SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ACLU and Lambda Legal Comment on Expected Vote to Repeal HB2
The Charlotte City Council voted today to repeal their LGBT non-discrimination ordinance in a move that could lead to the repeal of North Carolina's anti-LGBT law, H.B 2. The ACLU and Lambda Legal today called on North Carolina legislative leaders to follow through and repeal H.B. 2, the state law that bans many transgender people from appropriate restrooms and prohibits local municipalities from extending nondiscrimination protections to LGBT people.
RALEIGH
The Charlotte City Council voted today to repeal their LGBT non-discrimination ordinance in a move that could lead to the repeal of North Carolina's anti-LGBT law, H.B 2. The ACLU and Lambda Legal today called on North Carolina legislative leaders to follow through and repeal H.B. 2, the state law that bans many transgender people from appropriate restrooms and prohibits local municipalities from extending nondiscrimination protections to LGBT people. The law caused harm to transgender people across the state and cost North Carolina hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue because of widespread opposition to the measure from both the general public and business community.
The two organizations issued the following statement in response.
"H.B. 2 was an unprecedented attack on the LGBT community, in particular against transgender people, and we are encouraged that its days are numbered," said Sarah Gillooly, Policy Director for the ACLU of North Carolina. "It is imperative that the General Assembly hold up their end of the deal and repeal H.B. 2 in full without delay. This will be an important step for North Carolinians to move forward, but it never should have come at the cost of protections for LGBT people living in Charlotte."
"LGBT rights aren't a bargaining chip. Charlotte shouldn't have had to repeal its ordinance in exchange for H.B. 2 to be repealed," said Simone Bell, the Southern Regional Director for Lambda Legal. "LGBT people in North Carolina still need protection from discrimination. The right action is for the North Carolina Legislature to pass a statewide comprehensive civil rights bill that includes full protections for LGBT people."
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina, Lambda Legal and the law firm of Jenner & Block are challenging H.B. 2 in federal court on behalf of four LGBT North Carolinians and members of the ACLU of North Carolina.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal lawsuit, Carcano v. McCrory, was filed days after H.B. 2 was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly and signed by Governor Pat McCrory. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that through the law, North Carolina sends a purposeful message that LGBT people are second-class citizens who are undeserving of the privacy, respect, and protections afforded others in the state and that transgender individuals, in particular, are expelled from public life through H.B. 2's mandate that they be forced out of restrooms and changing facilities that accord with who they are.
The complaint argues that H.B. 2 violates Title IX and Title VII by discriminating against students and school employees on the basis of sex. It also argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and violates the privacy and medical decision making rights of transgender people.
To read more about the case: https://www.aclu.org/cases/carcano-et-al-v-mccrory-et-al
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
15 Democrats Join House GOP to Pass 'MAGA Assault' on Nonprofits
"This bill is a five-alarm fire for anyone who seeks to protect free speech, civil society, and democracy," said one rights advocate.
Nov 21, 2024
After widespread condemnation of 52 U.S. House Democrats who joined the GOP last week in backing a bill that would threaten nonprofit groups, there was significantly less support among Democratic members for the legislation on Thursday—but civil society groups denounced those who persisted in supporting what one critic called a "MAGA assault" on fundamental rights.
The so-called "Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act" (H.R. 9495) passed in the House by a vote of 219-184, with 15 Democrats joining all but one Republican in supporting the bill.
The 15 Democrats who supported the legislation in Thursday's vote include Reps. Jared Golden (Maine), Colin Allred (Texas), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Henry Cuellar (Texas).
If ultimately signed into law, the bill would allow the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke tax-exempt status from nonprofits that it deems "terrorist supporting organizations."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich urged the Senate, which is led by the Democrats until January, not to allow the "attack on free speech [to] come up for a vote during the lame-duck."
"If it does, they must vote NO," he said.
But with Republicans set to take control of both chambers of Congress as well as the White House after the New Year, advocates are warning that it will ultimately give the Trump administration "unprecedented and unchecked power" to take action against groups whose mission and work President-elect Donald Trump opposes, particularly those fighting for Palestinian rights.
"This bill is a five-alarm fire for anyone who seeks to protect free speech, civil society, and democracy. This bill is part of a broader MAGA assault on the fundamental right to public protest that begins with attacks on Palestinian rights groups and is aimed at outlawing all social justice movements fighting for progressive change," said Beth Miller, political director for Jewish Voice for Peace. "It is shameful that the House of Representatives passed a bill that is straight out of the well-worn authoritarian playbook. The Senate must ensure that this bill to dismantle fundamental freedoms does not move forward or become law."
