In Ohio and across the nation, civil liberties issues are constantly evolving. New and unique cases come up everyday, cases that may not fit neatly into any previously defined issue.
What's Happening in Ohio
Read our press statement endorsing Issue 1.
Review our FAQ sheet (button above) for more information about our position on Issue 1.
This report reveals how our state representatives and state senators voted on bills related to civil liberties and civil rights in the 132nd Ohio General Assembly.
Our Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels provided in-person testimony for each of the 10 bills we selected for our analysis, covering issues like reproductive freedom, drug policy, police accountability, and LGBTQ rights.
Curious to see how your elected official voted? Review our scorecard, it’s as transparent as can be.
The ACLU of Ohio neither opposes nor supports Issue 1, a proposed amendment to the state constitution which creates a new process for congressional redistricting. Issue 1 will appear on the May 2018 primary election ballot in Ohio.
Read our press release for an extended explanation of our position.
Read our FAQ blog post surrounding our position on Issue 1.
On February 20, 2018, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist with the ACLU of Ohio, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Senate Bill 138, a bill that would allow strip-searching of all people entering the general population of a jail and all people booked.
Read our opponent testimony.
On January 30, 2018, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist with the ACLU of Ohio, testified before the Senate Criminal Justice Committee in opposition to Senate Bill 1, which would significantly increase penalties for fentanyl and related substance, and will increase the population of Ohio’s already severely overcrowded prisons.
Read our opponent testimony.
On January 23, 2018, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist with the ACLU of Ohio, and Caitlin Hill, policy counsel with the ACLU of Ohio testified before the House Criminal Justice Committee as an interested party to House Bill 439, which aims to address Ohio’s bail system through risk assessment tools in misdemeanor cases, but it does not go far enough to reform the system.
Read our interested party testimony.
Cities across Ohio have been criminalizing panhandling through outdated ordinances that violate the First Amendment and that criminalize the poor. The ACLU of Ohio has successfully litigated to strike down these unconstitutional ordinances in both Cleveland and Akron, and has negotiated the repeal of similar laws in many more Ohio cities.
The First Amendment provides the same protection to all people; we all have the right to express ourselves in public spaces, including when we need to ask for help. The government does not have the right to censor certain types of speech just because it does not agree with the message. Moreover, policies that silence the poor do not address poverty or homelessness effectively—actually, they exacerbate these issues. The ACLU of Ohio will continue to fight anti-panhandling laws throughout the state. We will continue to preserve the First Amendment rights of all people, and to fight the criminalization of poverty in our state.
Across the country and in Ohio approximately two-thirds of all persons booked into jail are held there without being convicted of a crime. In bail decisions, judges often set financial bonds amounts that are too high for the person to pay, causing the person to remain in jail for days, weeks, and months before trial. Studies show that as little as three days in pretrial incarceration results in significant increases in the likelihood of a person losing one’s job, housing, and custody of children. What’s worse is that the emotional, physiological, and physical trauma of being jailed before being convicted of crime disproportionately affects poorer individuals and is not based on any true assessment of the person’s risk to the community.
The ACLU of Ohio is dedicated to shining light on the unfair and unjust nature of Ohio’s bail system and urging state lawmakers, judges, and community officials to adopt reforms. For more information on bail practices in Ohio and the ACLU’s reform efforts, visit our bail resource center!
The ACLU of Ohio’s jail voter initiative seeks to advocate for the rights of incarcerated voters by educating detainees and the public about voting rights in jail and forming partnerships between community volunteers, local jail officials, and county boards of elections. Together, these groups can work to protect the integrity of our voting process by providing registration cards and absentee ballots to people in local jails.
Visit our Jail Voting Toolkit and start a campaign in your Ohio county!
The rights of teenagers are complex and can often be difficult to understand. To help navigate teen and student rights, you can request a speaker to discuss these topics with your class or youth program, extracurricular or community group, or others who need to know about youth rights. In addition to providing speakers, we also have a variety of readily accessible resources.
The Know Your Rights: Teens & Students PowerPoint presentation contains 30 slides! You can print handouts of the PowerPoint slides so audience members can follow along and take notes. The presentation overviews interactions with police, students’ rights when in school, and teen health and the law. We also compiled a speaker outline and Frequently Asked Questions which provides more information related to youth rights and can assist individuals to lead an informed discussion. You can expect this program to run about 60 minutes including the presentation, questions and discussion.
Want to learn more about teen health and the law? Check out Your Health and the Law: A Guide for Teens.
In Ohio, undocumented workers are often forced into hazardous workplaces in order to avoid scrutiny of their residency status in the United States. Many of their employers may also try to skirt federal guidelines for employee health and safety standards or deny workers’ compensation claims for unauthorized employees who are hurt on the job.
Legislators in Ohio have attempted in several legislative sessions to deny workers’ compensation benefits for undocumented workers in hopes of discouraging employers who may want to hire them. One of these bills included language that an undocumented worker would have to prove their employer was fully aware they were unlawfully present in the United States before the worker could receive benefits. As a result, the burden of proof would fall upon the employee and not the employer. By denying undocumented workers this form of compensation, employers may knowingly hire these individuals and place them in the most hazardous occupations.
Instead of offering more protections to undocumented workers, who are already denied unemployment benefits and food assistance, the Ohio legislature has made numerous attempts to put them in even less safe working conditions. Denying workers’ compensation to undocumented immigrants would be an additional blow to an already vulnerable population. Unscrupulous employers should not be given a license to exploit workers they know cannot file injury claims.
The ACLU of Ohio issued a press release about this legislation in June 2017.
In May of 2017, the Painesville Police Department implemented an immigration enforcement policy in which they engaged in unlawful racial profiling against people of color, immigrant families, and individuals whose primary language is not English.
Shortly after, the ACLU of Ohio issued a press release urging the city of Painesville to scrap their new immigration policy.
In March of 2017, the Los Angeles Times published an article discussing that under the threat of aggressive immigration enforcement policies, immigrant communities in Los Angeles are now less likely to call police when victims of a crime.
CLEVELAND — Cleveland State University is our alma mater, and we are proud of that, because it was an institution where we were absolutely free to explore our thoughts and attitudes as we grew as students.
Part of that growth was being allowed to affiliate with progressive groups that we agreed with. An equal part was having to confront groups with opposing views. Some of those views were deeply offensive; even oppressive.
The freedom to engage with that in a safe, open forum allowed us to grow into advocates.
Now the university has announced that it will designate some groups or individuals on campus as being unfit to speak there. Cleveland State has launched an “internal investigation” into anti-Semitic tweets that some former and current students made on personal accounts in recent years. CSU officials have pledged to actively monitor students’ personal social media in the future, sending the message that beliefs that run counter to the university’s will not be tolerated. This decision crosses a serious line.
Some of these tweets had hateful and oppressive things to say. They disparaged Jews on the basis of their ethnicity. They insulted black individuals because of their race and LGBT individuals because of their gender or sexual orientation.
But allowing the university to make itself the arbiter of what is “good” or “bad” speech leaves the campus community’s First Amendment rights up to the whims of individuals in power. If history is any indication, once government officials have that power, they will always overreach. What’s more, if we silence hateful attitudes — and instead allow the school to censor them — we lose the opportunity to learn how to engage with and defeat those attitudes.
CSU’s investigation into student tweets was triggered by canarymission.org, an anonymous website that scours digital media for anti-Semitic comments. Recently, the site published a report on the Cleveland area, revealing tweets from local residents that purportedly used slurs against various groups. Some tweets contained no slurs, but only political statements critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinians. Regardless of the message, the university should not be silencing them.
CSU President Ronald Berkman is understandably concerned about what students say, but he cannot punish opinions students offer on private accounts.
As part of the internal investigation, school officials have called several current students into meetings to address the issue.
This is how free speech is chilled, and differing opinions are silenced. It also sets a dangerous precedent that any student who posts something on their personal social media account that university officials deem offensive could be in line for punishment.
In his letter to the campus, President Berkman pledged to proactively monitor students’ social media accounts for speech that he deems offensive.
What about students who oppose abortion and post photos of fetuses? Or students who oppose police brutality and post curse words when referring to law enforcement? Or students who post graphic photos of Syrian people killed in the civil war?
CSU is opening a Pandora’s Box of potential censorship. School officials should not position themselves as the arbiters of political speech, deciding what may be posted and what may not.
CSU says it will hold a campuswide event in the fall to promote civility and an inclusive atmosphere. That is an idea we can support. The best answer to speech we find challenging is more speech. It provides the opportunity for community members to discuss the underlying issues that led to the speech; for those who were impacted to discuss how it affected them; and for people to collectively determine ways to address hard issues in the future.
The university has a role in serving as a marketplace of ideas and providing space for people to process complex issues. Policing free speech undermines that role. A public university’s power to run surveillance and conformity operations on student speech is constitutionally limited. Students may have their own values, even when offensive and even when counter to those of the institution.
CSU administrators should allow this to be a teachable moment that affirms students’ First Amendment right to express their political beliefs on social media, no matter what those beliefs are.
Christine Link is executive director and Elizabeth Bonham is staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. Both attended Cleveland State University.
The ACLU of Ohio defends everyone’s right to Constitutionally-protected free speech, regardless of the content. Sometimes this means defending unpopular organizations and opinions. We know that if we want speech to be protected for anyone, it must be protected for everyone, including anti-abortion activists that protest outside clinics. Censorship never stops with a single group or idea. By silencing abortion opponents, we increase the likelihood of the government silencing the women that teach us why abortion access deserves the most rigorous defense.
