By Ian S. Thompson, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

On Friday, Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and several of his Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives introduced the so-called “Fairness for All Act.” The bill is being described by its supporters as a compromise that protects both LGBTQ people and religious liberty.

In reality, the bill facilitates the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to give a greenlight to those who would turn LGBTQ people away from jobs, health care, housing, even taxpayer-funded programs, simply because of who they are. The bill also weakens some longstanding protections in federal and state laws for everyone, not just LGBTQ people.

Creates a Different Standard for Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination

By singling out LGBTQ people for lesser protections than other characteristics under federal law – such as race, ethnicity, and religion – the new legislation signals that LGBTQ people are less worthy of protection. It does this by providing religious organizations and service providers with the ability to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity where they are explicitly prohibited under current federal law from discriminating based on other protected characteristics.

Grants a License to Discriminate in Child Welfare

One of the most dangerous aspects of the new legislation is its proposal to upend the child welfare system to allow for sweeping taxpayer-funded discrimination. It would do this through the creation of a new voucher system whose sole purpose is to allow religiously-affiliated child welfare providers – with whom the government contracts with to find stable, loving homes for children who are in state care – to discriminate against LGBTQ people or those, such as Jewish parents or single parents, who do not meet the agency’s religious criteria.

In places where the only providers work exclusively with conservative Christians, children of minority faiths – such as those who are Muslim or Jewish – or those who are LGBTQ would only be placed with parents who would be free to refuse to respect the identities of the children in their care.

Undermines Existing Protections from the Courts

Within the next seven months, the Supreme Court is poised to rule in a trio of cases concerning the existing rights of LGBTQ people under federal law. This new bill would undermine a potentially favorable ruling in those cases by authorizing discrimination in many contexts where it would be prohibited under existing law.

Proponents of this bill claim that it will somehow result in less litigation. They claim that by allowing discrimination by people of faith in many contexts, it will somehow end court fights over whether people of faith have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ people generally. But the opposite is true. The bill would lead to more litigation by providing less clarity about the balance Congress first struck between religious liberty and nondiscrimination protections a half century ago in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The courts have spent the past 65 years interpreting that balance and implementing existing law and this proposal would upend that carefully developed body of law in the service of expanding discrimination against LGBTQ people.

And it would also exclude people seeking reproductive health care from protections against sex discrimination, undermining and stigmatizing access to care that is constitutionally protected.

We Aren’t Finished Until we are all Protected

We need legislation that provides LGBTQ people with comprehensive, nationwide nondiscrimination protections and closes gaps in our civil rights laws for everyone. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives did exactly that – on a bipartisan basis – when it passed the Equality Act. It is now time for the Senate to act.

The vast majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum and a wide range of religious beliefs and backgrounds – believe that it is both wrong to discriminate against LGBTQ people and that our nation’s civil rights laws should protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. LGBTQ people deserve nothing less. The Equality Act is the only bill which meets that standard.

By Naureen Shah, Senior Advocacy and Policy Counsel

This year was another of devastating attacks on immigrants’ rights by the Trump administration. However, in both red and blue states, we fought and won new measures that stymie Trump’s deportation machine. These local wins, though often overshadowed by the president’s xenophobia, are powerful. Here are some of the most surprising and significant of our 2019 immigrant justice victories in the states.

In Michigan, a former marine’s arrest prompts police reform

Grand Rapids, Michigan police kept veteran and U.S. citizen Jilmar Ramos-Gomez in immigration detention for 3 days — even though he was carrying his U.S. passport when he was arrested. The stunning case prompted a public outcry. Following advocacy by the ACLU of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Police Department issued a new policy prohibiting police stops and interrogations based solely on suspected violations of immigration law; and the Kent County Sheriff issued a new policy requiring a judicial warrant for all Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees.

A landmark 60 Massachusetts localities have opted out of ICE collaboration

Years into an effort to end the entanglement of state and local police collaboration with ICE, the number of Massachusetts towns and counties opting out of ICE collaboration has reached 60. The latest: In November, the rural community of Greenfield — home to many undocumented farm workers —overrode the mayor’s veto to pass a Safe City ordinance. This policy stops police from asking about immigration status and prohibits giving ICE information about people in local custody. Shortly after the decisive victory, opponents tried to repeal the ordinance through a ballot initiative, but the ACLU of Massachusetts worked with a broad coalition on the ground to defeat it.

New Jersey makes statewide advances on immigrant justice

The New Jersey Attorney General issued a major directive: New Jersey’s counties can no longer participate in 287(g) agreements, which allow ICE to deputize local law enforcement as federal immigration officers. These agreements have a record of contributing to racial profiling and the harassment of immigrant communities. Additionally, the state legislature approved a 50 percent increase in funding for free legal counsel to people detained in New Jersey who face potential deportation. Finally, the governor signed a bill severely restricting the use of solitary confinement in state prisons and county jails, including those that detain immigrants.

Las Vegas and Nashville sheriffs end anti-immigrant agreements

The Las Vegas, Nevada police department withdrew from its 287(g) agreement with ICE and announced it will end its practice of honoring ICE detainers, prompted by the ACLU of Nevada and several groups. The sheriff in Nashville, Tennessee ended a rent-a-bed program that allowed ICE to use the local jail for immigration detention.

New York and Oregon make driver’s licenses accessible to all

Across the country, hundreds of thousands of undocumented people struggle to get to work and take their children to school because they don’t have access to driver’s licenses. Driving without a license can lead to their arrest, detention, and deportation. Expanding access to driver’s licenses to all eligible individuals regardless of immigration status is good for public safety because it ensures more people on our roads are tested, trained, and qualified. New York passed a driver’s licenses for all bill in June and Oregon did so in July. Now there are a total of 14 states making driver’s licenses eligible to residents regardless of immigration status, plus D.C. and Puerto Rico.

Nebraska school districts agree to anti-discrimination measures

Following an ACLU of Nebraska report on barriers to immigrant and refugee kids registering and enrolling in school, major school districts in Omaha, Norfolk, and Crete agreed to make changes. The state’s Department of Education is beginning to develop new regulations in response to the report.

Utah, Colorado, and New York pass laws to protect non-citizens from deportation

This spring, Utah became one of the few Republican-led states to pass a so-called 364-day law. Colorado and New York passed similar bills. These measures reduce the maximum jail sentence for misdemeanor offenses by one day, from 365 to 364 days, protecting immigrants from serious consequences imposed by federal immigration law that kick in at 365 days or more — even if the person’s actual sentence is just a few days. Those consequences include detention, deportation, and loss of opportunity for individuals to adjust their immigration status. These reform measures ensure that convictions for minor offenses like shoplifting don’t carry devastating consequences.

There are a lot more wins, including major reform legislation in California, Illinois, and Washington.

The threat to immigrants’ rights is far from over. Still, we can expect that states will continue to take action as public opinion evolves on immigrants’ rights. Six in 10 Americans now oppose the Trump administration’s agenda of deporting immigrants without lawful status. In 2019, state and local officials got the message: Our communities must and will fight back.  

Part of an end of year wrap-up series. Read more:

In the Midst of Trump’s Attacks, Offshoots of Progress in Congress for Immigrants’ Rights

2019 was a Watershed Year in the Movement to Stop Solitary Confinement

The Death Penalty in 2019: A Year of Incredible Progress, Marred by Unconscionable Executions

The 2020 Election Promises Record Turnout

The Battle for Abortion Access Is In the States

In 2019, We Fought Across the Country to Dismantle Mass Incarceration. We Won on Multiple Fronts.

By Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney

The ACLU and the ACLU of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Smith County School System for violating the separation of church and state on Monday. According to the lawsuit, four students who are atheists have had to contend with school officials promoting Christianity through official prayers, Bible distributions, religious posters, and even a giant cross painted in one of the school’s athletic facilities.

We asked our three high school clients in this case — Harleigh, Leyna and Pyper — to tell us about their experience, their friendship, and why they decided to sue their school district.

