|
|
 |
The ACLU of Ohio has a proud history of defending the civil liberties
of Ohio’s citizens. It launched its first chapter in Youngstown in
1920, just after the creation of the national ACLU -- making Ohio the
state with the longest-running ACLU affiliation in America. Two years
later, the ACLU of Ohio opened chapters in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Over
the last nine decades, the Ohio ACLU has litigated to protect free speech
rights, privacy, due process, nondiscrimination laws, and reproductive
rights, among other issues. The Ohio affiliate has an especially long
tradition of defending First Amendment rights.
Here are some of the historic cases argued by the Ohio ACLU over the
years. We will add to this listing as time for research permits.
Obviously, older cases present greater research challenges.
Wherever possible, we have created links to the decisions, mostly
through FindLaw (you may need to create a user name and password to
enable free access). Information may also be located on restricted-access
databases such as Westlaw or LexisNexis. Most Ohioans with a library
card can access LexisNexis for free, through OhioLink. Contact your local
library for details.
If you have suggestions or comments about this web page, please send
an email to
contact@acluohio.org.
The Cases
Click on the links below to go directly to the
case summary:
State et rel. Smilack v. Bushong (1953)
In 1951, the Ohio General Assembly established the Un-American Activities Commission.
Forty Ohioans were questioned about their affiliation with Communism, including Oscar
Smilack, a first-generation immigrant and social activist. Smilack refused
to answer questions related to his involvement with and support for Communism.
Smilack was charged with a violation of the Ohio General Code because of his refusal
to testify, a misdemeanor punishable only by fine. He attempted to plead not guilty in
the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. However, the prosecutor alleged that the
death of Smilack’s mother had caused him severe psychological trauma and that he should
be committed to Lima State Hospital (run by Superintendent Roy E. Bushong)
for a 30-day evaluation of his mental condition. The court granted the prosecutor’s
request over ACLU attorney Jack Dworken’s objection. No formal hearing as to Smilack’s
mental condition was held nor was any evidence to prove insanity presented.
Smilack filed a petition claiming that his confinement “was without any legal
authority.” He alleged that his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution were
violated because the process by which he was committed to Lima State Hospital did
not correspond with the process established in the Ohio General Code for court-ordered
confinement to a mental institution.
ACLU attorneys Jack Dworken and Jack Day assisted
Smilack with his appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and
ruled that Smilack should not be confined in Lima State Hospital. The Court clarified
that it was not concerned with the accused’s political philosophy. It found that
the evidence used in support of Smilack’s confinement was lacking and that no hearing
to determine Smilack’s mental condition had ever taken place. The decision noted,
“The sending of a person to an institution for the criminal insane, even for a short
time, is a serious matter and his confinement there is as full and effective a
deprivation of personal liberty as is his confinement in jail.” Smilack was
subsequently released to the custody of the county sheriff.
159 Ohio St. 259, 111 N.E.2d 918
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
In 1957, future boxing promoter Don King’s house was bombed. Responding to a tip
regarding the location of one of the suspects in the bombing, three plainclothes
policemen visited the Cleveland-area home of Dollree Mapp. The officers knocked on
the door and asked to enter the house. Mapp refused to allow them to enter and
contacted her lawyer, who instructed her not to allow them to search the home without
a search warrant.
The plainclothes policemen later forcibly entered Mapp’s home. When she asked to see
a warrant, Sgt. Carl Delau held up a piece of paper that Mapp grabbed from Delau’s
hands and stuffed under her shirt. Mapp was then handcuffed and Delau retrieved the
paper. The officers proceeded to search Mapp’s entire residence for the suspect.
Their search resulted in the discovery of risqué books, sketches of nude figures,
and “lewd and lascivious” photographs.
Dollree Mapp was charged with possession of obscene material. She was convicted in
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas even though no valid search warrant was
produced in court and no reason was given for the lack of a search warrant. Ohio’s
Eighth District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld her conviction.
In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Mapp’s appeal. The ACLU was involved as amicus;
Bernard Berkman argued the ACLU’s position. The Supreme Court ruled
in Mapp’s favor, stating that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against illegal search
and seizure applied to proceedings in state courts as well as proceedings in federal courts.
Read an ACLU of
Ohio briefing paper about the case.
Read the U.S.
Supreme Court decision.
Listen to Bernard Berkman’s oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court here.
Return to case list
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
In 1959, Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art Movie Theater in
Cleveland Heights, showed Les Amants (“The Lovers”), a film that
featured a woman who leaves her husband and family for an adulterous affair with a
young archeologist. The film featured an explicit love scene, which allegedly violated
the Ohio State Code as obscene in nature and harmful to children. Jacobellis was
convicted and fined $2,500 by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The Ohio Supreme
Court upheld the ruling.
At issue in this case was whether the state of Ohio could ban the showing of Les
Amants under the First Amendment. Jacobellis appealed the ruling in April 1963 with
lawyer Ephraim London, who specialized in film censorship cases. Assisting
London on the briefs were Bennet Kleinman and Martin Garbus.
Morton B. Icove, William B. Goldfarb, Herbert B.
Levine, and Eugene Gold of the Cleveland Civil Liberties Union
filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Appeals urging reversal of
the decision. Later, Bernard Berkman and Jack Day of the
Ohio ACLU, and Melvin Wulf of the national ACLU, filed an amicus brief in
the U.S. Supreme Court, also urging reversal.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court judgment on June 22, 1964 and ruled
that the film was not obscene. Justice Potter Stewart, in his now famous
statement, concluded: “Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, criminal laws in
this area are constitutionally limited to hard core pornography . . . I know it when I see
it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
Read the decision here.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
In the summer of 1964, Clarence Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, gave
a speech at a Klan rally. Because of this speech — which included remarks accusing
the United States government of suppressing the “Caucasian race” — he
was convicted of advocating violence under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute. The
syndicalism law made it illegal to advocate "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful
methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."
After his initial conviction, Brandenburg agreed to be represented by the ACLU of Ohio.
Volunteer attorney Allen Brown took the case and the national ACLU agreed to fund the
eventual U.S. Supreme Court challenge.
On June 9, 1969, the Supreme Court held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right
to free speech. The court found that the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute ignored
whether or not the advocacy it criminalized actually led to imminent lawless action.
The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation
of the Constitution.
Read the
U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Listen to Allan Brown’s oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court here.
Return to case list
Terry v. Ohio (1969)
On October 31, 1963 while on a routine beat through downtown Cleveland, Cleveland
Police detective Martin McFadden with 39 years of police experience
noticed three men acting suspiciously and pacing in front of a jewelry store on Euclid
Avenue. Concerned the men were “casing a job, a stick up” and were carrying
weapons, McFadden identified himself as a police officer and asked them their names.
When the men only “mumbled something” in response, McFadden frisked them
and found a pistol in John W. Terry’s overcoat pocket, and a
revolver in Richard Chilton’s coat pocket. The third man,
Katz, was unarmed. McFadden arrested and charged Terry and Chilton
with carrying concealed weapons. Judge Bernard Friedman of the Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court found the men guilty and ruled that, given the suspicious
nature of their behavior and McFadden’s concern for his safety, the decision to
frisk was permissible. The appeals court affirmed the decision. Terry appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1967.
Later known as the “stop and frisk” case, Terry v. Ohio represents
a clash between Fourth Amendment protection from intrusive, harassing conduct by police
when no crime has been committed, and the duty of an officer to investigate suspicious
behavior and prevent crime. ACLU cooperating attorneys Louis Stokes
and Jack G. Day represented Terry. Bernard A. Berkman
of the ACLU of Ohio, with Melvin L. Wulf and Alan H. Levine
of the national ACLU, filed an amicus brief urging reversal.
In June 1968, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent
that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without
probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable
basis for the stop and frisk. Significantly, Terry does not provide blanket
authority to intrude on an individual’s right to be left alone, nor does it allow
such intrusion based on a police offers inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur
or is in progress. However, it does radically expand police authority to investigate
crimes where there is a reasonable basis for suspicion.
Read the
decision.
