Notice And Comment: Has The ACLU Lost Its Way?
Is it time to put the "Civil Liberties" back in the ACLU?
On Monday, the New York Times published a fascinating article about the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The piece teed up the question of whether the ACLU has essentially given up on one of its founding principles, an unyielding commitment to freedom of speech and the First Amendment, in favor of suing the Trump Administration and promoting social justice causes as opposed to civil liberties.
The writer of the article, Michael Powell, quotes David Goldberger, the former legal and legislative director of the ACLU of Illinois, as well as a Jewish lawyer who famously defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois:
I got the sense it was more important for ACLU staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle. Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.
These facts from Powell’s piece jumped out at me — and support Goldberger’s critique of the organization:
One hears markedly less from the ACLU about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2017 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words “First Amendment” or “free speech” cannot be found….
Since Mr. Trump’s election, the ACLU budget has nearly tripled to more than $300 million as its corps of lawyers doubled. The same number of lawyers — four — specialize in free speech as a decade ago.
Although I had my disagreements with the ACLU of old, and I wasn’t exactly in its core demographic — I’ve never worn sandals, driven a hybrid vehicle, or been a vegan — I long respected the organization for its commitment to free speech. But reading about “ACLU 2.0: Lawyers of the Resistance” makes me fear that the organization I long admired is dead.
Am I wrong?
Please share your views in the comments. Although I’d love to hear from as many folks as possible, I’m especially interested in comments from lawyers who have worked for, alongside, or against the ACLU. Thanks!
You’re reading Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. If you like what you’ve read, you can subscribe through this signup page.
I’m a recent student so I might be too focused on the educational side of things, but I’ve see FIRE take over the, “ACLU docket” in the campus free-speech and Title-IX context over my four years in school. If I was a student in trouble I would have definitely reached out to FIRE rather than the ACLU. FIRE has been steadfastly non-partisan and committed to principle, while the ACLU has shifted to being a political litigation group.
It’s disappointing to me because I think that while campus free speech issues tend to be viewed as a conservative issue nowadays, speech codes and the lack of due process in administrative hearings can be just as dangerous for the progressive causes the ACLU now espouses.
In my opinion the President does not have a right to free speech. His speech is constrained by his oath of office. The oath appears in the Constitution, and is no less fundamental than the First Amendment. He can, and should, be prevented from speech that violates that oath.
The ACLU may well have lost their way. I will reserve judgement. I was always a bit uncomfortable with their free speech absolutism.
Certainly, when speech endangers public safety (as in recent events), the state has a responsibility to intervene. Arguably, former President Trump's speech did endanger public safety. So, even if that speech was not a violation of his oath, it should have been prevented.