News & Commentary

Share this on Facebook | Tweet ThisJay Kaplan, LGBT Project Staff AttorneyThere was a lot of excitement among supporters of marriage equality swirling around the decision of one judge yesterday... and a lot of disappointment after the judge announced there would be no decision. But sometimes no decision is the best decision. Here's why this could be the best thing for our chances for allowing same-sex couples to marry after all. Yesterday, Judge Bernard Friedman of the United District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by an Oakland County lesbian couple challenging Michigan’s marriage ban.Despite a lot of speculation, Judge Friedman decided to hold a trial on the case, calling on both sides of the argument to present expert witnesses to defend their claims. This means that in order to defend Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, their legal team will need to present testimony from experts that convinces the judge that allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children would somehow destroy Michigan. This is a good thing and could only strengthen a favorable opinion for marriage equality in Michigan. After all, that's what happened in California.{C}California's Proposition 8In California, supporters of marriage equality faced Proposition 8, an amendment to their state constitution that denied same-sex couples the right to marry.Just like here in Michigan, a judge asked to hear testimony from experts who could back up the rationale for denying gay couples the right to marry. And lo and behold, they couldn’t provide defend their claims. The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses who were unconvincing, and who made mistakes that actually helped the side of marriage equality. Turns out that it’s easy to throw around discriminatory claims implying that allowing loving same-sex couples to marry and start families somehow damages our state. It’s much more difficult backing that up with scientific studies to prove that rationale.In California, a trial was the best possible place to show how ridiculous and flimsy the opposition to marriage equality is. Now Michigan will have that same chance. Polls across the country show public support for marriage equality continues to rise and the historic Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will pave the way for equality for lesbian and gay couples across America, but for a full civil rights victory we must take that power into the voting booth and onto the streets to speak out for change.Here at the ACLU, we're supporting legal and legislative work across our nation to repeal existing marriage amendments and win fair marriage laws through Out For Freedom campaign.The verdict of one judge is important, but it's through working together and using our voices and our votes that we will truly relegate discrimination against gay and lesbian couples to the dustbin of history.Learn more about issues you care about and take action: become a member, subscribe to our email action alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. 

A little noticed surveillance technology, designed to track the movements of passing drivers, is fast proliferating America’s streets. Automatic license plate readers (ALPR) mounted on police cars or on objects like road signs and bridges, use small, high-speed cameras to photograph every passing car. This system photographs every license plate it encounters - capturing thousands of cars’ information per minute – and uses software to read the number, add a time and location stamp, and then record the information in a database. A computer checks the information in these pictures against police department databases. If a scanned plate matches information in the database, an officer is alerted. License plate readers can be a useful tool for police officers, helping them recover stolen cars and arrest people with outstanding warrants. However, the spread of these scanners is creating what are, in effect, government location tracking systems recording the movements of many millions of innocent Americans in huge databases.  To protect the privacy of millions of Americans, there is a dire need for rules to make sure that this technology isn’t used for unbridled government surveillance. So why should you care?

 Jay Kaplan, LGBT Project Staff AttorneyToday could be a big day for marriage equality in Michigan. Judge Bernard Friedman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will hear arguments and may issue a decision in a lawsuit filed by an Oakland County lesbian couple challenging Michigan’s marriage ban.The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the argument that denying Michigan families marriage and second parent adoptions is unconstitutional.The couple, who have been together for more than a decade and who would like to both share legal responsibility for their children in the form of a second-parent adoption, amended their adoption lawsuit in September 2012 to challenge the marriage ban as well.A lot of rumors have been swirling around about what it would mean for couples wishing to get married if Judge Freidman strikes the marriage ban from Michigan’s constitution.All of these answers are based on the assumption that Judge Friedman will strike down Michigan’s ban and will not put his decision on hold immediately. For specific legal advice about your situation, we suggest you consult with a lawyer before marrying in Michigan or elsewhere.1. If we get married before a stay is put in place, are we legally married in Michigan? Yes, you are legally married. However, the validity of your marriage could be in legal limbo for a year or more pending the outcome of an appeal. In other words, in the event that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals does not agree with Judge Friedman and reverses his favorable decision, your marriage could be voided by the appeals court. It’s also possible that the State will not respect your marriage until the case is finally decided.2. What if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Judge Friedman’s decision, will our marriage be invalidated? It’s likely that marriages conducted during this period – as happened in California after Mayor Newsome’s decision that it was unconstitutional to deny people the freedom to marry-- would be invalidated if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a favorable ruling in the district court. However, additional litigation may be needed to answer this question.3. If we get married in Michigan during this window, can we get married in another state or country while the case is put on hold?It’s unclear. Some states allow couples to get legally married in multiple states at the same time, but some do not. It’s important that you check the law of the state(s) where you are considering getting married before marrying in Michigan. The answer may also depend on whether or not your Michigan marriage is viewed as valid after the appeals process.4. Can we access federal protections if we get married now? Maybe. You may be able to access federal benefits associated with marriage, particularly those federal programs that define a marriage based on the law of the place where you get married, at least until the Court of Appeals rules. Whether your marriage remains recognized by the federal government would depend on what the Court of Appeals decides about the validity of the marriages issued during this time period.With regards to those federal programs that define a marriage based on the law in the state where you currently live, you might be able to access those benefits as well. If Judge Friedman’s decision is reversed by the appeals court, your eligibility for those federal benefits could change and could result in those benefits being discontinued. However, if you choose to get married in another state, federal protections that are based on the place of celebration will not be in jeopardy but it's important to research federal marriage protections.5. Will Michigan respect our marriage and grant us state benefits if we get married now?An argument could be made that you are entitled to state benefits because as you are legally married while the case is pending on appeal. However, it’s unclear what the State will do, and additional litigation may be needed to address this question.-->Learn more about issues you care about and take action: become a member, subscribe to our email action alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

