Editing American Civil Liberties Union (section)

===1970s===
====Watergate era====
[[File:Richard M. Nixon, ca. 1935 - 1982 - NARA - 530679.jpg|thumb|The ACLU was the first national organization to call for the impeachment of [[Richard Nixon]].]]

The ACLU supported ''[[The New York Times]]'' in its 1971 suit against the government, requesting permission to publish the [[Pentagon Papers]]. The court upheld the ''Times'' and ACLU in the ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'' ruling, which held that the government could not preemptively prohibit the publication of classified information and had to wait until after it was published to take action.<ref>Walker, pp. 289–90.</ref>

On September 30, 1973, the ACLU became first national organization to publicly call for the impeachment and removal from office of President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>{{cite web| last=Jones| first=Glyn| title=ACLU Would Impeach Nixon| url=http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/collection/itempage.jsp?itemid=18506&img=0&level=advanced&transcription=1| work=Greenfield Recorder| publisher=Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association| location=Deerfield, Massachusetts| date=November 10, 1973| access-date=October 16, 2019| id=#L06.052| via=Online Collection – Memorial Hall Museum| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191201015708/http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/collection/itempage.jsp?itemid=18506&img=0&level=advanced&transcription=1| archive-date=December 1, 2019| url-status=dead}}</ref> Six civil liberties violations were cited as grounds: "specific proved violations of the rights of political dissent; usurpation of Congressional war-making powers; establishment of a personal secret police which committed crimes; attempted interference in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; distortion of the system of justice and perversion of other Federal agencies".<ref>{{Cite news| title=A.C.L.U. Asks Impeachment of Nixon| last=Clack| first=Alfred E.| date=October 5, 1973| url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/05/archives/aclu-asks-impeachment-of-nixon.html| work=The New York Times| access-date=October 15, 2019| via=Times's print archive}}</ref> One month later, after the House of Representatives began an [[Impeachment process against Richard Nixon|impeachment inquiry against him]], the organization released a 56-page handbook detailing "17 things citizens could do to bring about the impeachment of President Nixon".<ref>{{Cite news| title=Impeachment Book Offered By A.C.L.U.| work=The New York Times| date=November 25, 1973| url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/25/archives/impeachment-book-offered-by-aclu.html| access-date=October 15, 2019| via=Times's print archive}}</ref> This resolution, when placed beside the earlier resolution opposing the Vietnam war, convinced many ACLU critics, particularly conservatives, that the organization had transformed into a liberal political organization.<ref>Walker, p. 294</ref>

====Enclaves and new civil liberties====
The decade from 1965 to 1975 saw an expansion of civil liberties. Administratively, the ACLU responded by appointing [[Aryeh Neier]] to take over from Pemberton as executive director in 1970. Neier embarked on an ambitious program to expand the ACLU; he created the ACLU Foundation to raise funds and created several new programs to focus the ACLU's legal efforts. By 1974, ACLU membership had reached 275,000.<ref>Walker, pp. 314–16.</ref>

During those years, the ACLU worked to expand legal rights in three directions: new rights for persons within government-run "enclaves", new rights for members of what it called "victim groups", and privacy rights for citizens in general.<ref>Walker, p. 299. Key ACLU leaders in this effort were [[Ira Glasser]] and [[Aryeh Neier]].</ref> At the same time, the organization grew substantially. The ACLU helped develop the field of constitutional law that governs "enclaves", which are groups of persons that live in conditions under government control. Enclaves include mental hospital patients, military members, prisoners, and students (while at school). The term enclave originated with Supreme Court justice [[Abe Fortas]]'s use of the phrase "schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism" in the ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines]]'' decision.<ref>Raskin, James B. (2009), "No Enclaves of Totalitarianism", American University Law Review, Vol. 58:1193.</ref>

The ACLU initiated the legal field of student's rights with the ''Tinker v. Des Moines'' case and expanded it with cases such as ''[[Goss v. Lopez]]'', which required schools to provide students an opportunity to appeal suspensions.<ref>Walker, p. 307.</ref>

As early as 1945, the ACLU had taken a stand to protect the rights of the mentally ill when it drafted a model statute governing mental commitments.<ref name=W309>Walker, p. 309.</ref> In the 1960s, the ACLU opposed involuntary commitments unless it could be demonstrated that the person was a danger to himself or the community.<ref name=W309/> In the landmark 1975 ''[[O'Connor v. Donaldson]]'' decision, the ACLU represented a non-violent mental health patient who had been confined against his will for 15 years and persuaded the Supreme Court to rule such involuntary confinements illegal.<ref name=W309/> The ACLU has also defended the rights of mentally ill individuals who are not dangerous but create disturbances. The New York chapter of the ACLU defended [[Billie Boggs]], a woman with mental illness who exposed herself and defecated and urinated in public.<ref name="google">{{cite book|title=The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America's Big Cities|author=Siegel, F.|date=2013|publisher=Encounter Books|isbn=978-1594035555|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0l73QSrSIcwC|page=205|access-date=October 3, 2014}}</ref>

Before 1960, prisoners had virtually no recourse to the court system because courts considered prisoners to have no civil rights.<ref>Note, "Beyond the Ken of Courts", ''Yale Law Journal'' 72 (1963):506. Cited by Walker, p. 310.</ref> That changed in the late 1950s, when the ACLU began representing prisoners subject to [[police brutality]] or deprived of religious reading material.<ref name=W310>Walker, p. 310.</ref> In 1968, the ACLU successfully sued to desegregate the Alabama prison system; in 1969, the New York affiliate adopted a project to represent prisoners in New York prisons. Private attorney [[Phil Hirschkop]] discovered degrading conditions in Virginia prisons following the [[Virginia State Penitentiary strike]] and won an important victory in 1971's ''[[Landman v. Royster]]'' which prohibited Virginia from treating prisoners in inhumane ways.<ref>Walker, pp. 310–11. The ACLU was not involved in the ''Landman'' case.</ref> In 1972, the ACLU consolidated several prison rights efforts across the nation and created the [[National Prison Project]]. The ACLU's efforts led to landmark cases such as ''[[Ruiz v. Estelle]]'' (requiring reform of the Texas prison system), and in 1996 [[United States Congress|US Congress]] enacted the [[Prison Litigation Reform Act]] (PLRA) which codified prisoners' rights.

====Victim groups====
[[File:Ruth Bader Ginsburg official SCOTUS portrait.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] co-founded the ACLU's Women's Rights Project in 1971.<ref>Pullman, Sandra (March 7, 2006). [https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/tribute-legacy-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-wrp-staff "Tribute: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and WRP Staff"]. ''ACLU.org''. Accessed November 18, 2010.</ref> She was later appointed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] by President [[Bill Clinton]].]]

During the 1960s and 1970s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include what it referred to as "victim groups", namely women, the poor, and homosexuals.<ref>Walker, p. 299.</ref> Heeding the call of female members, the ACLU endorsed the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] in 1970<ref>The ERA was passed by congress in 1972 but failed to be ratified by the states.</ref> and created the Women's Rights Project in 1971. The Women's Rights Project dominated the legal field, handling more than twice as many cases as the [[National Organization for Women]], including breakthrough cases such as ''[[Reed v. Reed]]'', ''[[Frontiero v. Richardson]]'', and '' [[Taylor v. Louisiana]]''.<ref>Walker, pp. 304–05.</ref>

ACLU leader [[Harriet Pilpel]] raised the issue of the rights of homosexuals in 1964, and two years later, the ACLU formally endorsed [[LGBT rights in the United States|gay rights]]. In 1972, ACLU cooperating attorneys in Oregon filed the first federal civil rights case involving a claim of unconstitutional discrimination against a gay or lesbian public school teacher. The US District Court held that a state statute that authorized school districts to fire teachers for "immorality" was unconstitutionally vague, and awarded monetary damages to the teacher. The court refused to reinstate the teacher, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that refusal by a 2-to-1 vote. In 1973, the ACLU created the Sexual Privacy Project (later the Gay and Lesbian Rights Project), which combated discrimination against homosexuals.<ref>Walker, p. 312.</ref> This support continued into the 2000s. For example, after then-Senator [[Larry Craig]] was arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom in 2007, the ACLU wrote an amicus brief for Craig, saying that sex between consenting adults in public places was protected under privacy rights.<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf State Of Minnesota]. (PDF). Retrieved on May 24, 2014.</ref>

The rights of the poor were another area that the ACLU expanded. In 1966 and again in 1968, activists within the ACLU encouraged the organization to adopt a policy overhauling the welfare system and guaranteeing low-income families a baseline income; but the ACLU board did not approve the proposals.<ref name=W313>Walker, p. 313.</ref> However, the ACLU played a key role in the 1968 ''[[King v. Smith]]'' decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that welfare benefits for children could not be denied by a state simply because the mother cohabited with a boyfriend.<ref name=W313/>

==== Reproductive Freedom Project ====
The ACLU founded the Reproductive Freedom Project in 1974 to defend individuals the government obstructs in cases involving access to abortions, birth control, or sexual education. According to its mission statement, the project works to provide access to reproductive health care for individuals.<ref>{{Cite book|jstor=j.ctt32bqj0.7|title=The Other Feminists|chapter=Litigating Feminist Principles|date=January 1, 1998|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0300074642|editor-last=Hartmann|editor-first=Susan M.|series=Activists in the Liberal Establishment|pages=[https://archive.org/details/otherfeministsac0000hart/page/53 53–91]|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/otherfeministsac0000hart/page/53|last1=Hartmann|first1=Susan M.}}</ref> The project also opposes [[abstinence-only sex education]], arguing that it promotes an unwillingness to use contraceptives.<ref name=":02">{{cite web|url=https://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-planned-parenthood-aclu-file-challenges-to-abortion-restrictions-in-three-states|title=Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, ACLU File Challenges to Abortion Restrictions in Three States|date=September 27, 2013|website=[[Center for Reproductive Rights]]|language=en|access-date=May 1, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709115230/https://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-planned-parenthood-aclu-file-challenges-to-abortion-restrictions-in-three-states|archive-date=July 9, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://prospect.org/article/women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-freedom-chill-wind-blows|title=For Women's Reproductive Freedom, a Chill Wind Blows|work=The American Prospect|access-date=May 1, 2017|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170502005651/http://prospect.org/article/women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-freedom-chill-wind-blows|archive-date=May 2, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.proquest.com/openview/b2e15d5d2875ce26854147fecd6f12f1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35312|title=Abstinence-Only Education in the Courts |via=ProQuest |language=en|access-date=May 2, 2017}}</ref>

