News & Commentary

It all started when Rev. Edward Pinkney, a community organizer and associate pastor at the Hopewell Baptist Church in Benton Harbor, Michigan, wrote a newspaper editorial condemning racial injustice in the criminal courts of Berrien County. He also expressed his opinion that a particular judge -- Judge Alfred M. Butzbaugh -- was “racist and dumb.” Then, borrowing from the Book of Deuteronomy, Rev. Pinkney predicted that if Judge Butzbaugh did not change his ways, God would punish him "with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning." The next thing Rev. Pinkney knew he was serving a prison sentence of three to ten years in prison -- yes, years -- for "threatening" Judge Butzbaugh with the wrath of God. As a result the ACLU of Michigan is representing a Baptist minister in what may be the first case of a clergyman thrown into prison for predicting what God might do. The implications of throwing an individual in jail for speaking out against government are far reaching. Our democracy cannot function unless all citizens, whatever their political persuasion or favorite Biblical passage, are free to publicize their views without fear of retaliation by the government. Political opinions and religious prognostication can be harsh, offensive, even alarming to some, but allowing citizens to express their opinions without fear of imprisonment is a distinguishing aspect of American democracy. Free speech does have its limitations however; understandably, the Constitution does not protect "true threats." The problem with Rev. Pinkney’s sentencing, as the ACLU argued in its brief to the Michigan Court of Appeals, was that Rev. Pinkney never threatened Judge Butzbaugh. He quoted the Bible and predicted that God might punish the judge. That means since Rev. Pinkney's powers do not include telling God what to do, to my knowledge, that his statement was no threat. Simply his statements were political commentary and religious prognostication, which of course are fully protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Recently, the ACLU scored a major victory in Rev. Pinkney's case by convincing the Michigan Court of Appeals that Rev. Pinkney should be released on bail while he pursues his appeal. After serving over a year in prison he was finally released on Christmas Eve. While an important milestone, Rev. Pickney’s release signaled the start of a new battle. Despite a court order from the Michigan Court of Appeals saying he should be released, the trial court imposed a long list of highly restrictive bond conditions -- including 24-hour-per-day house arrest and a ban on participating in any capacity in a political campaign. In addition to those conditions, the Reverend was also banned from giving public speeches. Without question, these conditions are unreasonable, unconstitutional, and thoroughly undermine the Court of Appeals' order granting Rev. Pinkney bail. Rev. Pinkney's allegedly "threatening" newspaper editorial began with these words: "It is our constitutional duty as American citizens to hold our elected officials accountable for their words, actions and inaction of wrongdoing. We must draw the line and decide what to do if that line is crossed, and we must use our Constitution." All Americans should be horrified when a preacher is thrown into prison for criticizing a judge and quoting the Bible. We must, indeed, "use our Constitution" to make sure it never happens again. As a result, the ACLU is asking the Court of Appeals to remove these conditions and restore Rev. Pinkney's basic constitutional rights while his appeal is underway.

On a trip to London in 2003, I visited the archives of the British Library. There, among treasures like an original copy of the Magna Carta, was a letter from Charles Darwin to fellow naturalist Alfred Wallace dated November 13, 1859 – the year of the publication of On the Origin of Species. In this letter, Darwin tells Wallace to expect a copy of On the Origin of Species in the post and asks for his general impressions. Most profoundly, though, on the subject of introducing his evolutionary theory to the world, he writes: "God knows what the public will think." Standing over that letter, reading that sentence, I remember wondering if that was simply an innocent rumination resulting from his past conversations about faith and science with others or if Darwin knew that, even 150 years later, he would be the face of a debate that humans passionately argue more than ever. The ACLU is often accused of taking extreme positions on this debate. We are erroneously characterized as “anti-religious” and gross misperceptions about the ACLU’s position on religious freedom and belief exist nationwide. We believe that the freedom to worship as we choose, individually, was one of the core tenets of our founding fathers when drafting the Constitution. Freedom of religious expression is something that we, like you, deeply value as a fundamental freedom. I believe that everyone in this country values this freedom. Unfortunately, too many peoples’ perception of our position on religious liberty are influenced by uninformed sources – those that too often misinterpret the actions we take to protect freedom of religion. No other issue on the ACLU docket stirs more controversy and debate than protecting religious freedom. As you go through your routine today – Darwin’s 200th birthday – know that we are grateful for your unwavering support on all of our issues, especially those that are the least popular.

