On Friday, a federal judge ruled that our lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of obstructing access to abortion for unaccompanied immigrant minors could move forward as a class action and that the government had to stop its cruel policy while the case proceeds. 

The court’s decision is a huge relief.  It means that young women who are pregnant and in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement will not have to suffer the way our client Jane Doe did. 

Jane came to this country September 2017 without her parents, who abused her in her home country, seeking a better life.  When she found out she was pregnant after the U.S. government detained her, she immediately requested an abortion.  But instead of providing her access to medical care – as required by law – the government attempted to coerce her to carry her pregnancy to term, at the explicit instruction of head of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Scott Lloyd.  Lloyd also forced her to endure medically unnecessary ultrasounds, and instructed that she tell her abusive parents in her home country about her pregnancy.

Learn more about the case

Jane kept asking for abortion access, and eventually, Lloyd prohibited Jane from being transported for any abortion-related appointments.  After four weeks of court battles, Jane was finally allowed to obtain her abortion. 

Since representing Jane, we’ve been back in court on behalf of other young women – other “Janes.”  We’ve been successful in their individual emergencies too.  But until Friday, the government’s policy remained in place. That meant that young woman were still being subjected to the extreme policy unless they found their way to us, and we went to court. 

We know that there are many young women that did not find their way to us, and were forced to endure the government’s coercion and obstruction.  In a recent deposition, Lloyd’s second-in-command, Jonathan White, testified that there were four young women from mid-December to mid-February who requested access to abortion, which was unknown to us. Some of them abandoned their abortion requests, very likely after being subjected to the government’s coercion tactics.

Fortunately, the court's decision protects all pregnant unaccompanied minors going forward.  Judge Tanya Chutkan recognized that Lloyd is imposing “his ideological opposition to abortion” even in the case of rape, to unconstitutionally “exercise complete control over” unaccompanied immigrant minors.  Lloyd’s ideological and religious opposition to abortion has been confirmed over and over again, including in his most recent deposition where he testified he believes abortion is a “sin” and he would potentially be complicit in sin if ever approved an abortion request. 

The court’s decision takes away from Lloyd the power to block young women’s abortion access, and puts that power where it should have been all along: with the young women themselves. Although the court’s ruling is promising, the fight is not over.  Though the policy is blocked as the case proceeds, we have months of legal work ahead to build our case so that the court will strike the policy down once and for all. 

Mark Zuckerberg will soon appear before Congress to address recent news that a company called Cambridge Analytica harvested the data of some 50 million Facebook users in the service of its influence and propaganda campaigns. Members should use this opportunity to press Zuckerberg on Facebook’s collection, use, and sharing of sensitive user data — including on why the company has not taken more steps to prevent discriminatory ads that may run afoul of our civil rights laws.

Why did Facebook ignore warnings to adopt procedures that would have prevented the Cambridge Analytica fiasco?

The Cambridge Analytica debacle was easily preventable. As early as 2009, the ACLU urged Facebook to close privacy holes which ultimately led to the Cambridge Analytica incident, but the company ignored those suggestions. And when Facebook first learned about the issue, it kept it hidden until the press caught wind of it. Members of Congress should demand to know: How did that happen? Did internal processes fail, or were they simply not in place? Why can’t Facebook address its problems when they happen rather than when they are revealed to the public?

Why has Facebook still not taken adequate measures to address the Cambridge Analytica incident and prevent future fiascos?

Facebook has announced plans to close the holes that allowed Cambridge Analytica to commit a “breach of trust” and misuse information about millions of users. But the company needs to go further to address this incident and prevent future ones. And the best way to do that is to ensure that users are in control. Facebook should retire the concept of “always public” information and restore the ability for users to control access to all of their information on Facebook. It should also make privacy settings easily understandable, invest sufficient resources into auditing to identify privacy violations, and notify all users whose information was used improperly.

To its credit, Facebook has promised to do many of these — but it hasn’t always followed through on past promises to protect user privacy. What will ensure that doesn’t happen again?

Why does Facebook track and profile millions of people who have never even created a Facebook account?

Facebook collects data about millions of people who have never created a Facebook account, whether through information uploaded to Facebook by their "friends," or by trackers embedded across the open Web. And Facebook explicitly states that its “Audience Network” for advertisements includes non-users.  Facebook doesn’t give these individuals to the opportunity to learn what data Facebook has about them or to request deletion of that data, and only registered Facebook users can view and edit their “ad preferences.” Why does Facebook collect the data of these individuals and why has it not provided them the ability to control how this data is treated?

Can Facebook guarantee that its advertising is not illegally excluding individuals from housing, employment, credit, and public accommodation ads based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics?

Facebook offers advertisers many thousands of targeting categories, some of which can serve as “proxies” for characteristics that are protected by civil rights laws — such as race, gender, familial status, sexual orientation, disability, and veteran status. Advertisers have used these categories on Facebook in ways that violate civil rights laws through ads for housing, credit, and employment that exclude members of those groups. And while Facebook has officially prohibited some of these practices, a recent report found that discriminatory ads are still being accepted. Why has the company yet again failed to respond effectively to a known problem?