JVP noted that H.R. 9495 has its roots in the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation's Christian nationalist initiative Project Esther, which claims to combat antisemitism but is aimed at denying resources to groups that support the human rights of Palestinian people.
Advocacy groups including JVP credited civil society groups that mobilized in recent days to demand that Democrats oppose H.R. 9495, as Republicans prepared to bring the bill up again for a simple-majority floor vote. The legislation was blocked in the previous vote, despite the support of 52 Democrats, because it required a two-thirds majority to pass under a procedural rule.
JVP Action said it "drove over 35,000 letters to Congressional offices in one week opposing this legislation," while groups including Fight for the Future, Muslims for Progressive Values, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations also joined the effort.
Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent, a group dedicated to protecting the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, condemned the lawmakers who were unmoved by "overwhelming civil society opposition."
"Two hundred and four Republicans and 15 Democrats in the House voted in favor of a bill that will be used to strip organizations of their nonprofit status in a politically motivated fashion and without proper due process," said Gibbons. "The bill is driven by the current McCarthyite attacks on Palestine solidarity activism, but it empowers the executive branch to crackdown on charities broadly. It is intolerable for any administration to have these powers, but it is reckless for anyone who claims Trump poses a threat to democracy to hand his administration yet another weapon to use against their opponents."
Under the legislation, the federal government would not be required to disclose evidence of its allegations that nonprofits are "terrorist supporting organizations."
"In the absence of meaningful due process, any nonprofit—from humanitarian organizations to independent newsrooms—could risk losing tax-exempt status," said Defending Rights & Dissent. "The bill has further implications for civil society. The mere threat of being tied up in litigation, facing the reputational harm that such a designation would bring, and loss of donors, would chill speech and stifle dissent."
Online news outlet Mondoweiss said that if signed by Trump after he takes office, the measure "could become a powerful tool to crack down on groups that advocate for justice in Palestine."
"If H.R. 9495 becomes law, we'll be entering a dangerous era where nonprofits can be shut down with little evidence and no accountability," said Mondoweiss. "Today it's pro-Palestinian groups—tomorrow it could be any organization critical of government policy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Calls On GOP to Kill Bill Designed to Protect Journalists
"The fact that Trump is railing against the PRESS Act tells us everything we need to know: He wants no shackles when it comes to attacking, intimidating, silencing the press," warned one legal expert.
Nov 21, 2024
Journalists and press freedom advocates this week responded to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's attack on a proposed federal shield law with renewed calls for the Senate to pass the House-approved bill before he returns to office in January.
"REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!" Trump
said on his social media platform Wednesday, responding to a new "PBS News Hour" segment in which Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), discussed the proposal's importance.
The bipartisan Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act, which passed the House in January, would bar the federal government from forcing journalists and telecommunications companies to disclose certain information, to protect sources and reporting materials, with exceptions for threats of terrorism or imminent violence.
Several states have various shield laws, but advocates have long pushed for one at the federal level. Given Trump's long-standing hostility toward the press—which he has called "the enemy of the people"—there were fresh demands for Senate action after he won the presidential election earlier this month.
Those same voices have reacted with alarm to Trump's Truth Social post calling on the GOP to block the bill.
Noting that "Democratic administrations abused their powers to spy on journalists many times, too," Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, toldCNN that the president-elect should reconsider his position because "the PRESS Act protects conservative and independent journalists just as much as it does anyone in the mainstream press."
"The bipartisan PRESS Act will stop government overreach and protect the First Amendment once and for all," he said. Timm also highlighted that "much of the reporting Trump likes, from the Twitter files to stories poking holes in the Russiagate conspiracy, came from confidential sources," and the bill is backed by some of the incoming president's congressional allies.
For example, Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) "are champions of the PRESS Act because it would protect all journalists, including many who reach primarily conservative audiences," he said. "That's good for the public, whether they voted Republican or Democrat."
Earlier this week, before Trump weighed in, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the bill's lead sponsor in the upper chamber, publicly said that "I'll be pushing as hard as I can these next two months to pass my PRESS Act to protect journalists from government spying and surveillance. Anyone who cares about protecting journalism and a free press should contact their senators and ask them to support the bill."
