in 2004. Demonstrators supporting the President were allowed to remain much closer to him.
The lawsuit claims that the protesters were targeted because of their political views in violation of their free speech rights.
“The Secret Service does not have immunity from the First Amendment,” said Steven M. Wilker, a lawyer with Tonkon Torp LLP in Portland, who argued the case as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU.
March 12, 2014 - Completing the short session two days before the Constitutionally-imposed deadline, the Oregon Legislature passed up the opportunity to advance an important civil liberties bill on privacy and let squeak by a proposal that could have significant implications for patient access to medicine.
Automatic License Plate Reader Surveillance Technology (SB 1522) SB 1522 was a priority bill for the ACLU this session because of the need for privacy guidelines around the use of surveillance technology by government. Ironically, there was widespread and bipartisan support for the privacy regulations but the bill did not move forward this session because legislators could not settle on the appropriate timeframe for law enforcement to hold on to innocent people’s captured plate data.
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on March 4, 2014 - 3:32pm
By Michael "Mookie" Moss, ACLU plaintiff
In March of this year, the Jacksonville police riot celebrates its almost-tenth anniversary by taking a trip to Washington D.C. and landing on the desk of the United States Supreme Court. Under review by the high court is whether the respondents (me and my fellow plaintiff demonstrators) sufficiently alleged there was clear First Amendment discrimination on the part of the Secret Service and whether the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it denied the Secret Service qualified immunity for its role in the events that took place nearly 10 years ago.
For those present that night in Jacksonville, the answer to the question of First Amendment discrimination couldn’t be clearer. The large multigenerational group of anti-Bush demonstrators assembled in front of the Jacksonville Inn faced police-fired projectiles which were filled with chemical irritants, canisters of hand held pepper spray, and submission by baton, while the pro-Bush crowd equidistant from the dining President faced not a word of admonishment.