AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Since 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has fought energetically for the rights of individuals. This private, nonprofit organization
is a multipurpose legal group with 300,000
members committed to the freedoms in the BILL
OF RIGHTS. Although these liberties—free
speech, equality, DUE PROCESS,privacy,etc.—
are guaranteed to each citizen, they are never
completely secure. Governments and majorities
can easily weaken them or even take them away.
The ACLU has had enormous success fighting
such cases: many of the most important
Supreme Court decisions have been won with its
involvement, and continues to fight thousands
of lawsuits in state and federal courts each year.
The ACLU also lobbies lawmakers and speaks
out on a wide variety of civil liberties and CIVIL
RIGHTS issues. Its passionate devotion to these
concerns makes it highly controversial.

The origins of the ACLU date to WORLD WAR
I, a dark era for civil liberties.War fever gripped
the United States, and official hostility toward
dissent ran high. Attorney General A. MITCHELL
PALMER orchestrated much of this hostility
from Washington, D.C., by ordering crack-
downs on protesters, breaking strikes, prosecut-
ing conscientious objectors, and deporting
thousands of immigrants. One group in partic-
ular stood up to him: the American Union
against Militarism (AUAM), led by social
reformers and radicals. Among its founders was
the pacifist ROGER BALDWIN, a former sociology
teacher. In 1917, as the United States prepared
to enter the war, Baldwin gave the group a
broader mission by transforming it into the
Civil Liberties Bureau, dedicated to the defense
of those the government saw fit to crush and
corral. Anti-Communist hysteria worsened the
civil liberties picture between 1919 and 1920,
and the upstart bureau had its hands full as
Palmer, and his assistant, J. EDGAR HOOVER,
staged massive police raids that netted thou-
sands of alleged subversives at a time.

In 1920, the Civil Liberties Bureau became
the ACLU. Joining Baldwin in launching the new
organization were several distinguished social
leaders, including the author Helen A. Keller, the
attorney and future Supreme Court justice
FELIX FRANKFURTER, and the socialist clergy-
man Norman Thomas. The ACLU quickly
joined the U.S. Congress and the AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION in denouncing Attorney General
Palmer for his raids—and the outcry helped end
his tyrannical career. In the first annual ACLU
report, Baldwin weighed the effectiveness of
public activism, noting, “[T]he mere public
assertion of the principle of freedom . . . helps
win it recognition, and in the long run makes for
tolerance and against resort to violence.” In its
weekly “Report on Civil Liberties Situation,” the
group watched over a torrent of abuses: a mob
forcing a Farmer-Labor party delegation in
Washington State to salute the U.S. flag; a Russian chemist being arrested in Illinois for distributing “inflammatory” handbills; and the
LYNCHING and burning of six black men in
Florida after a black man attempted to vote.

From the beginning, strict political neutral-
ity was the ACLU’s rule. The group did not
oppose political candidates and declared itself
neither liberal nor conservative. This position
had an important consequence: the ACLU
would defend the civil liberties of all people—
including those who were weak, unpopular, and
despised—without respect to their views. This
principle made for strange bedfellows. As the
Boston Globe recalled in its eulogy for Baldwin,
[A]t one point Mr. Baldwin was engaged
simultaneously in defending the rights of the
KU KLUX KLAN to hold meetings in Boston,
despite the orders of a Catholic mayor; of
Catholic teachers to teach in the schools of
Akron, despite the opposition of the Ku Klux
Klan; and of Communists to exhibit their
film, “The Fifth Year,” in Providence, despite
the opposition of both the Catholics and the
Ku Klux Klan.

Consequently, while carving out a unique
place for the ACLU in U.S. law, these defenses
also won the organization enemies.

Within a few years, the ACLU was widely
known. Its first victory before the Supreme
Court came in the landmark 1925 case GITLOW
V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69
L. Ed. 1138, in which the Court threw out the
defendant’s conviction under New York’s “crim-
inal anarchy” statute (N.Y.Penal Law §§ 160,
161, Laws 1909, ch. 88; Consol. Laws 1909, ch.
40), for advocating the overthrow of the U.S.
government in a printed flyer. Gitlow established
that the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, which
applies to the states, includes FREEDOM OF
SPEECH in its liberty guarantee. By 1926, the
ACLU was involved in the debate over church-
state separation. It joined the so-called SCOPES
MONKEY TRIAL, arguing against a Tennessee law
that forbade teaching the theory of evolution in
public schools (Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424,
278 S.W. 57 [1925]; 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363
[1927]). Besides bringing the group to national
and worldwide attention, Scopes set it on a
course from which it never veered: fighting gov-
ernment interference in religious matters. It
staged this fight with equanimity, opposing offi-
cial help and hindrance to religion, and it soon
backed the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a series of key
Supreme Court cases. This involvement laid the
groundwork for the Supreme Court’s ruling, in a
1962 challenge originally brought by the ACLU,
that school prayer is unconstitutional (ENGEL V.
VITALE, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d
601).

