News & Commentary

The Senate voted today to pass anti-adoption RFRA bills that could allow adoption and foster agencies to stop loving and welcoming LGBT couples across Michigan from taking in children in need of a home. These harmful bills will now go to Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk.

Michael Reynolds is a 17-year-old Detroiter, a recent graduate of Detroit Loyola High School and an impending freshman at Western Michigan University.

The ACLU of Michigan has been working closely with Native American students at Eastern Michigan University to compel the university to permanently dump the racially offensive "Hurons" logo that the school decided to resurrect two decades after retiring the controversial symbol.

I prefer pants.

DETROIT — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Michigan announced on Thursday that they have filed a federal lawsuit against the Michigan Secretary of State challenging a department policy that makes it impossible for many transgender individuals to correct the gender on their driver’s licenses and other forms of identification.

As I lay in my sleeping bag on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court on Monday in line for Tuesday’s marriage equality argument, my mind was racing. Primarily, I marveled about how far we’ve come as a society in recognizing the dignity and rights of gay people in such a short period of time. I thought about the fact that when I attended a small, close-knit high school in rural Maine, being gay was so taboo, and being openly gay was so dangerous, that I honestly thought that there were no gay students in our school. I was wrong. When I returned for my reunion a couple of years ago, the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that nearly a third of the students were out—including my best friend! I also thought about all the difficult legal battles we at the ACLU have fought over the past two decades to afford gay residents of our state even the most basic rights—including the right to jointly adopt children with one’s partner; the right to form a Gay-Straight Alliance in high school; the right for a worker to receive health benefits for his or her same-sex partner; and, most recently, the right of the couples who married the day after a federal judge struck down the Michigan ban on same-sex marriage to have their marriages recognized by the state. While we won most if these cases, it was remarkable to think how the government fought us tooth and nail and spared no expense to defend discrimination. And it was satisfying to think that now there was a growing consensus in society that the ACLU was on the right side of history. I had been to five oral arguments at the Supreme Court and sat at counsel table for three of them. However, this case was special. When I started at the ACLU 18 years ago, the idea that we would achieve marriage equality in such a short time was a pipe dream. But here we were, sleeping outside for the opportunity to witness oral argument in what was likely to be landmark civil rights victory – a rare happening with such a conservative Supreme Court. The argument itself was fascinating. At first, the conservative justices peppered Mary Bonauto, a hero of the gay rights movement for decades, with questions suggesting that the court was powerless to declare a right to same-sex marriage when the 17 countries in the world that recognize same-sex marriage did not do so until the 21st century. We were concerned. Why were the justices so fixated on what Plato thought about gay relationships in ancient Greece rather than the blatant discrimination gay couples faced today? But then the more liberal judges, and yes, Justice Kennedy too, poked some major holes in the state’s argument that denying gay couples the right to marry was okay because the state wanted to insure that children would grow up in a home with married parents. How exactly does withholding marriage from one group, increase the value of marriage to the other group? Isn’t one of the goals of marriage to bestow dignity on the couple and doesn’t that apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples? Doesn’t the constitution place limits on the ability of people to vote for discriminatory measures? How can religious concerns be used to discriminate against gay couples any more than it can be used to discriminate against interracial couples? Wouldn’t the children of gay couples benefit if their parents could marry? The arguments produced some noteworthy moments that only those present could truly experience: A scary, anti-gay activist interrupted argument by screaming at the top of his lungs about abomination and hell, and he continued to yell for several minutes as he was dragged out of the courtroom by marshals. The audience chuckled loudly when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a/k/a the Notorious RBG) asked Michigan’s attorney something like, “If it’s true, as you say, that the state’s sole interest in marriage is procreation, could the state deny a marriage license to a 70-year-old?” And, at one point, Justices Scalia and Thomas leaned back so far in their chairs it looked like they were sleeping in a lounge chair by the pool rather than presiding over a landmark civil rights case. As I stepped outside after the argument onto the sunny steps of the Supreme Court and looked out at the hundreds of gay pride flags and signs, I felt optimistic about the capacity for society to change. Obviously, we have a long way to go until LGBT persons have true equality and there are so many seemingly intransient problems that we face in this country—continued oppression of people of color and the poor, attacks on reproductive freedom, the loss of privacy, and mass incarceration, to name just a few. But, at that moment at least, I felt hopeful that we are capable of transforming society to honor civil liberties and human rights. By Michael Steinberg

