News & Commentary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJanuary 3, 2012Little Rock, AR - The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas is praising Monday night's decision by the Valley View School Board in Jonesboro, Arkansas to keep the book, The Kite Runner in the 12th grade English curriculum. A substitute teacher had tried unsuccessfully to have the book removed from the classroom on the basis that it contained a homosexual rape scene, profanity, content pertaining to Islamic belief, and lacked Biblical views.

LITTLE ROCK, July 19, 2010 -- The City of North Little Rock has responded to concerns raised by North Little Rock residents and the Arkansas Civil Liberties Union concerning prayer before city council meetings. The Arkansas Civil Liberties Union, in response to concerns expressed by North Little Rock residents about the city council's practice of offering a sectarian prayer to open council meetings, contacted the city attorney and urged the city to end this unconstitutional practice. Noting that only pr

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE?December 10, 2009??LITTLE ROCK, AR – The ACLU of Arkansas filed a federal lawsuit today charging Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels with violating the free speech rights of The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers by barring them from erecting a temporary Winter Solstice display on the grounds of the state Capitol.  An application by the Freethinkers to erect a display was rejected despite  the fact that the proposed display meets the requirements of the state capitol display policy and despite the presence of another display on the grounds.??The ACLU lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to order Daniels to grant the Freethinkers permission to put up their display.??In 1993 the Arkansas Secretary of State adopted a policy for "Temporary Displays on State Capitol Grounds." The policy set up a system whereby any person or group could put up a temporary display by meeting certain requirements, including sturdiness and non-interference with pedestrian traffic. The Freethinkers' proposed display met the guidelines of the policy, but was rejected.??"It's clear that the only reason the Freethinkers' application has been turned down is that the Secretary of State doesn't like the message of the display," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "The Secretary of State didn't have to allow anyone to put up a display on the Capitol grounds, but when the Office adopted the temporary display policy it set up a public forum where anyone with any message could install a display if they followed the policy."??The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers is a statewide non-profit organization in part dedicated to promoting education and awareness of Freethinkers, their history, activities and holidays. The group filed a written application to put up a display October 16, describing the meaning and history of the Winter Solstice holiday. The Secretary of State rejected the application in November, citing an Arkansas statute that provides authority to the state capitol police to maintain "proper order and decorum." On further inquiry, the Secretary of State's office asserted that the proposed display did not have the proper "tone." Later, the office added that a Winter Solstice display would not be consistent with the other displays and decorations at the Capitol.??According to court papers filed by the ACLU, the only other temporary display on state capitol grounds is "a crèche with a wood exterior and nativity figures carved out of wood. The display is not decorated with lights or ornamentation of any kind and is devoid of a festive tone."??When the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the file on the 16-year-old policy for the past 10 years, the only documents provided were the applications filed the past two years by the Freethinkers, the denials of these applications and the policy listing the requirements that must be met in order to erect a temporary display. There were no applications or permits related to the other display.??ACLU attorneys met with representatives of the Secretary of State's office to request clarification of the reasons the Freethinkers' display was turned down, and to ask how the other display was put up every year without any apparent documentation. When they received no answer, the ACLU lawyers informed Secretary of State officials that denying the Freethinkers permission to erect their display was unconstitutional and that litigation was likely.??"Our goal is to be included in the holiday season, which we think is big enough to accommodate everyone," said Bill Parker, an Arkansas Society of Freethinkers officer.  "All we want is to be treated fairly, and have the same access to express ourselves on public grounds that other groups have."??The Winter Solstice celebration is an ancient tradition that is celebrated around the time of the winter solstice, December 21.  