Although the bill has some Republican backers in the Senate, there are also opponents, particularly on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it has stalled. As The New York Timesdetailed Wednesday:
The committee, under the leadership of its chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, has primarily been focused on approving as many of President [Joe] Biden's judicial nominees as it can before the session ends and Republicans take over leadership of the chamber next year.
The bill has also run into skepticism from several Republican senators, which makes it harder to bring it up for quick passage or to attach it to some other bill, like the Annual Defense Authorization Act.
According to congressional staff, the bill's primary adversary on the Judiciary Committee has been Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a hawkish Republican who gained public attention as an Army officer in 2006 while serving in Iraq by attacking The New York Times for its publication of an investigative article about a counterterrorism finances program. Another Republican committee member, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, is also said to have expressed some reservations.
"The fact that Trump is railing against the PRESS Act tells us everything we need to know: He wants no shackles when it comes to attacking, intimidating, silencing the press," said David Kaye, a University of California, Irvine law professor.
"No criticism. No stories of corruption. Memory hole his crimes. Nothing," stressed Kaye, a former United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. "DEFEND DEMOCRACY AND PASS THE PRESS ACT NOW!"
As reporters and media defenders urge passage of the PRESS Act, many are also sounding the alarm over H.R. 9495, a bill that passed the House on Thursday and would empower the Treasury Department to strip nonprofit status from various organizations—including news outlets like Common Dreams—by accusing them of supporting terrorism without due process.
"Today is a dark day for free speech rights and freedom altogether. Make no mistake: The real intention of H.R. 9495 is to give the executive branch extra powers to suppress dissent," Free Press Action policy counsel Jenna Ruddock said in a statement after the House vote on the "nonprofit killer" bill.
"If it's signed into law, the legislation would have a widespread chilling effect not only on nonprofit groups but on the millions of people across the United States who rely on these organizations to help them engage in the political process and access crucial services," she warned. "The bill has dangerously broad statutory language that would allow the incoming Trump administration to interpret its authority in any number of harmful ways."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Matt Gaetz Withdraws as Trump's Attorney General Pick
"Matt Gaetz was a ridiculous, horrible, and dangerous AG selection," said the co-president of Public Citizen.
Nov 21, 2024
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates...
Former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz on Thursday withdrew from consideration to lead the U.S. Justice Department under the incoming Trump administration, saying in a social media post that his "confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction."
Gaetz, who lasted just a week as President-elect Donald Trump's attorney general pick, didn't mention that his nomination was facing close scrutiny due to allegations that he had sex with a 17-year-old and violated federal sex trafficking laws.
Gaetz's abrupt resignation from Congress last week effectively ended a yearslong House Ethics Committee probe into the allegations. On Wednesday, GOP-controlled panel voted against releasing the findings of the investigation.
"There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as attorney general," Gaetz wrote Thursday. "I will forever be honored that President Trump nominated me to lead the Department of Justice and I'm certain he will Save America."
Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration as CNNreported that "the woman who says she had sex when she was a minor with then-Rep. Matt Gaetz told the House Ethics Committee she had two sexual encounters with him at one party in 2017."
The outlet noted that Gaetz announced his withdrawal "after being asked for comment for this story."
Additionally, The New York Timesreported Wednesday that "federal investigators have established a web of payments among Matt Gaetz and dozens of friends and associates who are said to have taken part with him in drug-fueled sex parties."
"Among those who received money from Mr. Gaetz were two women who have testified that he hired them for sex," the newspaper reported, citing a lawyer for the women. "The lawyer said payments to the women ultimately totaled around $10,000. The document obtained by the Times was assembled by federal investigators during a sex-trafficking investigation into Mr. Gaetz."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement Thursday that "Matt Gaetz was a ridiculous, horrible, and dangerous AG selection."
"That Republican senators were not willing to rubber-stamp his nomination is a hopeful sign that a modicum of sanity persists in Washington," said Weissman. "But Gaetz was not the only Trump nomination threatening America and there's every reason to worry about who Trump will appoint in Gaetz's stead. The Senate must insist on its constitutional duty to advise and consent on Cabinet and top-level nominations and block nominations that endanger democracy, the rule of law, consumer and worker protection, environmental sustainability, and more."
Gaetz was one of three Cabinet picks who, like
Trump himself, faced accusations of sexual misconduct.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular