News & Commentary

There are many individuals and groups in Michigan who lost as a result of yesterday's United States Supreme Court decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.Schuette is widely misunderstood as being a case about affirmative action. It is not. In fact, it leaves in place Supreme Court law recognizing diversity as a compelling governmental interest and permitting carefully constructed affirmative action programs. Today's decision has no effect on states that want to adopt or maintain affirmative action plans.The policies banned by Proposal 2, a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative that led to a state constitutional ban on race-conscious college admissions policies, were all constitutionally permissible. None involved quotas or singling out race over other factors contributing to a diverse student body. Rather, this case is about civic participation for all.The question is not whether universities in the state must implement race-conscious admissions policies. Only whether those who want to take policies that promote racial diversity into consideration along with other diversity factors – that benefit everyone – can compete on the same playing field as other groups advocating for admissions policies that matter to them.And that is where the losses come in.Applicants to schools in Michigan who believed that they should be able to ask schools to consider race as one factor in their admission lost.Even though other students that had alumni parents or grandparents or relatives that made large donations to the school can continue to argue that family giving should be considered in the admissions policy.Potential students who hail from Buford, Wyoming, or other geographically isolated locations will likewise continue to have the opportunity to say that factor should be considered for admission to Michigan universities.University officials who, following the instruction of the Supreme Court, decided that diversity served important educational interests and put together carefully crafted programs to ensure diversity existed lost.Students who valued the opportunity to learn in the rich educational environment created by real diversity and sought to be prepared to live in a diverse business and social world lost.Citizens who believed that educational institutions should reflect the diversity of their state and prepare all of its citizens to assume leadership roles in their state lost.And, in a very real sense, everyone including those of us outside of Michigan lost as the Supreme Court placed one more obstacle in the path of people seeking, as Justice Sotomayor so movingly put it, "to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government."Fortunately, these losses are confined to the relatively few states that have enacted total bans on consideration of race in governmental decision making. Today's case is an opportunity for those states to reassess those bans, to take note of the dramatic loss of qualified students of color in their schools and the resulting loss of diversity, and to consider repealing the ill-considered bans.While a setback for Michigan, affirmative action remains alive and well in many other places across the country. For the states that still allow affirmative action policies, today is an important reminder that although the Supreme Court did not go so far as international law which requires the use of fair consideration of race, it does clearly permit it.Instead of supporting initiatives that rig the game against people who were traditionally excluded, those states should take every step to enact practices which further the diversity which benefits us all.By Dennis Parker, Director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program

Terribly important civil rights work can be terribly upsetting, I’ve found. When I signed on to be a student in the Wayne Law Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Clinic with the ACLU of Michigan, I had no idea that fighting against the injustices of our world would mean submerging myself in a sea of injustices and swimming around. Upon starting at the ACLU of Michigan, I learned about Allison Ben, a pregnant single mother being evicted for being a victim of domestic violence. I immediately jumped at the chance to help her. Though we worked feverishly on her case, Inkster Housing resolutely refused to dismiss her eviction while her abuser grew more and more determined to terrorize and control her. Over the last few months while I’ve worked with Allison, I’ve had some dark days, days where all that work sometimes seemed to make so little difference in her life. I confess that I felt my hope for society waning, slowly but surely.

I've been happily married for nearly 33 years. I know first-hand how much marriage can mean to a couple and their children, and it has hurt me to see other loving couples barred from sharing the same joys and sorrows. I’m ecstatic that I've been part of the legal team which has opened the door to marriage for all loving couples in our state. This struggle is far from over. In the weeks and months ahead, we'll need everyone's support to ensure that the clock isn't turned back on our progress. Michigan’s Attorney General has already appealed the victory.  The fight will be long, hard and expensive. You can be a part of history by supporting the litigation through your donation. When we first brought this case just two years ago, it was about April and Jayne’s right to adopt each other’s children. We never imagined that the case would turn into a challenge to Michigan’s discriminatory marriage amendment.  Sometimes, things can change fast. First the judge invited us to expand the case to include a challenge to the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Then he decided that the issues in the case were important enough that there should be a full trial – the first marriage equality case to go to trial since California's ban was ruled unconstitutional – and he agreed to expedite the trial date. When the trial started on February 25, though, we were ready. All of our witnesses were at the top of their field. As Judge Friedman found, the State’s witnesses were part of a "fringe" group.  The legal question was whether sexual orientation was a valid reason for denying full equality to some of those couples, and Judge Friedman has answered with a resounding “no”! Reading Judge Friedman’s landmark decision was an exhilarating experience. He heard our message and speaks in stirring language, pointing out that the protections, joy and dignity of marriage are the right of all Michiganders. All couples have the right to love one another, make a commitment to one another and decide together whether to form a family. As excited as we are about this victory, this struggle is far from over. Depending on what happens, this case could end where it is now, at the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, or it could possibly end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.  We’re going to keep fighting to protect April and Jayne and their children for as long as it takes, but we need your help. Talk about the case with your friends, keep sending us your good wishes and consider giving the fight your financial support. We’ve made it this far with the help of many generous donors, and we’re going to need a lot of help again as we defend this win on appeal. This has been a truly amazing case to be involved in. It has been wonderful working with and getting to know April and Jayne, and I have heard touching stories from many folks about how this case is affecting them, their friends, relatives or co-workers. We have also seen first-hand how public opinion in Michigan is shifting right before our eyes. With the support of amazing friends across our state, we hope this is the last time loving couples like April and Jayne have to prove that they are the same as any other couple. To talk about the sweeping changes we've seen in the last decade and look at some upcoming challenges, we're talking about Marriage Matters. This series of blogs deals with the history of the fight for LGBT rights and takes an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan and beyond. 

