News & Commentary

We often joke that we’re accidental activists. Marsha and I were the first same-sex couple to be married in Michigan on March 22. Our joy turned to sadness when Governor Snyder declared that we, and over 300 other couples married that historic day, are legally married but cannot reap the benefits of marriage. The State is not recognizing our marriages. Fast forward five months. We left at 6 a.m. – destination, a federal courthouse in Detroit. We were driving to a hearing, led by the ACLU of Michigan, to ask a judge to force the state to recognize our marriages as a matter of law and fundamental fairness. It was a mixture of excitement and anxiety for us. After all, there’s a lot hanging in the balance for us and our fellow newlyweds – basic dignity and respect, paternal rights of parents, protection of children should one parent die, pensions and survivor benefits, health insurance, etc. The matter of fundamental dignity and respect hit home immediately. When the State’s attorneys presented why we shouldn't get the benefits of marriage and why they don't think what they are doing is causing any harm, I broke down in tears. This basic emotional reaction came fast and hard. Experiencing lack of respect isn’t something new, but it’s usually more subtle. Their overt articulation of disrespect and quite frankly, discrimination, was jarring. We did not create the situation of having to take the State to court, as they claim, by getting married on March 22. We waited 27 years to get married, not by choice, but by exclusion – we simply weren’t allowed to marry. This exclusion was formalized in 2004 when the voters of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Judge Friedman stuck down that ban as unconstitutional on March 21. Fundamental rights cannot be trumped by the vote of a majority, especially a majority that no longer exists. So, we had the opportunity, as did couples in four Michigan counties that we had long been waiting for. It was not a rush to marry; for us it was something that was a long time in the making. What we are asking for is simple − to be treated equally. We don’t want special rights, just the same rights afforded to other married couples. Being legally married and receiving the benefits and protections of marriage are not, and cannot be, mutually exclusive. But by making that distinction, the State has caused us to challenge them in court. Doesn’t the State have better ways to spend their time and taxpayer dollars, like creating jobs and retaining productive citizens within our borders? I want to thank the ACLU for taking the lead on this case and for sticking up for the rights of minorities. The bottom line in all of this – we are legally married and the State simply cannot mandatorily divorce us.  

August 5 turned out... weird. Last night produced mixed results, indicating that our state is becoming more and more polarized. Citizens are clearly weary of the lack of political depth and sincerity, and the tendency for incivility. As an example, take lightening rod concepts like "common core" and "Medicaid expansion," both of which involve multifaceted and useful policies that truly benefit society. But candidates treat them as black or white - you are with us or against us. We are used to that simplistic debate over abortion, immigration and marriage equality. Now, it seems that every issue gets reduced to a sound bite, not worthy of informed discussion. It's no wonder that elected officials are less popular than root canals... but enough of my whining. I want to give you a run-down on the primary results.

If you take a trip to Lansing this summer, don’t expect to see much.

When most people hear words like “litigation” or “injunction”, the images these words conjure are often far from revolutionary or liberating. Case numbers are called, people rise and sit, gavels bang, a symphony of patience, protocol and paper shuffling only understood by a select few. Law—and the outcomes of justice, accountability, freedom that we hope for —is (theoretically) accessible to everyone yet understood in its whole depth by few. During my first few weeks here at the ACLU of Michigan, I’ve watched the work behind the scenes wrestling with injustice in the courts as well as in the halls of the legislature. In this environment I cannot help but be uplifted by the work and grit of brilliant legal minds but even more so by their bona fide belief in the impartiality of it all. The cases are but a small sampling of a greater reality—one in which law serves two purposes: to release and to control. Say a judge rules that we cannot be sent to jail if we are unable to pay a fine, or a ruling comes down for marriage equality in our state. When this happens, we celebrate our release from injustice. We revere the practice of law and all is right with the world (cue the Star Spangled Banner). The same is not true when the tables are turned, however. What if, for instance, we discover that the government is using our laws to justify tracking our private conversations? Sometimes the law is the problem—or at least part of a greater problem that perpetuates injustice and opaque systems of control. Who most often benefits from the release and who most suffers from the control? Those who offer up answers argue that these realities are symbolic of legal injustice in the 21st century. As someone who cares about social justice, it’s easy to obsess over how the law is used and abused to control. It's particularly hard when those being controlled are often people of color, women, LGBTQ identified people, people from low-income communities, etc. Still, I imagine a nation in which law and ideals such as justice, freedom, and the right to self-determination are not merely written on the halls of our courts in Latin. I want to see those ideals written in the lives of each of our citizens in their native tongues, freed from the pains so many have in our young democracy. The work of organizations like the ACLU, defending civil liberties and basic rights afforded to us as American citizens, is crucial to a world in which law is not the barrier but the aid in the self-actualization of individuals and the progress of communities.