What has your school environment been like for you?

Harleigh: Overall, it’s really uncomfortable. You feel like you don’t fit in at all.

Leyna: To be honest, it’s kind of awkward having to deal with everybody making it seem like you have to believe in one thing, just like them.

Pyper: Mostly it’s just uncomfortable and feeling like you don’t fit in.

Atheists and nonreligious people are one of the most rapidly growing groups in the U.S., yet they still face significant mistrust and discrimination. Are you worried about this lawsuit revealing to your peers and those in your community that you’re atheists?

Harleigh: I feel like if we do, we’ll be seen as mistrusting or misleading, or a bad influence. I haven’t really talked about it except with my close friends, to be honest, and most of them are atheists.

Leyna: I don’t really hide it because it’s not really something that I should hide. Everybody can express their religion. Why shouldn’t I be able to express the fact that I’m an atheist?

Pyper: I’m not really that worried about it because most people already know that I’m not religious.

How has your friendship helped you get through a school environment that has been hostile to, or at least not very welcoming to, non-Christians?

Harleigh: You kind of have someone to talk about it with, you know?

Leyna: It’s definitely more reassuring to know that we’re able to talk about it. I can’t just look at somebody else and be like, “Oh, this is kind of wrong, what [school officials] are doing, because most people will look back at me like, “What are you talking about? This is normal.”

Pyper: Yeah, you always have some to talk to about it. And then at school when something happens [with promoting religion], you have someone to tell.

Pyper, you are a member of the girls’ soccer team. Your coach has directed team prayers before every game. What was your initial reaction when it first happened? 

Pyper: I was kind of confused on why we’re doing it because not everyone is religious on my team, and I feel like [the coach] knows that, so I was confused.

Did you ever think about telling the coach you didn’t like it or that it was inappropriate?

Pyper: I thought about that but I didn’t want to be benched or kicked off the team.

Harleigh, as a member of the marching band, you have to attend every football game, and all the home games start out with a prayer over the public address system. What type of message do you think that sends to you, the other students, and the community members who are gathered for the game?

Harleigh: I feel like it’s almost like it’s coercing everybody to be the same. I feel uncomfortable because I feel like I’m the only one sitting there not participating.

Leyna and Pyper, when you were in middle school, two school officials who were responsible for promoting religion also made some anti-LGBTQ remarks. One told fifth and sixth graders last year that same-sex relationships would not be tolerated. Another would scold students who discussed same-sex crushes. What was your reaction?

Pyper:  I was just kind of shocked that the straight people can express their feelings about a boy or a girl but LGBTQ people can’t do the same.

What are you hoping will happen as a result of this lawsuit?

Harleigh: I want to feel like I can go to school and not feel like I’m not a part of what is happening. Or go to a football game and not feel uncomfortable for the first 20 minutes. I want to do normal teenage things at school without feeling like I don’t fit in.

Pyper: Just wanting to fit in. When you’re not bowing your head, people look at you weird.

Leyna: I respect other people’s religion, and I would like it if everyone else would respect my beliefs.

What advice would you give to other teens that are facing similar circumstances at their public schools? 

Harleigh: Find a good group of friends that you do fit in with that have the same beliefs as you and don’t feels so coerced by everybody else.

Pyper: Probably just not be scared to speak up to say what you believe in.

When you three aren’t doing school activities or standing up for your rights, what do you do for fun?

Harleigh: I like to draw a lot and paint. I’m into surrealism.

Pyper: I like to take pictures.

You’re a photographer for the school yearbook, right?

Pyper: Yes, ma’am.

Are you hoping that this lawsuit will make it easier to attend school events as part of your yearbook photography duties?

Pyper: Yes, ma’am.

Leyna, what do you enjoy doing when you’re not busy with school and fighting for your rights?

Leyna: I usually do my makeup or I cook something.

What would you say to someone in this situation who can’t find a group of like-minded friends?

Pyper: Don’t try to be someone you’re not just to have a group of friends.