Some Freethinkers celebrate it annually from approximately November 15 to January 5. The Society of Freethinkers asserts that the purpose of the Winter Solstice display is to express some of the members' beliefs and to educate the public about the Winter Solstice and Freethinkers.??In court papers the ACLU says that the Secretary of State is preventing the Freethinkers Society "from exercising its First Amendment rights," and that they "suffer, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm" if the society is "not permitted to install its display on the state capitol grounds as soon as possible."??The ACLU complaint further states that the Secretary of State's action "violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it conditions access to the designated public forum" on his "personal acceptance of content and viewpoint […of…] constitutionally protected speech."??Pictures of the Freethinkers display can be seen at: wintersolsticedisplay.info.Attached:ACLU Complaint in The Arkansas Society Of Freethinkers vs. Charlie Daniels (PDF) Arkansas Secretary of State policy on "Temporary Displays on State Capitol Grounds" (PDF)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Via Facsimile 870-338-9832 and U.S. MailAugust 8, 2008J.F. Valley, MayorHelena-West Helena 226 Perry Street Helena-West Helena, AR 72342Re:  Emergency Curfew OrderDear Mayor Valley:The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and defending the rights guaranteed to us by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions.  The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you that your city's emergency curfew orders are unconstitutional, and that enforcement of such ordinance and orders may subject the city to civil liability for violating of the rights of those upon whom the curfew is imposed and enforced. Chapter 7.12 of the Helena-West Helena City Code pertaining to curfews states:7.12.01  Civil emergencies  The Mayor, at any time a condition has arisen or is imminent, which in his judgment constitutes a civil disturbance, riot, insurrection or time of local disaster, may declare a state of emergency and impose a curfew for such time and for such areas as he deems necessary to meet such emergency.  Provided, however, such curfew shall not extend for over a period of fourty-eight (48) hours unless extended by a majority vote of the members of the governing body.On August 7, 2008, you issued an order that all residents of a particular zone of the city be subject to a curfew prohibiting loitering, standing, and "hanging out," and providing for stop and investigation of all moving traffic.  Furthermore, you ordered that Code Enforcement pursue evictions for all persons residing in homes where at least three criminal violations have occurred. A high crime rate in Helena-West Helena is not a condition set forth in the city code for which the Mayor can declare a state of emergency, and as such it appears you are acting ultra vires.  Peaceful, law abiding citizens are being ordered into their homes by law enforcement, underscoring that the situation in your city has not reached riot or natural disaster proportions.  Were the city code to grant you the authority to declare a curfew on all citizens, the code would be unconstitutional, as set forth below. This order is blatantly unconstitutional on numerous grounds.  First, such curfews have never been allowed under the laws of the United States, barring riot, insurrection, or natural disaster.  Not one case has ever allowed for the imposition of searches, seizures, and house arrest against innocent citizens because of the high crime rate in a particular city.  See, e.g. American Civil Liberties Union of West Tennessee, Inc. v. Chandler, 458 F.Supp. 456 (W.D. Tenn. 1978).  In fact, "state of emergency" curfews imposed upon youth aimed at addressing youth crime have been declared unconstitutional.  Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 353 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003); Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997); Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 942 F.Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1996); Walters v. Barry, 711 F.Supp. 1125 (D.D.C. 1989); McCollester v. City of Keene, 586 F.Supp. 1381 (D.N.H. 1984); Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1981); Naprstek v. City of Norwich, 545 F.2d 815, 818 (2d Cir. 1976); State v. J.P., 907 So.2s 1101 (Fla. 2004); City of Sumner v. Walsh, 148 Wn.2d 490 (2003). Second, requiring adult residents of the city to be on house arrest violates these individuals' rights to travel and association, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  Third, the very language of the Order violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that, in effect, it proclaims that the Fourth Amendment is waived for all persons, including those suspected of no criminal activity.  The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is in place specifically to prohibit these kinds of sweeping searches.  Law enforcement, even in areas where there are higher crime rates, is not a sufficient basis upon which to place people on house arrest, or set aside the Fourth Amendment. Fourth, the Order likely violates Helena-West Helena residents' rights to equal protection under the laws.  "[O]nce curfews are imposed, the burden falls disproportionately on minority individuals and communities."  