In June 2016, Cleveland hosted the Republican National Convention. Cleveland delayed approving the event permits for rallies and marches organized by Citizens for Trump and Organize Ohio. On June 14, 2016, the ACLU of Ohio successfully sued the city of Cleveland for restrictions on public assembly. This agreement decreased the size of the Event Zone (an area designated for special restrictions on public assembly and items people may carry) and the official parade route was altered to increase the visibility of demonstrators. Additionally, the ACLU of Ohio monitored the credentialing process and flight restrictions that would restrict access to the convention.
Students have a right to free speech, just like everyone else. In some cases, students have been suspended because of social media posts or because they conducted voter registration drives at a football game. Teachers, parents and administrators should encourage student civic engagement rather than stifle it.
While Ohioans cannot vote while incarcerated for a felony conviction, people who have been convicted of a felony can vote after they are released, and people convicted of a misdemeanor or awaiting trial can cast absentee ballots while in jail. Many are not aware of voting rights for people with criminal convictions. With thousands of Ohioans released from prison or jail, placed on probation, parole, or in a halfway house every year, it is critical to educate Ohioans on their voting rights.
The First Amendment ensures that clergy of all faiths can perform marriage duties in a manner fitting with their beliefs––including refusing to solemnize same-sex marriages— without fear of government intrusion. Bills—such as the Pastor Protection Act and Religious Freedom Restoration Act—that open the door for discrimination against LGBTQ people under the guise of protecting religious liberty are unnecessary. LGBTQ rights, marriage equality, and religious liberty can all be protected. They are not mutually exclusive.
There is a lot of work to be done to make sure transgender people are not just visible but accepted, supported, and treated equally under the law. Visibility and legal protection are closely related; knowing a transgender person is a good indicator that an individual will support non-discrimination polices. Days like the International Transgender Day of Visibility are key to raising awareness about the discrimination transgender and gender-nonconforming people face. We must continue to amplify the voices and stories of transgender and gender-nonconforming communities to end the violence and discrimination they face.
The ACLU of Ohio’s Public Records & Open Meetings: A Guide for Activists is a valuable resource that can aid organizations and individuals in various campaigns. It’s everyone’s right to be active in the political process, whether it’s attending city council meetings or requesting documents from them. Transparency is key to holding our government accountable.
Check Out the Ohio Attorney General’s Sunshine Laws Manual.
People of color are often targeted by unnecessary stops, disproportionate responses, and excessive use of force. A critical aspect to police reform and accountability is the implementation and maintenance of body cameras. However, body cameras also raise important questions about civil liberties, which the ACLU of Ohio is equally concerned about.
“Sanctuary city” is a term broadly applied to municipalities (as well as counties and states) that have adopted policies promising to serve and protect all of their residents, regardless of their immigration status. These policies can include not inquiring about a person’s resident status, only honoring detainer requests that are accompanied by a judicial warrant, or not requiring local law enforcement to enforce national immigration laws. The federal government is seeking to force local authorities to enforce Immigration and Customs Enforcement laws by threatening to cut off grants. Bullying municipalities through defunding is fundamentally wrong, and requiring cities to spend local tax dollars on federal law enforcement promotes distrust between police officers and the residents they serve and protect.
Since 9/11, Muslims have been subjected to unlawful state surveillance, profiling, and deportation for imagined threats to the United States. This treatment has permanent consequences for individuals and their families and is a stain on our collective conscience. In his first days in office, President Donald Trump acted on his campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” by implementing anti-immigrant executive orders.
By January 27th, 2017, three executive orders were signed by the president concerning immigration. The “Muslim Ban” restricted immigration from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for 90 days, suspended all refugee entry for 120 days, and suspended Syrian refugee entry indefinitely. After numerous court cases, including one filed by the ACLU, federal courts stepped in to stop the “Muslim Ban” from being implemented.
Weeks later, the president signed a revised executive order, dubbed by the media “Muslim Ban 2.0.” The revisions removed Iraq from the list of banned countries as well as language about preferential treatment to non-Muslims, and exempted all visa and green-card holders. It also replaced the complete ban of Syrian refugees with a 120-day freeze. What stayed the same? The discriminatory and unconstitutional core of the executive order. On March 16, federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland stopped the Trump administration from refusing to grant visas from six predominantly-Muslim countries on the grounds of religious discrimination. In Hawaii, the judge went further to also stop the freeze of Syrian refugee entry.
On June 26, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari which means they will hear arguments on both cases in the fall. Additionally, the Supreme Court has allowed part of the ban to go into effect. Starting June 29, the government can ban people who are subject to the ban and do not have a “credible claim of bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” For example, visa holders, lawful permanent residents and dual nationals cannot be denied entry.