La Fleur v. Cleveland Board of Education (1974)
In 1970, Jo Carol La Fleur, a teacher at Patrick Henry Junior High School
in Cleveland, became pregnant. A school board policy required all pregnant
teachers to take mandatory unpaid maternity leave five months before the
due date of the child. They allowed return to the teaching position the
year after the child reached three months and with a doctor’s certification
of the mother’s health. Ms. La Fleur and another teacher, Ann Nelson,
sued the Cleveland Board of Education in federal court, alleging that the
school violated their rights to due process and equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Represented by Jane Picker, the case made its way
to the U.S. Supreme Court, where another plaintiff, Susan Cohen from
Virginia, joined Ms. La Fleur and Ms. Nelson. The Supreme Court ruled in
the teachers’ favor and found that the board violated their rights to due
process. The Court declared that “freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in support of Ms. La Fleur and urged
the Court to uphold her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Several lawyers
aided the ACLU in drafting the amicus brief, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
who would later become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Find the case
here.
Read
more about the case from ProCon, a nonprofit organization that promotes
critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting
controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, primarily pro-con format.
Return to case list
Minarcini v. Strongsville City School
District (1976)
In 1972, the Strongsville City School District refused to approve faculty
recommendations for using Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 and Kurt
Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater as textbooks. Further,
they ordered that Catch 22, along with Vonnegut’s Cat’s
Cradle, be removed from the school library.
Five high school students, including Susan Minarcini, represented by ACLU
volunteer attorneys Michael Honohan and Howard
Besser, filed a lawsuit against the school board. The ACLU argued
that the students’ First Amendment right to receive information, as well
as teachers’ right to share information, had been violated. The lawsuit
also asserted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been
violated due to the manner in which the books were removed from the school
library.
Upon appeal, the court upheld the school board’s right to reject the
books as part of the curriculum, but found the removal of the books from the
library to be unconstitutional, referring to the library as “a storehouse
of knowledge.”
Read ACLU Volunteer Attorney Mike Honohan’s recollections
about the case.
Read the decision.
Krause v. Rhodes (1979)
In May 1970, the National Guard was called to Kent State University to
disperse student protesters. On May 4, during a noon gathering, students
faced down Guardsmen as they voiced their anger over the United
States’ military involvement in Cambodia and Vietnam.
While the details surrounding an order to shoot continue to be debated,
at 12:24 p.m. a group of National Guardsmen turned and fired into the crowd
of students, injuring nine and killing four.
The ACLU was on campus within days of the shootings, addressing a variety
of civil liberties violations faced by students on campus during the aftermath.
And for nearly a decade after the shootings, the ACLU worked for justice on
behalf of the students who were killed or injured.
Nine years later, the ACLU, led by volunteer attorney Sanford
Jay Rosen in representing the victims and their families,
reached a settlement in a civil suit.
The following resources will be of interest to researchers and civil libertarians.
- In 1975, Benson Wolman (ACLU of Ohio executive
director from 1969 to 1986)
wrote an article for
the national ACLU newsletter, Civil Liberties, describing the ACLU's
investigations of civil liberties violations surrounding the May 4 shootings.
- Statement by
the families of those injured and killed at Kent State University on May 4, 1970,
which was issued after Krause v. Rhodes was settled on January 4, 1979
- March 12, 1979 court
decision regarding discovery materials in Krause v. Rhodes
- Yale University archives holds the ACLU files related to Krause v.
Rhodes. The
finding aid includes historical information about the case.
- ACLU of Ohio Winter 2008 newsletter article about the
litigation files held at Yale University
Return to case list
Brown v. Socialist Workers Party
(1982)
According to 3517.10 of the Ohio Revised Code, candidates for political
office must disclose all contributors and recipients of campaign funds.
The Socialist Workers Party had been regularly running candidates for
office but refused to disclose their finances because the names and
addresses of contributors and recipients would be public record for six
years, submitting these individuals to potential threats and harassment.
In 1974, the Socialist Workers Party, represented by ACLU attorneys
Tom Buckley, Gordon Beggs, Ben
Sheerer, Stanley Laughlin and Bruce
Campbell, filed a class action suit in district court against
then Attorney General William J. Brown. They argued that
applying Ohio’s Campaign Expense Reporting Law to minor political
parties violated their First Amendment rights. The government cannot compel
speech which might result in threats or harassment.
The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued a temporary
restraining order allowing the Socialist Workers Party to withhold
campaign funds information. The Southern District Court issued a similar
restraining order.