Between the 1930s and the mid-1990s, the
ACLU won (as counsel) or helped to win
(through amicus briefs) several Supreme Court
cases that profoundly changed U.S. law and life.
Among these were BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCA-
TION, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873
(1954) (declaring racially segregated schools
unconstitutional); MAPP V. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643,
81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) (severely
limiting the power of police officers and prose-
cutors to use illegally obtained evidence); GRIS-
WOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct.
1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965) (invalidating a
state law that banned contraceptives and, for the
first time, recognizing the concept of privacy in
the Bill of Rights); MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384
U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
(requiring the police to advise suspects of their
rights before interrogation); Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010
(1967) (striking down the laws of Virginia and
fifteen other states that made interracial mar-
riage a criminal offense); Brandenburg v. Ohio,
395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430
(1969) (invalidating state SEDITION laws aimed at radical groups); and ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973) (recognizinga woman’s constitutional right to anABORTION).

Rarely did these victories endear the ACLUto its opponents. Liberals often—though notalways—applauded the effort and the result.They praised, for instance, the ACLU fightagainst the Customs Bureau for banning JamesJoyce’s novel Ulysses, and its battle to securepublication of the Pentagon Papers during theVIETNAM WAR. Conservatives often found theACLU meddlesome and the results of its meddlingruinous. Southerners denounced its waron SEGREGATION, antiabortion groups blamedit for legal abortion, and Vice President GEORGEH.W. BUSH even labeled it “the criminal’s lobby”for its insistence on combating police illegality.At times, the organization outraged nearlyeveryone, as when it went to court to win theright of Nazis to march in public in Skokie, Illinois.Yet throughout its many controversies, theACLU seldom seemed to go against its charter.Especially in the early 1990s, it did not avoidcases even when taking them on meant clashingwith such traditional allies as feminists and universityprofessors over its support of the freedomto publish PORNOGRAPHY and oppositionto campus speech codes.

The ACLU is often called the nation’s foremostadvocate of individual rights.With dozensof Supreme Court cases and thousands of stateand federal rulings behind it, the organization is a firmly established force in U.S. law. Its reachgoes beyond the courts.Watchful of lawmakers,it frequently issues public statements on pendingnational, state, and local legislation, campaigningfor and against laws. It also pursues specialprojects on WOMEN’S RIGHTS, reproductive freedom,CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,PRISONERS’ RIGHTS, national security, and civilliberties. In these areas, its goal is both to defendexisting liberties and to expand them into quarterswhere they are not generally enjoyed.

The election of GEORGE W. BUSH as presidentin 2000 and the gain of Republican seats inboth the House and Senate in 2002 gaveincreased urgency to the ACLU’s advocacy forcivil liberties. In addition to supporting the rightto partial-birth abortion, the ACLU has foughtfor GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS, the rights oflibrary patrons to view unrestricted INTERNETsites, and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION programs forCOLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES throughout thecountry. The ACLU has opposed numerous initiativesof the Bush administration, in particular,federal funding for faith-based drugtreatment programs and the attempts to givesweeping new powers to domestic law enforcementand intelligence agencies after the September11th attacks in 2001.

The ACLU’s national headquarters is in NewYork City. The group maintains a legislativeoffice in Washington, D.C., and a regional officein Atlanta, along with chapters in each state. These state chapters follow the decisions of thenational executive board yet are also free to pursuecases on their own.

FURTHER READINGS

ACLU. ACLU’s Seventy-five Most Important Supreme CourtCases. Briefing paper.—. The ACLU Today. Briefing paper.—. Church and State. Briefing paper.—. Guardian of Liberty. Briefing paper.American Civil Liberties Union. Available online at<www.aclu.org> (accessed May 30, 2003).Hershkoff, Helen. 1997. The Rights of the Poor: The AuthoritativeACLU Guide to Poor People’s Rights. Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.Walker, Samuel. 1999. In Defense of American Liberties: AHistory of the ACLU. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Baldwin, Roger Nash; Bill of Rights; Civil Rights; Frankfurter,Felix; Palmer, Alexander Mitchell; Strossen,Nadine M.