Against a backdrop of a now-familiar litany of acts of violence by the police against African Americans nationwide, the ACLU of Michigan is compelled to raise questions about the killing of 20-year-old Terrance Kellom by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Kellom’s Detroit home.Foremost among those questions: Why was ICE involved in non-immigration law enforcement activity?The ICE mission involves immigration enforcement, and answers must be provided about how and why a U.S. citizen found his way into the line of fire of an ICE firearm. Kellom, the target of a multi-agency fugitive apprehension task force that included ICE officers, was shot and killed by the agent as he emerged from the attic of his home. Although law enforcement officers claim Kellom was wielding a hammer when he was killed, Kellom's father, who was home when his son was slain, has vehemently denied that his son was armed in any way.The unjustified use of deadly force by law enforcement officials has become the focal point of national mass unrest. As life slipped away from Terrance Kellom in Detroit, the City of Baltimore was melting amidst uncontrollable flames ignited by those enraged about the fate of Freddie Gray, yet another black youth who died in the custody of police.Police violence against communities of color has long, deep historical roots. In Michigan in recent years, we've endured the slaying of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones by a SWAT officer in Detroit; the killing of Milton Hall by a firing squad of cops in Saginaw; the slaying of Aura Rosser in Ann Arbor by an officer who saw fit to shoot her with a gun while his partner used only a taser; and the wanton beating of motorist Floyd Dent in Inkster during a routine traffic stop.But the gravity and extent of that violence has only recently become apparent to the broader society because of technology that records vivid, horrible images of killings and other acts of police brutality.At a time when levels of frustration within communities victimized by police violence continue to grow, it is especially important for the law enforcement community to exercise appropriate restraint when contemplating the use of deadly force. In this case, the community needs an answer to the question of whether the killing of Terrance Kellom was unavoidable—and if not, whether as a fugitive he posed such an imminent risk of harm to the community that it was necessary for an ICE agent to kill him.It becomes increasingly apparent that having the capacity and authority to use deadly force demands a special level of maturity, mental health and demonstrated responsibility. It demands as well transparency and accountability.The ACLU of Michigan calls upon all law enforcement agencies in any way connected with the death of Mr. Kellom to not only respond to community questions about his death promptly, but to also take steps to ensure that law enforcement officers and agents are mentally and emotionally fit to carry deadly weapons, and on those occasions when deadly force is used improperly that law enforcement agencies are fully forthcoming with information and that their employees are held appropriately accountable for their actions.By Mark Fancher, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan's Racial Justice Project

It’s almost four years from the day I was forced off an airplane in Detroit, held for hours in a cell, strip-searched, and interrogated without explanation. Yet when I talk or think about the incident, it is fresh enough that I can still feel the horror, confusion, and anger that consumed me that day. Sometimes it seems so surreal that it happened to me. Other times I intellectualize it and know that this happened because our system has flaws. But today we have reached a settlement that serves as a great step forward in putting the incident behind me and helping to ensure that others don’t face the same experience I endured on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The incident made national news, and a blog post I wrote the following day went viral on social media, and then gained a life of its own in the media for a few weeks. I had no idea the maelstrom of activity coming my way, nor the enduring legal battle that would ensue. But in the end, I am relieved that some good has come out of this awful experience. That Frontier Airlines and the Wayne County Airport Authority are now more aware of racial profiling, civil liberties, and discrimination issues is a benefit to all who fly, and maybe other airports and other airlines will take notice and follow suit. That Judge Berg in the federal court in Detroit wrote that constitutional rights trump imagined security threats puts language into the law books that can be used to aid similar cases that come down the pike. The decision is a reminder that people shouldn’t be pushed around in the name of national security, particularly because of the color of their skin or the sound of their names. That the ACLU stood by me, knowing that what happened to me was wrong, gives me faith that there are people who fight tooth and nail to bring about justice. And that maybe people have begun to learn that campaigns like “See Something, Say Something” will not actually move the country forward or make us safer. In fact, they only stoke the flames of fear and suspicion instead of helping us come together as a united, democratic, and free-thinking country. One of the most poignant questions I received during the media’s attention to my story was: “Do you think you are patriotic?” I had to stop and think about that question for a moment, as the words “patriot” and “patriotic” have become so warped in the last 14 years that it seems there’s no room left for skepticism or criticism of government. But I told the reporter that I believed I was a patriot because I want what is best for this country and its people. And because I believe that being truly patriotic means expecting your country to continually evolve toward a more equal and just society. And that is what I believe has happened with the settlement of my case. I sincerely hope that it serves as a catalyst for progress and lets others who have been discriminated against in the name of national security stand up for their constitutional—and human—rights. By Shoshana Hebshi

Special-education students in Michigan are being pushed out of public schools at an alarming rate—with far too many of them being driven directly in the school-to-prison pipeline. And increasingly, our zero-tolerance laws are a big reason why. Michigan has one of the most expansive zero-tolerance policies in the nation, second only to Texas. Meanwhile, Michigan is one of only 12 states whose zero-tolerance laws enforce mandatory expulsion for violations beyond possession of weapons. These laws are problematic because they increase the likelihood that a student will be expelled or suspended from school for minor offenses and general misbehavior, not for potentially dangerous offenses. Minority students and special education students are particularly likely to be suspended and/or expelled for these reasons. Special-education students are entitled to certain accommodations under Michigan law, through federal laws such as IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Act) and state laws such as the MMSEA (Michigan Mandatory Special Education Act) and Section 504. However, expansive zero-tolerance policies often conflict with these laws, such as in instances where the behavior of special-education students may mistakenly be seen as harmful. Special education students may then be punished for behaviors that are out of their control and pushed into the school to prison pipeline. And from there, they are shoved into the criminal-justice system. This is unacceptable. Education is not a privilege granted based on behavior. It is a right that all children have. Taking away a student’s education under the pretext of safety and protection is a disservice to the child and to the community at large. The zero tolerance laws may have been intended to protect students, but instead they have done the opposite. Michigan legislators need to take a serious look at the implications of their zero tolerance laws, and work towards reform. Reducing the amount of expellable offenses would ensure that the zero tolerance laws serve their intended purpose, and to help students thrive in school and beyond. By Leslie Welch