The Michigan Supreme Court said today it will hear arguments in an American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan case seeking to strike down the City of Wyoming’s ordinance that bans medical marijuana because it directly violates the state’s Medical Marihuana Act. The lawsuit was originally filed in November 2010 on behalf of John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient who suffers from diabetes and a neurological disorder that causes neuropathy and severe pain. In August 2012, the state appeals court declared the ordinance “void and unenforceable.” In 2008, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act was approved on a statewide ballot. Sixty-three percent of voters approved the law statewide, including 59 percent of voters in Wyoming. The ordinance was adopted by the Wyoming City Council in 2010 despite a public outcry. While it does not specifically mention medical marijuana, it prohibits any violations of federal law. Because medical marijuana is still technically illegal under federal law, the city used this terminology to ban medical marijuana. The following can be attributed to Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney: “People across the state overwhelmingly voted to protect patients who use medical marijuana from punishment and penalty. We believe the appeals court properly rejected the misguided efforts of a few local officials to undo the results of that historic election. We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the will of the people and uphold the rights of patients and caregivers who have done nothing wrong, but are nonetheless treated like criminals by local officials.”

This week, the ACLU is defending the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act before the state’s Supreme Court and the stakes could not be higher.Powerful interest groups have filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to declare that the entire medical marijuana law is “void in its entirety” and without effect. If the court agrees, legal protections for more than 125,000 patients and caregivers could be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.The case began almost three years ago when John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient, learned that medical marijuana was being banned in Wyoming, MI the town where he lived.Like so many other patients with serious illnesses, John's quality of life had vastly improved when his primary care physician recommended that he try medical marijuana in compliance with Michigan law. That's why he was shocked that his ability to use medical marijuana was threatened by a local ordinance passed by Wyoming’s City Council that bans medical marijuana throughout the city.That’s right—even though the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act legalized medical marijuana throughout the state, a city wants to pretend the law doesn't exist within its boundaries. John joined us at the ACLU of Michigan to fight this injustice, filing a lawsuit challenging the local ordinance as a violation of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. We won in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals, where the judges unanimously rejected the city of Wyoming’s arguments that the city can ignore state law because medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law.But now the fight that began as a challenge to one small city's ordinance will decide if seriously ill patients can receive the care they need in our state, as the Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wyoming’s appeal.It's particularly bizarre that the city of Wyoming and special interest groups are trying to use federal law to nullify the entire Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, asthe Department of Justice itself has a policy of not enforcing federal marijuana law against patients and caregivers who are complying with their states’ medical marijuana laws. The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and a section of the State Bar of Michigan have both filed briefs asking the Michigan Supreme Court to declare the entire state law void and without effect because it somehow interferes with federal law enforcement efforts.Yet make no mistake: If these arguments are accepted by a majority of the justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, the progress we’ve made on medical marijuana in Michigan will come to an abrupt and screeching halt.Michigan is one of 20 states that allow medical marijuana under state law, and public opinion polls in Michigan and throughout the country consistently show widespread support for medical marijuana.As the ACLU’s brief explains, there is nothing wrong with Michigan’s voters making their own decision not to prohibit medical marijuana even though there is technically no medical exception in the federal statute. Since the founding of our republic, the 50 states have been “laboratories of democracy” where new laws are tried out on a small scale with the hope that the successful laws can one day be implemented nationwide. This is how we make progress in our country. Let's hope one small city's misguided ban doesn't take away the hard-won treatment for patients across our state. 