Whose Civil Liberties, Anyway? The ACLU and Its Critics

Since 1920, the American Civil LibertiesUnion (ACLU) has stood at theforefront of nearly every great legal battleover personal freedom in the UnitedStates. The C in ACLU might easily standfor Controversial. Although the ACLU’srole as a major institution in U.S. law isindisputable, its effect on the law and onthe lives of citizens is frequently in dispute.Political debate over the groupyields very little middle ground and agreat amount of passionate disagreement.Supporters agree with its selfstyledepithet, “the guardian ofliberty.” To them, the ACLU isoften all that stands betweenfreedom and tyranny. Opponentsthink the organization issimply a liberal establishmentbent on imposing its views onsociety. They fault its reading of the law,despise its methods, and rue its results. Atthe heart of this debate is a fascinatingironic question: how does an organizationthat fights for the very foundationsof the nation’s commitment to libertyinspire so much conflict?Even from the start, the idea of agroup devoted to defending liberty (theright of each person to be free from thedespotism of governments or majorities)made some observers angry. In 1917,members of the Civil Liberties Bureau,which was soon renamed the ACLU, gotthis welcome from the New York Timeseditorial page: “Jails Are Waiting forThem.” Although WORLD WAR I was aperiod of governmental heavy-handedness,the Times proved to be both rightand wrong. In the next three-quarters ofa century, the ACLU became a vastlypowerful force in shaping law, and it wonmany more enemies than friends. By the1988 presidential election, candidateGEORGE H. W. BUSH couldmake political hay in campaignspeeches by attacking theACLU as “the criminal’s lobby.”Other critics said the ACLUwas anti-God, anti-American,anti-life, and so on. In the end,no jails held ACLU members(at least not for long), but no small numberof people would have liked to lockthem away.The case against the ACLU is actuallymany cases. Every time the organizationgoes into court, it naturally has to displeasesomeone; litigation is hardly aboutmaking friends. Although the organizationhas one mandate, the abstract idealof freedom, it must oppose the will ofspecific individuals if this mandate is tobe carried out. Take, for example, one ofthe ACLU’s civil liberties battles: religiousfreedom. For some, religious freedommeans the First Amendment’s guaranteethat “Congress shall make no law respectingan establishment of religion”; inother words, that people will be free fromgovernment-imposed religious worship.For many others, religious freedomimplies just the opposite FIRST AMENDMENTassurance, that Congress shall notprohibit the free exercise of religion. In a1962 court battle, the ACLU won a pointfor the former, an end to prayer in publicschools, a victory that polls indicate wasunwanted and unsupported by most U.S.citizens (ENGEL V. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421,82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601). Equallystymied by ACLU activism are peoplewho want to display Christian crèches ongovernment property at Christmastime.They have their holiday hopes dashedevery time the ACLU wins a court orderblocking such a display on First Amendmentgrounds. Each victory for theorganization in such cases may beanother disaster in local public relations.In response, scorn heaped on theACLU seldom fails to question itsmotives. The ACLU’s “yuletide work” wasattacked by the conservative commentatorJohn Leo in an essay in the WashingtonTimes entitled “Crushing the Public Crèche:” “While others frolic, thegrinches of the ACLU tirelessly trudgeout each year on yet another crèchepatrol,snatching Nativity scenes frompublic parks and rubbing out religioussymbols.” Leo’s point is shared by manyconservatives: the government, far fromremaining neutral in religious matters, isactually engaging in hostility toward religion,at the behest of ACLU “zealots.” Inthis view, the defense of an abstract principlehas taken hold of the senses of itsdefenders; they have become inflexibleabsolutists. The conservative attorneyand author Bruce Fein took this complaintmuch further, discovering somethinginsidious: “A partial sketch of theACLU’s vision of America reveals a contemptfor individual responsibility, economicjustice and prosperity and moraldecency.” Fein meant that the ACLUdefends WELFARE.Ascribing suspicious aims to theACLU moves the debate into a morecomplicated area. The ACLU is notopposed simply because it has fought toblock government-sanctioned religiousdisplays, causing local upset and anger.Similarly, it is not opposed merelybecause it defends the rights of some ofsociety’s most unpopular groups, Nazis,for example. The deeper issue is civil libertiesthemselves. Here we have a newquestion: why does an organization thatfights for the very foundations of thenation’s commitment to liberty even haveto exist?The ACLU’s answer is rather simple.Civil liberties, it argues, exist only wheneveryone enjoys them. In other words,there is no such thing as freedom forsome without freedom for all, includingthose individuals whom the majoritymay hate or whom the government seeksto silence. Loren Siegel, ACLU director ofpublic education, wrote that the UnitedStateswas founded upon not one, buttwo great principles. The first,democracy, is the more familiar:The majority rules. The