In 1980, the Project filed ''[[Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital]]'' which attempted to overturn ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'', the 1927 US Supreme Court decision which had allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to legally sterilize persons it deemed to be mentally defective without their permission. Though the Court did not overturn ''Buck v.Bell'', in 1985, the state agreed to provide counseling and medical treatment to the survivors among the 7,200 to 8,300 people sterilized between 1927 and 1979.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wong |first1=Elizabeth |title=A Shameful History: Eugenics in Virginia |url=https://acluva.org/en/news/shameful-history-eugenics-virginia |website=ACLUVA |access-date=August 16, 2021 |date=January 11, 2013}}</ref> In 1977, the ACLU took part in and litigated ''[[Walker v. Pierce]]'', the [[United States courts of appeals|federal circuit court case]] that led to federal regulations to prevent [[Medicaid]] patients from being sterilized without their knowledge or consent.<ref>{{cite web |title=About the ACLU reproductive freedom project |url=https://www.aclu.org/other/about-aclu-reproductive-freedom-project |access-date=August 23, 2021}}</ref> In 1981–1990, the Project litigated ''[[Hodgson v. Minnesota]]'', which resulted in the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] overturning a state law requiring both parents to be notified before a minor could legally have an abortion.<ref>{{cite news |title=Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/417/ |newspaper=Justia Law |access-date=August 23, 2021}}</ref> In the 1990s, the Project provided legal assistance and resource kits to those who were being challenged for educating about sexuality and [[HIV/AIDS|AIDS]]. In 1995, the Project filed an [[Amicus curiae|amicus brief]] in ''[[Curtis v. School Committee of Falmouth]]'', which allowed for the distribution of condoms in a public school.<ref>{{cite web|author-link=Joan Biskupic |first= Joan |last= Biskupic |title= Court Spurns Challenge to Condom Policy |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/01/09/court-spurns-challenge-to-condom-policy/f6f037d2-79b4-4291-9f31-980aab2db152/ |website= washingtonpost.com |access-date= August 21, 2021 |date= January 9, 1996}}</ref>

The Reproductive Freedom Project focuses on three ideas: (1) to "reverse the shortage of trained abortion providers throughout the country" (2) to "block state and federal welfare "reform" proposals that cut off benefits for children who are born to women already receiving welfare, unmarried women, or teenagers"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Dejanikus|first=Tacie|date=January 1, 1982|title=spousal notification upheld in florida suit|jstor=25774248|journal=Off Our Backs|volume=12|issue=2|page=9}}</ref> and (3) to "stop the elimination of vital reproductive health services as a result of hospital mergers and health care networks".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://philadelphia.pa.networkofcare.org/ps/services/agency.aspx?pid=ACLUofPAClaraBellDuvallReproductiveFreedomProject_1147_12_0|title=ACLU of PA: Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project – Philadelphia|website=Philadelphia.pa|access-date=May 1, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180228161542/http://philadelphia.pa.networkofcare.org/ps/services/agency.aspx?pid=ACLUofPAClaraBellDuvallReproductiveFreedomProject_1147_12_0|archive-date=February 28, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Project proposes to achieve these goals through legal action and litigation.

====Privacy====
The [[Privacy laws of the United States|right to privacy]] is not explicitly identified in the [[United States Constitution|US Constitution]], but the ACLU led the charge to establish such rights in the indecisive ''[[Poe v. Ullman]]'' (1961) case, which addressed a state statute outlawing contraception. The issue arose again in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' (1965), and this time the Supreme Court adopted the ACLU's position and formally declared a right to privacy.<ref>Walker, pp. 300–01</ref> The New York affiliate of the ACLU pushed to eliminate [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion|anti-abortion laws]] starting in 1964, a year before ''Griswold'' was decided; in 1967 the ACLU itself formally adopted the [[Support for the legalization of abortion|right to abortion]] as a policy.<ref>Walker, p. 302.</ref> The ACLU led the defense in ''[[United States v. Vuitch]]'' (1971), which expanded the right of physicians to determine when abortions were necessary.<ref>Walker, p. 303.</ref> These efforts culminated in one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973), which legalized abortion throughout the United States.<ref>Walker, p. 303. The ACLU did not participate directly in ''Roe v. Wade'', but did lead the effort in the companion case ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]''.</ref> The ACLU successfully argued against state bans on [[interracial marriage]], in the case of ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' (1967).