Attorney General Brown appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed
that Ohio’s campaign reporting law violated the First Amendment rights
of the Socialist Workers Party.
Read the
decision on FindLaw.
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive
Health (1983)
In 1978, Akron enacted an ordinance to regulate the performance of abortions.
The ordinance required parental consent before an abortion could be performed
on an unmarried minor and a twenty-four hour waiting period, among other
provisions. The ACLU of Ohio and volunteer attorney Stephan Landsman challenged
the ordinance. A federal district court invalidated some of the provisions. The
case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on June 15, 1983, the Court
invalidated the seventeen provisions of Akron's ordinance. The Court found that
the ordinance violated the Constitution because it was clearly intended to
direct women away from choosing abortion.
Read the decision
here.
Read an article about
the case from the Summer 1983 issue of the ACLU of Ohio newsletter, Ohio Civil Liberties.
Return to case list
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
(1985)
In 1979, the Cleveland Board of Education hired James Loudermill
as a security guard. On his job application, Loudermill stated he had never been
convicted of a felony, despite a conviction of grand larceny in 1968. In 1980,
during a routine examination of employee records, the Board discovered
Loudermill’s felony charge and dismissed him for dishonesty in filling out
the job application. The Board did not grant Loudermill an opportunity to
respond to or challenge the dismissal, despite an Ohio statute that granted civil
service employees the right to obtain an administrative review if dismissed.
Loudermill filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Service Commission in November
1980. The commission upheld the Board of Education’s dismissal after taking
nine months to respond. The U. S. District Court dismissed the case based on
Loudermill’s failure to adequately present his claim and Loudermill
appealed.
A case involving a second respondent, Richard Donnelly, a
school bus mechanic in Parma who was fired in August of 1977 after failing an
eye exam, was consolidated with Loudermill’s case in the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals. Like Loudermill, Donnelly filed a complaint after the Parma Board of
Education failed to provide him with an opportunity to respond to his dismissal.
The Court of Appeals found both Loudermill and Donnelly had been denied due process,
specifically, their property rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Due process
'requires some kind of a hearing’ prior to the discharge of a public
employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his
employment.
Gordon Beggs, Stephen Gard, Edward
Stege, and Charles Simms filed an amicus brief on behalf
of the Cleveland Chapter of the ACLU. The National ACLU also filed an amicus brief.
The Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU’s contention that a government
employee is entitled to written specification of misconduct charges and an
opportunity to respond prior to termination. However, the court did not agree with
the ACLU’s second contention — that the nine-month delay of
Loudermill’s post-termination appeal deprived him of due process.
Find the case
here.
Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing (1988)
Prior to 1983, the City of Lakewood prohibited the placement of any private structure on
public property and under this law, prohibited the Plain Dealer from placing
coin-operated newspaper dispensing machines on city sidewalks. In response, the Plain
Dealer sued the city in district court in January 1983. The court found this
prohibition unconstitutional in August 1983. Lakewood then adopted an ordinance that
gave the mayor power to grant permits and set terms for the placement of newspaper racks
on public property. Unhappy with the new provisions, the Plain Dealer sued in
April 1984. The district court ruled the provisions were constitutional on all counts.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision in 1986.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling in June 1988 and deemed
Lakewood’s process of granting permits unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Lakewood’s ordinance gave unbridled discretion to city officials to permit or
deny access to a public forum. The ACLU Cleveland Chapter, in cooperation with the Ohio
and national ACLU, filed an amicus brief in the case arguing the free speech and free
press aspects of the case. Attorneys on the amicus were Gordon J. Beggs,
John A. Powell, Steven R. Shapiro, Bruce A.
Campbell, Paul L. Hoffman, Stephen Gard, and
David Goldstein.
Read the decision
here.
Return to case list
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989)
In April 1978, Canton police arrested Geraldine Harris. At the police
station, Harris slumped to floor on two occasions and was eventually left there to
prevent her from falling again. When asked if she needed medical attention, she responded
with an incoherent remark. No officer summoned medical assistance for her. After her
release about an hour later, Harris went to the hospital by an ambulance provided by her
family and was diagnosed as “suffering from emotional aliments.” She remained
in the hospital for a week and then required outpatient treatment for a year after.
Years later, Harris brought claims of negligence against the Canton Police Department.