The ACLU will remain vigilant as we fight against unconstitutional and discriminatory legislation, policy, and executive orders. Learn More
Every day nearly 450,000 people languish in jail without ever being convicted of a crime. Ohio’s punitive bail system is costly, racially biased, counterproductive, and a key driver of mass incarceration. People suffer in local jails while awaiting trial, and low-level offenses such as drug possession cause many working Ohioans to lose their jobs. Most importantly, putting bail out of reach for thousands of low-income people violates our fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. The ACLU of Ohio recommends reasonable and achievable reforms to end this unjust practice.
Read our resource Bail Reform: A Civil Liberties Briefing.
The ACLU believes that everyone has the right to be themselves and that people should not be discriminated against based on their gender identity.Visit our Transgender Spotlight webpage which includes video stories of transgender Ohioans, as well as, information on criminal justice and healthcare issues, trans know your rights, and even a service directory.
Ohio legislators feed mass incarceration by introducing bills that would send more people to our jails and prison for longer periods of time.
This year, Ohio legislators have already introduced three bills that would expand penalties and sentences for drug use so far this year. SB 1, HB 4, and SB 42 further criminalize drug use, which should be treated through public health methods like rehabilitation, treatment, and education. These misguided bills continue to fill our already-overcrowded prisons and jails, without helping Ohioans.
SB 1: Revise Drug Laws
- Primary Sponsor: Senator Frank LaRose (R)
- Status: Approved by the Senate
- Summary: SB 1 will increase penalties for fentanyl, including low-level possession, and treat mixtures added to fentanyl the same as fentanyl for sentencing purposes. Learn more.
HB 4: Prescribe how cocaine is to be measured for offense
- Primary Sponsors: Representative Robert Cupp (R), Representative John Rogers (D)
- Status: Passed House (97-0); Currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee
- Summary: HB 4 will change how cocaine is measured for determining trafficking and possession sentences, and treat mixtures added to cocaine (like baking soda) the same as cocaine for sentencing purposes. Learn more.
SB 42: Specify that referring to a drug also refers to compounds
- Primary Sponsor: Senator John Eklund (R)
- Status: As Introduced; Currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee
- Summary: SB 42 will expand drug offense penalties to compounds and mixtures – treating mixtures added to drugs the same as the actual drug. Learn more.
Every session of the Ohio General Assembly, laws are introduced to create new crimes and enhance sentences for crimes already on the books. Now our jails and prisons are overflowing, and prisons designed to house 38,000 people hold nearly 51,000. This is mass incarceration by a thousand cuts.
The ACLU of Ohio reviewed all 1,004 bills introduced during the 2015-2016 legislative session and found nearly 1 in 10 included language to lock more people up longer. Sixteen of these bills became law. We’re calling on Ohio’s General Assembly to stop acting as a factory that produces new crimes and longer sentences to support an uninterrupted flow of prisoners into a legal pipeline that ends in jail or prison. Read Ohio’s Statehouse-to-Prison Pipeline 2017.
The ACLU created this informational guide to assist Ohioans in having productive conversations with their United States Senators and Representatives at Town Hall meetings. We highlighted some of the most pressing issues of 2017, including but not limited to the Muslim Ban, Sanctuary Cities, and Border Protection. We also included sample questions that may be of use to constituents and grass roots organizations. Please feel free to share with other members in your community!
The United States government is using “predictive judgment” to prevent certain people from using commercial air transportation. In other words, the government is trying to predict whether people might commit a terrorist act, whether or not they have a criminal record.
According to Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, the feds “launched its predictive judgment model without any evidence whatsoever about its accuracy…or the extent to which it results in errors.”
Because the government predicts these people—innocent U.S. citizens—might engage in violence at some unknown future time, it has grounded them indefinitely on a federal “no-fly list.”
People on this list need ways of redress to demonstrate their innocence of crimes they haven’t committed. The government refuses to provide these safeguards in its current system. It also declines to tell these people the reasons it has for predicting misconduct or what evidence it has collected, leaving them to guess. Finally, it will not provide a hearing for people to press their case and challenge government witnesses.
The ACLU has asked the courts, on behalf of victims of predictive judgment, to strike down the government’s current redress process and make it responsive to those wronged by predictive judgment.
All Ohio youth with disabilities, including those in detention facilities, are entitled to special education services. The ACLU of Ohio filed a complaint with the Ohio Department of Education alleging that children in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center were routinely denied these services. The ODE launched a full investigation that confirmed our allegation. The agency has now issued corrective actions for 14 Ohio school districts to protect all children’s right to an education.
For more information:
Read the press release ACLU Files Complaint with ODE, Requests Independent Investigation of School Districts.
Review our legal analysis Denial of IEP Services to Children in Detention Center.