The ACLU is defending the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act before the state’s Supreme Court this week, and the stakes could not be higher. Powerful interest groups have filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to declare that the entire medical marijuana law is “void in its entirety” and without effect.If the court agrees, legal protections for more than 125,000 patients and caregivers could be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.The case began almost three years ago when John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient, learned that medical marijuana was being banned in Wyoming, Mich., the town where he lived. John suffers from severe and chronic pain in his legs and feet due to a number of serious medical conditions, and his primary care physician recommended that he try medical marijuana in compliance with Michigan law.After he got his medical marijuana card, John found that medical marijuana relieves his pain without the serious side effects caused by pharmaceuticals and his quality of life vastly improved. Soon, however, Mr. Ter Beek found that his ability to use medical marijuana was threatened by a local ordinance passed by Wyoming’s City Council that bans medical marijuana throughout the city.That’s right—even though the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act legalized medical marijuana throughout the state, a city wants to nullify the law with a local ordinance.Mr. Ter Beek filed a lawsuit challenging the local ordinance as a violation of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and the ACLU agreed to take on his case. In response, Wyoming’s attorneys argued that the city does not have to comply with the state law on medical marijuana, because medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Wyoming’s argument and sided with the ACLU in a unanimous decision.But now, with the fate of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act hanging in the balance, the Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wyoming’s appeal.So a case that began as a challenge to a local ordinance will now test the ability of the citizens of Michigan to legalize medical marijuana under state law.Michigan is one of 20 states that allow medical marijuana under state law, and public opinion polls in Michigan and throughout the country consistently show widespread support for medical marijuana.Although federal statutes do not recognize a “medical” exception for the possession or cultivation of marijuana, the Department of Justice has a policy of not enforcing federal law against patients and caregivers who are complying with their states’ medical marijuana laws.Given the federal government’s own stance on medical marijuana, it is particularly bizarre that the city of Wyoming and special interest groups are trying to use federal law to nullify the entire Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and a section of the State Bar of Michigan have both filed briefs asking the Michigan Supreme Court to declare the entire state law void and without effect because it somehow interferes with federal law enforcement efforts.Make no mistake: if these arguments are accepted by a majority of the justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, the progress we’ve made on medical marijuana in Michigan will come to an abrupt and screeching halt.As the ACLU’s brief explains, there is nothing wrong with Michigan’s voters making their own decision not to prohibit medical marijuana even though there is technically no medical exception in the federal statute. Since the founding of our republic, it has been universally understood that the 50 states are “laboratories of democracy” where new laws are tried out on a small scale with the hope that the successful laws can one day be implemented nationwide.By Dan Korobkin, Staff Attorney

When Proposal 2 passed in 2006, it banned race-conscious college admissions policies in Michigan. I was only 16 — too young to vote but old enough to know it would affect the quality and accessibility of education in Michigan. After growing up in a district with a notoriously wide opportunity gap, I felt compelled to find a way to fight this destructive decision.I became a plaintiff in a case contesting the constitutionality of Proposal 2, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on October 15, because the lack of diversity on campus affects not just me and my peers, but the quality of education being provided to future generationsWhen I started school at University of Michigan as a transfer student in 2009, the student body was composed mostly of students admitted before the passage of Proposal 2, and its diversity reflected this. Yet over the next few years, I witnessed firsthand as this diversity declined, bringing the level of discourse and academic rigor down with it.As a graduate of the University of Michigan's School of Education, this decline was particularly troubling. As we entered public schools as student-teachers, my peers and I were confronted with a tough realization --our mentor teachers were doing creative, necessary work to build equitable classrooms, yet many of us were not prepared to participate. The School of Education is nationally recognized as one of the best teacher preparation programs in the world. However, the vast majority of its students are white and middle-class. No matter how rigorous the curriculum or varied the content of the teacher education program, it cannot prepare teachers to teach all students equitably if they are not learning in universities that reflect the diversity of the K-12 classrooms they will enter.The education program at University of Michigan is actively seeking to build a more diverse study body, but there have been roadblocks. Because of Prop 2, admissions officers at U of M cannot consider the race of student applicants as even one factor among many in deciding who would best contribute to the university community and the broader goals of diversity.Conversely, prospective students whose parents are alumni are welcome to call up the admissions office and let them know that they should give a second look to a legacy applicant. But if my classmates and I want to tell the university to consider race of one of many factors, the only thing we could do is enact a constitutional amendment. And I don't have $5 million lying around, which is what experts say is the bare minimum it costs to launch such a campaign.Without an ability to attract and train a diverse student body, future teachers will continue to be largely homogenous, entering classrooms without cultural competence.Today I teach in an elementary school in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, N.Y. My classroom is named after the University of Michigan and my students are all called "Future Wolverines." They sing "Hail to the Victors" to celebrate learning the parts of speech.I put my college education to use every day as I design curriculum and build community among my kids. However, I wonder if I could have offered my students—the vast majority of whom are African-American--a better, more reflective instruction if Prop 2 had not passed. I wonder if they will have a chance to see themselves among the graduates of U of M.At 16, I believed that Proposal 2 would change higher education in Michigan. Today, I understand those consequences all too well. I hope the Supreme Court recognizes this so that my students have an opportunity I didn't have -- to learn in a diverse university environment that reflects the world we live in.By Molly Nestor

Monday, we celebrated the 11th annual International Right to Know Day, recognizing the right of access to information and the importance of government transparency.

This Wednesday, the House Families, Children and Seniors Committee will consider legislation that would allow adoption agencies the right to discriminate against certain families, denying a home for a child in need.