When Shoshana Hebshi boarded Frontier Flight 623 on September 11, 2011, she was heading home to Detroit Metro Airport from a visit to her sister in San Francisco. She couldn't have foreseen that being seated next to two other brown-skinned people would end up with her handcuffed, detained, and strip-searched by law enforcement.Shoshana, born in the United States, is half Saudi Arabian, and the two men who were seated in her row were South Asian. None of them knew each other before they boarded the plane. Still, the airline and the government lumped them all together as suspicious after the two men used the lavatory one after another, for what some passengers believed was an unusually long time.The airport's police officers have argued that they acted reasonably in detaining Shoshana and that they were justified in strip-searching her, despite the fact that no one ever suggested that she had done anything suspicious at all.This is just one example of how we, as a nation, seem to have lost track of a fundamental truth in the last decade: the Constitution protects all people from discrimination and from unreasonable searches and seizures.And that's true even for brown people, on airplanes, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.But today, a federal trial court decision in Shoshana's case reminds us of that truth.Judge Berg wrote, "The fact that the events occurred on the tenth anniversary of September 11th, on a flight bound for a city previously targeted for a terrorist attack, does not absolve the WCAA Defendants, or any law enforcement officers, of their responsibility to conduct their police work in compliance with the United States Constitution."He further wrote that the court would not "sacrifice these principles of liberty to the cause of hyper-vigilance."Despite this court decision and others like it, "flying while brown" has all too often been viewed as inherently suspicious in recent years.Remember the Iraqi-born peace activist Raed Jarrar, who was prevented from boarding his flight while wearing a T-shirt with Arabic script on it?Or the group of nine Muslim Americans removed from their flight because they discussed safety on the plane, of all things?Or all those innocent folks prevented from flying, without any meaningful after-the-fact opportunity to clear their names, because of their presence on the government's secretive No Fly List?Too many law enforcement officers and airline employees seem to think that discriminating against Muslims, South Asians, and Arabs on planes is not quite as bad as other forms of racial profiling.The Department of Justice (DOJ) opened the door to this bias-based thinking when it issued a 2003 policy guidance on racial profiling that prohibits the use of race "to any degree" in law enforcement investigation, except during national security and border integrity investigations.While DOJ is in the process of revising that guidance, the proposed revisions would leave untouched those gaping exceptions to the racial profiling bar and would not prohibit profiling based on religion or national origin. Those are loopholes that law enforcement can drive a truck through.And just ask Shoshana – that kind of government profiling is no less traumatic and hurtful than any other form of discrimination.Let's be clear: What happened to Shoshana Hebshi was illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention shameful. Today's court decision reminds us that none of us – brown, black, or white – should have to fear being arrested and strip-searched based on bias and stereotypes.Key News & DocumentsRead more about this case, including a copy of the legal complaintBy Rachel Goodman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Racial Justice Program

Today in “Companies Are Just Like Us” news, the Supreme Court has decided that Hobby Lobby, a for-profit chain of crafts stores that wants to discriminate on the basis of religion and not provide female employees access to contraceptives, is indeed exempt from following federal law!

Today, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.

This afternoon, we're in court where a federal judge will hear arguments in our lawsuit with the Insane Clown Posse. The lawsuit challenges the FBI’s erroneous and arbitrary designation of all fans of ICP, known as Juggalos, as a “hybrid” criminal gang.

Today, Sterling Heights will vote on an ordinance that would protect its citizens from discrimination, banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, public accommodations, and housing.