You have said, “I’m not sure we shouldn’t be regulated,” yet in the past Facebook has opposed many common-sense regulations.  What new regulations will Facebook support?

As Cambridge Analytica and other incidents have shown, there are insufficient regulations in place to protect users when companies fail to protect their data. To address this gap, there have been proposals to require meaningful notice and consent for users, place limits on use and retention of data, require data portability, and increase government enforcement. The European Union has adopted a far more comprehensive privacy law that places restrictions on how companies treat data and allows meaningful penalties in cases where companies fail to adhere to standards. The ACLU has long pointed to the need in the U.S. for a comprehensive privacy laws. Which regulations, specifically, will Facebook support?  

What is Facebook doing to prevent future incidents where companies and governments have improperly used Facebook to surveil its users?

In 2016, the ACLU revealed that a company marketing police surveillance software had obtained access to Facebook and Instagram user data via developer channels. We know that police used this software to monitor black activists protesting police violence. Last week, Facebook said it will notify people whose data was misused by developers. When will Facebook notify users impacted by this surveillance and clarify what safeguards — such as regular audits of developers — are in place or planned to ensure that this does not happen again? What steps is Facebook taking to protect user data given the Trump Administration’s “Extreme Vetting Initiative,” for which the government intends to use social media to assist in vetting visa applicants and generating targets for deportation?

Why can’t users easily move their data from Facebook to another social media site?

You have often said that users own the data they post to Facebook. But Facebook hasn’t made it clear whether and how users can exercise meaningful control over it. When a company like Facebook disregards demands for greater privacy and functionality, users should be able to remove their data from Facebook in a usable format (including their network of connections) so they can join another service that offers stronger privacy benefits. What steps are you taking to facilitate data portability?

Will Facebook commit to not providing government entities or third parties access to their facial recognition technology?

Facebook’s long-term plans for facial recognition are not clear, but the growing use of the technology on the platform raises serious questions about how the company may use it to target ads, whether it will be vulnerable to government demands, and the risk of biased systems. What internal controls are in place to limit the use of facial data? Will Facebook pledge not to target advertisements — either online or in the real world — based on detailed, intimate data extracted from users’ faces in images and videos? Will Facebook commit to not allowing the government or third parties to use this technology, and informing the public if this policy changes?

When news came late last year that the Federal Communications Commission had removed all of its network neutrality protections, many Americans were surprised and dismayed. Polls showed that 80 percent of the public supported net neutrality protections, and state and local legislators across the country started looking at what they could do to protect the open internet. Among the options that are now being pursued are a federal legislative solution (reversing the FCC’s action through the Congressional Review Act) and enacting state or local legislation requiring corporate internet service providers to honor network neutrality principles. That work will continue and we are working hard to make it successful.

Meanwhile, however, there is another, longer-term step that many cities, states, and counties are taking that can address the net neutrality problem: providing their public internet service as a municipal utility like water and electricity.

Hundreds of communities across the nation are finding that taking this step can solve several problems. For one, net neutrality protections are not the only important FCC safeguards that have recently been dismantled. Basic protections for Americans’ privacy have also been eviscerated in the past year, allowing Comcast, AT&T, and the other big telecoms to sell our browsing histories and all the other data they can collect about how we use the internet. Any local law requiring telecom companies to honor net neutrality and privacy principles would have to be defended in court, where the telecoms will argue that federal law preempts local action. Local governments, however, have every right to direct their own utilities to honor those values.

More broadly, many communities have found that public internet service is a good way to bring cheaper, faster internet to communities where the monopoly telecoms have failed or refused to deliver fast broadband service. Many Americans are paying big telecoms expensive monthly fees for 25, 50, or 100 megabit-per-second (mbps) broadband, while some community-owned providers offer 1,000 mbps service (gigabit service) for the same price or less.

Public broadband service can also address the lack of quality internet access in low-income or rural areas and communities of color. Twenty-four million Americans do not have high-speed internet at home, either because it is not available or too expensive. Municipally run broadband, which is sometimes provided through public-private partnerships, can ensure that internet service is provided in an equitable way.

Those three values: network neutrality, privacy, and equitable access are important civil liberties concerns. Our new report, “The Public Internet Option: How Local Governments Can Provide Network Neutrality, Privacy, and Access for All” explains how community broadband can be a good way of addressing shortfalls in internet access, and offers civil liberties guidelines for communities offering this service.

Bring Community Broadband to Your Area

Access to the internet is vital for economic and educational opportunities, and to fully participate in our democracy. And in today’s world it has become necessary to having a fair shot at “the pursuit of happiness” and a fulfilled life.

The raging national battle over net neutrality is one reminder of the dangers of putting internet service in the hands of giant, monopolistic companies that are under constant pressure from Wall Street to squeeze profits out of their service every way they can. That pressure pushes them toward invading privacy, interfering with the free flow of information online, and prioritizing service where people are wealthier and more densely settled. All of those private incentives contradict the public interest.

Building municipal broadband service takes vision, leadership and commitment. Hundreds of communities have already gone down this road — many of them politically conservative. They’re reaping the benefits of local control over what has become an indispensable utility. Other cities would be wise to consider taking a similar path.