A Pontiac lawsuit that could have far-reaching implications throughout Michigan was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.

If I hadn’t gone to the Washtenaw County Clerk’s office on Saturday morning, I don’t think I could live with myself. I wanted to be able to tell my grandchildren that I was a part of history, and history was happening at 9 AM, March 22 as the first marriage licenses were issued to same sex couples in Michigan. There were hundreds of us. Couples waiting to be married, their parents, children and friends. Before the building opened the line snaked around the block. I took my place with the officiants, having obtained a non-denominational ordination several months ago in anticipation of this day. When the doors opened, the crowd crushed forward. Clergy and judges, almost two dozen of us, gathered in a downstairs conference room, ready to perform ceremonies as the licenses were issued. The first couple emerged from the clerk’s office to cheers and came to the conference room to be married by Judge Judith Levy, Michigan’s first openly gay judge. Judge Levy had been sworn in just four days before and was performing her first official act as a Federal judge. “Marriage is a civil right,” Judge Levy reminded us. The vows were said, rings exchanged, the couple kissed, the crowd cheered and Michigan had one more married couple – just the same as every other, yet so historically important. The crowd seemed to grow and grow. The conference room heated up. Donations began arriving – bouquets of flowers for anyone who didn’t have them. Cases of water. Cake. Rainbow confetti. A violinist began playing in the lobby. A photographer took pictures and collected emails to send them to the couples. Families milled around with their children, waiting to witness and celebrate the marriages of total strangers because they felt drawn to this place. The second ceremony, officiated by a local pastor, began. Two women approached the table. “We’re number 3,” they said. They had been together for 8 years and had 5 children, including twin babies waiting at home. They weren’t sure if they could have their ceremony because they had no officiant and brought no witnesses. Two people nearby volunteered as witnesses, and I started my first wedding ceremony, saying words I had rehearsed in my head for months. “Some will say what we do here today is revolutionary,” I began, “Some will say it is historic. But I have another word for what we are about to do... Redundant. Nothing we can do here today will add to or change in any way the fact that you are married. You did that long ago. We are here to play catch-up on behalf of the state of Michigan. And as the representative of the State in this ceremony, I want to say, thank you for not giving up on us.” I led the brides through the same vows that my husband and I made 21 years ago at our own wedding. The couple kissed, the crowd cheered, confetti flew. I officiated three ceremonies and served as a witness for another. My Rabbi arrived and a chupah – a Jewish wedding canopy -- was raised in the corner for two couples from my congregation. At one point, I could simultaneously hear a Hebrew prayer, an Apache blessing and a judge asking if a couple were there of their own free will. More than 70 licenses were issued. The Clerk’s office closed, and we were done for the day. Hours later, the sixth circuit issued a stay of the historic ruling that had made it all possible. Who knows when I will be able to officiate weddings – all weddings, without discrimination – again. This amazing day was not about me. But it was about people like me: a community – regardless of sexual orientation – putting together the pieces of a wedding and making it happen for our neighbors. That is what I will tell my grandchildren when I tell them about the day Michigan made history. To talk about the sweeping changes we've seen in the last decade and look at some upcoming challenges, we're talking about Marriage Matters. This series of blogs deals with the history of the fight for LGBT rights and takes an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan and beyond. 