Harvard Note, "Juvenile Curfews and Gang Violence: Exiled on Main Street," 107 Harvard L. Rev. 1693, 1707 (1994).   The order to evict all residents of homes where at least three crimes have occurred violates residents' rights to association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution.  Finally, most loitering ordinances and arrests also violate constitutional guarantees.  Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972). Notwithstanding the City Code and Curfew Order, the residents of Helena-West Helena have the right to sit under shade trees in their front yard, to ride their bicycles along the streets, protest this policy, and drive around the city with the full protections of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  Citizens, including those expressing opposition to the curfew order, should be subject to no special scrutiny by law enforcement unless they are suspected of some criminal activity. Mayor, we sympathize with the need to address crime in your city, and have many good friends and members in Phillips County and Helena-West Helena.  We certainly do not seek to detract from law enforcement using their lawful authority under the Fourth Amendment to stop, question, detain, or arrest those who are suspected of committing criminal acts, but violating law abiding citizens' constitutional rights is counterproductive to quelling unrest.  Citizens receiving unlawful orders tend to object, and enforcement of this order may inflame an already problematic situation.  We urge you to immediately cease any curfews imposed due to high crime rates, whether in the entire city, or in a particular zone, and to dismiss any prosecution initiated for violation of the curfew order.  We do encourage you to find law enforcement solutions that will comply with the constitution, and hope that this letter will help you avoid a solution that may ultimately leave the city subject to liability. Please have your city attorney contact me as soon as possible to advise whether you will rescind the emergency curfew order.  Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to receiving your response.Respectfully,Holly Dicksoncc:       Helena-West Helena City Council Members?           Andre Valley, City Attorney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEAugust 8, 2008As soon as the ACLU of Arkansas learned that the Mayor of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas had ordered an adult curfew instated—for the second time, and allegedly due to a high crime rate—the ACLU fired off a letter to Mayor J. F. Valley demanding that the unconstitutional curfew be rescinded immediately. The letter was copied to the mayor's brother, City Attorney Andre Valley."Imposing house arrest and suspending the Fourth Amendment for law-abiding people is only going to cause more problems for this city," said ACLU of Arkansas staff attorney Holly Dickson. "They need to work with the community to get this resolved instead of treating all of their citizens like criminals."Resources:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFebruary 29, 2008

LITTLE ROCK, AR – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a letter today with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission in support of State Appeals Court Judge Wendell Griffen, who is facing disciplinary action by the commission for making public statements that are critical of the Bush administration. The ACLU said that any discipline by the commission would violate the judge's right to freedom of speech."The state cannot require judges to stand for election and then deprive them of ?the ability to comment on important issues of the day," said Rita Sklar, Executive? Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "If a litigant thinks a judge's views reveal a?ground for recusal, then that is the way to handle questions of impartiality or ?the appearance of impartiality.  But an elected judge's First Amendment rights should? not be extinguished.  As a prominent African American and Baptist pastor in a small ?southern state, Judge Griffen is a community leader in a strong position to inform? public debate on today's social problems."The ACLU said that Judge Griffen's speech is protected by the First Amendment ?because the judge's comments were made on matters of great public concern or? importance, which cuts to the core values of the First Amendment, and that these ?comments did not concern matters that are likely to come before him as a judge.?  Furthermore, the ACLU says in its letter that forbidding judges from speaking on? matters of public concern would do nothing to ensure impartiality, but instead? would conceal partiality that they might otherwise reveal in their remarks.The ACLU cited the United States Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of? Minnesota v. White, which held that Minnesota's policy of barring judges from? discussing political views was unconstitutional. That decision, written by Justice? Antonin Scalia in 2002, identified two ways for handling real or perceived? problems arising from judges speaking on public matters: disqualifying a judge ?from hearing a case because of a potential conflict of interest, or voting to ?remove a judge from office.Judge Griffen faces discipline charges for the following incidents: