(Note: This is a work-in-progress. We are aware that at this time most of the sources referenced below are from one book: In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.) Additional sources will be added. If you are aware of any sources we should review for inclusion, please send them to us.)
DATES
EVENTS
1917 Oct. 1
The National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB) is established. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 20, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"Organized by Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin, The bureau was an offshoot of the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM), which since 1914 had led the opposition to America's entry into war." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 11, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1920 Jan. 19
The American Civil Liberties Union received its charter in New York. American Civil Liberties Union. The Roger Baldwin Years 1917-1950, ACLU Archives, 1920-1950: A Microfilm Edition; Ben Primer, editor, Princeton University
"The ACLU adopted the policy of impartially defending civil liberties, including the principle of free speech, without reference to the content of that speech." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 47, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1923
The first permanent ACLU affiliate was founded in Southern California with the help of writer Upton Sinclair, after marine transport workers were jailed for going out on strike in Los Angeles's port of San Pedro. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 54, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1925 June 8
Although the ACLU did not prevail in "Gitlow v. New York," the case marked the "first significant breakthrough for the ACLU in the Supreme Court." The Court held that "we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press (...) are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the state." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 79-80, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1925
The "Scopes - Monkey Trial" begins. The ACLU represented the plaintiff John T. Scopes in a trial that challenged a Tennessee law which "prohibited teachers in state-supported schools and universities from teaching" evolution. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 72, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1931 May 18
In "Stromberg v. People of State of California," the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the ACLU and "affirmed a broad principle of freedom of association: 'The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion (...) is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 90, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1934
The ACLU "produced a statement entitled 'Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?'" which defined ACLU's "policy on the issue of the rights of totalitarian groups." It stated notably that "if the ACLU 'condoned the denial of rights to Nazi propagandists, in what position would it be to champion the rights of others?'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.116, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1935
Between 1935 and 1939 the ACLU expanded its number of affiliates "in St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and even in Iowa, Indiana, and Texas where the ACLU had never before had a presence. By 1939 five affiliates had full-time paid staffs." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.118, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1939 June 5
In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the ACLU in its battle against Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague when it upheld the injunction seeking to stop the mayor from "evicting the union organizers from the city, end illegal searches and seizures, and cease interfering with meetings and the distribution of literature." The Supreme Court "defined streets and parks as a 'public forum' protected by the First Amendment." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.110-111, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1940
"[M]embers elected during the first sixty years of the organization, almost eighty percent had Communist affiliations. A full ninety percent of the cases that [the ACLU] defended involved Communists. And as a result, it was stigmatized as a "Communist Front' organization itself." Trial and Error - The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.63, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
1940 Feb. 5
"The [ACLU] board and the National Committee adopted a resolution barring from ACLU leadership positions anyone supporting totalitarianism." "Under the policy the board purged Elizabeth Gurley Flynn" who was an outspoken communist party member. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.131, 127, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
This "episode came to be viewed by many as the Union's most regrettable departure from its own principles." Inside the ACLU: Activism and Anti-Communism in the Late 1960s, Alan Rostron, p.426, New England Law Review (Vol. 33:2 Winter, 1999.)
1941
The ACLU hired its first permanent staff counsel. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.111, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1942 Feb. 19
"Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the Secretary of War to designate military zones" in which 120,000 Japanese-Americans ended up being interned. The debate as to whether the ACLU should support the order or not created a split within the ACLU between the supporters and the opponents of the order. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.137, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1942 June 6
The ACLU National Committee approved a resolution endorsing the Executive Order in principle, and crafted a policy which "offered four grounds for legal challenges to the government's program: the absence of a clear military necessity, racial discrimination, the lack of individual hearings, and detention." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.140-141, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1942 Oct. 19
Amidst great controversy between the ACLU and its West Coast affiliate, the ACLU board adopted the "Seymour resolution" which stated notably that the ACLU "will not participate - except where the fundamentals of due process are denied - in cases where, after investigation, there are grounds for a belief that the defendant is cooperating with or acting on behalf of the enemy, even though the particular charge against the defendant might otherwise be appropriate for intervention by the ACLU" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.157, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1943 June 21
In Hirabayashi v. US, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the government and against ACLU's claim that the internment of Japanese-Americans in the military zone were racially discriminatory, it held that "the power to wage war was 'power to wage war successfully,' extending 'to every matter and activity so related to war as substantially to affect its conduct and progress.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.145, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1947, Mar. 21
President Truman's Executive Order 9835 created the Federal Loyalty Program which "allowed the government to deny employment to anyone when 'reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States." An ambivalent ACLU decided to challenge the program through "quiet lobbying and court tests" and offered "free legal assistance to federal employees charged with being disloyal" under the program. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.176-178, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1950
Roger Baldwin retired as Executive Director of the ACLU after 30 years. He was replaced by Patrick Murphy Malin. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.205, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1950 May 8
With American Communications Association v. Douds, the ACLU unsuccessfully challenged on First Amendment ground the "Taft-Hartley Act oath, denying protection of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to any union whose leaders failed to file a non-Communist affidavit." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p.189, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1951
Malin undertook "an ambitious membership recruitment campaign." As a result "the ACLU membership tripled by 1955" and doubled by 1960. In addition to "full-time offices in (...) Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles, (...) staffed affiliates appeared in New York, Philadelphia [and] Cleveland." Furthermore, "the board revised the ACLU's constitution and bylaws to give the affiliates a voice in policymaking." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.206-208, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1954
"The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Brown v. Board of Education, as it did in all of the leading civil rights cases in these years."
During the civil right movement a "collaborative atmosphere prevailed, and the legal strategy often emerged from meetings with lawyers form the NAACP, the ACLU, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and other groups." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.238-239, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1957 June 17
The ACLU was involved in two cases in which "the Supreme Court struck at a broad range of cold war measures." Yates v. U.S., which "drastically limited the Smith Act by overturning the convictions of the 'second tier' of the communist party leadership, and Watkins v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court held that "congressional investigative power was not unlimited, that HUAC's mandate was 'loosely worded.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.242-243, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1959
"The ACLU made one of its most significant contributions to the civil rights movement in the area of police misconduct." It published Secret Detention by the Chicago Police which was "the first systematic study ever made of frequency of lengthy secret detentions by a municipal police force." It "had a direct influence on the three most controversial Supreme Court cases dealing with the police in the 1960s" namely Mapp v. Ohio; Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp.246, 249, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1961
"The ACLU was in the forefront of all the crises of the sixties." It represented students arrested for demonstrating or for "sit-ins" in and off-campus in Tallahassee, New Orleans, Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky and Texas. "The 'sit-ins' posed new questions about the boundaries of freedom of speech. The ACLU's conclusion that "sit-ins" were protected by the First Amendment represented an "important step in the ACLU's identification with militant sixties protests." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 262-263, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1961 June 19
Mapp v. Ohio, was the first controversial Supreme Court case involving "abuse of police authority" in which the ACLU was directly involved. Mapp appealed the Court on the grounds that the police search of her home had been illegal and "the Supreme Court agreed holding that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used against a suspect. (...) Application of the exclusionary rule to state and local police had the effect of creating national standards for police behavior." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 249-250, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1962
In an effort to coordinate the legal representation of civil rights activists, the ACLU "organized a coalition of all the major civil rights groups: the ACLU, CORE, NAACP, the American Jewish Congress, and others," into the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee (LCDC) which "became the main instrument of the ACLU's activity." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 264-265, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1962 June 25
In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court sided with the New York ACLU and found "the nondenominational prayer a religious activity 'wholly inconsistent' with the First Amendment." It held that "the decision did not imply hostility to religion and that it specifically exempted from the decision references to God in government ceremonies." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 224, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1963 June 17
In Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, the ACLU challenged the Bible reading law. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional and "reaffirmed its view that the government" should be "firmly committed to a position of neutrality."
"The Court's decisions also encouraged more activity by the ACLU and its allies. (...) [I]n a subtle but important shift the ACLU's role increasingly became that of a watchdog fighting for implementation of civil liberties principles that were now a matter of law." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 224, 226, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced 'the place of religion in American life' and have restricted religious speech 'in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted.'" Trial and Error - The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.70, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
1964 Mar. 9
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the landmark free speech case, New York Times v. Sullivan, urging reversal of the judgment against the New York Times for libel. The Supreme court overturned the judgment and the damages award, "ruling that public officials could recover damages only when they could prove 'actual malice.'" The Court held that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 236 Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1964 June 15
Reynolds v. Sims, "was the culmination of an ACLU campaign that had begun in the 1940s to impose a constitutional standard of equal protection to legislative apportionment." The Supreme Court "held that state legislative district had to be apportioned on the basis of one person-one vote." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 250 Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1964 June 22
The second controversial police case in which the ACLU played a major role, Escobedo v. Illinois, "raised the question of exactly when the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel began. (...) [T]he court held that suspects had a right to an attorney when in custody and when the questioning became accusatory." The ruling brought the "standards of due process into the previously hidden world of the police station." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 255 Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
The ACLU's "criminal justice positions, policies, and programs have only aggravated and exacerbated the already horrendous problems of maintaining law and order." Trial and Error - The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.103, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
1965, Mar. 8
The ACLU won an important victory in its attempt to redefine "conscientious objection" when the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Seeger, "extended the right of conscientious objection to people who did not necessarily believe in 'supreme being' but whose beliefs paralleled those of conventional religion." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 281, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1965, June 7
"A constitutional right of privacy emerged out of the long fight over the Connecticut birth control law." The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court "found a constitutional right to privacy in what [it] termed the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of the Bill of Rights: The First Amendment freedom of association; the Third Amendment prohibition on quartering soldiers; the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination; and finally, the Ninth Amendment declaration that the people retained rights not spelled out in the Constitution." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 300-301, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1966 June 13
The ACLU filed and Amicus brief in the third "police case:" Miranda v. Arizona. The ACLU stated that a "suspect in custody had not only a right to a lawyer but also a more fundamental right not to incriminate himself or herself." The Supreme Court's "decision enunciated the now-famous 'Miranda warning': Police were required to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 250, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1967 Jan. 23
Chuck Morgan, the director of the ACLU's Southern Regional Office, sucessfully challenged in several cases, racial and gender discrimination in the selection of jury, ultimately winning the Supreme Court case Whitus v. Georgia. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 269-270, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1968
As the civil rights activists became more radical, the ACLU was split regarding its role in representing parties in civil disobedience cases. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 282, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"The fierce storm of controversy centered around Vietnam. The activists saw critical civil liberties issues presented by American involvement in the war, while moderates feared transformation of the Union from a nonpolitical civil liberties group to a partisan anti-war organization. The activists ultimately prevailed, but the debate raged for several years until the Union's moderate faction finally disintegrated." Inside the ACLU: Activism and Anti-Communism in the Late 1960s, Alan Rostron, p.426, New England Law Review (Vol. 33:2 Winter, 1999.)
"The dispute came to a head in Jan. 1968 when the justice Department indicted Dr. [Benjamin] Spock for organizing 'Stop the Draft Week.'" ACLU heatedly debated Dr. Spock's representation, ultimately deciding to side with him. "[N]eoconservative critics saw the Spock case as the point at which the ACLU abandoned civil liberties for a 'political' agenda." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 283-285, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1968 May 28
Addressing the rights of the poor "[t]he ACLU made its greatest contributions at the Supreme Court in the areas of due process and equal protection." The ACLU "won Levy v. Louisiana which overturned a state law denying children the right to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of their mother because they were illegitimate." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 313, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1968 June 17
The ACLU "won King v. Smith, which invalidated the traditional 'man in the house' rule that denied Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits to children whose mother was living with someone to whom she was not married. The decision made AFDC benefits available to an estimated 500,000 previously ineligible children across the country." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 313, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1969 Feb. 24
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, "opened up a new body of constitutional law involving the rights of students." The ACLU represented three students who wore a black armband to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The Supreme Court held that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 280, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1969 Apr. 21
In Street v. New York, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was protected symbolic speech, and that Street, who was represented by the NYCLU, "did not urge anyone to do anything unlawful" but was engaged in "excited public advocacy." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 280, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1969 June 9
Later on, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court agreeing with the ACLU's "view of the First Amendment," "effectively abolished the clear and present danger test, invalidating the Smith Act and all state sedition laws restricting radical political groups." The court held that "the First Amendment protected advocacy, even of the necessity of violent action." Brandenburg, a KKK member, had been convicted for threatening the government in a speech. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 281, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1970
"Aryeh Neier's appointment (...) as the ACLU's executive director marked the advent of the 'new' ACLU. [He] consolidated what had been developing over the past five years: the new civil liberties issues, direct legal representation, and grant-funded special projects."
"Neier wasted no time transforming the ACLU." He organized and had the ACLU present "eleven separate projects" to foundations which were eventually all "funded and incorporated into the renamed ACLU Foundation. (...) The Prisoners' Rights Project, the Reproductive Freedom Project, and the Voter Rights Project became the centers of legal expertise on their respective subjects." In addition "Neier created a series of ACLU handbooks" and "established The Civil Liberties Review for serious discussions of civil liberties issues," which was "canceled in 1978 , because of a financial crisis in the ACLU." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 314-316, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1970 May 4
The ACLU's opposition to tax exemptions for churches in Walz v. Tax Commission "marked the dominance of absolutist thinking in the ACLU. In years to come, critics would cite Walz and the defense of child pornography as evidence of the ACLU's utter lack of reasonableness." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 319-320, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1971
"[T]he ACLU's expanded activities evoked serious criticism." Although, Yale law professor Joesph W. Bishop "recognized the ACLU's sustained impact on the law. (...) His primary complaint was that the ACLU had abandoned its traditional role and had embarked on a purely partisan campaign, citing the ACLU's defense of Dr. Spock as the turning point. Bishop saw it not as a free speech case, but as a political attack on the war. His charge that the ACLU adopted a 'political agenda' in the late 1960s (...) became a standard neoconservative criticism."
"In reaction to Griswold and Roe, conservative legal scholars challenged judicial activism with a new theory of judicial restraint, 'orginal intent.' That is, the only principled basis for constitutional decision making was the framers' intent. (...) The ACLU replied that the Constitution was a living document that had to be interpreted in the light of new circumstances."
"Another line of criticism held that the ACLU had pressed traditional civil liberties too far." "Neoconservatives expressed a moral revulsion at the collapse of restraints, (which occurred because of 'ACLU's long crusade against censorship') and now argued that excessive liberty itself was the problem." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 317-319, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1971 June 30
Times v. United States "became the greatest freedom of the press confrontation in American history." The New York Times and later the Washington Post published the "so-called Pentagon Papers" a voluminous "history and analysis of the United States' involvement in Vietnam." Following the Times refusal to stop publishing the series, the "Justice Department, citing the Espionnage Act, won a restraining order" against the Times and later on against the Washington Post for undertaking the publication of its own series.
The case went to the Supreme Court. The ACLU filed a brief stating that "the basic premise of 'national security' is a political concept" that could be misused and that if "accepted, there would be virtually no limit to possible prior restraints." Ultimately the Supreme Court "allowed the papers to continue publishing their stories" holding that "the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the wide-spread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information."
The Pentagon Papers were at "the heart of the national security issue for the ACLU. Secrecy and covert action violated the basic premise of democracy: Public control over government policy required access to information and open debate." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 289-291, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1971 Nov. 22
The ACLU "defined women's rights as its 'top priority,' creating the Women's Rights Project. The key figure in the ACLU's campaign was law professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg." She wrote, with two other counsels, the ACLU brief in Reed v. Reed, "the breakthrough women's rights case in the Supreme Court." The case "challenged the automatic preference for men over women as administrators of estates, with Ginsburg contending that this violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Supreme Court only partially agreed with the ACLU and held that "gender was not a 'suspect classification" demanding the same 'strict scrutiny' by the courts as race did." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 304, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1972
The ACLU created the National Prison Project. "[T]he denial of civil liberties was systemic, and so any attempts at meaningful reform had to address the prison as an institution. (...) [P]rison litigation was exploding across the country" and "[n]eoconservative critics blamed prisoner's rights litigation - and the ACLU in particular - for creating new problems in the prisons. Litigation, they charged, undermined the authority of prison officials and led to an increase in violence." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 311, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1973 Jan. 22
The ACLU did not file any brief in support of what "was destined to become one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the Supreme Court (...) Roe v. Wade," but argued the companion case Doe v. Bolton. "Roe v. Wade swept aside existing criminal abortion laws;" the Supreme Court held that "the right to privacy included a woman's right to an abortion in consultation with her physician." However, "[t]his right was not absolute" because "the interest of the state in protecting potential life increased as the pregnancy advanced." The court relied on Roe v. Wade as a precedent, in its decision in Doe v. Bolton. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 303, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1973 Mar.
"With the ACLU's litigation program expanded, the conservative drift of the Burger Court was a source of great anxiety. In Mar. 1973 the ACLU brought one hundred staff and volunteer lawyers to Chicago to plan an effective response, the first such conference in ACLU history." ACLU's success rate [in the U.S. Supreme Court] declined (...) falling from an extarodinary 90 percent in the 1968-1969 term to only 52 percent in 1970-1971." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 316, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1973 May 14
Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued "Frontiero v. Richardson for the ACLU in an amicus brief. In this case "the Supreme Court ended a U.S. military policy that gave the husbands of servicewomen an automatic dependency, whereas the wives of servicemen had to meet a dependency test." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 305, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1973 Oct.19
The ACLU placed a full page ad in the New York Times calling for President Nixon's impeachment. The ad "asked readers to write their representatives in Congress, make a contribution to the ACLU, and join if not already a member." The response was overwhelming and "[o]ver 25,000 new members joined in 1973 alone, driving the ACLU's membership to an all-time high of 275,000." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 294, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"When the Watergate scandal became a major issue in 1973, only a few dissenting voices remained to argue that seeking the impeachment of President Nixon was a political enterprise beyond the ACLU's proper sphere of concerns." Inside the ACLU: Activism and Anti-Communism in the Late 1960s, Alan Rostron, p.427, New England Law Review (Vol. 33:2 Winter, 1999.)
1974
After President Nixon "refused to hand over crucial tapes," the special prosecutor sued and "the question of the extent of presidential power reached the Supreme Court. The ACLU filed the only amicus brief in the case." The brief "argued that 'the fundamental issue raised in this case is whether the President, acting in his sole discretion, can disregard an obligation imposed on all other citizens to produce evidence demonstrably material to the trial of criminal charges of obstruction of justice in a federal court.'" On July 24, the Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to hand over the tapes and "held that 'an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would 'plainly conflict with the functions of the courts' in conducting criminal prosecutions."
"[T]he House Judiciary Committee approved the first article of impeachment" on July 27 and on Aug. 8 President "Nixon announced his resignation." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 294-295, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1975, Jan. 22
"The [Supreme] Court took up the question of students' due process rights in "Goss v. Lopez, which arose out of racial unrest at three schools in Columbus, Ohio (...). With the ACLU filing an amicus brief in support of the NAACP's suit, the Court established minimal due process rights for public school students. It held that (...) students had a right to oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against them, and an opportunity to rebut the charges. (...) Further, students had a 'legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 307, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1975, June 26
"O'Connor v. Donaldson was ACLU's most important Supreme Court case taken by its Mental Health Law Project. Donaldson had been institutionalized for fifteen years. "He was not dangerous and had received no medical treatment." The Supreme Court ordered his release and "awarded him $20,000 in damages, establishing the principle that nondangerous persons could not be confined against their will." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 309, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1976
"Shortly after Congress passed the 1974 amendment [to the 1971 Federal Election Campaign] conservative New York Senator James Buckley asked Glasser to join him in a suit challenging its restrictions on campaign spending. (...) In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court agreed with the NYCLU that "the restrictions on spending 'relative to a candidate' infringed on freedom of speech." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 339, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1977
The "ACLU women's caucus (...) won adoption of an official ACLU affirmative action plan." "The concept of affirmative action proved to be a divisive issue both in national politics and within the ACLU." The ACLU endorsed "a racial quota for the University of California medical school (...) Neoconservatives (...) argued that the use of a racial classification, for whatever purpose, represented an unconstitutional form of reverse discrimination." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 305-306, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"The result of this 'discrimination to spite discrimination' approach to social and economic affairs has proven to be disastrous. Innumerable studies have shown that preferential entitlements actually debilitate and impoverish minorities -creating disincentives to advancement and engendering an artificial indolence." Trial and Error - The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.44, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
1977
The FBI releases its files on the ACLU. They reveal that "several ACLU leaders had sought information about ACLU members from the FBI and, worse, had given the FBI information about the organization and individuals." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 333, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1978
The controversial "Skokie case" started when, following Skokie Park District requirement to "post $350,000 in insurance" to demonstrate in Skokie, Collin, head of a small neo-Nazi group called the National Socialist Party of America, bypassed the requirement and "informed the village council that he would hold a thirty-minute demonstration in front of the village hall, May 1, 1977." The town authorities granted his request "and planned to urge people to ignore the Nazis."
However, "between eight hundred and twelve hundred [residents of Skokie] were survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, (...) and many viewed the planned Nazi march as a direct affront to the memory of the six million Holocaust victims." "The militant Jewish Defense League (JDL) forced community leaders to take a more militant anti-Nazi position (...) and village officials in Skokie obtained an injunction banning Collin's demonstration completely."
"The village of Skokie's case was based on the argument that the neo-Nazi march would incite a breach of the peace." The ACLU which, following Collin's call for help, represented him, argued unsuccessfully to the Cook County Chancery Court that enjoining the demonstration "would allow any angry group of people to abrogate the free speech and assembly rights of unpopular organizations simply by threatening to be disruptive." Following Collin's threat to demonstrate at another date, the village of "Skokie passed three ordinances aimed at Collin" which "were an assault on the First Amendment, matching, if not exceeding, the various measures passed in the South to suppress the civil rights movement."
"The litigation dragged through 1977 and into 1978" when the ACLU filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court" which "ordered the Illinois Supreme Court to hold an expedited hearing. (...) In late Jan. the Illinois high court ruled that the injunction against Collin and the display of the swastika - a new element added by Skokie on appeal - was unconstitutional. (...) In Feb., the federal district court ruled the three Skokie ordinances to be unconstitutional. (...) On May 22, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue Frank Collin a permit." Three weeks later "by a seven-to-two vote, the U.S. Supreme court refused to stay the seventh circuit order."
"Although armed with a permit for a demonstration in Skokie on June 25, 1978, [Collin] never used it." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 323-327, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1978 May 30
"In response to an (...) inquiry from one woman" regarding South Carolina's sterilization of women on public assistance, Edna Smith Primus, an ACLU cooperating attorney "sent a letter saying the ACLU 'would like to file a lawsuit on your behalf for money against the doctor who performed the operation.'" Primus was reprimanded by the state Supreme Court for "improper solicitation." On appeal, in In re Primus, the Supreme Court "acknowledged the special role of the ACLU" and "ruled that Primus's actions did not constitute unethical, in-person solicitation. The court distinguished between lawyers who solicit cases 'for pecuniary gains' and those who solicit to 'further political and ideological goals through associational activity.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 340, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"And considering the fact that the ACLU no longer has to take many of its cases before the bench - its influence is so great that even a threat of a lawsuit is often enough to change policies, reshape legislation, and redirect priorities in case after case - those achievements are even more remarkable." Trial and Error - The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.28, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
1978 Aug.
"Between 1974 and 1978 the ACLU membership fell by 25%.... Two political scientists who studied the Skokie crisis concluded ... that ... only half of all these people quit [the ACLU] because of Skokie." "The victory for the First Amendment (in Skokie) had extracted an enormous price, however, as the loss of members and contributions plunged the ACLU into debt - nearly $500,000 by 1978..... Faced with imminent financial collapse, the board appointed Jay Miller to head an emergency development campaign. (...) The turning point was a fund-raising letter signed by David Goldberg" the ACLU attorney in the Skokie case asking for $20 contributions. "The Goldberger letter, as it came to be known, was spectacular success; over 25,000 people contributed $550,000." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 328-329, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1978 Sep.
ACLU Executive Director Neier resigned and was replaced by Ira Glasser "one of the veterans of the 1960s." He "brought in longtime ACLU staffer Florence Isbell to straighten out the membership department (...) and Carol Pitchersky, (...) as development director to create an ongoing program of soliciting tax-deductible contributions. Her operation was a phenomenal success. Contributions rose from less than $300,000 in 1977 to over $3 million in 1988." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 336-338, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"The financial crisis passed, but damage to the ACLU's reputation was more permanent. By alienating those of its leaders who resisted the activist expansion, the Union lost a vital moderating element. While conservatives had long accused the ACLU of supporting communism and atheism, a new and more sophisticated line of criticism emerged. The Union came to be perceived by many - even former friends - as a partisan special interest group with an agenda of liberal causes, rather than as a neutral defender of the Bill of Rights." Inside the ACLU: Activism and Anti-Communism in the Late 1960s, Alan Rostron, p.427, New England Law Review (Vol. 33:2 Winter, 1999.)
1980
"The Hyde Amendment had (...) eliminated federal funding for abortions. (...) Court challenges brought by the ACLU and other abortions rights groups, alleging discrimination against the poor, failed." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 346-347, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1981
"Working with other pro-choice groups, the ACLU Washington office mobilized (...) support for abortion rights, beginning with a series of 1981 conferences in Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Seattle, New York and Atlanta." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 347, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1983
In City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project challenged an ordinance in Ohio, which restricted access to abortions. "The law required a 24 hour waiting period, compelled doctors to inform patients that 'the unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception,' and required that all second trimester abortions be conducted in hospitals rather than clinics. (...) The Supreme Court rejected each of the law's provisions. Informed consent was 'designed not to promote informed consent, but rather to withhold it altogether;' the waiting period was an 'arbitrary and inflexible' requirement; and the second trimester provision imposed a 'heavy and unnecessary burden on women's access to a relatively inexpensive ... and safe abortion procedure.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 348, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1984
"Religious displays on public property was one of the ACLU's most publicized issues." In Lynch v. Donnelly, disagreeing with the ACLU, the Supreme Court "ruled that a creche on public property did not violate the establishment clause," holding that it "was permissible as long as a reasonable observer would not think it was promoting a religious point of view." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 346, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1985
In Wallace v. Jaffree, the ACLU and People for the American Way challenged three Alabama laws "permitting a one-minute period of silence for meditation, a period of 'meditation or voluntary prayer,' and one allowing teachers to lead 'willing students' in a prescribed prayer to 'almighty God... the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world.'" The Supreme Court agreed that the prayer law violated the establishment clause but "left unresolved the question of whether a moment of silence was constitutional." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 344, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1986, Mar. 25
In Goldman v. Weinberger, "the ACLU defended the right of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in the air force to wear a yarmulke." The Supreme Court upheld the air force continuing with its "general pattern of deferring to the interests of institutional authorities (...) at the expense of the individual." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 344, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1987
The nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court "became the most heated political issue of 1987." His views in the area of civil liberties contrasted sharply with the position of the ACLU and his "nomination provoked a major crisis in the ACLU, which had jealously guarded its policy of nonpartisanship prohibiting the support of or opposition to candidates for elected or appointed office." The ACLU board eventually "voted (...) to permit the ACLU to oppose a Supreme Court nominee 'whose record demonstrates a judicial philosophy that would fundamentally jeopardize the supreme court's critical and unique role in protecting civil liberties.'" The ACLU eventually voted to oppose Bork, whose nomination was later rejected by the Senate. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 366-368, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
"[A]bandoning all pretense of political neutrality, the ACLU led the smear campaign designed to deny Judge Robert Bork confirmation to the Supreme Court." Trial and Error - The American Civil Liberties Union and its Impact on Your Family, George Grant, p.28, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. (1st. ed. 1989)
1987 June 19
In Edwards v. Aguillard, the ACLU challenged a Louisiana law which allowed the teaching of "creation science" "a balanced treatment of evolution and creationism, which had the appeal of fairness and respect for academic freedom." The Supreme Court "declar[ed] the law unconstitutional" holding that "'the preeminent purpose' of the law 'was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.'" In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 343, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1988
"One of ACLU's most important victories was the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act, which overturned the Supreme Court's 1984 Grove City College v. Bell decision." The ruling in the case went against Title IX of the 1972 Education Act, which prohibited sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs. The Court held that "the federal funds could be withheld only from the particular program found to be discriminating, rather than from the entire institution." The "ACLU-NAACP Legal Defense Fund report, Justice Denied, found that sixty-four discrimination investigation had been dropped" due to the ruling in Grove. The Congress then "passed the 1988 law overturning Grove." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 355, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1988
In the Iran-Contra affair "the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of Lt. Col. Oliver North, arguing that the federal criminal case against him, for perjury and other crimes, violated his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The prosecution's case against North, the ACLU argued, relied on compelled testimony he had given before a congressional investigating committee." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 375, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1988
The republican candidate George Bush stated, during the presidential election campaign, "my opponent is a card-carrying member of the ACLU." "Through market research techniques, Bush strategists had discovered that the ACLU's name evoked strong negative reactions among voters." However, "the immediate effect of Bush's singling out the ACLU was a rush of publicity and membership applications." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, pp. 368-369, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1988 Jan.13
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, in which the Supreme Court affirmed "the right of school principals to censor school newspapers." The decision was considered to be one of civil liberties "worst" defeats. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 374, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1988 June 19