She argued that her Fourth Amendment right to due process was violated when the police
failed to provide her medical attention while in custody. The case went to the U.S.
Supreme Court in November 1988.
In February 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can be liable for monetary
damages when deliberate indifference to the need for training and failure to train
officers result in constitutional violations. The case was sent back to the lower court
to reconsider Harris's claims in light of the Supreme Court's new standard.
John A. Powell, Steven R. Shapiro, Howard A.
Friedman, and Michael Aaron Avery filed an amicus brief for
the national ACLU supporting Harris's Fourth Amendment claims.
Read the decision here.
Hawley v. City of Cleveland (1994)
In 1983, Cleveland’s Department of Port Control entered into a 20-year lease with the
Catholic Diocese that allowed the Diocese to rent space for a chapel inside Cleveland
Hopkins International Airport. The agreement was controversial for two reasons — the
rent that the Diocese would pay was lower than that paid by other establishments in
the airport, and the chapel would be heavily adorned with Catholic symbols. City
officials defended their actions by saying that the space in which the chapel would be
located had received no interest from other prospective tenants. They also argued that
the chapel could easily be adapted to accommodate all faiths.
Several Cleveland taxpayers, including Jane Hawley, filed suit in an
attempt to block the lease, arguing that the reduced rent acted as a subsidy that
provided government advancement and aid to the Catholic faith, violating separation
of church and state.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the
City. In 1994, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
The Sixth Circuit stated that the chapel fulfills a secular purpose because it
accommodates “the religious needs of travelers” and provides them “with a place
for rest and comfort.” The Sixth Circuit also noted that “because a reasonable
observer would not conclude that the city endorses religion by allowing the diocese
to maintain the chapel, the chapel's lease and its authorizing ordinance do not
constitute an endorsement of religion, and thus their primary effect is one that
neither advances nor inhibits religion.”
The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently refused to hear the case.
ACLU of Ohio attorneys Gail White and Gordon Beggs
initially represented the taxpayers; Kevin O’Neill later
argued the case before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Joshua
Kancelbaum, William Marshall, and Lester Potash
also assisted on the case.
Read the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
Read an article about
the case in the newsletter Ohio Civil Liberties, Autumn 1985.
Return to case list
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Commission (1995)
In April of 1988, Westerville citizen Margaret McIntyre
distributed leaflets at a public meeting hosted by Beldon Middle School,
expressing her objections to a proposed school tax levy. However, she failed
to write her name and address on the leaflets she distributed, which
violated section 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code. The Ohio Elections Commission
fined McIntyre $100. Represented by the ACLU attorney David
Goldberger, she obtained a reversal of the fine in Franklin County
Common Pleas Court. The court found that McIntyre had not misled the
public, since there was no evidence that any information on the leaflets was
false. The Ohio Elections Commission appealed; the Ohio Court of Appeals
reinstated the fine, which was affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court. The ACLU
appealed the decision, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In a
victory for free speech, the high court affirmed the ACLU’s argument
that banning anonymous speech can serve to chill the expression of
controversial viewpoints.
Read the
decision on FindLaw.
Capitol Square Review and Advisory
Board v. Pinette (1995)
In December of 1993, members of the Ku Klux Klan filled out an
application to place an unattended cross in Capital Square, the
statehouse plaza in Columbus. Throughout the years, private groups had
been permitted to erect holiday displays, such as Christmas trees and
menorahs, in the plaza. However, the Review Board denied the Klan’s
request, claiming that displaying a religious symbol in a public forum
would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The ACLU
argued the case on behalf of Vincent J. Pinette, a
leader of the Ohio KKK.
In its landmark decision, the District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio ruled that the Board must allow the Klan to put the cross up.
The Court based its decision on three factors: Capital Square was a
traditional public forum open to all without any policy against
free-standing displays; the Klan is a private organization protected by
the First Amendment; and the Board had failed to show that the display
of the cross represented an endorsement of Christianity by the
government. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed this decision after
hearing arguments by ACLU volunteer attorney Benson Wolman.
Read the
decision on FindLaw.
Return to case list
City of Seven Hills v. Aryan
Nations (1995)
In anticipation of the return of a Nazi war criminal, John Demjanjuk, the City
of Seven Hills passed an ordinance that prevented residential picketing in the
city, along with a separate injunction that banned picketers with opposing viewpoints
from protesting simultaneously and in the same place. The city worried that
simultaneous demonstrations by antagonistic groups, such as the KKK and the
Coalition for Jewish Concerns, could lead to violence. After some of the
demonstrations occurred, the city filed for a temporary restraining order to
prevent more protests.
The ACLU defended Rabbi Avraham Weiss who, along with several other groups and
individuals, wished to protest Demjanjuk’s return. ACLU attorneys
Kevin O'Neill and Ray Vasvari argued that
the city’s actions violated the parties’ First Amendment right to free
speech. A trial court struck down the ban on residential picketing, but allowed
the ban on simultaneous picketing to remain in effect. The Ohio Supreme Court
ruled that the trial court’s injunction against simultaneous picketing was
a violation of the First Amendment, and the injunction was reversed.
Read the
decision.
Charon v. Memorial Hospital,
later captioned Howe v. Hull (1995)
Fred Charon, an AIDS patient from Portland, Maine, was
traveling through Ohio in 1992 when he became ill and was taken to
Memorial Hospital in Fremont. Dr. Charles Hull refused
to admit him due to his AIDS status. Charon was then taken 45 minutes
west to Medical College Hospital in Toledo, where he was admitted.
Charon filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in an
attempt to extend the ADA’s anti-discrimination provisions to persons
with AIDS. The ACLU also asserted claims under the Federal Rehabilitation
Act, which states that any hospital receiving federal aid cannot discriminate
against the disabled. Ohio ACLU volunteer attorneys Ellen Simon
and Doris Wohl worked on the case, assisted by national
ACLU attorney Marc Elovitz.
Unfortunately, Fred Charon died in March of 1993, but the court allowed the
case to proceed under his estate, represented by Charon’s partner
Bruce Howe.
A jury heard the case in district court in June 1994, which agreed with the
ACLU’s argument that Memorial Hospital had violated the Federal
Rehabilitation Act. Charon’s estate was awarded $512,000 in damages.
District court Judge John Potter himself ruled on the ADA
claims in November 1994, concurring with the ACLU that Dr. Hull’s actions
violated the ADA setting a precedent that the ADA applied to people with AIDS.
Judge Potter also ordered Dr. Hull and the hospital to post a sign in the
waiting room stating that the hospital would treat all patients.
Howe v. Hull, Case No. 3:92CV7658, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, 873 F. Supp. 70; 1994 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 21064, May 26, 1994, filed.
Return to case list
ACLU of Ohio v. City of Stow (1998)
In an important case addressing the separation between church and state, the ACLU
of Ohio and attorneys Dean Carro and Robert Armbruster
wrote a letter to the Law
Director of the City of Stow expressing concerns over the inclusion of a cross in
the city seal. The Stow City Council then elected to retire the seal, but citizens
voted to reinstate the seal through a referendum on the ballot. In response, the
city of Stow sought a judgment by the Summit County Common Pleas Court on the
constitutionality of the seal, and the ACLU of Ohio filed a suit in federal court.
When settlement conferences failed, Judge Dan Aaron Polster called for the removal
of the seal, ruling that its use of the cross was unconstitutional.
ACLU of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Stow, 29 F. Supp.2d 845
(N.D. Ohio 1998).
Coles v. Cleveland Board of Education (1999)
In 1992 the Cleveland Board of Education began to open each of their meetings
with a moment of silent prayer, led by a minister or by the board president.
One student, Sarah Coles, and one teacher, Gene
Tracy, disagreed with the practice. Represented by ACLU legal director
at the time, Joan Englund, and volunteer attorney Josh
Cohen, they filed suit in December 1992, arguing that the prayer violated
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well as Article I, Section 7
of the Ohio Constitution, which says that no person should be forced to attend a
place of worship or be forced to worship against his or her will.
A magistrate judge found that reciting a prayer and the moment of silent prayer
were unconstitutional. The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio then
found that while the prayer recitation itself was unconstitutional, a moment of
silent prayer was not, due to a history of prayer in this country. The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed this decision, saying that calling for a
moment of silent prayer violates the Establishment Clause because it sends a message
of government endorsement of religion
Coles v. Cleveland Board of Education, 97-3082/97-3104, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 183 F.3d 538; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14986,
June 11, 1999, filed.