Related to privacy, the ACLU engaged in several battles to ensure that government records about individuals were kept private and to give individuals the right to review their records. The ACLU supported several measures, including the 1970 [[Fair Credit Reporting Act]], which required credit agencies to divulge credit information to individuals; the 1973 [[Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act]], which provided students the right to access their records; and the [[Privacy Act of 1974|1974 Privacy Act]], which prevented the federal government from disclosing personal information without good cause.<ref>Walker, p. 308.</ref>

====Allegations of bias====
In the early 1970s, conservatives and [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] began to criticize the ACLU for being too political and too liberal.<ref>Walker, p. 317.</ref> Legal scholar Joseph W. Bishop wrote that the ACLU's trend to partisanship started with its defense of Spock's anti-war protests.<ref>Bishop, Joseph W., "Politics and the ACLU", ''Commentary'' 52 (December 1971): 50–58. Bishop cited by Walker. Bishop was a professor of law at Yale.</ref> Critics also blamed the ACLU for encouraging the Supreme Court to embrace [[judicial activism]].<ref name=W318>Walker, p. 318.</ref> Critics claimed that the ACLU's support of controversial decisions like ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' violated the [[Original intent|intention of the authors]] of the Bill of Rights.<ref name=W318/> The ACLU became an issue in the [[1988 United States presidential election|1988 presidential campaign]], when Republican candidate [[George H.&nbsp;W. Bush]] accused Democratic candidate [[Michael Dukakis]] (a member of the ACLU) of being a "card carrying member of the ACLU".<ref>Walker, pp. 319, 363. Bush quoted by Walker.</ref>

====Skokie case====
{{main|National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie}}
In 1977, the [[National Socialist Party of America]], led by [[Frank Collin]], applied to the town of [[Skokie, Illinois]], for a permit to hold a demonstration in the town park. Skokie at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens, some of whom were survivors of [[Nazi concentration camp]]s. Skokie refused to grant the NSPA a permit and passed ordinances against hate speech and military wear, in addition to requiring an insurance bond. Skokie's Village Council ordered [[village attorney]], Harvey Schwartz, to seek an injunction to stop the demonstration. The ACLU assisted Collin and appealed to federal court, eventually prevailing in [[National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie|NSPA v. Village of Skokie]].<ref>Ed McManus, "Nazi March: What's It All About?", ''Illinois Issues'', v.13, Nov. 1978 (available at [http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1978/ii781111.html Illinois Periodicals Online] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060908083411/http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1978/ii781111.html |date=September 8, 2006 }}).<br />The federal appeal case was ''Smith v. Collin'' 447 F. Supp. 676. See also Supreme Court: ''Smith v. Collin'', 439 US 916 (1978), and ''National Socialist Party v. Skokie'', 432 US 43 (1977).</ref>

The Skokie case was heavily publicized across America, partially because Jewish groups such as the [[Jewish Defense League]] and [[Anti Defamation League]] strenuously objected to the demonstration, leading many members of the ACLU to cancel their memberships.<ref name=Skokie/> The Illinois affiliate of the ACLU lost about 25% of its membership and nearly one-third of its budget.<ref>30,000 ACLU members resigned in protest.</ref><ref>Philippa Strum, ''When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate'' (University Press of Kansas) ([http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html University of Kansas Press publisher's catalog description] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070827110841/http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html |date=August 27, 2007 }}).</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/skokiepo001&CISOPTR=36|title=Membership woes hurt ACLU while others gain|access-date=October 7, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081913/http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fskokiepo001&CISOPTR=36|archive-date=September 27, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/skokiepo001&CISOPTR=0|title=2d suit to block Nazis from Skokie march fails|access-date=October 7, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081811/http://cdm.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fskokiepo001&CISOPTR=0|archive-date=September 27, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> The financial strain from the controversy led to layoffs at local chapters.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=The High Cost of Free Speech: A.C.L.U. dilemma: defending "hateful and heinous" ideas |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=June 28, 1978 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916244-1,00.html |access-date=May 18, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090624045022/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C916244-1%2C00.html |archive-date=June 24, 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> After the membership crisis died down, the ACLU sent out a fund-raising appeal which explained their rationale for the Skokie case and raised over $500,000 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|500000|1977}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}} dollars).{{inflation-fn|US}}<ref>Walker, p. 239.</ref>