"The Adolescent Family Life Act of 1981 provided federal grants to programs promoting 'self-discipline and chastity' among teenagers, thereby mandating grants to religious organizations." The ACLU argued in Bowen v. Kendrick that "the law promoted religious doctrine and restricted free speech by prohibiting any discussion of abortion as a medical option." The Supreme Court disagreed with the ACLU's argument and "remanded the case for hearings on whether particular programs promoted religious doctrine." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 346, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1989 Apr. 9
"Antiabortion forces, under the rubric of Operation Rescue, staged massive demonstrations designed to shut down abortion clinics." "National attention was riveted on the Apr. 25 1989, oral arguments in a Missouri case in which the Bush administration had urged the Court" to overturn Roe v. Wade. "This prospect galvanized the prochoice forces, and between 300,000 and 600,000 of their supporters converged on Washington on Apr. 9 for one of the largest demonstrations on any issue in the nation's capital." The Supreme Court did not overturn Roe, but "sharply cut back on abortion rights and returned the abortion battle to the sates." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. 373, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1990, June 11
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Eichman in which the Supreme Court "establish[ed] a first Amendment right to burn the American flag." The decision came at a time when "Congress debated early in the decade a series of amendments to the First Amendment." However, "the ACLU and its allies had successfully blocked any amendment from passing both houses of Congress." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. vii-ix, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1991, May 23
In Rust v. Sullivan, one of the "most significant free speech defeats, the Court upheld (...) the 'gag order' forbidding doctors receiving federal family planning funds from discussing abortion with their clients." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. xiv, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1992, June 22
In R.A.V. v. St.Paul, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a teenager for "burning a crudely made cross on the lawn of an African American family." The Court held "that cross burning in this instance was a form of expression protected by the First Amendment (...) [and] that the juvenile could easily have been punished under a number of local ordinances narrowly related to his behavior. The ACLU's position was that cross burning could be punished only where there was a true threat to the safety of another person." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. xii, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1993, June 11
"The enhanced penalty aspect of hate crime laws reached the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell." Several African-Americans assaulted a "white youth." Their motivation was clear "as they had shouted their intent to attack the victim on account of his race." "Accepting the ACLU's position," the Supreme court upheld the Wisconsin hate crime law which increased the assailants' sentence by several years. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. xii, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1997
In California "voters approved Proposition 209 abolishing all affirmative action programs in the state. The ACLU played a leading role in the coalition opposing the referendum and in the court challenges that followed." Ultimately the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal to the 9th Circuit ruling which upheld Proposition 209. In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU<
1997 June 26
Reno v. ACLU constituted "a sweeping vindication of the ACLU's historic fight for freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional, concluding that the provisions outlawing 'indecency' on the Internet were 'wholly unprecedented.'" "The decision is, however, one of the few such victories the ACLU can claim in the 1990s." In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, p. vii, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)
1999
“In 1978, the national ACLU's annual income was $3.9 million and the organization ran a small deficit. By 1999, annual income was an off-the-charts $45 million. The endowment fund has gone from $780,000 to a whopping $41 million. ” ACLU National Director Retires for Much More Freedom, Robyn E. Blumner, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 3, 2000
2001 Sep.
“Anthony D. Romero is the sixth executive director of the 81-year-old American Civil Liberties Union. He became the first Latino and first openly gay man to take the helm of the [ACLU] when he started his new position in Sep. 2001.” Biography of Anthony D. Romero, ACLU website, 2001
2003 July 30
"The American Civil Liberties Union and six Arab-American and Islamic community groups in Detroit, Tennessee and Oregon filed the first constitutional challenge to the USA Patriot Act. The groups argued that Section 215, which grants wide and secret investigative powers to federal agents, violates constitutional protections allowing free speech and banning unreasonable search and seizure, undermines due process and leads to self-incrimination." Justice Department Blocks Judge's Request, David Shepardson, The Detroit News, May 21, 2004
"The ultimate danger is not that the Left will defeat the Patriot Act in court. The danger is that it will succeed in pressuring Congress to let provisions of the Act expire in 2005 and succeed in tying the hands of police departments across the country. If this happens, terrorists will have cause to celebrate and American lives will be put in jeopardy." The Patriot War, Kris Kobach, New York Post Online Edition, Mar. 21, 2004
2004 Apr. 6
The ACLU and an Internet Service Provider (ISP) filed a complaint under seal against Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in New York. "The plaintiffs challenge a portion of Section 215 provision (...) USA Patriot Act (...) insofar as it grants the government power to obtain subscriber information, billing records, and 'electronic communication transactional records' from electronic communications providers" by issuing National Security Letters (NSL) which "compel the production of significant amounts of information (...) [without requiring] any probable cause or individualized suspicion about persons or their activities. It need not show that the person is involved in terrorism in any way. The recipient of the NSL must comply without even contacting an attorney or corporate counsel." What an ACLU Suit Challenging an Important Section of the USA Patriot Act Tells us About Surveillance and Secrecy, Elaine Cassel, FindLaw's Legal Commentary, June 09, 2004