What I saw was belly dancers, bats and bongs. What I felt was a sense of fear imposed through a carefully orchestrated musical score, CSI-style taglines at the bottom of the screen and a dramatic baritone announcer. What I heard was a cocktail of scare tactics and exuberant patriotism as the importance of each drug hit was underscored by a reminder that narcotics money funded terrorists who were out to destroy our country. What I did not get from ABC’s new series “Homeland Security,” however, was the truth. In short, this “reality” series offers a picture that is anything but real. Although many of the images in the show were disturbing, I was even more concerned by what I did not see. These omissions dramatically distorted the series’ depiction of border patrol’s actions. For instance, amongst all of the stops conducted in the hour-long premier a few weeks ago, only one was the result of mistaken identity. Guns a’blazing, the officers surrounded a car filled with an entire family, only to discover that the man inside was not, in fact, the armed felon that they originally believed him to be. The show quickly glossed over this incident, only taking the time to highlight that this mistake “did not take long to discover.” Yet we know that these mistakes happen all the time because the internal DHS watch-lists are riddled with inaccuracies. Moreover, these false stops continue to happen to the same people, as there is no centralized mechanism for correction. Finally, in direct contrast to the show’s editing, the duration and conditions of these detentions often are dramatically different from what was shown on ABC. I know of these things because of my experiences at the ACLU. Most recently, a woman who regularly travels between Michigan and Canada to visit her parents approached our office. At least once a month, she is stopped at the border based on a mistake that has yet to be corrected. During her last stop, she was physically searched by a male officer, handcuffed, separated from her family and detained for several hours without any explanation. When the officers finally realized their mistake, no apology was offered. This is our true reality. The show’s treatment of airport security measures was similarly lacking. In the final segment, a tearful TSA agent explained that his job was to keep the air safe for families because, well, he had kids too. According to ABC’s footage, the most significant drawback to these increased safety measures are the discarded water bottles and containers of lotion. But this pales in comparison to the invasions of privacy that regularly occur as blackberries and laptops are opened, searched and in some instances, destroyed, without any probable cause in the name of airport security. In just one example of this repeated practice, CBP seized and searched Imam Mohammad Ali Elhah’s laptop. When they returned the laptop 20 minutes later, the hard drive was destroyed. The Imam lost over eight years of work, and again, no apology was offered. This is our true reality. If the dismal ratings are any indicator, Homeland Security will be cancelled soon. But the real life experiences on the ground that the show refuses to depict will remain unless and until the new administration changes the policies and practices of the DHS. This is our true reality.

It’s an exciting time to be the ACLU of Michigan – new website, new blog, new president and a new outlook on civil liberties in Michigan. Admittedly, it’s hard to have a new outlook on anything in this state other than the economic crisis that we’re facing, but lucky for us, guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms that this country was founded upon doesn’t cost a thing. In fact, civil libertie could save the state a lot of money.

Op-ed Appearing in the Ann Arbor News

"Can I wear campaign gear into the polls?" "What if I don't have any photo ID?" "Are the rumors about foreclosure true?" Today marks five weeks before Election Day, and questions about voting rights are everywhere. Click "Read More" below to find out the truth about voting in Michigan and then share the truth with a friend. Fact: You have the right to vote without photo ID in Michigan

FLINT – In a letter today to the City of Flint Police Chief, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan warned that the Police Department’s enforcement of jail time and fines for wearing saggy pants and the practice of stopping and searching individuals wearing saggy pants are unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately.“Under no stretch of the imagination does wearing saggy pants that reveal the top of one’s boxer shorts violate the Flint Disorderly Conduct Ordinance,” said Gregory Gibbs, ACLU of Michigan Flint Branch President and Cooperating Attorney. “It is clear that the ordinance provision that is cited by the police chief requires that a person openly expose certain body parts to be guilty.  Flint residents should be embarrassed by this colossal waste of time and scarce resources.”

Cantrell v. Granholm On Wednesday, February 6, 2008, at 2:30pm at the U.S. Courthouse in Detroit, Federal District Judge David Lawson will hear oral argument on the constitutionality of Proposal 2, the 2006 ballot initiative banning affirmative action in Michigan. The case, Cantrell v. Granholm, (Case No. 2:06-cv-15637) was filed in December 2006, soon after Proposal 2 was adopted, by a diverse group of students, prospective students and faculty at the University of Michigan. They are being represented by a legal team comprised of the Detroit Branch NAACP, ACLU of Michigan, the New York law firm of Cravath Swaine and Moore, U-M Law Professor and ACLU Lawyer Mark Rosenbaum, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, the Michigan State Conference NAACP and the national office of the ACLU. A separate but related lawsuit, filed by an organization known as “BAMN,” will be argued at the same time.

Over the years, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has been called many names, but nothing brings out the taunting more than the holiday season.