Return to case list
Junger v. Daley (1999)
Peter Junger was an Internet activist and computer law professor
at Case Western Reserve University who challenged the U.S. government’s
regulations of encryption software. Federal restrictions prevent United States
citizens from exporting encryption source codes – a definition which includes
publishing them over the internet. Junger, who taught encryption technology as
part of his computer law class, worried that he might not be allowed to accept
foreign national students into his class as a result of these export regulations.
He also feared that his self-authored encryption programs, which he wished to
post on his website, might place him in legal jeopardy.
He decided to challenge the government’s restrictions in federal court. He
sued William Daley, the United States Secretary of Commerce, on the grounds that
the Export Regulations violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
A U.S. District Court judge ruled that encryption software is not sufficiently
expressive to warrant protection under the First Amendment. ACLU
attorneys Ray Vasvari and Gino Scarselli supported
Junger and argued on his behalf. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled that the
encryptions were protected by the First Amendment.
Read the
decision on Findlaw.
Simmons-Harris v. Goff, Simmons-Harris v.
Zelman (1999, 2002)
In 1995, the state of Ohio adopted a controversial school voucher program that
enabled children in certain troubled districts to receive scholarships to attend
private or parochial schools. The program covered any school district that had come
under a federal court order "requiring supervision and operational management
of the district by the state superintendent” – a description that
applied to the city of Cleveland as a result of mismanagement by the school board.
One parent, Doris Simmons-Harris, challenged the voucher program on the grounds
that it gave public money to private religious schools, thus violating prohibitions
by both federal and state governments against the establishment of religion. ACLU of
Ohio attorneys Joan Englund and Raymond Vasvari, along with
national ACLU attorney
Steve Shapiro, handled the case against the State. (John Goff and later
Susan Tave
Zelman were the state superintendents of public instruction during this period). They
were joined by co-counsel from several other organizations. Most of the sectarian
schools that benefited from the voucher program believed in mixing religious beliefs
with secular subjects. This typically meant mandatory instruction in religion and
participation in religious services; schools also frequently integrated Christian
doctrine into science, language arts, and other academic lessons.
After the Franklin County Common Pleas Court decided that the voucher program should
remain in effect, the court of appeals ruled that the program was unconstitutional.
In 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court then heard the case and struck down the program –
but not due to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Instead, the court ruled
that the program must be shut down because it violated the “one subject”
provision of the Ohio Constitution, which mandated that legislation contain only one
subject. Because the voucher program had been added on to a bill pertaining to the
state budget, the court viewed its passage as a violation of the state Constitution.
Later that year, the Ohio legislature reinstated the voucher program in a way that
avoided any conflicts with the “one subject” provision. In every other
relevant way, however, the voucher program remained identical to its original form.
This time, a district court judge, Solomon Oliver Jr., and the court of
appeals ruled that the program violated the Establishment Clause.
Ultimately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the program. The
highest court’s ruling included several points: First, not all schools
participating in the program were religiously affiliated; second, parents had the
freedom to choose which school their children attended. And finally, the only way
state funds reached the private, religious schools was through parents’
choosing to send their children there-- not through any plan by the government to
endorse a specific religious program.
Read the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
decision.
Read the U.S. Supreme Court
decision.
Return to case list
In Re Cincinnati Policing (2006)
In Re Cincinnati Policing sought to address a long history of racial profiling by Cincinnati
police between 1995 and 2001. The ACLU of Ohio partnered with the Cincinnati Black United Front to
file suit in federal court in April of 2001 after an independent report found that African American
drivers in Cincinnati were routinely charged with non-moving violations at a rate alarmingly higher
than white drivers. In addition, fifteen young African American men, three of whom were unarmed,
had been killed while in police custody during the six-year period. The suit alleged Cincinnati police
officers engaged in racial profiling and discriminatory law enforcement. The litigation resulted in
the Cincinnati Collaborative Agreement a year later in April 2002. The agreement sought to improve
police-community relations through the development of five specific objectives over a five-year period.
Read about the Collaborative Agreement and view historic legal briefs, reports, and news articles
here.
|
news
center
volunteer