We all expect police to serve and protect. A new state law allows innocent people to be charged with a felony for statements made during a police investigation.The Lansing case of Kosgar Lado illustrates the risks to justice in the new law.Kosgar is a 21 year-old refugees from Sudan who was accused of a crime, pressured into making a confession and then found completely innocent.Police are encouraged to use high-pressure tactics to convince suspects to make incriminating statements and confess to crimes. It's no suprise that during his interrogation Kosgar made many conflicting statements.During court hearings on the new charges, Kosgar was assessed by a psychiatrist regarding his competence to stand trial. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, The police doubted the validity of Kosgar's confession and kept investigating, eventually charging four other men with the crime. One has pled guilty and the others are awaiting trials.Even though he had gone through a terrible experience, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunning charged him with “lying to police,” a felony under the new law.The new law specifically states that it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” make false statements to police officers in an investigation.The question is how could anyone believe that a person with paranoid schizophrenia could “knowingly and willfully” lie during a police interrogation?In July 2012, the ACLU of Michigan warned the Michigan Legislature against the law, pointing to a nonpartisan analysis which found that the proposed law could punish some witnesses yet protect others, even if they gave false statements. This confusion undermines trust between police and their public.Instead of encouraging the public to cooperate with police, this law discourages anyone from speaking to law enforcement, since words or omissions could send them to jail. Without knowing whether the police are going to protect you or prosecute you, who would risk speaking to the police at all?What’s not acknowledged by this dangerous law is that false confessions are often not the result of people intentionally misleading police officers, but the consequences of inappropriate police interrogation procedures.We know that false confessions are common and the basis for many wrongful convictions. In fact, as the New Yorker recently highlighted, police use sophisticated interrogation techniques that studies show encourage false confessions.After the law was passed, the Michigan Innocence Project advised that “under no circumstances should a prosecutor charge somebody with making a false statement to the police when the statement was extracted in police interrogation, because what we’ve learned, whether the person is mentally ill or not, is that it’s extraordinarily easy for the police to obtain confessions from innocent people.”As described by James Shonkwiler, the former executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, Kosgar's case is the perfect example of the law’s dangerous applications:As he spoke, did Lado maliciously or recklessly intend to divert or mislead police away from the truth or “pervert the pursuit of justice?” To the contrary, the facts strongly suggest that he was upset, confused and afraid and did not possess the requisite mens rea, or “guilty mind” required to form criminal intent. Kosgar's case drew attention from people across the state outraged at such an obvious miscarriage of justice.Two Lansing area attorneys offered pro bono assistance in Kosgar's case. Community people formed Justice for Kosgar and established a fund to help pay for court fees and mental health re-assessments.Over 550 people signed a Change.org petition demanding that Prosecutor Dunnings drop the charges. The Lansing State Journal and WLNS TV Channel 6 provided regular and in-depth coverage of the case and Lansing Community College Radio dedicated nearly one full hour program to the story.After all the attention and hard work by the Justice for Kosgar community, Prosecutor Dunnings ended his crusade against an innocent man.Kosgar's own words are a cautionary reminder to us all about speaking with law enforcement under the new law. During his interrogation, he mentioned to officers that other people accused of crimes “talk and then... they end up going for something they didn’t do. That’s what I’m saying.”Justice eventually prevailed for Kosgar. Yet we all remain at risk for aggressive police or prosecutors bolstered by this misguided state law.Lynne Martinez, Lansing Branch PresidentSofia Rahman, Legal Fellow

In a recent blog I, like a number of other reporters, wrote about Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr’s proposed pension cuts, which were outlined in the plan of adjustment he submitted to the bankruptcy court last month. And, like others, I made mention of the fact that cost of living allowances, or COLAs, would be eliminated if the plan gets approved.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reconsider its decision to not prosecute the Saginaw police officers involved in the shooting death of Milton Hall.On July 1, 2012, Saginaw police officers shot and killed Hall, a 49-year-old, mentally ill African American homeless man. During the standoff at a local shopping center, six officers discharged their weapons – 47 shots were fired, with eleven hitting Hall. The killing was video recorded, and footage shows that Hall was standing a significant distance away from officers and was armed with a three inch knife. Video footage shows that all shots were fired within a matter of seconds, and even after Hall collapsed, police continued to fire.In a press release issued late last month, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the FBI announced that Saginaw police officers who shot and killed Milton Hall won't face federal charges because “this tragic event does not present sufficient evidence of willful misconduct to lead to a federal criminal prosecution.”To prosecute the officers, it is necessary to prove not only that Hall’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the use of excessive force, but also that the officers “willfully” set out to deprive him of those rights.In its memo to U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade, the ACLU of Michigan disagrees with the DOJ’s conclusion that there is insufficient proof of the officers’ willfulness and cites Supreme Court precedent indicating that an officer “recklessly disregarding” a person’s rights can meet the “willfulness” standard regardless of the officer’s frame of mind.The following can be attributed to Mark P. Fancher, ACLU of Michigan Racial Justice staff attorney:“The fact that six armed police officers fired 47 bullets at a mentally impaired homeless man who held only a small knife a significant distance away from the officers amounts to a reckless disregard of Milton Hall’s right to be free from an unreasonable use of force. As a civilian, Mr. Hall had every right to expect that the police would protect his life, but instead, he was the target of what resembled in many ways a firing squad. Saginaw deserves justice not only for Milton Hall, but for the entire community that has been devastated by this inexplicable act of police violence.”

It’s 2014. It’s the future! Still, every day I'm shocked that parts of our nation still seem trapped in a time warp.