secondprinciple, liberty, is not as wellunderstood. Even in our democracy,the majority’s rule is notunlimited. There are certainindividual rights and liberties,enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS,that are protected from the“tyranny of the majority.” Justbecause there are more whitesthan blacks in this country doesnot, for example, mean thatwhites can vote to take the voteaway from blacks. And justbecause there are more heterosexualsthan homosexuals shouldnot mean that the majority candiscriminate with impunityagainst the minority.But civil liberties “are not self-enforcing,”Siegel adds. Moreover, NADINESTROSSEN, ACLU president, points outthat victories in civil liberties need to becontinually re-won. It is not the habit ofenemies to grant their opponents thesame constitutional rights that theythemselves enjoy; plainly, it is the habit ofenemies to ignore, restrict, or even crushthose rights. Not by accident, the governmentor a majority of voters can do this;the weak and the few cannot. Thus, theACLU’s commitment is precisely to thosewhose purchase on freedom is slim—notbecause the ACLU is necessarily in favorof their cause, but because it is in favor ofupholding their rights.That argument sounds nice on paper,opponents say, but it is neither practicalnor sensible at all times in real life.Indeed, they ask, what about the majority—why must it suffer to please the fewin its midst who cause trouble, such ascriminals? This is the point that Bushwanted to make with his famous “criminal’slobby” blast: the civil liberties ofcriminals should not be upheld at theexpense of the civil liberties of law-abidingcitizens. Bush, like other critics,turned this charge into a broader indictmentof the ACLU: in his 1988 campaignfor the presidency, he accused Democraticpresidential candidate MichaelDukakis of being a “card-carrying memberof the ACLU.” The term card-carryingresonates in U.S. political history; itcomes from the era of anti-Communistwitch hunts and implies anti-Americanism.Ira Glasser, the ACLU’s executivedirector at the time, indignantly repliedto Bush in the Boston Globe: “The vicepresident feels it is politically expedient to beat up on us, and if the only way thathe can carry it off is by engaging inMcCarthyism and distorting our record,then he is willing to do it.”Despite the conservative claim thatthe ACLU is a liberal group, the politicalleft also has taken shots at it. In the 1980sand 1990s, some feminists opposed theACLU’s absolute defense of free speech.These critics were particularly distressedby the organization’s support of thespeech rights of pornographers. Otherson the left, notably academics, resent theACLU’s opposition to so-called hatespeechcodes that COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIEShave imposed on campuses toprotect members of minorities from others’abusive expression. Such issues havecaused dissent even among the ranks ofthe ACLU itself, leading some to arguethat the organization should emphasizeCIVIL RIGHTS over civil liberties, that is,jettison its traditional mission in order tofocus more specifically on the rights ofwomen and racial minorities. In theACLU’s 1992–93 ANNUAL REPORT,Strossen dismissed this argument. Libertyand equality, she wrote, are not mutuallyexclusive. “How can individual liberty besecure if some individuals are denied theirrights because they belong to certain societalgroups? How, on the other hand, canequality for all groups be secure if thatequality does not include the exercise ofindividual liberty?”Critics contend, however, that makingindividual rights paramount can produceresults that clash with communityvalues. They note that the ACLU hasfought the implementation of the Children’sInternet Protection Act, including aprovision that requires public librariesreceiving federal technology funds toinstall filters on their computers or risklosing aid. With the First Amendmentseemingly protecting most forms ofInternet PORNOGRAPHY, the act seeks toprevent access on public library computers,so as to prevent children from seeingdisturbing images as they walk by. The acteven permits adults to ask the librariansto turn off the filters. Nevertheless, theACLU persuaded a federal court in 2002that the law violated the First Amendment.Critics of the ACLU cite this as justone more example of blind devotion toan absolutist view of free expression.In the aftermath of the SEPTEMBER11TH ATTACKS of 2001, the ACLU hasexposed itself to more criticism over itsobjections to new federal laws andorders. It objected to proposed provisionsof the USA PATRIOT ACT in October2001, at a time when very few voiceswere raised about protecting the right toprivacy and preventing the governmentfrom gaining more POLICE POWERS. Ithas also challenged the indefinite detentionof ALIENS who are suspected of terroristactivities and ties.The ACLU promises to remain onthe forefront of the debate over the scopeof the Bill of Rights and the desire of citizensto be protected by their government.The WAR ON TERRORISM thatbegan in September 2001 was expected togenerate many legal challenges by theACLU as the federal government assertednew found powers to monitor, investigate,and detain suspected terrorists. Itwas expected that the ACLU would continueto find itself isolated at times as itbattled for its vision of a free society.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION