# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump admin no longer requires ban on segregated facilities in government contracts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump’s anti-DEI order prompted a regulatory change that means government contracts no longer need to include a prohibition on segregation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump admin no longer requires ban on segregated facilities in government contracts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump’s anti-DEI order prompted a regulatory change that means government contracts no longer need to include a prohibition on segregation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US drops chloroprene emissions lawsuit against Denka

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Government says lawsuit stretched legal definitions in pursuit of ‘environmental justice’

# data[].attributes.headline
Govt. Dismisses Lawsuit against Denka Chemical Co. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Govt. Dismisses Lawsuit against Denka Chemical Co. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice Department Dismisses Suit Against Denka, Delivering on President Trump’s Mandate to End Radical DEI Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Justice Department, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dismissed a lawsuit against Denka Performance Elastomer LLC (Denka) concerning its neoprene manufacturing facility in LaPlace, Louisiana. The dismissal fulfills President Trump’s day one executive order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” signed to eliminate

# data[].attributes.headline
Also about the beginning of the movement

# data[].attributes.subject
Also about the beginning of the movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, colour, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Know Your Roots: Black History in Environmental Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black American communities have long served as frontline defenders for the environment, fighting for the basic right to breathe clean air and drink uncontaminated water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
District of Second Chances: Gene's Early Years

# data[].attributes.headline
The Tyree Nichols Case and What it means for the Future

# data[].attributes.subject
The Tyree Nichols Case and What it means for the Future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mostly peaceful protests over police brutality were carried out around the country after the public release of body camera footage brought the Memphis police killing of Tyre Nichols into clearer picture.

Nichols, a 29-year-old Black motorist, was pulled over Jan. 7 for what police said was reckless driving. After attempting to flee on foot, Nichols was aggressively beaten by police, newly released police video shows. Three days later, he died in the hospital.

Here's what else we know.

Who was Tyre Nichols?

Nichols, a father of a 4-year-old son, was known to his family as an avid skateboarder and nature photographer from Sacramento, Calif., according to The Associated Press. He arrived in Memphis just before the pandemic, and later started a job with FedEx, a major employer there. Nichols had been with the company for about nine months before his death, The New York Times reported.

"He was one of those people who made everyone around them happy," Nichols' step-grandmother Lucille Washington said at a memorial service.

Police body cam video shows a violent arrest

Police said on Jan. 8 that Nichols was taken into custody after a traffic stop that involved two confrontations with officers. During the initial confrontation, Nichols fled the scene of the traffic stop, police said.

Following the arrest, Nichols then complained of shortness of breath, according to authorities, and was taken to the hospital in critical condition, where he died on Jan. 10.

His family has said the police beat him so severely that he was unrecognizable.

The Shelby County District Attorney's Office said in a statement earlier this week that it understood the "reasonable request from the public" to view the video of Nichols' death.

The city of Memphis released the four-part footage on Vimeo on Friday evening.

In the videos, officers are seen dragging Nichols from his car and shouting profanities throughout the confrontation. An officer tries to deploy a Taser at Nichols and then begins to chase him on foot. "I'm just trying to go home," Nichols is heard saying. Later, officers are seen repeatedly kicking, punching and using a baton to strike Nichols as he lies on the ground. At one point he's heard yelling "Mom." Lawyers for the Nichols family say this encounter happened within 100 yards of the family's home.

Ben Crump, the family's attorney, compared the footage to the video of the 1991 Los Angeles police beating of Rodney King, another Black motorist.

Protests were held in several cities following release of police video

Mostly peaceful protests broke out in cities across the U.S. following the release of the videos, with demonstrators leading marches and chants against police brutality and shutting down highways and intersections in some cities.

In Memphis, a group of demonstrators gathered at a downtown park and then took to the streets, shutting down the I-55 bridge over the Mississippi River between Memphis and West Memphis. They chanted "no justice, no peace" and "justice for Tyre," closing the bridge for nearly three hours before peacefully disbanding.

In other parts of Memphis, people gathered in churches or small groups to reflect on the wrenching and somber moment for the city.

A protest in downtown Los Angeles became tense when a small group protesters demonstrated outside of Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, which was blocked by police in riot gear, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Other small, but mostly peaceful protests, were also held in Times Square in New York City, near the White House in Washington, D.C., in Seattle, Detroit and Atlanta, as well as in other cities from the East Coast to the West Coast.

Organizers are planning vigils, marches and demonstrations across the U.S. over the weekend.

Five former officers were indicted and jailed in connection to Nichols' death

Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr. and Justin Smith each face several charges, including second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct and official oppression.

Like Nichols, all of the former officers - who were fired before Thursday's indictments - are Black.

On Wednesday, Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn Davis released a video statement discussing "the horrific circumstances" of Nichols' death. She called it a professional failing and said "the incident was heinous, reckless and inhumane."

During a news conference announcing the indictments of the five officers, prosecutors gave new details about what happened during the traffic stop.

Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy said that while each of the five officers played a different role, "the actions of all of them resulted in the death of Tyre Nichols, and they are all responsible."

A grand jury returned indictments and delivered all five officers the same exact charges.

Less than three hours after officials released the body cam footage, Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner said two deputies who appeared at the scene of the arrest had been relieved of their duties pending the outcome of an internal investigation.

The Memphis police officers were part of a specialized team known as the SCORPION unit, an acronym for Street Crimes Operations to Restore Peace in Our Neighborhoods, that the department launched in 2021. A day after the release of the body cam video of Nichols' arrest, the Memphis Police Department said it would permanently disband the unit.

Other agencies are involved in the case

Crump, one of the family's attorneys, said during a news conference earlier this week that police used a stun gun and pepper spray on Nichols in addition to restraining him during the arrest.

"Yet again, we're seeing evidence of what happens to Black and brown people from simple traffic stops," Crump said. "You should not be killed because of a simple traffic stop."

In a statement following Thursday's news conference, Crump said although the five officers have been indicted, policing in the U.S. needs a great deal of reform.

"This tragedy meets the absolute definition of a needless and unnecessary death. Tyre's loved ones' lives were forever changed when he was beaten to death, and we will keep saying his name until justice is served," he said.

The police chief said earlier this week that the five officers violated multiple department policies, "including excessive use of force, duty to intervene, and duty to render aid."

Two Memphis Fire Department employees were also "relieved of duty" as an internal investigation is being conducted.

Memphis Fire Department spokesperson Qwanesha Ward told NPR that the employees - who were not identified - were "involved in the initial patient care" of Nichols. She did not go into further details.

The Justice Department and the FBI have also launched a civil rights investigation into Nichols' death and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation launched a separate investigation.
NPR's Joe Hernandez contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What we know about the killing of Tyre Nichols

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mostly peaceful protests over police brutality were carried out around the country after the public release of body camera footage brought the Memphis police killing of Tyre Nichols into clearer picture. Nichols, a 29-year-old Black motorist, was pulled over Jan. 7 for what police said was reckless driving.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RODNEY KING INCIDENT--THE GAP BETWEEN USE OF FORCE POLICY AND TRAINING | Office of Justice Programs

# data[].attributes.headline
NPR on Fed Judge blocks Trump on Trans People in the Military

# data[].attributes.subject
NPR on Fed Judge blocks Trump on Trans People in the Military

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal judge blocks Trump effort to ban transgender troops from military service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The decision by U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes blocks the Department of Defense from carrying through with a policy directive designed to remove transgender service members from the military.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal Judge Blocks Executive Order on Trans People in the Military

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal Judge Blocks Executive Order on Trans People in the Military

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal judge blocks Trump administration from banning transgender people from military service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal judge has blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greenpeace organizations go to trial on high-stakes SLAPP lawsuit that could redefine protest rights - Greenpeace - Greenpeace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
North Dakota is set to become the battleground for one of the most consequential free speech cases in recent history. Energy Transfer, the Big Oil corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million in damages from Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International, accusing these organizations of playing a central role in organizing the Indigenous-led resistance to the pipeline back in 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senator Cory Booker on the Status of Policing Reform Negotiations | U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey

# data[].attributes.headline
Corey Booker Shares Ideas to Improve the Police

# data[].attributes.subject
Corey Booker Shares Ideas to Improve the Police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Booker: ‘Sobered’ about comprehensive police reform, but something can get done

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He said that he and Sen. Tim Scott have continued to talk on the issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great article and pictures! Prisons then and now

# data[].attributes.subject
Great article and pictures! Prisons then and now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The justice system of 17th and early 18th century colonial America was unrecognizable when compared with today's. Early "jails" were often squalid, dark, and rife with disease. Cellars, underground dungeons, and rusted cages served as some of the first enclosed cells. Detention was not a form of punishment, but rather a tool of necessity while awaiting trial or transport. Because the facilities were unsecured, detainees were often kept in irons to prevent their escape. When the time for punishment arrived, it took the form of physical abuse or societal shaming. The stocks, whipping, pillory, and the ducking stool were common State responses used for lesser offenses.

If someone was found guilty of thievery a letter "T" would be branded on their hand after completing their corporal punishment. Human character at that time was perceived as permanent and immutable; a brand ensured the public would always see this person for what they were, a thief. Public hanging was the preferred punishment for a broad range of more serious offenses.

According to Foucault, punishment transformed from "an art of unbearable sensations" to "an economy of suspended rights."

The concept of redemption came later and represented progress; it spawned the first move away from permanent punishments such as branding and execution and moved towards punishments that " targeted the soul" instead of the body. With the opportunity for redemption came "penitentiaries," or institutions to foster penitence. The US prison system was born. According to Foucault, punishment transformed from "an art of unbearable sensations" to "an economy of suspended rights." This shift occurred around the time of the Revolutionary War and intensified in the early 1800s.

Early prisons offer case studies into the ethos of punishment in 19th century America, which marked a dramatic philosophical shift in the young republic. Opened in 1817, the Auburn Correctional Facility located in New York was hailed as a model worthy of replication, eponymously titled the "Auburn System." It focused on so-called redemptive suffering. Auburn was a caricature of what comes to mind when thinking of early barbaric prisons: people in striped pajamas walking in lockstep, being beaten if they stepped out of line or were caught speaking to one another, and constantly forced to work hard labor in silence.

Earlier prisons were even harsher. Prior to 1821 the entire prison was composed of solitary confinement in single cells, with no communication permitted and only work suitable to be done in isolation in one's cell. The governor of New York, upon discovering the " results so dire " those conditions had imposed, put an end to it, effectively creating the Auburn System that emphasized communal work and solitary cells for sleeping.

A new philosophy in corrections and political theory more broadly dictated that prisons should be economically self-sustaining. The administration desired to offset the cost of operating the prison via income-generating programs. Contracts were drawn up and "convict labor" was used to achieve cost-effectiveness, human cost notwithstanding. People incarcerated at Auburn were used to build a new prison located in New York, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

Sing Sing, which purported to be the first facility to be constructed through "convict labor," opened its doors in 1828. The prison adopted the Auburn System and emphasized redemptive suffering-emphasis on the suffering.

The original cells built in Sing Sing were only three feet wide and seven feet long. Cells were only used for sleeping and had no running water-indoor plumbing was rare in the United States at the time and prison was no exception. In lieu of a toilet, metal buckets inside the cells served as the receptacles for bodily functions. These buckets were dumped out just once a day. Today, indoor plumbing is not only ubiquitous but perceived as a human right, so it seems natural to assume prison cells have been updated. Unfortunately, that assumption isn't as correct as one would think.

When I was employed by the Idaho Department of Corrections at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution, I worked in its infirmary. The infirmary was a small V shape with nine holding cells in each of the two hallways. Only two of those nine cells had running water and standard plumbing. Those toilets were flushed by a button located on the wrong side of the cell's steel door; the person who needed their waste flushed had to ask a correctional officer to push the button for them.

The remaining cells of the infirmary were considered dry cells. Like the Sing Sing cells of old, they had no plumbing whatsoever. No tap water coming in, no waste going out. Their purpose ostensibly varied. In specific circumstances, restricting someone's access to a toilet made sense on behalf of the prison administration. If the person had intentionally and repeatedly used their toilet to flood out their cell, they would go to a dry cell. Other people suspected of swallowing drugs or contraband would be placed there so their feces could be inspected, not flushed. (It is possible that today, at a prison near you, a rookie correctional officer is being told by his commander to inspect someone's poop.) Other people-the majority-landed in them for a reason unrelated to toilet access. My questions as to why we kept so many people in cells without plumbing were never answered satisfactorily.

These holding cells consisted of a concrete room with cold walls, a steel door, and no windows in either the cells or the hallway. People placed in those cells had engaged in self-harm, attempted suicide, or were being physically combative. The cells did not give the appearance of an environment that may improve the mental health of those confined to them, and yet it was where we confined people experiencing mental health crises. In those cells, at least, correctional officers could escort people from them to the nearest cell with a toilet as needed.

That wasn't an option in Holding Cell #9. Ominously, that one cell had looming double steel doors that blocked its entrance. The cell's "bed" was a slab of concrete raised a few inches of the ground, barely above the grate in the floor that served as a toilet. The grate covered a hole in the floor that led to a catch-basin, effectively the toilet bowl. Much to everyone's dismay, it usually required some smushing to get the solid waste through the grate and into the hole. Then, the person would have to get a correctional officer's attention and request that their hole-in-the-floor be flushed. Upon a CO pressing the button, water shot out from one side of the hole and pushed (some of) the waste out. The cell perpetually stank of feces; its gray walls were lit by a bright light that never so much as dimmed.

When someone would be placed in Holding Cell #9, they would be given a smock-a green quilted robe deemed suicide-proof by officials. (It can't be torn into strips used to hang oneself.)

If the smock-wearer should use the scratchy green material to obstruct the guard's view into their cell or activities, the smock would be removed, and the distressed person would be left naked. Their blanket, made from the same material, would also be removed in that circumstance. Many people placed in Holding Cell #9 mentally deteriorated below the already-distressed state they had been experiencing when placed there.

One individual who spent much time in that cell stands out in my memory, for he lost his mind. Prison administrators had said he tried to commit suicide at another facility by cutting his throat and wrist. He was saved, brought to us for observation, and was placed in Holding Cell #9. As days passed, the evident sadness he was facing turned to confusion. He had no way of measuring the passage of time-time being the main metric of modern punishment. A single lightbulb kept him stirring-bright lights have been shown to disrupt natural circadian rhythm -and the only company he had was the smell of his own waste.

In the wake of September 11th, the US government adopted a series of practices derisively called " torture lite." One of these tactics included shining bright lights on detainees. While the light of Holding Cell #9 may not be as bright, lighting is a recognized weapon in the arsenal of torture. Those tactics are traditionally reserved for people declared enemies of the state, for whatever real or imagined reason, and are utilized to get those people to "crack." Yet in prisons, people who are already under extreme mental duress-people who have "cracked," as we colloquially referred to it-are subjected to the same measures.

Under the dire conditions of Holding Cell #9, the incarcerated man's confusion soon turned to agitation and then anger. He began separating his own skin, tearing out his stitches one by one. His previous suicide attempt seemed to be repeating itself. As he opened wounds, the cold walls were no longer silent. Orders by officers outside sent echoes and it shook the air around him. Before he knew it, we plastered him with oleoresin capsicum (OC) gas by an Mk9 Fogger. OC gas, commonly known as pepper spray, is used as bear repellant and is used on people attempting self-harm in prison.

The gas settled in his wounds, searing them. The pain distracted him. A cell extraction team entered in, physically subdued him, and took him to undergo the decontamination process to remove the caustic gas from his wounds, skin, eyes, and mouth. That process included being stripped naked and forcibly showered while multiple correctional officers looked on. Unbeknownst to us at that time, he would not let those wounds heal for months to come. On a weekly basis, his altered mind would force him to dig into his old wounds, prompting the same forceful response from prison staff each time. He was slowly losing his mind.

Solitary confinement has been shown to negatively affect mental health, and to do so rapidly. In fact, the damage done by isolation can be found in discourse dating back to the 19 th century. Dark Cells (or 'coolers' as they were known in Sing Sing) were used as a means of discipline. They used them knowing it would cause mental discomfort-that was the point. Mental and physical punishment was the intended purpose of locking people in dank cells, completely isolated from other human beings. Contemporary prison administrators emphasize the penological interests of solitary confinement as a tool of maintaining order, despite persistent protestations from professionals, including the United Nations, the American Psychology Association, and judicial opinions decrying its use as inhumane, akin to torture. David Garland in the journal Social Research aggregates various schools of thought, explaining that:

Foucault's political explanation of this change-which points to an epochal shift from a sovereign power based on violence and display to a government based on bureaucracy and discipline-is neatly complemented by Norbert Elias's cultural explanation, which tells us that modern civilized sensibilities are embarrassed by brutish, animalistic processes and seek to minimize the barbaric signs of bodily suffering... There is a careful avoidance of any suggestion that bodily pain and physical suffering are intrinsic elements of legal punishment.

Physical suffering was inherent to early imprisonment, especially the harsh conditions of Sing Sing's dark cells. There is alarming similarity between those and Holding Cell #9. The lighting is the main contrast: the dark cells were punishingly obscure, Holding Cell #9 is punishingly bright. While over-illumination may seem preferable to darkness, both can be construed as forms of torture. Covering the lights in any way is expressly forbidden in prison cells across the country, meaning lighting is beyond the control of the person to whom it is being subjected.

Prisons no longer purport to intentionally perpetuate suffering, but the use of solitary confinement and other harsh conditions continue. Many court decisions have held the conditions of incarceration to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the 8th amendment. The continued use of practices considered to be barbaric by psychologists and outside observers is difficult to reconcile with the sterility of the bureaucracy of justice. Garland addresses the contradiction:

The problem is that the human body is the unavoidable object of state punishment even when it is avowedly not punishment's target ...the law does not so much deny the (undeniable) bodily aspects of imprisonment. Instead, it treats them as beneath its notice, delegating them to the "realm of prison administration"-a realm that is mostly unregulated by law...

Garland asserts that the modern characterization of imprisonment as simply a "deprivation of liberty" neglects the physical elements-pain and suffering included-that are intrinsic components of US prisons.

The maximum-security prison in Idaho resolved many of the issues I described shortly after my tenure. They put toilets in the rest of those infirmary cells. Not in Holding Cell #9, though.

While the pendulum swing of corrections moves from rehabilitation to punishment and back, there has unequivocally been progress in some areas. Yet the debate about the usage of punitive measures and solitary confinement rages on, beginning in the 19th century and now spilling into the 21st. History gives us not only context for our discourse, but an inkling of an explanation as to why change may come slowly. "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right," said Thomas Paine in 1776.
Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Were Early American Prisons Similar to Today's? - JSTOR Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The justice system of 17th and early 18th century colonial America was unrecognizable when compared with today's. Early "jails" were often squalid, dark, and rife with disease. Cellars, underground dungeons, and rusted cages served as some of the first enclosed cells. Detention was not a form of punishment, but rather a tool of necessity while awaiting trial or transport.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company v. Train

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A case in which the Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency could place categorical pollution limits on existing manufacturing plants while also placing absolute pollution limits on newly constructed manufacturing plants.

# data[].attributes.headline
Communities organizing to fight environmental injustice

# data[].attributes.subject
Communities organizing to fight environmental injustice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission.

The term "environmental justice" was first coined over five decades ago when people of color began protesting unfair exposure to environmental hazards, pollution, chemicals and waste. Today, the movement is as prevalent as ever before, as more people of color and low-income households find themselves living in unsafe and sometimes deadly conditions.

You're likely more aware of environmental justice than you think. From those living near fracking wells in Pennsylvania to contaminated drinking water in the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, unjust environmental dangers are everywhere. Let's look more closely at environmental justice and a few critical incidents across the United States.

What Is Environmental Justice?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines "environmental justice" as being fairly treated and involved in creating and executing environmental policies and regulations, no matter your race, income level or nationality.

According to the Public Interest Research Group, one in six Americans resides within three miles of a Superfund site, where mismanaged toxic wastes end up. Those individuals risk reducing their life span by 1.22 years due to the health implications.

Nearly 75% of Black Americans disproportionately live near these hazardous locations. One study even suggests Blacks and Hispanics are exposed to 56% and 63% more pollution than they consume, respectively.

Low-income and indigenous people are also affected by environmental inequality. For instance, the XL Keystone Pipeline runs through protected Sioux tribal land, of which degradation is of grave concern. For one thing, extending the pipeline obstructs Sioux authority over the land while also impeding their Indigenous connection to nature.

People should not have to live with adverse environmental and health outcomes due to corporate, industrial and federal activities. Likewise, Americans must be allowed to partake in decision-making and protest whatever hinders their surroundings and well-being.

6 Case Studies of Environmental Racism

Sadly, environmental justice issues are prevalent across the U.S. Every state cities where specific demographics are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards. Throughout the years, some incidents have stood out more than others - although all are dire and worthy of consideration. Here are six examples of environmental racism in America.

1. Flint, Michigan

The water crisis in Flint, Michigan, garnered a nationwide outcry in 2014 after experts discovered lead and bacteria contamination in people's drinking water. The incident caused 12 deaths and 90 cases of Legionnaires disease, lead poisoning and other sicknesses.

Likewise, Michigan government officials - including then-Governor Rick Snyder - faced 42 criminal charges, such as perjury, misconduct, extortion and involuntary manslaughter, among others.

Flint's 2022 population was 79,854 - about 56.7% of the city is Black, while 35.5% are below the poverty line. The water crisis was a blatant incidence of environmental racism in which the residents had little say in community decision-making. At the same time, officials displayed little concern for anyone's health and well-being.

2. Warren County, North Carolina

Many say Warren County, North Carolina, is the birthplace of environmental justice. In the 1970s, the state decided to illegally dispose of 6,000 trucks worth of contaminated soil with cancer-inducing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in a low-income, Black community.

Fearing water contamination and future waste dumping, Warren County residents rallied together and protested the government. They lay in the streets to prevent the trucks from entering the landfill, while over 500 were arrested within six weeks.

Their efforts were null and void, as North Carolina dumped the waste anyway. However, the movement inspired other communities of color across the U.S. to fight for their surroundings and health.

3. Detroit, Michigan

The Detroit neighborhood of Boynton is Michigan's most polluted district. With 71% of the population being Black, the area is known for significant environmental justice issues.

Boyton is home to a Marathon oil refinery, having expanded from two tankers in the 1960s to 250 tanks. Over the years, the Michigan Department of Environment has cited the refinery for 20 emissions violations, of which Marathon denies doing anything wrong.

Studies show historically Black neighborhoods in Detroit have a 12.1% higher concentration of diesel particulate matter and 32.2% higher traffic flow. They also live near 1.7 times more toxic waste sites than non-Black communities. As a result, these individuals have a 3.9% higher risk of respiratory illnesses.

4. Cancer Alley, Louisiana

There is a 130-mile stretch in Louisiana dubbed "Cancer Alley," where over 200 plastics manufacturing plants, chemical facilities and oil refineries plague residents with hazardous emissions.

Cancer Alley - between the Mississippi River and Baton Rouge - is a predominantly Black community. In a recent study, scientists discovered a seven to 21 times higher concentration of industrial emissions in Louisiana's communities of color.

St. John Parish, in particular, has the highest rate of pollution-related cancer risk at 1,501.1 per million than anywhere in the U.S. This is because a nearby facility emits carcinogenic chloroprene - the only facility in the country that does so.

It's not unusual to wonder why people simply don't pack their belongings and move. The heavily industrialized communities along Cancer Alley are also historically Black, with many living there for several generations. Those who earn a higher salary tend to spend less time in the area and live in better-sealed homes.

5. Belle Glade, Florida

Florida may be the ultimate destination for a tropical vacation, but residents of Belle Glade might disagree. Those living just south of Lake Okeechobee have dealt with "black snow" - dense ash from burning sugar crops - for decades.

Prescribed burns occur from October to May, spanning thousands of acres, affecting Belle Glade's mostly Black, Hispanic and impoverished community.

According to Florida State University researchers, crop burning produces fine particulate matter, leading to respiratory problems, asthma, lung cancer, and cardiovascular disease. People who live just outside these fields have a 10 times higher mortality risk than those outside the burn zones.

6. Bronx, New York

The Bronx - one of New York City's five boroughs - is among the most polluted and environmentally unjust cities in the U.S.

Air pollution is so harmful that South Bronx neighborhoods are nicknamed "Asthma Alley." There, children under 18 visited the emergency room for particulate matter-induced asthma six times more than children from the other boroughs between 2015 and 2017.

According to the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance, 300 diesel trucks cross the Cross-Bronx Expressway hourly. About 15,000 trucks also enter and leave the Hunts Point Distribution Center daily - the second-largest U.S. distribution facility. Years ago, these highways and buildings were strategically placed in low-income neighborhoods, leading to a critical environmental injustice.

Environmental Justice Is Coming to a Head

Ideally, every demographic and neighborhood would receive fair, safe treatment and participate in environmental decisions. This isn't the case in the U.S., but more recent incidences have awakened many to the movement. Could communities of color be making headway? This may be the start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Cases of Environmental Justice Issues Across America - Environment Co

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental justice issues occur all across America. Read about six instances of environmental racism throughout the years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court’s Top-10 Environmental Law Decisions - Legal Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is how the Supreme Court has shaped environmental law in its key cases -- sometimes for the good, sometimes not so much.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Environmental Justice Examples, Issues and Actions - Causeartist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, class, or income, with respect to the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
The color of your skin meant you had to pay to vote!!

# data[].attributes.subject
The color of your skin meant you had to pay to vote!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recalling an Era When the Color of Your Skin Meant You Paid to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting restrictions that began two centuries ago were slowly, legally phased out, right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recalling an Era When the Color of Your Skin Meant You Paid to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting restrictions that began two centuries ago were slowly, legally phased out, right?

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the school dresscode discriminate against girls?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the school dresscode discriminate against girls?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How racism was first officially started in 15th-century Spain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world’s first set of discriminatory laws based on race came from Spain.

# data[].attributes.headline
The fight for more people of color on TV

# data[].attributes.subject
The fight for more people of color on TV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People of color ask for even more diversity on TV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ("ICERD" or "Convention") in 1966. President Lyndon Johnson's administration noted at the time that the United States "has not always measured up to its constitutional heritage of equality for all" but that it was "on the march" toward compliance. The United States finally ratified the Convention in 1994 and first reported on its progress in implementing the Convention to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ("CERD" or "Committee") in 2000. In August 2022, the Committee will examine the combined 10 th - 12 th periodic reports by the United States on compliance with the Convention. This report supplements the submission of the government with additional information in key areas and offers recommendations that will, if adopted, enhance the government's ability to comply with ICERD.

It has now been more than 50 years since the US signed the ICERD, nearly 30 years since it ratified the Convention, and more than 20 since it identified the extensive foregoing list of impediments to its effective implementation. Yet progress toward compliance remains elusive-indeed, grossly inadequate-in numerous key areas including reparative justice; discrimination in the US criminal legal system; use of force by law enforcement officials; discrimination in the regulation and enforcement of migration control; and stark disparities in the areas of economic opportunity and health care. Structural racism and xenophobia persist as powerful and pervasive forces in American society.

During his first days in office, President Joseph Biden called for urgent action to advance equity for all, calling this a "battle for the soul of [the] nation" because "systemic racism" is "corrosive," "destructive" and "costly." As this report and its annex, jointly authored by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, demonstrate, the US has a great deal of work ahead to realize the promises of the ICERD. This report therefore includes important recommendations in areas in which our organizations have specialized expertise, for addressing some of the US's most flagrant violations of the Convention. Additionally, although we recognize the political challenges facing the Biden Administration as it seeks to promote racial equity, we note that its recent declarations on racial justice are disconnected from the government's longstanding human rights obligations under the ICERD. The attached annex therefore identifies additional, more targeted measures to align President Biden's commitments with the ICERD. These measures are both fully within the control of the executive branch of the federal government and powerful enough to give life to the President's stated commitment to put "every branch of the White House and the federal government" to work in the effort to "eliminate systemic racism" in the United States.

President Biden has declared that racism, xenophobia, nativism, and other forms of intolerance are "global problems."The ICERD is an important part of the solution and to confront these global problems effectively, the US should fulfill its obligations under the treaty.This report and its detailed annex offer an initial roadmap for the US to do exactly that.

Article 6 of the ICERD establishes the right to remedy and to seek just and adequate reparation for acts of racial discrimination such as enslavement, the many post-emancipation crimes against Black people in the United States, and the insufficiently remediated ongoing discriminatory structures. The US government has never adequately addressed the gross human rights violations perpetrated against Black people as part of chattel slavery or the exploitation, segregation, and violence unleashed on Black people that followed. The discrimination against Black people that is a legacy of enslavement persists and is perpetuated by economic, health, education, law enforcement, and housing, and other policies and practices that fail to adequately address racial disparities-part of the ongoing structural racism and racial subjugation that prevents many Black people from advancing, and facilitates police violence, housing segregation, and a lack of access to education and employment opportunities, among other things. States are obligated under the ICERD to overcome such structural discrimination, both through effective remedies-such as reparations and "special measures"-and through the Convention's obligation to "[t]ake steps to remove all obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by people of African descent especially in the areas of education, housing, employment and health."

The ICERD requires States Parties to "assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination" and to ensure "the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination." The CERD has noted that the right to seek just and adequate reparation "is not necessarily secured by the punishment of the perpetrator of the discrimination" and that "the courts and other competent authorities should consider awarding financial compensation for damage, material or moral, suffered by a victim, whenever appropriate." The UN has also established principles on the right of victims to remedies and reparations, and specifically set forth the right to reparations for people of African descent.Although States generally only incur international responsibility for acts that are both internationally wrongful and attributable to the State, this principle does not apply to slavery and its legacy. While the US has enacted civil rights statutes since the 1950s, such legislation has been largely ineffective at curbing structural discrimination and racial inequality because of judicial decisions that significantly undermined their scope and meager government enforcement and investment, as well as the onerous requirements of discriminatory intent instead of discriminatory effect. Further, the US has consistently indicated in its ICERD reporting that "inadequate funding" is one of the central reasons for insufficient federal enforcement. The failure of the US to expand enforcement efforts and resources while acknowledging these widespread disparities over the last twenty-two years since it became a party to ICERD requires immediate redress.

Reparative intervention for historical and contemporary racial injustice is urgent and required by ICERD. The deep racial harms and unequal structures that are inextricably rooted in chattel slavery remain unremedied, perpetuating systemic inequality. Scholars have estimated that the US benefited from 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and the end of slavery in 1865, which would be valued at $97 trillion today. In 1860 alone, there were four million enslaved Africans whose labor is valued at least $3 billion, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined. Enslaved people were subjected to brutal forced labor as well as formal and informal state-sanctioned discrimination that resulted in severe economic damage, in addition to psychological, social and political harm.

While the CERD has not yet made specific recommendations to the US with regard to reparative justice, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her 2021 report on systemic racism in law enforcement, urged the US (alongside other governments) to initiate reparations. Although some localities have implemented reparation initiatives or commissions to address past racially motivated harms,there remains no formal nationwide federal initiative to advance reparations. Neither US courts nor other tribunals have provided reliable remedies for the descendants of enslaved people. H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, a bill currently before the House of Representatives, would establish a commission to study the effects of slavery and recommend appropriate remedies. But no progress has been reported as of this writing. In sum, the US federal government continues to neglect its ICERD commitments to remedy the systemic, longstanding and grave legacy of enslavement and racial discrimination.

To address ongoing structural racism and legacies of enslavement, the US should:

Establish a federal commission by legislative action or executive order to study and develop reparations proposals for the descendants of enslaved people.

Appropriate effective resources for federal economic and civil rights programs to address long-term structural racism and provide assistance to low-wealth and low-income Black communities.

Mass Incarceration

The CERD has repeatedly emphasized profound concerns with the US criminal legal system, first articulated in its 2001 Concluding Observations to the US, in which it noted that "the incarceration rate is particularly high with regard to African-Americans and Hispanics." It thus recommended that the US take "firm action to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin," to equal treatment before all organs administering justice. In its most recent review, the Committee went further, expressing its concern that "members of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, continue to be disproportionately arrested, incarcerated and subjected to harsher sentences, including life imprisonment without parole and the death penalty." It specifically recommended that the US amend "laws and policies leading to racially disparate impacts in the criminal justice system" at all levels of government and implement "effective national strategies or plans of action aimed at eliminating structural discrimination." In its 2021 submission, the US reported that the federal prison population had dropped to its lowest level since 2000, "declining almost 31% since 2013," though it is worth noting that the federal prison population only represents about 10 percent of the total US prison population. Further, the federal prison population has grown under President Biden. The US also cited the First Step Act, enacted by Congress in December 2018, as central in making reductions possible. In its 2021 submission the US reported that of the total number of people who received reduced sentences as a result of the First Step Act, 91 percent were Black, which is consistent with the historic over-policing and overcharging of Black communities. At the same time, the US failed to mention that its own Department of Justice (DOJ) found the risk assessment tool the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) created by DOJ in connection with the First Step Act, resulted in racial disparities. Despite repeated attempts at reform, the tool continues to overestimate the number of Black women who will engage in recidivism, compared to white women, and produces other racial disparities.

While some reforms have taken effect over the last decade, the US has failed to systematically address the immense breadth and depth of harm caused by its criminal legal system-harms that are the product of deliberate legal and policy choices created by a dominant white population supported by a culture of white supremacy.

US authorities hold almost two million people in detention and correctional facilities across the United States, and they imprison Black people at a rate three times higher than white people. Black women are imprisoned at a rate that is 1.7 times the rate of white women. While systemic discrimination against Black people is particularly blatant, the US also disproportionately punishes Indigenousand Latinx people.

Racial discrimination is also deeply woven into the policing and charging practices that harass, target, and subject Black people and other people of color to the most severe punishments available. One out of seven people in prison are serving a life sentence, and nearly half of that group is Black. US authorities continue to apply the death penalty both discriminatorily and arbitrarily.

In 2021, more than half of people executed were Black, and approximately 60% of people sentenced to death were Black or Latinx. Nearly 200 people on death row have been exonerated since 1972-1 for every 8.3 people executed. In fact, both death-row exonerees in 2021 were Black men imprisoned in Mississippi for nearly three decades because of false forensic testimony.

Mass incarceration harms not only those incarcerated, disproportionately people of color, but entire communities. About half of adults in the US have had an immediate family member incarcerated in jail or prison. Black people are 50 percent more likely to have experienced familial incarceration than whites, and they are three times as likely to have had a family member incarcerated for a year or longer. Research also shows that nearly half of incarcerated people in state prisons and almost 60 percent in federal prisons are parents with minor children, and Black children are six times more likely than their white peers to have had a parent behind bars.

One of the most damaging aspects of mass incarceration in the United States is the harm caused to incarcerated people by dangerous and degrading conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention. Practices such as solitary confinement, denial of adequate medical and mental healthcare, and sexual and other violence cause lasting injury, and sometimes death, to those exposed to them. Because of space limitations, this report does not discuss these conditions of confinement in detail, but they are an inseparable element of the harm caused by mass incarceration.

To address the discriminatory impact of mass incarceration, the US should:

Reduce the role of police in addressing societal problems (including homelessness, mental health, and poverty) and invest instead in community-based non-carceral solutions to such societal problems.

Abolish the death penalty and consider the elimination of life, and virtual life, sentences; eliminate sentence enhancements and minimum-time-served requirements; and expand access to early-release mechanisms such as good-time credits, parole, and clemency. These legal changes should be extended to offenses classified as violent and applied retroactively.

Invest in crime prevention programs and alternatives to incarceration including community-based crisis intervention services that are trauma-informed, culturally competent, and do not exclude offenses classified as violent.

Record, maintain, track, and publicly disseminate data on convictions, sentencing, and incarceration including racial and ethnic demographics.

Youth/Juvenile Justice

The ICERD requires States to "pay the greatest attention possible with a view to ensuring that [children from racial minorities] benefit from the special regime to which they are entitled in relation to the execution of sentences." Other prominent human rights bodies have reinforced this message. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has stated that "particular attention must be paid to de facto discrimination and [racial] disparities" and urged states to provide "appropriate support and assistance" to reintegrate young people who commit crimes. In its most recent recommendations to the US, the CERD urged the US to intensify efforts to address the "school-to-prison pipeline," ensure that young people are not placed in adult criminal settings, and abolish life-without-parole sentences for people under eighteen.

Racial inequities pervade every stage of the juvenile legal system. Black and brown young people are more likely than their white peers to be stopped and harassed by the police.This increases the likelihood of future arrest: Black young people who come into contact with the police by eighth grade have eleven times greater odds of being arrested in young adulthood. Once arrested, Black young people are four times as likely to be detained as white young people. Black young people comprise just fifteen percent of the US youth population, but forty-one percent of those confined in juvenile facilities. Black children are also disproportionately likely to be charged as adults. Indeed, eighty percent of young people serving life sentences are children of color, and more than fifty percent are Black. The traumas of incarceration-which are especially acute for children in adult prisons and include sexual abuse, solitary confinement, and death by suicide-therefore fall too often on children of color, especially Black youth.

To address the discriminatory impact of policies criminalizing youth:

Provide supportive services for and investment in child-centered, trauma informed youth programs, education, and mental health care.

Refrain from prosecuting children in adult court, utilizing incarceration as a last resort after other interventions have been tried, and instead treat them as children, with a focus on opportunities for education, healing, and healthy development instead of punishment.

Criminalization of Poverty - Homelessness, Bail, Fines, and Fees

To address the criminalization of poverty, US states should:

Stop criminalizing homelessness and its inevitable consequences, which only further serves to penalize disadvantaged individuals already suffering from inadequate allocation of governmental resources.

Reduce the circumstances in which courts can order pretrial incarceration, through bail setting or other means, only to those in which there is strong evidence of imminent harm if a person is released pretrial, and only following a rigorous hearing to evaluate that evidence.

Invest in pretrial services programs providing court date reminders, transportation, and other support to ensure court appearances.

Drastically reduce the number and amounts of fines and fees in the US criminal legal system. Further, establish national standards for criminal-legal system debt, including guidelines on ability- to- pay determinations and collection practices.

Probation and Parole

Probation and parole are portrayed as alternatives to incarceration, but in reality they drive high numbers of people-particularly Black and brown people-into jail and prison. About 4 million people in the US are on probation or parole, and nearly half of all state prison admissions stem from violations of the conditions of probation or parole. Black people are 4.15 times more likely to be under supervision than white people, and remain on supervision longer than similarly situated whites.

To address racial disparities in probation and parole, US authorities should:

Drastically reduce the use of supervision sentences for youth and adults and instead utilize real alternatives to incarceration.

Where supervision is used, shorten supervision periods, narrowly tailor conditions, and stop incarcerating people for violations that would not otherwise be a crime.

Reentry Issues - Impact of Criminal Records on Housing and Unemployment

The ICERD requires States to take "special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"including the right to work and the right to housing. The Committee has raised concerns about persistent housing and employment racial disparities in the US.

The United States imposes more than 48,000 legal restrictions on people with criminal records-barring them from work, housing, jobs, and civic engagement. These barriers disproportionately impact Black and brown people, who are more likely to have criminal records and to face discrimination when attempting to access housing and employment. Sixty-four percent of unemployed men in their thirties have criminal records, and Black men are almost twice as likely as white men to be unemployed.

Additionally, the high rate at which the US subjects Black people to correctional control results in their underrepresentation in the US electorate, as many US jurisdictions deny voting rights to people on probation and parole, and nearly all deny those rights to people in prison.

To address racial discrimination in re-entry, US jurisdictions should:

Repeal US laws allowing and facilitating discrimination and/or exclusions based solely on an individual's arrest or conviction, including restrictions or exclusions from employment, housing, access to social benefits, and voting.

Racist Drug Laws and Racism in Public Health Approaches

In its 2021 report to the CERD, the US pointed to the 2018 enactment of the First Step Act, a law that reduced racial disparities in sentences for certain drug crimes. While these reforms are helpful, they do not do nearly enough to remedy past discriminatory treatment or change laws, policies and practices in ways that would prevent it in the future.

Nearly 400,000 people are in prison for drug crimes. The vast majority of individuals incarcerated in federal prison are there on a drug charge,and by some estimates, nearly eighty percent of people in federal prison for drug offenses are Black or Latinx.Though Black and white people use drugs at similar rates,Black people are imprisoned for drug crimes at five times the rate of white people. "Black people [a]re arrested at over three times the rate of white people, and up to eight times as often in some states," for marijuana offenses.Additionally, police have targeted Black people specifically for federal prosecution, because "federal drug laws carry harsher punishment-including mandatory minimum sentences-than charges brought in state court."Though some authorities have begun to embrace a less punitive, more health-based approach to substance use disorders, this shift is still far too limited, and only began to take place after years of especially harsh treatment of Black people as part of the War on Drugs amidst an opioid crisis associated primarily with white people. Further, drug arrests-the vast majority for possession-remain the leading cause of arrest in the US.

To make drug policy more rights-respecting, the US should:

Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and repeal drug-induced homicide laws.

End sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.

Decriminalize possession of drugs for personal use.

Enact laws or otherwise encourage processes to review and clear past drug convictions, including a process to expunge convictions for marijuana sales as marijuana is legalized for sale and a means to invest resources obtained from marijuana licensing to communities most harmed by past prohibitions on marijuana.

Invest in treatment and harm-reduction programs to provide trauma-informed and culturally competent support to people living with substance use disorders.

Prison Labor

ICERD Article 5 includes the rights to work, free choice of employment, just and favorable conditions of work, equal pay for equal work, and just and favorable remuneration.Further, the guidelines for prison labor set out in the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the "Rules") prohibit work "of an afflictive nature," require permitting incarcerated people to "choose the type of work they wish to perform," and mandate that such labor be supplemented with vocational training. The Rules also state that the "precautions laid down to protect the safety and health of free workmen shall be equally observed in [correctional] institutions," and that "[p]rovision shall be made to indemnify prisoners against industrial injury, including occupational disease, on terms not less favorable than those extended by law to free workmen."

Almost one million people are currently working while confined in US prisons. They often work in grueling and degrading conditions for little to no pay-often pennies on the hour-and under threat of punishment (including solitary confinement) for refusing to work.US law explicitly excludes incarcerated workers from the most basic workplace safety guarantees, including the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude.The US prison labor system involves present-day involuntary servitude. Prison labor is also a legacy of slavery, and racial inequities persist today. Black people are disproportionately incarcerated and thus overrepresented among those working in prison.Black people also work lower-wage and unpaid agriculture and maintenance jobs at a disproportionate rate in prison, while a higher proportion of white people work in higher-paying prison-industries jobs. Indeed, across the deep south, agricultural workers, largely Black, pick and harvest crops in prisons located on the sites of former slave plantations.

To eliminate racial inequities in prison labor, the US should:

Abolish the Thirteenth Amendment's exclusion that allows forced labor as a punishment for a crime.

Ensure that all work in prisons is fully voluntary by eliminating any laws and policies enabling forced labor and that punish incarcerated people who are unable or unwilling to work.

Adopt legislation and regulations providing incarcerated workers in all prisons with the same labor protections afforded to other US workers including minimum wage, overtime pay, health and safety standards, unionization and collective bargaining, and protection from discrimination and retaliation.

Initiate oversight investigations into federal and state prisons to eliminate forced labor of incarcerated people and discriminatory pay, allocation of work assignments, conditions, and related practices.

Racially-Disparate Policing and Enforcement Practices

Article 5(b) of the ICERD requires States Parties to ensure equity in the right to be free from "violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution."Accordingly, the CERD has called on States Parties to improve the training of their law enforcement officials, and it has long expressed concern about police profiling, bias and brutality(as well as attendant impunity) that disproportionately harms people of color in the United States. The Committee even issued an Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures Resolution after the police murder of George Floyd sparked unprecedented protests against police violence in 2020.

Despite warnings from the Committee and other international human rights bodies,US police agencies have failed to meet their obligations under the ICERD. The US has discussed bringing federal lawsuits against problematic police agencies and proposed some federal legislation that may (if passed) help to address some of these issues,but legislation failed in the US Senate, and the executive order President Biden passed in response does not go nearly far enough to save lives.

People of color continue to bear the brunt of aggressive and discriminatory policing. Estimates attribute over 1,000 killings per year to the police,and new research suggests that more than half of police killings are not reflected in official statistics.Police also continue to kill Native Americans, Latinxs and Black people at significantly higher rates-as much as 350% more frequently-than white people.Even greater racial disparities attend nonfatal uses of force by police, and police likewise target people of color (especially Black people) for stops and arrests at much higher rates than white people. The goal of limiting police violence in the US is linked to the need to correct imbalances between investment in services that directly address societal problems such as substance use disorders or poverty and investment in policing.

These substantial, persistent imbalances notwithstanding, impunity for abuse remains a widespread problem.There are over 18,000 policing agencies across the US, but the US Department of Justice opened only 70 civil investigations into police departments for the possible violation of civilians' rights between 1994 and January 2020.More broadly, police rarely face prosecution or other legal consequences after engaging in brutality.Additionally, much of the data needed to discern the extent of police compliance with the ICERD remain undisclosed. For instance, federal efforts to create a use-of-force database for police have faltered due to widespread noncooperation from police departments-though President Biden's executive order on policing aims to address this problem. In many US states, the disciplinary records of abusive officers are also largely hidden from the public,and civil society groups and universities have had to take it upon themselves to cobble together a national database on police stops of civilians.

To address excessive use of force in law enforcement, the US should:

Prohibit police from enforcing a range of non-serious offenses, including issuing fines and making arrests for non-dangerous behaviors, thus eliminating many of the unnecessary interactions between the police and community members that have led to so much violence and so many deaths.

Invest in communities to prioritize health and quality of life over law enforcement and surveillance.

Implement enforceable legal constraints so that there will be only rare instances in which police officers can legally use force against community members;

Create independent oversight structures with robust enforcement and subpoena powers that ensure that when officers use force in violation of the law, policies, or training, they are held accountable.

Racial Bias and Abuse by Law Enforcement in Immigration Control

ICERD's prohibition of discrimination, including in Article 5(b) also bears on law enforcement at the US border and in interior immigration enforcement.The CERD has recommended that "all officials dealing with non-citizens receive special training, including training in human rights," to combat ill-treatment and discrimination against non-citizens by police and law enforcement agencies. In its 2008 concluding observations to the US, the CERD expressed concern over the excessive use of force against migrants, recommending that the US establish "adequate systems for monitoring police abuses" and develop "further training opportunities for law enforcement officials."In 2014, the Committee went further, reiterating concern about "increased use of racial profiling" by law enforcement to determine immigration status and recommending an end to specified immigration enforcement programs,including the Secure Communities programand the INA § 287(g) program.The United States replied that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy prohibits racial profiling and that it issued new use of force policies and training.

Despite these policies and purported reforms, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers continue to commit acts of violence and other serious abuses against migrants. Internal DHS reports revealed testimony regarding "over 160 cases of misconduct and abuse of asylum applicants," including physical and sexual abuse. Reports and statements from former CBP agents illustrate a departmental reluctance to "hold agents and others within the agency accountable."Further, reports and images emerged in 2021 of "horse-mounted agents maneuvering their horses in a menacing way toward migrants, wielding lariats [whips], and using derogatory and xenophobic language" against primarily Haitian migrants, "including families with small children."ACLU tracking has documented at least 230 fatal encounters with CBP since the agency was created.Finally, while President Biden's administration has attempted to limit deportations of people from the interior of the United States through an initial moratorium on deportations and subsequent "enforcement priorities" memos, it has maintained programs that facilitate racial profiling in immigration enforcement such as the 287(g) program, Operation Stonegarden and the Secure Communities program, the 287(g) program is still widespread across the country. Through these programs, the Biden administration is partnering with xenophobic, anti-immigrant law enforcement agencies across the countries, including those with extensive records of civil rights violations.

To address racial discrimination by law enforcement in border control and interior immigration enforcement:

Federal, state, and local authorities should reduce their reliance on policing agencies and instead adopt a humanitarian approach to border reception and regulation, ensuring for example the primacy of human dignity, due process, family unity, non-discrimination, and the right to seek asylum.

The US should immediately review, investigate, and remedy all internal and external allegations of abuse by government officials at the border or in an immigration detention facility and initiate an investigation of a pattern and practice of rights violations by CBP. In addition, the US government should immediately end immigration detention that is unnecessary or prolonged with the aim to gradually abolish immigration detention and should close any immigration detention facility in which persistent abuses are committed.

The US should end immigration programs that facilitate racial profiling, including the 287(g), Operation Stonegarden, and Secure Communities programs.

ICERD protects non-citizens against discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, and national or ethnic origin, regardless of whether they are lawfully admitted to the territory of a State Party. The text of the Convention does not explicitly prohibit differential treatment on the basis of citizenship, but the CERD has clearly stated that, "differential treatment on the basis of citizenship or immigration status will constitute discrimination" under the Convention "if the criteria for such differentiation . . . are not applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim."Article 5 of ICERD further binds parties to eliminate discrimination and guarantee equality before the law in relation to several rights fundamental to non-citizens, including the right to equal treatment before tribunals, the right to freedom of movement within the borders of a state, and the right to leave any country, including one's own.Article 6 additionally requires States Parties to "assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies" for instances of discrimination; this extends to non-citizens as well as citizens.

Naked xenophobia has been a major factor in US immigration policy since the last CERD review of the United States. Most significantly, former President Donald Trump actively promoted discrimination against migrants through a range of changes to US immigration law and policy, a number of which President Biden continues to enforce. Ongoing and increased discriminatory treatment of non-citizens have taken the form of efforts to restrict access to the United States; disparate treatment of migrants in the custody of US immigration authorities and in conferring immigration benefits; and the mistreatment of non-citizens by US state and local governmental authorities.

Workplace protections under international human rights law apply to all workers, regardless of citizenship status. However, fear of retaliation, including deportation, causes many workers who are unauthorized, who have family members who are undocumented, or otherwise have tentative immigration status to hesitate to speak up in the workplace or report abusive employers and working conditions.These fears therefore have a massive impact on Black and brown workers' rights to fair pay and decent work conditions to the right to organize.

To address racial discrimination against migrants, the US should:

Conduct a thorough review of all current immigration laws to determine racial or discriminatory motivations or effects. Repeal or reform immigration laws enacted to effectuate racial animus or those with a racially discriminatory impact.

Establish a mechanism providing full and effective reparation, proportional to the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered, to those who were subjected to discriminatory expulsion, family separation, prosecution and imprisonment, arbitrary detention, detention in inhumane conditions or other rights violations as a result of the racially discriminatory impact of US immigration laws.

Restrictions on Entry and Access to Territory

In the reporting period there have been three particularly significant policies imposing discriminatory restrictions on entry and access to territory. First, the "discriminatory bans" (often called the "Muslim bans") on entry to the United States that first targeted "primarily Muslim countries"and then "African countries." In January 2021, the United States officially acknowledged that there were "discriminatory bans" on entry to the United States, which had been implemented by former President Trump and rescinded by President Biden. Commentators have pointed to the way in which anti-Muslim animus long operated as a form of racial discrimination in the US immigration system, prior to these bans on entry. While the current administration rescinded the "discriminatory bans," the administration has failed to adequately remedy past discriminatory exclusions implemented under the policy and the ongoing consequences of the discriminatory order for migrants currently seeking to enter the US.

Second, the "migrant protection protocols" (MPP) (also known as "Remain in Mexico") policy forces migrants and asylum-seekers attempting to enter the United States at the US-Mexico land border to remain outside the US until an administrative proceeding is held to consider their status. This results in harm in Mexico, heightened risk of refoulement to the country of origin and inadequate access to administrative proceedings including asylum hearings (in fact, in many instances, rulings by US immigration authorities occur in absentia, resulting in a denial of due process rights). The MPP mostly affects those nationalities that Mexico refused to permit the US to expel under Title 42 (see below), including Central Americans, Cubans, Ecuadorians, and Venezuelans. Additionally, human rights reporting has established that migrants subjected to this policy face discriminatory treatment in Mexico.This includes, for example, indigenous migrants who do not speak Spanish as their primary language and face mistreatment in Mexico. While the Biden administration attempted to end this policy, a lawsuit brought by conservative governors in Texas and Mississippi forced the administration to reinstate it. On June 30, 2022, the US Supreme Court-which did not review how the program exposed migrants to discrimination-held that the Biden Administration is able to end the program.

To address discriminatory restrictions on entry and access to territory, the US should:

Ensure non-discriminatory access to US territory and to individual status determination procedures run by US officials with trauma-informed training in US asylum law and whose mission is humanitarian and not focused on border security.

Repeal and replace orders, statutes, and regulations that have been used to exclude and/or expel migrants and asylum-seekers in a discriminatory manner.

Publicly track and report data demonstrating the effect of border policies by race and ethnicity.

Border Enforcement, Detention, and the Granting of Immigration Benefits

Once apprehended, asylum-seekers and other migrants are subjected to prolonged and arbitrary immigration detention, often in abusive conditions and without adequate health care. Most migrants are also forced to navigate civil proceedings related to their status without legal representation. The United States operates the largest immigration detention system in the world. On a given day, tens of thousands of immigrants are detained on the basis of their status as a migrant. US law mandates detention in many cases. Myriad reports have documented the abysmal conditions to which immigration detainees are subjected. Many detention facilities are operated by private corporations under contracts with the US government; approximately 80 percent of immigrant detainees are held in detention facilities owned or operated by private prison companies. Research has shown that failures by ICE aggravated the risk of Covid-19 infections and that ICE transfers of detainees without prior testing effectively amplified contagion. Detainees who have protested unsafe living conditions, including through the use of hunger strikes, have been subjected to retaliation, violence, and involuntary medical procedures, including force feeding and forced urinary catheterization. While the US does not adequately make available relevant data disaggregated by race or ethnicity, Black and brown migrants are disparately impacted by the harms of immigration detention. While Black immigrants make up only 4.8% of detained immigrants facing deportation before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), they make up 17.4% of detained immigrants facing deportation before the EOIR on criminal grounds. Data shows that ICE disproportionately places Black migrants in solitary confinement and subjects them to disproportionately long periods in detention.

The US represented to CERD that it had made changes in response to the Committee's 2014 recommendations regarding legal counsel and individualized status assessments, noting that ICE hired a "Legal Access Coordinator" who seeks to "enhance detained individuals' access" to legal counsel. The US, however, continues to constrain access tolegal counsel for detained migrants, requiring them to "secure legal representation at their own expense, find pro bono representation," or navigate the system alone. Moreover, a recent report found that ICE systematically restricts the most basic modes of communication, such as in-person legal visits, telephones, and legal mail, that detained people need to use to connect with legal counsel. The vast majority of detained immigrants are without counsel. This is problematic not only because those detained are disproportionately Black and brown, but also because detained immigrants who have lawyers obtain relief from removal at a rate of more than ten times higher than those who do not. Calls for universal representation have pointed out that provision of counsel can help eliminate bias and discrimination in the allocation of legal services.

ICERD's mandate that States Parties "take effective measures" to ensure that their policies accord with the treaty cannot be accomplished without accurate data. Unfortunately, the US government does not publish or collect adequate data about border deaths, distress calls, and other border enforcement actions, nor about immigration enforcement, detention, use of force incidents, removals, or DHS civil rights and civil liberties complaints or investigations. Such information should be collected and disaggregated by race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, gender, age, disability, and other criteria.

To address discrimination in border and immigration enforcement, the US should:

Revise guidance on the use of racial profiling by federal law enforcement to eliminate the existing border and national security loopholes and prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and English proficiency.

Gradually abolish immigration detention.

Repeal laws mandating detention and invest in community-based social services as alternatives to detention without furthering surveillance of immigrants as an alternative to detention.

Establish, by statute or regulation, binding minimum standards for conditions of detention.

Establish, by statute or regulation, access to government-provided counsel for all migrants in proceedings regarding their status as a migrant, and ensure timely and confidential access to in-person, telephone, and video conferencing as well as legal mail in detention.

Publicly track and report data demonstrating the effect of immigration enforcement and benefits policies by race, ethnicity, and other disaggregated bases.

Prioritize and facilitate country visits by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and provide unimpeded access to all places of detention.

Actions by State and Local Governments

To address racial discrimination at the border, US jurisdictions should:

Expand the federal investigation into discriminatory treatment of non-citizens under Operation Lone Star to encompass Texas' new EO authorizing state law enforcement officials target, arrest, and detain suspected migrants and transport them to the US-Mexico border.

Issue guidance from DHS to its components affirming a policy of non-cooperation between DHS and the Operation Lone Star trespass arrest program.

Take all measures, including litigation, to compel Texas to end Operation Lone Star and other discriminatory abuse of migrants.

Immediately end federal funding for the agencies and counties engaged in the abusive Operation Lone Star border initiative, even as the Justice Department conducts an inquiry into the operation.

Article 5 of ICERD provides that "States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone" to economic and social rights, including protection against unemployment, the right to medical care, social security, social services, and education, and just conditions of work and equal pay for equal work. Article 2 of ICERD further requires concrete state action to eliminate disparities in economic rights. However, racial minorities in the United States continue to suffer a lack of economic security compared to their white counterparts.

The median wealth of white households in the United States is significantly higher than that of Black, Indigenous, or Latinx households. This so-called racial wealth gap has grownsince the country ratified ICERD, and the median wealth of white households is now at least ten-times that of the median Black household. A disproportionate share of people who are Black, Indigenous, Latinx, or immigrants live under the poverty line. The poverty rates of Black and Latinx people are twice as high than among white people.

Over the course of the pandemic, poverty fell overall due in part to the stimulus checks and unemployment benefits received by many. But the little progress made toward economic parity over the last year has stalled, as relief measures implemented in response to Covid-19 have been reduced, ended, or struck down by the courts. Today, the Black-white wealth gap is as big as it was in 1968.

While the US has acknowledged these disparities, it has admitted to CERD that it has failed to invest sufficient resources to address them, leading to the persistence of deeply discriminatory health care, inadequate social safety nets, and segregated communities and schools.

Public Health during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Article 5 of ICERD provides that "States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms" in the right to "public health" and "medical care"and provide equal access to healthcare services.CERD has specifically mandated that states address the disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on racial minorities. Where there are persistent disparities, ICERD requires states to affirmatively adopt measures to address them.

The Committee has expressed concern over the failure of the US to address racial disparities in access to affordable health care, as many states have opted out of the Medicaid expansion program, excluding substantial numbers of racial minorities. In addition, the Committee expressed concern that many states have explicitly excluded migrants from health care. In 2014, it recommended that the US "take concrete measures" to ensure individuals, "in particular racial and ethnic minorities who reside in states that have opted out of" the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and migrants have "access to affordable and adequate health-care services." CERD has recommended that the US eliminate steep racial disparities in sexual and reproductive health, collect data, and improve monitoring and accountability systems. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, CERD has made clear that States are obligated to "ensure equal access" to medical care.

Black people suffer from particularly acute racial disparities in maternal mortality and cervical cancer rates.The maternal mortality rate for Black women is three times higher than white women and rose further between 2019 and 2020, driven by significant increases in the maternal mortality rate of Black and Latinx women. These deaths, and those from cervical cancer, are preventable. Indeed, in 2020, 194 countries committed to eliminating cervical cancer globally. In the US, Black women are more likely than white women to have never been screened for cervical cancer, are diagnosed at a later stage, and have lower survival rates. In the state of Alabama, Black women are nearly twice as likely to die of cervical cancer as white women.

Given this crisis in maternal mortality and access to care for people of color, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to overturn the constitutional right to access an abortion in Roe v. Wade and related decisions will have a particularly profound and deadly impact on people of color. Black people have higher-risk pregnancies, are more than four times as likely to have had abortions as white pregnant people, are more likely to miscarry or have stillbirths compared to white pregnant people, and are more likely to live in states that restrict abortions.

State and federal prisons have failed to offer adequate health protection generally, and specifically against Covid-19. Covid-19 incidence and mortality rates were consistently higher among the prison population than the overall US population in the first year of the pandemic, and the cumulative toll of Covid-19 has been several times greater among the prison population than the overall US population. The US's response continues to be inadequate; in immigration detention centers, COVID-19 infections have increased by more than 940 percent since January 2022, while ICE has only administered booster shots to 671 of the 22,000 people in ICE detention. Given the rapid spread of the virus behind bars, and the racially disproportionate prison population, Black and Latinx people have been particularly vulnerable. By May 2020, Black people accounted for 60% of Covid-19 deaths in the New York State prison system, despite comprising 48% of detainees.

To eliminate racial disparities in public health, the US should:

Improve the affordability and availability of health insurance for low- and middle-income earners. In particular, consider legislation to expand coverage for existing social protection programs like Medicaid and Medicare. In the absence of such legislation, Congress should take appropriate short-term remedial measures.

Support community health workers and community-based approaches to reproductive health care that address healthcare access and the social determinants of health.

Establish inclusivity policies that: support linguistic and racial diversity, including in federally qualified health clinics; and acknowledge, confront, and seek to remedy historic and current experiences of racial discrimination in public health, including by creating an official, confidential, and accessible complaint mechanism for patients who use federally qualified health facilities.

Inadequate Social Safety Net

ICERD requires states to guarantee the rights to social security and social services without distinction as to race,and the Committee has made clear that States are obligated to eliminate all forms of racial inequities, whether intentional or not. Despite these protections, Black and Latinx people continue to face underinvestment in social protection, which has contributed to profound disparities in poverty and economic security. While, in the past, America's public benefits system helped reduce and prevent poverty and racial disparities by providing basic economic, food, childcare, and housing support, thereby preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty, it has weakened substantially over the past decades.

Although the US issued stimulus checks and other relief, these measures could not repair the social safety net shredded by decades of budget cuts and draconian rules. In addition, there were racial disparities in the provision of the Coronavirus Aid Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act economic impact payments. Undocumented immigrants were also largely left without relief during the pandemic as they and other immigrants were ineligible for pandemic-related stimulus checks, temporary family assistance (TANF), and food stamp s. Many immigrants eligible for unemployment relief were effectively denied relief because many states failed to translate application forms and other essential documents. Child poverty increased by 41 percent within a month after the US let its expanded child tax credit expire at the end of 2021, pushing 3.7 million more children into poverty. Black and Latinx children experienced the highest percentage point increases in poverty, 5.9 percent and 7.1 percent respectively.

Without effective social safety nets, families are also at risk of lengthy separation. Nationally, more than 75 percent of child welfare cases involve neglect, which occurs when a parent or caregiver fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision to a child. Instead of assisting families by providing cash, food, housing, or childcare assistance, the US child welfare system uses indicators of poverty as bases for removing children from familieswhile subsidizing and incentivizing foster care and adoption under the pretext of acting in the child's best interest. Due to systemic racism and other factors, this disproportionately impacts families of color.

To eliminate racial discrimination in the social safety net, the US should:

Increase benefit levels for social assistance and social insurance programs, including cash or in-kind assistance, including relevant tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, to ensure benefit adequacy, and consider adopting a universal income security program, such as a universal basic income.

Create federal standards optimizing eligibility for safety net programs. Where existing means-tested social assistance and insurance programs are not expanded universally, improve their eligibility requirements and accessibility. Means-tested programs should not include eligibility requirements that can unfairly exclude those in need, such as strict asset tests, or certain behavioral requirements like drug tests or work requirements.

Review and amend the current models used to create the annual Federal Poverty Guidelines to ensure that they are effectively capturing populations facing poverty.

Eliminate all benefit eligibility criteria for social protection programs tied to immigration status or criminal history.

Desist from using indicators of poverty as a basis for child removals, prolonged family separation, and termination of parental rights.

Create a federally funded system for paid family and medical leave.

Enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against agencies that do not provide language access services or discriminate in the provision of benefits to minorities.

US Education Policy

In its 2008 and 2014 concluding observations addressed to the US, the CERD expressed concern about racial segregation in public schools, finding that prohibition of the use of race-conscious measures as a tool to promote integration inhibited progress. The Committee found that students from racial and ethnic minorities attend segregated schools with unequal facilities, noting that even when students of color attend racially diverse schools, they are often relegated to "single race" classes, denied access to advanced courses, and unfairly disciplined.The Committee recommended that the US undertake a study to examine the reasons underlying de facto racial segregation, and "adopt all appropriate measures" to reduce the achievement gap between white and Black students "by improving the quality of education provided to [Black] students." In 2014, the Committee recommended that the US intensify its efforts to ensure equal access to education by taking measures including developing a concrete plan with goals and timelines to address racial segregation in schools and neighborhoods, and increasing federal funding for programs promoting racially integrated learning environments for students.

Nevertheless, disproportionate numbers of students of color continue to enter the criminal legal system. Schools with high populations of racial minority students have higher rates of suspension and expulsion, and students of color are more likely to be arrested as adults. In addition, students of color face discriminatory discipline and criminalization. Black students are punished more frequently and harshly in all categories of school discipline, even though many schools have removed the term "zero tolerance" from their policies, driven in part by differential treatment and support at school by race. A June 2021 report from the US Department of Education found that Black students are removed from school by being suspended or expelled (long term removal), and are referred to law enforcement at rates that are more than twice their share of enrollment. Students of color are more likely to go to a school with a law enforcement officer, more likely to be referred to law enforcement, and more likely to be arrested at school.In addition, students who attend schools with high percentages of Black students and students from low-income families are more likely face security measures like metal detectors, random "contraband" sweeps, security guards, and security cameras, even when controlling for the level of misconduct in schools or violence in school neighborhoods.

Article 7 of ICERD requires states to adopt immediate and effective measures, specifically in teaching, education, culture, and information, to promote tolerance and combat prejudice against national, racial, and ethnic groups. To combat prejudice and intolerance, the CERD has urged States to develop campaigns to educate the public about the history and culture of people of African descent and the importance of building an inclusive society. The Committee has also urged affirmative efforts to ensure that textbooks contain "chapters about the history and cultures of peoples of African descent," and to "encourage and support the publication and distribution of books and other print materials, as well as the broadcasting of television and radio programs about their history and cultures."

The US has failed to implement these recommendations. There are no federal requirements or standards for teaching the history or racial discrimination in the US or about the history and cultures of Black Americans and other people of color, and only a handful of states mandate that such history be taught. Even where mandates exist, each US state may teach in a way that leads to historical inaccuracies. In the absence of any federal mandate, multiple states have introduced and enactedlaws prohibiting schools from teaching about the reality of racism by banning "divisive concepts relating to race, racism and other topics." Learning Black history is beneficial to all students: While enhancing the self-esteem of Black students, it conveys historical realities to all students and encourages empathy, understanding, and efforts to avoid repeating the racist violence of the past. Further, denying the historical and contemporary realities of racial discrimination impedes not only justice and accountability for historic wrongs, but the eradication of persisting structures of racial inequality that is the core purpose of ICERD.

To address discrimination in the US education system, the US should:

Invest in underfunded schools to equalize public school funding throughout the US and continue to provide increased supplemental nutrition benefits for families with children during summer months when free or reduced-price school meals are not available.

Expand access to free, quality pre-primary education.

Expand the benefits of Pell Grants for low- and middle-income tertiary education students.

Adopt a federal national standard mandating the teaching of the colonization, including forced displacement, dispossession, and mass killings of Indigenous peoples; the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, redlining, and segregation; civil rights movements; and other racial justice civil and labor rights movements.

The Justice Department and Education Department should enforce Title VI and relevant statutes to ensure non-discrimination in the implementation of such a national standard, and in particular, prohibit school districts or states from banning Critical Race Theory or from teaching about other forms of racial discrimination.

This report honors the legacy of Aryeh Neier, president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Aryeh Neier Fellowship at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch. As executive director of the ACLU and then of Human Rights Watch, Neier helped develop both organizations into powerful forces for justice and human rights. Every former Aryeh Neier Fellow (Anjana Malhotra, 2003-2005; Mie Lewis, 2005-2007; Alice Farmer, 2007-2009; Sarah Mehta, 2009-2011; Ian M. Kysel, 2011-2013; G. Alex Sinha, 2013-2015; Tess Borden, 2015-2017; jasmine Sankofa, 2017-2019; Allison Frankel, 2019-2021) contributed in some way to the conceptualization of this project. This report was primarily authored by Anjana Malhotra, Ian M. Kysel, G. Alex Sinha, jasmine Sankofa, and Allison Frankel.

This report was edited by Alison Parker for Human Rights Watch and Jamil Dakwar for the ACLU. Jennifer Turner, Jonathan Blazer, Maribel Hernandez Rivera, Udi Ofer, Brandon Buskey, Carl Takei, Naureen Shah, Eunice Cho, Anu Joshi, ReNika Moore, Sarah Hinger, Harold Jordan, and David Fathi also provided a review of the report for the ACLU. Joe Saunders and James Ross provided program and legal review, respectively, for Human Rights Watch. Matt McConnell, Hina Naveed, Margaret Wurth, Annerieke Smaak Daniel, Amanda Klasing, Ari Sawyer, John Raphling, Laura Pitter, Dreisen Heath, Bill Frelick, Sarah Holewinski, and Brian Root also reviewed for Human Rights Watch. Rachel Levine and Thomas J. Rachko, Jr. prepared this report for publication.

We are also grateful for the University of Chicago Law School Global Human Rights Clinic for scoping research that contributed to the framing of the report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Discrimination in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination should direct the United States government to take immediate, tangible measures to dismantle structural racism in the United States, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said today, releasing a joint report to the committee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wall Street’s Dangerous Grind: the Human Toll of High Finance and the Fight for Workplace Reform ✦ OnLabor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In early 2025, the death of a 28-year-old investment banker set off renewed calls for stronger employee protections in the financial industry. While the cause of death remains unknown, recent reports of a potential overdose, extreme sleep deprivation, and widespread stimulant abuse at the young banker’s firm have fueled arguments that his death is part […]

# data[].attributes.headline
HAPPENING NOW!  Changes in voter registration rights?

# data[].attributes.subject
HAPPENING NOW!  Changes in voter registration rights?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Republican-backed bill would upend voter registration. Here are 8 things to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congressional Republicans are pushing legislation that would make sweeping changes to voter registration, including requiring those signing up to present documents proving U.S. citizenship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Court Case: Christopher Simmons age 17 sentenced to death

# data[].attributes.subject
Court Case: Christopher Simmons age 17 sentenced to death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roper v. Simmons Resource Page | Death Penalty Information Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPI) is a national non-profit organization whose mission is to serve the media, policymakers, and the general public…

# data[].attributes.headline
Court Case: Christopher Simmons - age 17 - Sentenced to Death

# data[].attributes.subject
Court Case: Christopher Simmons - age 17 - Sentenced to Death

# data[].attributes.headline
The Christopher Simmons Case - Death Penalty for a Juvenile?

# data[].attributes.subject
The Christopher Simmons Case - Death Penalty for a Juvenile?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christopher Simmons Case - made with Diffit

# data[].attributes.headline
The story of the Selma march - So much that we didn't know.  It's told here. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The story of the Selma march - So much that we didn't know.  It's told here. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Selma to Montgomery march was part of a series of civil rights protests that occurred in 1965 in Alabama, a Southern state with deeply entrenched racist policies. In March of that year, in an effort to register Black voters in the South, protesters marching the 54-mile route from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery were confronted with deadly violence from local authorities and white vigilante groups. As the world watched, the protesters-under the protection of federalized National Guard troops-finally achieved their goal, walking around the clock for three days to reach Montgomery, Alabama. The historic march, and Martin Luther King Jr. 's participation in it, raised awareness of the difficulties faced by Black voters, and the need for a national Voting Rights Act.

Voter Registration Efforts in Alabama

Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade discrimination in voting on the basis of race, efforts by civil rights organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee ( SNCC) to register Black voters met with fierce resistance in southern states such as Alabama.

But the civil rights movement was not easily deterred. In early 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC decided to make Selma, located in Dallas County, Alabama, the focus of a Black voter registration campaign. King had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, and his profile would help draw international attention to the events that followed.

Alabama Governor George Wallace was a notorious opponent of desegregation, and the local county sheriff in Dallas County had led a steadfast opposition to Black voter registration drives.

As a result, only 2 percent of Selma's eligible Black voters (about 300 out of 15,000) had managed to register to vote.

Did you know? Ralph Bunche, who participated in the Selma to Montgomery March with Martin Luther King Jr., won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950 for his successful negotiation of an Arab-Israeli truce in Palestine a year earlier.

Bloody Sunday

On February 18, white segregationists attacked a group of peaceful demonstrators in the town of Marion, Alabama. In the ensuing chaos, an Alabama state trooper fatally shot Jimmie Lee Jackson, a young African American demonstrator.

In response to Jackson's death, King and the SCLC planned a massive protest march from Selma to the state capitol of Montgomery, 54 miles away. A group of 600 people, including activists John Lewis and Hosea Williams, set out from Selma on Sunday, March 7, 1965 a day that would come to be known as " Bloody Sunday,"

The marchers didn't get far before Alabama state troopers wielding whips, nightsticks and tear gas rushed the group at the Edmund Pettus Bridge and beat them back to Selma. The brutal scene was captured on television, enraging many Americans and drawing civil rights and religious leaders of all faiths to Selma in protest.

Hundreds of ministers, priests, rabbis and social activists soon headed to Selma to join the voting rights march.

Edmund Pettus Bridge

On March 9, King led more than 2,000 marchers, Black and white, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge but found Highway 80 blocked again by state troopers. King paused the marchers and led them in prayer, whereupon the troopers stepped aside.

King then turned the protesters around, believing that the troopers were trying to create an opportunity that would allow them to enforce a federal injunction prohibiting the march. This decision led to criticism from some marchers, who called King cowardly.

That night, a group of segregationists attacked another protester; the young white minister James Reeb, beating him to death. Alabama state officials (led by Wallace) tried to prevent the march from going forward, but a U.S. district court judge ordered them to permit it.

LBJ Addresses Nation

Six days later, on March 15, President Lyndon B. Johnson went on national television to pledge his support to the Selma protesters and to call for the passage of a new voting rights bill that he was introducing in Congress.

"There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem," Johnson said, "Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negros, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome."

Some 2,000 people set out from Selma on March 21, protected by U.S. Army troops and Alabama National Guard forces that Johnson had ordered under federal control. After walking some 12 hours a day and sleeping in fields along the way, they reached Montgomery on March 25.

Nearly 50,000 supporters-Black and white-met the marchers in Montgomery, where they gathered in front of the state capitol to hear King and other speakers including Ralph Bunche (winner of the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize) address the crowd.

"No tide of racism can stop us," King proclaimed from the building's steps, as viewers from around the world watched the historic moment on television.

Lasting Impact of the March

On March 17, 1965, even as the Selma-to-Montgomery marchers fought for the right to carry out their protest, President Lyndon Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress, calling for federal voting rights legislation to protect African Americans from barriers that prevented them from voting.

That August, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which guaranteed the right to vote (first awarded by the 15th Amendment) to all African Americans. Specifically, the act banned literacy tests as a requirement for voting, mandated federal oversight of voter registration in areas where tests had previously been used and gave the U.S. attorney general the duty of challenging the use of poll taxes for state and local elections.

Along with the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act was one of the most expansive pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. It greatly reduced the disparity between Black and white voters in the U.S. and allowed greater numbers of African Americans to participate in politics and government at the local, state and national level.

HISTORY Vault: Voices of Civil Rights

A look at one of the defining social movements in U.S. history, told through the personal stories of men, women and children who lived through it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Selma to Montgomery March ‑ MLK, Purpose & Distance | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Selma to Montgomery march was part of a series of civil‑rights protests that occurred in 1965 in Alabama, a Southern state with deeply entrenched racist policies. The historic 54‑mile march, and Martin Luther King Jr.'s participation in it, raised awareness of the difficulties faced by black voters, and the need for a national Voting Rights Act.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great Video: History of Juvenile Justice in America

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Video: History of Juvenile Justice in America

# data[].attributes.headline
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) Explained

# data[].attributes.subject
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
Sending Juveniles to Adult Court - What happens then?  Chicago example

# data[].attributes.subject
Sending Juveniles to Adult Court - What happens then?  Chicago example

# data[].attributes.headline
Bias in arrests: Statistics in Chicago: Look at page 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Bias in arrests: Statistics in Chicago: Look at page 2

# data[].attributes.headline
Youth in prison - Should they be put in solitary confinement?

# data[].attributes.subject
Youth in prison - Should they be put in solitary confinement?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Young Person's Brain and Juvenile Justice

# data[].attributes.subject
The Young Person's Brain and Juvenile Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Black Americans outnumbered white Americans among the 29,500 people who lived in Selma, Alabama, in the 1960s, but the city's voting rolls were 99% white. So in 1963, Black organizers in the Dallas County Voters League launched a drive to get Black voters in Selma registered. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a prominent civil rights organization, joined them.

In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, but the measure did not adequately address the problem of voter suppression. In Selma a judge had stopped the voter registration protests by issuing an injunction prohibiting public gatherings of more than two people.

To call attention to the crisis in her city, Amelia Boynton, a member of the Dallas County Voters League acting with a group of local activists, traveled to Birmingham to invite Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. to the city. King had become a household name after delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech at the 1963 March on Washington, and his presence would bring national attention to Selma's struggle.

King and other prominent members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference arrived in January to push the voter registration drive. For seven weeks, Black residents tried to register to vote. County Sheriff James Clark arrested almost 2,000 of them on a variety of charges, including contempt of court and parading without a permit. A federal court ordered Clark not to interfere with orderly registration, so he forced Black applicants to stand in line for hours before taking a "literacy" test. Not a single person passed.

Then on February 18, white police officers, including local police, sheriff's deputies, and Alabama state troopers, beat and shot an unarmed 26-year-old, Jimmie Lee Jackson, who was marching for voting rights at a demonstration in his hometown of Marion, Alabama, about 25 miles northwest of Selma. Jackson had run into a restaurant for shelter along with his mother when the police started rioting, but they chased him and shot him in the restaurant's kitchen.

Jackson died eight days later, on February 26.

The leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Selma decided to defuse the community's anger by planning a long march-54 miles-from Selma to the state capitol at Montgomery to draw attention to the murder and voter suppression. Expecting violence, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee voted not to participate, but its chair, John Lewis, asked their permission to go along on his own. They agreed.

On March 7, 1965, sixty years ago today, the marchers set out. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, named for a Confederate brigadier general, Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan, and U.S. senator who stood against Black rights, state troopers and other law enforcement officers met the unarmed marchers with billy clubs, bullwhips, and tear gas. They fractured John Lewis's skull and beat Amelia Boynton unconscious. A newspaper photograph of the 54-year-old Boynton, seemingly dead in the arms of another marcher, illustrated the depravity of those determined to stop Black voting.

Images of "Bloody Sunday" on the national news mesmerized the nation, and supporters began to converge on Selma. King, who had been in Atlanta when the marchers first set off, returned to the fray.

Two days later, the marchers set out again. Once again, the troopers and police met them at the end of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but this time, King led the marchers in prayer and then took them back to Selma. That night, a white mob beat to death a Unitarian Universalist minister, James Reeb, who had come from Massachusetts to join the marchers.

On March 15, President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed a nationally televised joint session of Congress to ask for the passage of a national voting rights act. "Their cause must be our cause too," he said. "[A]ll of us...must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome." Two days later, he submitted to Congress proposed voting rights legislation.

The marchers remained determined to complete their trip to Montgomery, but Alabama's governor, George Wallace, refused to protect them. So President Johnson stepped in. When the marchers set off for a third time on March 21, 1,900 members of the nationalized Alabama National Guard, FBI agents, and federal marshals protected them. Covering about ten miles a day, they camped in the yards of well-wishers until they arrived at the Alabama State Capitol on March 25. Their ranks had grown as they walked until they numbered about 25,000 people.

On the steps of the capitol, speaking under a Confederate flag, Dr. King said: "The end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. And that will be a day not of the white man, not of the black man. That will be the day of man as man."

That night, Viola Liuzzo, a 39-year-old mother of five who had arrived from Michigan to help after Bloody Sunday, was murdered by four Ku Klux Klan members who tailed her as she ferried demonstrators out of the city.

On August 6, Dr. King and Mrs. Boynton were guests of honor as President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Recalling "the outrage of Selma," Johnson said: "This right to vote is the basic right without which all others are meaningless. It gives people, people as individuals, control over their own destinies."

The Voting Rights Act authorized federal supervision of voter registration in districts where African Americans were historically underrepresented. Johnson promised that the government would strike down "regulations, or laws, or tests to deny the right to vote." He called the right to vote "the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men," and pledged that "we will not delay, or we will not hesitate, or we will not turn aside until Americans of every race and color and origin in this country have the same right as all others to share in the process of democracy."

As recently as 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act by a bipartisan vote. By 2008 there was very little difference in voter participation between white Americans and Americans of color. In that year, voters elected the nation's first Black president, Barack Obama, and they reelected him in 2012. And then, in 2013, the Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder decision struck down the part of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval from the federal government before changing their voting rules. This requirement was known as "preclearance."

The Shelby County v. Holder decision opened the door, once again, for voter suppression. A 2024 study by the Brennan Center of nearly a billion vote records over 14 years showed that the racial voting gap is growing almost twice as fast in places that used to be covered by the preclearance requirement. Another recent study showed that in Alabama, the gap between white and Black voter turnout in the 2024 election was the highest since at least 2008. If nonwhite voters in Alabama had voted at the same rate as white voters, more than 200,000 additional ballots would have been cast.

Democrats have tried since 2021 to pass a voting rights act but have been stymied by Republicans, who oppose such protections. On March 5, 2025, Representative Terri Sewall (D-AL) reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would help restore the terms of the Voting Rights Act, and make preclearance national.

The measure is named after John Lewis, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee leader whose skull law enforcement officers fractured on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Lewis went on from his days in the Civil Rights Movement to serve 17 terms as a representative from Georgia. Until he died in 2020, Lewis bore the scars of March 7, 1965: Bloody Sunday.

-

Notes:
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/37721510v1p2.pdf https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/august-6-1965-remarks-signing-voting-rights-act https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/selma-montgomery-march https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/25/fight-to-vote-newsletter-voting-rights-act https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-voting-restrictions/2021/02/19/d1fab224-72ca-11eb-85fa-e0ccb3660358_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-voting-bloody-sunday-order/2021/03/07/ce45b082-7f60-11eb-9ca6-54e187ee4939_story.html https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2023-review https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/people-color-are-being-deterred-voting https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/growing-racial-disparities-voter-turnout-2008-2022 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/alabamas-racial-turnout-gap-hit-16-year-high-2024 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/john-r-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act-reintroduced-house-brennan-2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47520 https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-keep-bringing-up-voting-rights/ https://sewell.house.gov/2023/9/on-national-voter-registration-day-rep-sewell-and-house-democrats-introduce-the-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act https://campaignlegal.org/update/why-america-needs-john-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act https://sewell.house.gov/_cache/files/0/a/0afc7cb1-26de-4109-945c-68de15620bb1/62911097BCBDBF4FA8199A878D0EAC38B10345907CD0F6E11BF71AF4E18A22DD.sewell-005-xml-2-.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black Americans outnumbered white Americans among the 29,500 people who lived in Selma, Alabama, in the 1960s, but the city's voting rolls were 99% white.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amazon and their fight against workers' unions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Amazon and their fight against workers' unions. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Flight Attendants... You won't believe what they went through to gain proper treatment and respect.

# data[].attributes.subject
Flight Attendants... You won't believe what they went through to gain proper treatment and respect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Golden Age of Flight Wasn’t So Golden for Flight Attendants | American Experience | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Play fact-or-fiction with this gallery of vintage airline advertisements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Challenges and Rewards of Policing in America: A Police Officer's Perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Policing in America is a complex and often controversial topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Navigating law enforcements biggest challenges [infographic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In today’s rapidly evolving world, law enforcement agencies are confronted with a multitude of complex issues that require innovative solutions. …

# data[].attributes.headline
Newsela: Black Police Recruiter Trying to Change Perceptions

# data[].attributes.subject
Newsela: Black Police Recruiter Trying to Change Perceptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black police recruit hopes to shatter perceptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former teacher trains as new police recruit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happened at the Stonewall Riots? A timeline of the 1969 uprising

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The June 1969 riots at New York City's Stonewall Inn marked a raucous turning point in the fight for LGBT rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Newsela: Efforts to Strengthen Accountability

# data[].attributes.subject
Newsela: Efforts to Strengthen Accountability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Activists hope Chauvin convictions are start to real change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Activists, George Floyd's family members and some public officials have followed the Chauvin convictions with hope for systemic change in the nation's policing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Newsela: Ferguson after George Floyd's Death - Courts report that Black Americans are targeted by the Ferguson police force.

# data[].attributes.subject
Newsela: Ferguson after George Floyd's Death - Courts report that Black Americans are targeted by the Ferguson police force.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLEAR GRAPHS/CHARTS - Philly Stop and Frisk 

# data[].attributes.subject
CLEAR GRAPHS/CHARTS - Philly Stop and Frisk 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding the stop and frisk debate in Philadelphia, in 5 charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the midst of Philadelphia’s ongoing gun violence crisis, some people are asking whether the controversial policing practice stop and frisk is part of the answer. “Stop and Frisk: Revisit or Resist” is a new podcast exploring that conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stonewall Uprising | Timeline

Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement

From the Collection: The LGBTQ+ experience

Gay rights demonstration at the Democratic National Convention, New York City, 1976. Library of Congress

December 10, 1924
The Society for Human Rights is founded by Henry Gerber in Chicago. The society is the first gay rights organization as well as the oldest documented in America. After receiving a charter from the state of Illinois, the society publishes the first American publication for homosexuals, Friendship and Freedom. Soon after its founding, the society disbands due to political pressure.

1948
Biologist and sex researcher Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. From his research Kinsey concludes that homosexual behavior is not restricted to people who identify themselves as homosexual and that 37% of men have enjoyed homosexual activities at least once. While psychologists and psychiatrists in the 1940s consider homosexuality a form of illness, the findings surprise many conservative notions about sexuality.

November 11, 1950
In Los Angeles, gay rights activist Harry Hay founds America's first sustained national gay rights organization. In an attempt to change public perception of homosexuality, the Mattachine Society aims to "eliminate discrimination, derision, prejudice and bigotry," to assimilate homosexuals into mainstream society, and to cultivate the notion of an "ethical homosexual culture."

December 15, 1950
A Senate report titled "Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government" is distributed to members of Congress after the federal government had covertly investigated employees' sexual orientation at the beginning of the Cold War. The report states since homosexuality is a mental illness, homosexuals "constitute security risks" to the nation because "those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."

Over the previous few years, more than 4,380 gay men and women had been discharged from the military and around 500 fired from their jobs with the government. The purging will become known as the "lavender scare."

April, 1952
The American Psychiatric Association lists homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance in its first publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Immediately following the manual's release, many professionals in medicine, mental health and social sciences criticize the categorization due to lack of empirical and scientific data.

April 27, 1953
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Executive Order 10450, banning homosexuals from working for the federal government or any of its private contractors. The Order lists homosexuals as security risks, along with alcoholics and neurotics.

September 21, 1955
In San Francisco, the Daughters of Bilitis becomes the first lesbian rights organization in the United States. The organization hosts social functions, providing alternatives to lesbian bars and clubs, which are frequently raided by police.

August 30, 1956
American psychologist Evelyn Hooker shares her paper "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" at the American Psychological Association Convention in Chicago. After administering psychological tests, such as the Rorschach, to groups of homosexual and heterosexual males, Hooker's research concludes homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that heterosexuals and homosexuals do not differ significantly. Hooker's experiment becomes very influential, changing clinical perceptions of homosexuality.

January 13, 1958
In the landmark case One, Inc. v. Olesen, the United States Supreme Court rules in favor of the First Amendment rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) magazine "One: The Homosexual Magazine." The suit was filed after the U.S. Postal Service and FBI declared the magazine obscene material, and it marks the first time the United States Supreme Court rules in favor of homosexuals.

January 1, 1962
Illinois repeals its sodomy laws, becoming the first U.S. state to decriminalize homosexuality.

July 4, 1965
At Independence Hall in Philadelphia, picketers begin staging the first Reminder Day to call public attention to the lack of civil rights for LGBT people. The gatherings will continue annually for five years.

April 21, 1966
Members of the Mattachine Society stage a "sip-in" at the Julius Bar in Greenwich Village, where the New York Liquor Authority prohibits serving gay patrons in bars on the basis that homosexuals are "disorderly." Society president Dick Leitsch and other members announce their homosexuality and are immediately refused service.

Following the sip-in, the Mattachine Society will sue the New York Liquor Authority. Although no laws are overturned, the New York City Commission on Human Rights declares that homosexuals have the right to be served.

August, 1966
After transgender customers become raucous in a 24-hour San Francisco cafeteria, management calls police. When a police officer manhandles one of the patrons, she throws coffee in his face and a riot ensues, eventually spilling out onto the street, destroying police and public property.

Following the riot, activists established the National Transsexual Counseling Unit, the first peer-run support and advocacy organization in the world.

June 28, 1969
Patrons of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village riot when police officers attempt to raid the popular gay bar around 1am. Since its establishment in 1967, the bar had been frequently raided by police officers trying to clean up the neighborhood of "sexual deviants."

Angry gay youth clash with aggressive police officers in the streets, leading to a three-day riot during which thousands of protestors receive only minimal local news coverage. Nonetheless, the event will be credited with reigniting the fire behind America's modern LGBT rights movement.

June 28, 1970
Christopher St. Liberation Day commemorates the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall riots. Following the event, thousands of members of the LGBT community march through New York into Central Park, in what will be considered America's first gay pride parade.

In the coming decades, the annual gay pride parade will spread to dozens of countries around the world.

December 15, 1973
The board of the American Psychiatric Association votes to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

January, 1974
Kathy Kozachenko becomes the first openly gay American elected to public office when she wins a seat on the Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council.

June 7, 1977
Singer and conservative Southern Baptist Anita Bryant leads a successful campaign with the "Save Our Children" Crusade to repeal a gay rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida. Bryant faces severe backlash from gay rights supporters across the U.S. The gay rights ordinance will not be reinstated in Dade County until December 1, 1998, more than 20 years later.

November 8, 1977
Harvey Milk wins a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is responsible for introducing a gay rights ordinance protecting gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs. Milk also leads a successful campaign against Proposition 6, an initiative forbidding homosexual teachers.

A year later, on November 27, 1978, former city supervisor Dan White assassinates Milk. White's actions are motivated by jealousy and depression, rather than homophobia.

May 21, 1979
Dan White is convicted of voluntary manslaughter and is sentenced to seven years in prison. Outraged by what they believed to be a lenient sentence, more than 5,000 protesters ransack San Francisco's City Hall, doing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage in the surrounding area.

The following night, approximately 10,000 people gather on San Francisco's Castro and Market streets for a peaceful demonstration to commemorate what would have been Milk's 49th birthday.

October 14, 1979
An estimated 75,000 people participate in the National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. LGBT people and straight allies demand equal civil rights and urge for the passage of protective civil rights legislature.

July 8, 1980
The Democratic Rules Committee states that it will not discriminate against homosexuals. At their National Convention on August 11-14, the Democrats become the first major political party to endorse a homosexual rights platform.

July 3, 1981
The New York Times prints the first story of a rare pneumonia and skin cancer found in 41 gay men in New York and California. The CDC initially refers to the disease as GRID, Gay Related Immune Deficiency Disorder.

When the symptoms are found outside the gay community, Bruce Voeller, biologist and founder of the National Gay Task Force, successfully lobbies to change the name of the disease to AIDS.

March 2, 1982
Wisconsin becomes the first U.S. state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

March 10, 1987
AIDS advocacy group ACT UP (The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) is formed in response to the devastating affects the disease has had on the gay and lesbian community in New York. The group holds demonstrations against pharmaceutical companies profiteering from AIDS-related drugs as well as the lack of AIDS policies protecting patients from outrageous prescription prices.

October 11, 1987
Hundreds of thousands of activists take part in the National March on Washington to demand that President Ronald Reagan address the AIDS crisis.

Although AIDS had been reported first in 1981, it is not until the end of his presidency that Reagan speaks publicly about the epidemic.

May - June, 1988
The CDC mails a brochure, Understanding AIDS, to every household in the U.S. Approximately 107 million brochures are mailed.

December 1, 1988
The World Health Organization organizes the first World AIDS Day to raise awareness of the spreading pandemic.

August 18, 1990
President george Bushsigns the Ryan White Care Act, a federally funded program for people living with AIDS. Ryan White, an Indiana teenager, contracted AIDS in 1984 through a tainted hemophilia treatment. After being barred from attending school because of his HIV-positive status, Ryan White becomes a well-known activist for AIDS research and anti-discrimination.

1991
Created by the New York-based Visual AIDS, the red ribbon is adopted as a symbol of awareness and compassion for those living with HIV/AIDS.

December 21, 1993
The Department of Defense issues a directive prohibiting the U.S. Military from barring applicants from service based on their sexual orientation. "Applicants... shall not be asked or required to reveal whether they are homosexual, " states the new policy, which still forbids applicants from engaging in homosexual acts or making a statement that he or she is homosexual. This policy is known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

May 20, 1996
In the case of Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court decides that Colorado's 2nd amendment, denying gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, is unconstitutional, calling them "special rights."

September 21, 1996
President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law. The law defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from out of state.

April 1, 1998
Coretta Scott King, widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., calls on the civil rights community to join the struggle against homophobia. She receives criticism from members of the black civil rights movement for comparing civil rights to gay rights.

April 26, 2000
Vermont becomes the first state in the U.S. to legalize civil unions and registered partnerships between same-sex couples.

June 26, 2003
In Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court rules that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional.

May 18, 2004
Massachusetts becomes the first state to legalize gay marriage. The court finds the prohibition of gay marriage unconstitutional because it denies dignity and equality of all individuals.

In the following six years, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa and Washington D.C. will follow suit.

August 9, 2007
Sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, the Logo cable channel hosts the first American presidential forum focusing specifically on LGBT issues, inviting each presidential candidate. Six Democrats participate in the forum, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while all Republican candidates decline.

November 4, 2008
California voters approve Proposition 8, making same-sex marriage in California illegal. The passing of the ballot garners national attention from gay-rights supporters across the U.S. Prop 8 inspires the NOH8 campaign, a photo project that uses celebrities to promote marriage equality.

June 17, 2009
President Obama signs a Presidential Memorandum allowing same-sex partners of federal employees to receive certain benefits. The memorandum does not cover full health coverage.

October 28, 2009
The Matthew Shepard Act is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on October 28th. The measure expands the 1969 U.S. Federal Hate Crime Law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Matthew Shepard was tortured and murdered near Laramie, Wyoming on October 7, 1998 because of his sexual orientation.

August 4, 2010
A federal judge in San Francisco decides that gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry and that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Lawyers will challenge the finding.

December 18, 2010
The U.S. Senate votes 65-31 to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. Military.

February 23, 2011
President Obama states his administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the recognition of same-sex marriage.

June 24, 2011
New York State passes the Marriage Equity Act, becoming the largest state thus far to legalize gay marriage.

June 26, 2015
With a 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement | American Experience | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1924, the first gay rights organization is founded by Henry Gerber in Chicago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How have LGBT+ rights changed through generations? | LGBT+ History Month | Newsround

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBT history: The men who risked everything for love - BBC REEL

# data[].attributes.headline
VIDEO - The significant moments in the journey to equality

# data[].attributes.subject
VIDEO - The significant moments in the journey to equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Looking back on the history of gay rights | The Backstory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBTQ Rights Timeline in American History » Teaching LGBTQ History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LGBTQ Rights Timeline in American History This timeline is organized in units that are typically taught in middle school and high school U.S. History classrooms and is consistent with the people and events listed in the new California History-Social Science Framework (2016). Our Family Coalition wil…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Voting Restrictions That Are More Harmful Than You Might Think | League of Women Voters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2023, at least 322 bills restricting voting access were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Though many of these restrictions may appear simple and easy to comply with, they often have a huge impact on voters with disabilities, people of color, indigenous communities, students, young vo…

# data[].attributes.headline
Court Case: What exactly did this 2023 decision do to the Voting Rights Act?  Explained here :)

# data[].attributes.subject
Court Case: What exactly did this 2023 decision do to the Voting Rights Act?  Explained here :)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
even years ago today, the supreme court issued one of the most consequential rulings in a generation in a case called Shelby county v Holder. In a 5-4 vote, the court struck down a formula at the heart of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law that required certain states and localities with a history of discrimination against minority voters to get changes cleared by the federal government before they went into effect.

It's hard to overstate the significance of this decision. The power of the Voting Rights Act was in the design that the supreme court gutted - discriminatory voting policies could be blocked before they harmed voters. The law placed the burden of proof on government officials to prove why the changes they were seeking were not discriminatory. Now, voters who are discriminated against now bear the burden of proving they are disenfranchised.

Immediately after the decision, Republican lawmakers in Texas and North Carolina - two states previously covered by the law - moved to enact new voter ID laws and other restrictions. A federal court would later strike down the North Carolina law, writing it was designed to target African Americans " with almost surgical precision ".

"The scope of what, frankly, the right could do, in a pre-Shelby world was very limited. Now it's not so limited," said Bryan Sells, a voting rights attorney in Georgia. "If I'm a Republican political consultant or strategist, the options that are available to me are now wider than they used to be... It made it more advantageous to tinker."

We may never know the full impact of the Shelby county decision. While statewide voting changes get a lot of attention, most of the voting changes the justice department reviewed were submitted by local jurisdictions. Now it's much harder to even hear about those local changes - which include polling place closures or changing the way candidates are elected - let alone stop them, said Deuel Ross, an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) who frequently challenges voting changes in the south.

The scope of what, frankly, the right could do, in a pre-Shelby world was very limited

Bryan Sells

"Unless someone happens to know to call LDF or the ACLU or someone else and flags that for them, and we happen to have the resources to bring that litigation, nothing ever happens," he said. "There's so many things that I think slip through the cracks and have a real impact on Black representation," he said.

The supreme court's decision didn't get rid of the Voting Rights Act entirely. Congress could restore the full power of the law by coming up with a new formula to determine which places need to submit their voting changes for pre-clearance. But since 2013, that hasn't happened. House Democrats passed a new formula late last year, but Republicans in the senate have refused to take the measure up.

Here are some ways voting rights have been stripped since 2013:

Polling place closures

Between 2012 and 2018, there were 1,688 polling place closures in states previously covered by section five of the Voting Rights Act, according to a report from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Before the Shelby county decision, local officials would have had to submit these changes for federal review and show they were not discriminatory. Now, local officials are free to make those changes under the radar without analyzing the discriminatory impact of the closures

Two hundred and fourteen of those closures were in Georgia, a state previously covered by the Voting Rights Act that is emerging as a political battleground. In 2015, Brian Kemp, then Georgia's top election official, sent local election officials a memo outlining justifications for closing the polls and reminding them they no longer had to submit the changes for review to the federal government.

"We've seen a lot of changes to polling places in Georgia that either would have been stopped under section five or slowed down," Sells said.

We can't have any level of trust that what election officials are doing isn't politically motivated

Bryan Sells

Polling place closures again came into sharp focus this month as voters faced long lines during the state's primary. Local election officials, facing a shortage of polling locations and poll workers, consolidated polling locations for the primary.

"We could rest a lot easier if in a non-Shelby world if whatever changes were going to be more implemented as a result of the virus would not weigh more heavily on minority voters than they would on whites," Sells said. "Now, in this kind of world we can't have any level of trust that what election officials are doing isn't politically motivated."

Voter ID laws

Voter ID laws have long been found to disenfranchise people of color and marginalized communities, who are less likely to have the kinds of IDs states require to vote.

After the Shelby decision, Texas Republicans resurrected SB 14 - a strict voter ID bill that required that voters show one of a handful of government issued IDs to vote. Before Shelby, the justice department refused to approve the law, but after the decision, Texas announced the law would " immediately " be in effect. Years later, the law was found to be discriminatory against Black and Latinx communities, and struck down again. But eventually lawmakers created a new version of the bill, SB 5, with minor adjustments, which passed in 2017.

Meanwhile, Alabama enforced a law requiring photo ID starting in 2014, as did Mississippi. In North Carolina, the state where a federal court previously blocked a voter ID law, Republicans are pushing a new voter ID law that has been blocked thus far. In every state concerned, civil rights advocates have pointed out that Black and Latinx voters were more likely not to have a government issued photo ID.

In 2013, Arizona Republicans implemented a new system requiring residents to show proof of US citizenship in local and state elections - a controversial restriction lambasted by civil rights advocates. The supreme court had decided earlier that year that Arizona, a state previously covered by the Voting Rights Act, could not require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, but Arizona's attorney general and secretary of state said they could still require it for state and local elections. Now, Arizona provides separate ballots for presidential races and state elections - requiring a dual registration process that critics say depresses voter turnout, especially in Native American and minority communities.

Requiring proof of citizenship to vote, however, is an increasingly popular stance for Republican lawmakers. Last year, Texas attempted to question the citizenship status of 100,000 registered voters, before admitting its claim was based on false data. In Alabama and Georgia there have been citizenship proof laws passed before the Shelby county decision, but neither state is currently implementing them. Federal courts have also blocked a Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The measure was estimated to have affected 30,000 people.

Meanwhile, it is very rare that a non-citizens attempt to vote in the US, according to the Brennan Center, and sometimes they are registered by accident. But requiring proof of citizenship can backfire for US citizens, especially those who live in mixed immigration status households, or those who, similar to photo IDs, lack the proper documentation.

The 2020 election will be just the second presidential contest since 1965 where the Voting Rights Act isn't in full effect. Writing for the supreme court in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts said that voting discrimination was no longer as severe as it was when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965. But the mounting evidence in the years since the decision have shown that just isn't the case - the law may be needed now more than ever.

"Throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet," Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent for the court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In 2013 the supreme court gutted voting rights - how has it changed the US?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The supreme court struck down a formula at the heart of Voting Rights Act - now voters who are discriminated against bear the burden of proving they are disenfranchised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ten years ago, the Supreme Court eviscerated a central component of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. That decision removed the requirement for jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval for new voting policies - a process called "preclearance." Without this guardrail, voters lost a bulwark against discriminatory voting policies, and states previously subject to preclearance were free to implement discriminatory restrictions on voting access without advance checks. Many states did exactly that.

Along with a prior decision narrowly interpreting constitutional protections for voting rights, Shelby County also sent a message to the nation that the federal courts would no longer play their historic role as a robust protector of voting rights. In the years since, the Court has repeatedly confirmed this, signaling to states that they could pass restrictive voting laws without fear of legal consequence. (The Supreme Court's recent decision in Allen v. Milligan upholds the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial gerrymandering, not against voting restrictions.)

As a result, the country has witnessed a barrage of restrictive voting legislation over the course of the last decade, reaching a fever pitch after the 2020 election and showing no signs of abating. (While the trend of restrictive voting legislation began before Shelby County, its effects were largely mitigated by the preclearance process and court decisions that blocked or blunted new measures to curtail voting access.)

The Brennan Center has been tracking and cataloging this trend of restrictive voting legislation from its inception. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it contains one or more provisions that would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the voter rolls, or vote as compared to existing state law.

Since Shelby County was decided, at least 29 states have passed 94 restrictive voting laws. While a few of these have been blocked by courts or repealed, most are still in effect, and at least one continues to operate in each of the 29 states.

At least 29 laws were passed in 11 states that had been subject to preclearance, either in whole or in part, at the time Shelby County was decided. In other words, if not for the Supreme Court's decision, approximately one-third of the restrictive laws passed in the last 10 years would have been subject to pre-approval by the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges, and many of them may have been barred from implementation. Indeed, several of those laws were later struck down or enjoined as racially discriminatory. But others continue to pose barriers to the ballot box.

Not all restrictive laws are created equal - some, like those passed in Iowa, Florida, Georgia, and Texas in 2021, are omnibus bills that include many restrictive provisions. Still, it is notable that at least 7 states have passed 5 or more restrictive laws since the Shelby County decision. Arizona, a state that was previously subject to preclearance, clocks in with the highest number of restrictive voting laws (8) passed in any one state since Shelby County. On the other hand, some states have enacted one or two restrictive provisions but, on balance, have expanded voting access more than they've restricted it in the past 10 years. Among such states are New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Utah.

Many of these new laws are racially discriminatory. There is ample evidence that these kinds of laws fall hardest on communities of color, and a number have been struck down by courts as racially discriminatory. The gaps between turnout rates for white voters and voters of color have grown in the years since Shelby County, including in jurisdictions previously covered by preclearance. Research also suggests that many of these laws may have been passed with racially discriminatory purpose, as some courts have also found. Far from racial discrimination in voting being a specter of the past, as the Shelby County opinion presumed, there is ample evidence that it continues to play an active role in the continued suppression of voters of color.

The restrictive laws passed in the last 10 years target every aspect of voting, including making voter registration more difficult, curtailing early voting opportunities, closing polling places, and limiting voter assistance. However, a substantial portion of the restrictive laws passed since Shelby County coalesce around two major trends: strict voter ID legislation just after the decision and limitations on mail voting after the 2020 election.
Immediate and persistent focus on voter ID
The first wave of restrictive laws following Shelby County was largely focused on imposing unreasonably strict voter ID requirements. In fact, the very day that the Supreme Court released its decision, the Texas attorney general announced that a strict voter ID law previously blocked by preclearance for its discriminatory impact would become effective immediately. Federal courts later struck down the law as racially discriminatory under another provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Mississippi and Alabama also began to enforce photo ID laws that had previously been blocked under preclearance. The North Carolina legislature passed an omnibus voting bill that instituted a strict voter ID requirement and several other restrictive policies - a bill that a federal court later found "target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision."

This trend of instating stricter voter ID requirements or restricting acceptable forms of voter ID continued through 2017, with at least nine states post- Shelby County enacting new restrictive voter ID laws (including the North Carolina law discussed above) or implementing voter ID laws previously barred by preclearance.

Perhaps as a result of numerous successful legal challenges, strict voter ID laws became less common five years after Shelby County. But since 2021, some state legislatures have once again turned their focus to the policy. At least nine states have enacted at least 13 restrictive voter ID laws for in-person voting in the last three years, including three states that had previously done so in the years immediately following Shelby County.

There is a growing mountain of evidence that strict voter ID laws disproportionately impact voters of color. Strict voter ID requirements also place burdens on voters with disabilities and low-income voters who can face significant obstacles to obtaining photo identification.

Overall, at least 25 new laws implementing restrictive voter ID policies have been passed since Shelby County. (A number of these 25 laws rolled back voting access in other ways as well.) While a number of these laws were struck down in whole or in part for being racially discriminatory, many would likely never have been implemented under preclearance. The number of voters who were disenfranchised while lawsuits progressed and while many of these laws continue to be in effect - especially voters of color - is immeasurable.
Mail voting targeted after 2020
More recently, lawmakers seeking to restrict access to voting have focused on voting by mail. The United States has a long history of mail voting that dates back to before the nation's founding. In the immediate aftermath of Shelby County, very few restrictive laws targeting mail voting passed. In fact, many states actively expanded mail voting options. However, the lies about mail ballot voter fraud that were spread during and after the 2020 race, coupled with the role mail voting played in expanding voter turnout in 2020, prompted an extreme legislative backlash against mail voting. Since the 2020 election, 21 states passed 33 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 43 such laws since Shelby County. (A number of these bills restricted voting access in other ways as well.)

For any voter, and especially those who have travel obligations, health needs, transportation challenges, or job conflicts, restricting mail voting can hinder them from easily participating in democracy. Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact. For example, the Brennan Center studied a 2021 Texas law requiring a voter to include their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on mail ballot applications and mail ballots and requiring the number to match the individual's voter file data. During Texas's March 2022 primary, thousands of mail ballots and mail ballot applications were rejected, disproportionately cast by Latino, Asian, and Black voters. Overall, nonwhite voters were at least 30 percent more likely to have an application or mail ballot rejected than white voters.

In short, Shelby County v. Holder opened the floodgates for restrictive voting laws. The Supreme Court's ruling was based on a claim that racial discrimination in voting was largely a thing of the past, but the story that has unfolded in the years since belies that claim. Over the last decade, voters have faced an unprecedented slew of restrictive and often discriminatory laws, and the courts have offered little in the way of protection.

As the Supreme Court noted in Shelby County, Congress can remedy this problem. And it should - by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act to set nondiscriminatory baseline national standards for voting and elections.
UPDATE: The number of laws restricting mail voting access has been updated since initial publication. Clarifications were also added, noting that some restrictive voting laws have been repealed or struck done and that certain states have passed both expansive and restrictive voting laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
States Have Added Nearly 100 Restrictive Laws Since SCOTUS Gutted the Voting Rights Act 10 Years Ago

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the new laws are in states with a history of racial voting discrimination.

# data[].attributes.headline
Getting specific - Today's voter restriction laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Getting specific - Today's voter restriction laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stacey Abrams On Why Securing Voting Rights Is As Necessary Now As In The Past

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the historic 2020 election turnout, state legislatures across the U.S. are considering bills to make it harder to vote. Activist Stacey Abrams warns of a return to Jim Crow-era laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stacey Abrams: Champion of Voting Rights Honored at the National Civil Rights Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, bestows its prestigious Freedom Award upon individuals who have made significant contributions to the advancement of civil and human rights. In 2023, one of the distinguished honorees is none other than Stacey Abrams, a dedicated advocate for voting rights. Abrams has dedicated her life to fighting for fairness and equity in the American democratic process. In this blog post, we’ll delve into her remarkable career in voting righ

# data[].attributes.headline
Newsela - Racial Profiling/Stop and Frisk

# data[].attributes.subject
Newsela - Racial Profiling/Stop and Frisk

# data[].attributes.headline
GREAT EXPLAINER of history of Stop and Frisk 

# data[].attributes.subject
GREAT EXPLAINER of history of Stop and Frisk 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There have been disparities and harm caused by the city's use of the tactic.

This is your first of three free stories this month. Become a free or sustaining member to read unlimited articles, webinars and ebooks.

Become A Member
This article originally appeared in The Conversation.
Violent crime, and how to reduce it, dominated the 2023 Philadelphia mayoral campaign.

The ACLU of Philadelphia objected to the incoming mayor's position during the campaign. The civil liberties advocacy organization pointed to the lawsuit it brought against the Philadelphia Police Department in 2010, stop data that continued to show persistent racial disparities, and the lack of empirical support for the effectiveness of the strategy.

As criminologists with expertise in policing and law, we previously explained that stop-and-frisk can be both constitutional and useful if carefully controlled. We agree with the Philadelphia Inquirer observation that this " requires a change in culture and accountability."

Below, we explain what stop-and-frisk is and how it has been used in Philadelphia. Then we describe those critically important controls.

What is stop-and-frisk?

History of stop-and-frisk in Philadelphia

In Philadelphia, stop-and-frisk gained a foothold in the 1990s. By 2007, it was broadly instituted as a formal policy.

Two years later, Philadelphia police stopped more than 253,000 people. African Americans accounted for more than 70% of these stops even though they comprised 43% of the city's population at the time. Only 8.4% of stops resulted in arrests.

These disparities led to the class-action lawsuit in 2010.

Philadelphia settled the lawsuit in 2011 by entering into a consent decree, a type of legal agreement. The city promised to train its police officers on the legal parameters for valid stop-and-frisks, monitor how police conduct them, and discipline those who engaged in unconstitutional practices.

Measuring effectiveness

As the ACLU of Pennsylvania noted, at best "stop-and-frisk is a scary inconvenience." The "average Philadelphia pedestrian stop lasts 13 minutes " - long enough to delay people for work, child care or other key responsibilities.

Worse, encounters with the police have the potential to turn violent, with police disproportionately using force again Black and Hispanic men. And as the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Tyre Nichols illustrate, stop-and-frisks against men of color can end with police using deadly force. Notably, Black men are 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police, although police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death among men of all races aged 25 to 29.

Despite these consequences, Philadelphia's recent surge in violence prompted calls for re-implementation of a broad stop-and-frisk strategy.

Some people believe the strategy works because between 2007 and 2009, a period when Philadelphia aggressively employed stop-and-frisk, homicides decreased by roughly 22%. But crime data shows that when the city reduced its use of stop-and-frisk under the terms of the consent decree, violent crime did not significantly increase.

As Philadelphia's public radio station WHYY explained, the " major spike in gun violence didn't begin until 2019, and it worsened during the sustained period of socioeconomic instability following the COVID-19 pandemic." Indeed, firearm violence and homicides rose nationwide during the pandemic. Experts say this trend "is much more likely related to unemployment, racism, mental health, and other systemic causes than it is to policing practices."

A road map to avoid past problems

So what would we tell Mayor-elect Parker and her choice for police commissioner, Kevin Bethel, if they asked us how to make it work? We would share these evidence-based suggestions that could minimize bias if stop-and-frisk were more widely implemented in Philadelphia.

- Enhance and sustain efforts to recruit diverse officers. Like many police departments, Philadelphia's faces staffing shortages. The city is using its recruitment efforts as an opportunity to attract a racially diverse applicant pool, a positive step. We'd also suggest evaluating police recruits' racial attitudes and eliminating anyone from that pool who demonstrates racial biases.

- Train police on the constitutional requirements of the tactic. As the court-appointed monitor for the New York City Police Department, Peter Zimroth, observed, officers need to understand the legal framework for stop-and-frisks, and the types and levels of proof they need to satisfy before making them.

- Implement community engagement strategies to offset some of the harms that stop-and-frisk can cause. For example, Mayor Parker's current safety plan includes hiring 300 foot and bike patrol officers who have the potential to engage the community in ways that build support for policing operations. That's smart, if they adhere to constitutional mandates and the tenets of community policing and procedural justice.

- Require officers to complete a written report for each stop-and-frisk, and have supervisors review them regularly.

- Require officers, with their body-worn cameras turned on, to articulate why they are stopping someone. Their reasons should also be conveyed to the person who is stopped.

- Harness body cam footage to monitor stop-and-frisk. Researchers examining the NYPD's program concluded that body cams increased compliance with stop-and-frisk reporting requirements. Supervisors should routinely review footage to assess the constitutionality of stops and the interactions that follow. Police departments might explore using artificial intelligence technology to examine the vast amounts of footage they capture.

By following these guidelines, we believe police in Philadelphia - and elsewhere - can use stop-and-frisk as a lawful mechanism to reduce crime and violence, while honoring residents' constitutional rights. Without these essential controls, however, the failed history of stop-and-frisk is doomed to be repeated.

Michael D. White is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, and is associate director of ASUs Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. He is also director of the doctoral program in Criminology and Criminal Justice at ASU. Professor White is co-director of training and technical assistance for the U.S. Department of Justice Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program. He received his doctorate in criminal justice from Temple University in 1999. Prior to entering academia, White worked as a deputy sheriff in Pennsylvania.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Philly Might Expand Stop-and-Frisk. Here's a Road Map To Avoid Past Problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been disparities and harm caused by the city's use of the tactic.

# data[].attributes.headline
ABC News reports on Philly - Stop and Frisk - Scroll down for graphs

# data[].attributes.subject
ABC News reports on Philly - Stop and Frisk - Scroll down for graphs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Action News Investigation looked into police stops to shed more light on who is more likely to be stopped, and why.

Known as "stop-and-frisk," the longstanding policy in the Philadelphia Police Department is aimed at getting guns off the streets.

Supporters say the number of Blacks and Hispanics subjected to it, is largely due to their over-representation in high crime areas that police patrol more.

Proponents call it proactive policing that creates more tension between the community and police.

Mahari Bailey said the first time he was unjustifiably stopped by police was in high school.

"So he just took me out the car, you know, searched the car, asked you know, where the guns were, where the weapons and drugs were. I'm like, 'Dude, I'm in 10th grade,'" he said.

That experience wouldn't be his last.

As a Black man, he said over the years he experienced a handful of other stops.

Bailey said he felt like police stopped him more often after he became a lawyer and his cars and clothes became fancier, which singled him out.

He described another stop years later, "They come up to the car, same exact thing, 'Where are the guns, where are the drugs.' I'm like, 'Dude, I'm a lawyer.'"

Bailey is not the only one with a story to tell.

Our investigation found Philadelphia police stopped three million pedestrians and drivers over the past six years.

Roughly 70% were Black even though Blacks make up about 40% of the population in the city.

The data also showed Blacks and Hispanics were twice as likely to get frisked and searched as whites.

Civil attorney David Rudovsky found a majority of those stopped were without legal justification.

"That is -- they didn't have the reasonable suspicion they were required to have," he said.

Rudovsky represented Bailey and a half dozen others in a stop-and-frisk civil lawsuit against the city a decade ago.

The lawsuit resulted in a settlement that included court-mandated data collection and a yearly report on stop-and-frisk practices.

Rudovsky said unreasonable searches have improved under the administration of Mayor Jim Kenney.

"We were seeing 40 to 50% of the stops without legal justification when we started," he said. "Last year, our analysis showed only about 15% of the stops without legal justification."

Like her predecessors, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw supports the use of stop-and-frisk.

"I think it's a very difficult line that police officers have to walk," she said.

Outlaw said police respond to areas where there is more crime and those are predominately minority neighborhoods.

"With that said, though, it doesn't mean that we get to cast a wide net on every African American male or any Black or brown male between the ages of 18 and 30, because we think just because you fall into this category, we can do anything that we want again within the law," she said.

According to police data, Action News found in Philadelphia, Black residents had the highest percentage of stops, but the lowest hit rate, meaning the proportion of successful searches or frisks where contraband was found.

The highest hit rate was white women, likely due to police targeting them for prostitution and drugs.

"We got to make sure that we're using the tool properly, we're using it within the parameters of the law," said Outlaw.

Outlaw said her department plans to incorporate more training on stop-and-frisk in the future, but the tool will remain at the disposal of officers.

Bailey said although the progress Philadelphia police are making is encouraging, the pain still lingers.

"The frustration, the anger, the humiliation, the torment, you can't explain it. So it's one of those things that every Black man would know what I'm talking about," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Action News Investigation: Racial disparity in Philadelphia police use of stop-and-frisk, data shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
STOP-AND-FRISK: An Action News Investigation looked into Philadelphia police stops to shed more light on who is more likely to be stopped, and why.

# data[].attributes.headline
The fight for prisoners' rights - ACLU explains

# data[].attributes.subject
The fight for prisoners' rights - ACLU explains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jump to navigation Skip navigation

A culture of punishment, combined with race- and class-based animus, has led the United States to rely on incarceration more heavily than any other country in the world does. The politicization of criminal justice policy and a lack of evidence-based assessment result in a one-way ratchet in which law and policy grow ever more punitive. The human and financial costs of mass incarceration are staggering, and the burden falls disproportionately on the poor and people of color. However, the recent fiscal crisis and years of falling crime rates have combined to create the best opportunity in decades to challenge our nation's addiction to incarceration.

Far too many prisoners are held in conditions that threaten their health, safety, and human dignity on a daily basis. Tens of thousands of prisoners are held in long-term isolated confinement in "supermax" prisons and similar facilities. The devastating effects of such treatment, particularly on people with mental illness, are well known. Prisoners are a population with significant medical and mental health needs, but prisoner health care services are often abysmal, in many cases leading to needless suffering, disability, and death, as well as a serious threat to public health when contagious disease goes undiagnosed or untreated.

Prisoners' rights to read, write, speak, practice their religion, and communicate with the outside world are often curtailed far beyond what is necessary for institutional security. Not only are these activities central to the ability of prisoners to retain their humanity, but they also contribute to the flow of information between prisons and the outside world and thus provide a vital form of oversight of these closed institutions.

Current Issues

Medical and Mental Health Care

Each day, men, women, and children behind bars suffer needlessly from lack of access to adequate medical and mental health care. Chronic illnesses go untreated, emergencies are ignored, and patients with serious mental illness fail to receive necessary care. For some patients, poor medical care turns a minor sentence into a death sentence.

At this moment, tens of thousands of men, women, and children across the country are locked in solitary confinement for days, weeks, years-even decades. In the past 30 years, the United States has dramatically expanded its use of solitary confinement, even creating new "supermax" prisons designed to hold entire prison populations in extreme isolation.

Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Conditions

Overcrowding, violence, sexual abuse, and other conditions pose grave risks to prisoner health and safety. Mistreatment of prisoners based on race, sex, gender identity, or disability remains far too common.

Civil Liberties in Prison

The ACLU's National Prison Project fights to protect the Constitution's guarantee that individuals who are incarcerated retain basic rights, including the right to free speech, the freedom to practice their religion, and the right to access the courts and counsel.

In the last 25 years, the number of women and girls caught in the criminal justice system has skyrocketed; many have been swept up in the War on Drugs and subject to increasingly punitive sentencing policies for nonviolent offenders. There are now more than 200,000 women behind bars and more than one million on probation and parole. Many of these women struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, and histories of physical and sexual abuse. Few get the services they need. The toll on women, girls, and their families is devastating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A culture of punishment, combined with race- and class-based animus, has led the United States to rely on incarceration more heavily than any other country in the world does. The politicization of criminal justice policy and a lack of evidence-based assessment result in a one-way ratchet in which law and policy grow ever more punitive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Court Case - The right to proper Healthcare in Prison

# data[].attributes.subject
Court Case - The right to proper Healthcare in Prison

# data[].attributes.headline
Video of His story - Stop and Frisk in Boston

# data[].attributes.subject
Video of His story - Stop and Frisk in Boston

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the key factsLearn our top policy solutionsRead the reportWatch the videoKnow your rights during police encountersRead media coverageA July 2015 report confirmed what community members and the

# data[].attributes.headline
NYC Stop and Frisk declared Unconstitutional

# data[].attributes.subject
NYC Stop and Frisk declared Unconstitutional

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Leadership Conference Education Fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Taahira Thompson, a Summer 2013 Leadership Conference Intern

In a decision announced last week, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department's "Stop-and-Frisk" policy unconstitutional.

The controversial policy allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search New York City citizens on the sole basis of "reasonable suspicion." Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactics violate the U.S Constitution's 4 th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Overwhelming evidence suggests that the policy is used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens. Minorities and many civil rights organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and the NAACP, have voiced strong opposition to the policy.

In 1999, Blacks and Latinos made up 50 percent of New York's population, but accounted for 84 percent of the city's stops. Those statistics have changed little in more than a decade. According to the court's opinion, between 2004 and 2012, the New York Police Department made 4.4 million stops under the citywide policy. More than 80 percent of those stopped were Black and Latino people. The likelihood a stop of an African-American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of White New Yorkers stopped, and the likelihood of finding contraband on an African American who was stopped was one-third that of White New Yorkers stopped.

The ruling was met with opposition from NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and the city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg. The city has announced it will appeal the decision and Mayor Bloomberg hopes to halt the court's opinion at least until the end of his term, which ends this year.

At a federal level, several advocacy organizations, including The Leadership Conference, continue to advocate for the End Racial Profiling Act as one method to end the discriminatory racial profiling policies like stop and frisk.

Watch the video below and click here to check out Communities United for Police Reform's "Where I am Going" campaign to find out more about the effects of stop and frisk in communities of color.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NYPD's Infamous Stop-and-Frisk Policy Found Unconstitutional - The Leadership Conference Education Fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Taahira Thompson, a Summer 2013 Leadership Conference Intern In a decision announced last week, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department's "Stop-and-Frisk" policy unconstitutional. The controversial policy allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search New York City citizens on the sole basis of "reasonable suspicion."

# data[].attributes.headline
History of Racial Profiling - Detroit Example (scroll over the eras at the top of the page)

# data[].attributes.subject
History of Racial Profiling - Detroit Example (scroll over the eras at the top of the page)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stop and Frisk: Racial Profiling · Detroit Under Fire: Police Violence, Crime Politics, and the Struggle for Racial Justice in the Civil Rights Era · HistoryLabs Omeka S

# data[].attributes.headline
Racial Profiling NYC - GRAPHS easy to understand

# data[].attributes.subject
Racial Profiling NYC - GRAPHS easy to understand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Closer Look at Stop-and-Frisk in NYC - NYCLU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advancing rights to deliver more liberty and justice to more New Yorkers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Racial Bias Affect Policing? | Hacking Your Mind | PBS

# data[].attributes.headline
Racial Profiling Study: Clear and Basic Numbers demonstrate the problem

# data[].attributes.subject
Racial Profiling Study: Clear and Basic Numbers demonstrate the problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Takeaways

Racial disparities within the criminal justice system continue to be a pressing issue for the US and California. In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, discussions around police reforms have heightened and centered on how law enforcement engages with people of color.

In this report, we analyze data for almost 4 million stops by California's 15 largest law enforcement agencies in 2019, examining the extent to which people of color experience searches, enforcement, intrusiveness, and use of force differently from white people. While it is important to caution the reader that analysis of these differences is not causal, our analysis-which focuses in particular on differences between Black and white Californians-reveals notable differences.

Black Californians are more than twice as likely to be searched as white Californians, at about 20 percent versus 8 percent of all stops.

Searches of Black civilians are somewhat less likely to yield contraband and evidence than searches of white civilians. Overall, searches yielded contraband or evidence in about one-fifth of all searches.

Black people are overrepresented in stops not leading to enforcement-defined as an officer declining to issue even a warning-as well as in stops leading to an arrest.

Black individuals are almost twice as likely to be booked into jail as white individuals.

While differences in locale and context for the stop-such as when an officer has knowledge of an outstanding warrant-significantly contribute to racial disparities, notable inequities remain after accounting for such factors.

These disparities are driven primarily by traffic stops made by the 14 data-contributing police and sheriff departments (as compared with the California Highway Patrol). These findings can provide guidance for discussing which stops can safely be reduced to mitigate racial inequities, which may also reduce risks and injuries to both officers and civilians.

While the nation grappled with the greatest public health crisis in at least a century-a pandemic in which communities of color carried the heaviest burden-the killing of George Floyd, among others, sparked civil unrest around California and the country. This unrest further highlighted stark racial inequities in our criminal justice system and the need for reform.

Inequities are especially stark between Black and white individuals: while Black residents make up about 6 percent of California's population, roughly 16 percent of all arrests are of Black residents. Disparities are even greater at later stages in the criminal justice process, where Black people account for about 25 percent of county jail populations, about 26 percent of the probation population, and 29 percent of the prison population.

A recent PPIC survey found that 62 percent of Californians believe that the criminal justice system is biased against African Americans. Among African Americans, 88 percent hold this view. And while 54 percent of adults in California say police treat all racial and ethnic minorities fairly "almost always" or "most of the time," only 18 percent of African Americans share that view.

Recognizing the need for data and research on law enforcement stops, the California legislature passed the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) in 2015. The legislation-which was rolled out in waves based on the size of the agency-will require all law enforcement agencies in California to collect officer-perceived demographic and other detailed data for all pedestrian and traffic stops by 2023. The most recent data available include nearly 4 million stops made in 2019 by the 15 largest law enforcement agencies in the state.

This report builds on our previous work on arrests in California that found that criminal justice reforms implemented over the last decade have reduced racial disparities in arrests, bookings, and incarceration (Lofstrom et al. 2020; Lofstrom, Martin, and Raphael 2020). However, wide gaps remain. Here we broaden the scope to law enforcement stops, which include the many interactions Californians have with law enforcement that do not lead to arrests.

Complementing the 2021 RIPA Board report, we analyze the most recent stop data to better understand how interactions with law enforcement vary across race and ethnicity. Given that the starkest disparities are between Black and white Californians, our research focuses on inequities between these groups in frequency of stops, reasons for stops, and outcomes to provide a more complete picture of what those experiences are like.

We examine the likelihood that the individual stopped is searched, whether the search yielded any contraband or evidence, and if the stop resulted in any enforcement measures. We also examine intrusiveness and use of force, measured by reported outcomes such as being asked to step out of the vehicle, being handcuffed, and the involvement of an officer's weapon. We then separately analyze outcomes by statewide (California Highway Patrol) and local (police and sheriff's departments) jurisdictions.

The California state legislature passed the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) in 2015 (AB 953), which requires all law enforcement agencies in California to collect perceived demographic and other detailed data regarding all pedestrian and traffic stops by 2023 (see Technical Appendix A for more details). "Stop" is defined as any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the officer conducts a search.

The data elements mandated by statute include person-level and stop-level information. For person-level data, which we refer to throughout as personal traits, officers are required to record their perception of the identity characteristics for each individual stopped, including

race or ethnicity

gender

approximate age

lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) status

English fluency

disability (including behavioral health status)

Officers are prohibited from asking the person stopped to self-identify these characteristics.

Stop-level elements include

reason for stop (including a traffic violation, reasonable suspicion, parole/probation/mandatory supervision, knowledge of outstanding arrest warrant/wanted person, and consensual encounter resulting in search)

action taken by officer during stop (such as suspect removed from vehicle, removed from vehicle by physical contact, curbside detention, handcuffed, canine search, use of electronic device, chemical spray, or use of firearm)

reason for search (probable cause, consent, search warrant, visible contraband, odor of contraband, etc.)

contraband or evidence discovered (such as guns, drugs, drug paraphernalia, alcohol, money, or stolen property)

enforcement result of stop (including no action, warning, citation, cite and release, and booking)

The data do not allow for corroborating the accuracy of the reported information, including the race and identity of the individual stopped and the specific actions taken by the officer. Nor do the data include information on the race and ethnicity of the officer.

We examine the most recent available data from the 15 law enforcement agencies who submitted their first full year of stop data from 2019. This includes California Highway Patrol (CHP), eight police departments (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Long Beach, and Oakland) and six county sheriff's departments (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Diego, Riverside, and Orange County).

These agencies recorded 3,992,074 stops of motorists and pedestrians during the 2019 calendar year. Technical Appendix A provides details and a discussion of how the distribution of stops and outcomes vary across agencies.

A primary objective of this report is to examine disparities between the experiences and outcomes Black and white Californians have during a stop. To start, we examine racial disparities in the frequency of being stopped by law enforcement, and disparities in the reported reason for the stop.

When we compare shares each group represents in stops to shares by population, we find considerable disproportionality statewide. Black residents accounted for 16 percent of stops made by all participating law enforcement agencies during 2019 (Figure 1) but constituted only 7 percent of the state's population. Residents identified by law enforcement as Middle Eastern or South Asian were also overrepresented in stops (5%) compared to their share of the state's population (2%).

White residents were represented fairly proportionally in stops (33%), compared with their population share (34%), as were Latino residents (39% and 41%, respectively). Asian individuals were underrepresented in stops (6%) compared with their share of the population (12%), as were multiracial residents (1% and 3%, respectively).

Individuals identified as Pacific Islanders were overrepresented (0.5% of stops, compared with 0.3% of the population), and those identified as Native American were underrepresented (0.2% and 0.3%, respectively). The percentage-point differences are small, but as a proportion of the population share, these differences are considerable. Again, the racial/ethnic identification comes solely from the officer making the stop.

The data also reveal differences between reasons for stopping people of different races. For example, while more than 90 percent of stops of individuals perceived to be Asian or of Middle East/South Asian origin are stopped for traffic violations, about 75 percent of Black Californians stopped are for traffic violations (Figure 2). Conversely, officers report reasonable suspicion in 21 percent of stops of Black people, while 11.7 percent of white people and 5.6 percent of Asian people are stopped for reasonable suspicion.

While fewer stops involve individuals known by the officer to be on parole or probation or to have an outstanding warrant, their status provides officers with rights to stop and search without consent or reasonable suspicion. The percent of Black residents stopped who are on parole or probation is twice that of white residents (1.2% vs. 0.6%), and it is notably higher than Latino (0.8%) and Asian (0.2%) residents stopped as well.

The share of stops for an outstanding warrant is also twice as high for Black compared to white residents, also at 1.2 percent versus 0.6 percent. Technical Appendix Table A2 details differences across race and ethnicity in officer-perceived gender, age, mental health status, and whether the officer was responding to a call for services.

A key way this report extends the 2021 RIPA Board report is by taking a closer look at racial disparities in the experiences and outcomes of individuals after they are stopped by law enforcement. More specifically, we analyze the following four stop outcomes:

likelihood the individual stopped was searched;

likelihood contraband or evidence (weapons, property, drugs or other, such as alcohol or cell phones) were found, if the person was searched;

likelihood of enforcement, hierarchically defined below:

at least a warning was issued;

at least a citation (for an infraction, such as a speeding ticket) was issued;

an arrest (cite and release or booked into jail); or

booked into jail.

likelihood of experiencing intrusive action or use of force, hierarchically defined below:

at least asked to step out of the vehicle;

at least some physical contact (such as removed from car);

at least detained (curbside or patrol car);

at least handcuffed;

involved an officer's weapon (such as aiming a firearm, but not necessarily firing the weapon); or

officer weapon used (including use of firearm, electronic device, chemical spray, or baton).

Of the almost 4 million reported stops in 2019, slightly more than 452,000 led to a person or property being searched. In close to 97,000 of those searches-about 21 percent-the officer found some contraband or evidence. That is, officers found contraband or evidence in about 2.4 percent of all police stops (Table 1).

The most common contraband was drugs or drug paraphernalia, found in a little more than 60,000 searches. The second most common category is other, which includes alcohol and cell phones (presumably evidence). In 18,507 searches, the officer found a weapon or ammunition. In more than 11,000 instances, the officer found property, which includes money that was either illegally held or was evidence.

In the vast majority of stops, about 88 percent, the officer issued at least a warning (Table 1). The officer issued at least a citation in 64 percent of all stops. Officers made an arrest-either a cite and release, or a booking-in 11 percent of stops, and booked over 6 percent of stopped individuals into jail.

While most stops led to some level of enforcement, intrusive actions were less common: for example, individuals were at least asked to step out of the vehicle in about one in six stops. Officers report some physical contact in over 14 percent of stops, most of which involved detaining a person curbside or in the patrol car.

In about 8 percent of stops, the person was at least being handcuffed. The percentage of stops that involved an officer's weapon (which captures an officer pointing a firearm as well as when the officer uses the firearm or other weapon) is relatively small, at 0.42 percent. However, while the percentage is small, there are 16,918 stops where the officer reports that their weapon was involved. In 1,930 instances (0.05% of stops), the officer used a weapon- meaning the officer discharged a firearm or electric device such as a Taser, used a chemical spray or a baton, or a canine bit the stopped individual. The stop data do not capture whether anyone was injured as a result of the use of a weapon, or any other action taken during the stop.

Black Californians are notably overrepresented in police stops, and officers report reasons for stops that can vary across race and ethnicity, and across law enforcement agencies. We next consider the role of context of a stop, in an effort to better understand underlying factors to the patterns observed in outcomes.

California passed the RIPA legislation in 2015 based on concerns about bias in policing that leads to different groups having different experiences with law enforcement. Beyond mandating collection of stop data, the legislation expanded and clarified the definition of racial and identity profiling to consider and rely on protected group status, such as race and ethnicity, in "... deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop..."

Research consistently finds evidence of racial bias, explicit and/or implicit, broadly in society (see for example Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Bayer et al. 2017; Rothstein 2017; Avenancio-Leon and Howard 2019; Chetty et al. 2020; Kline, Rose, and Walters 2021). Furthermore, research has also found racial discrimination within the criminal justice system in jury, judge, and prosecutor decisions (Anwar, Bayer, and Hjalmarsson 2012; Arnold, Dobbie, Yang 2018; Sloan 2019). It is perhaps unsurprising that these racial biases extend to policing (Fryer 2019; Luh 2019; Hoekstra and Sloan 2020; Ba et al. 2021; Feigenberg and Miller 2021; Goncalves and Mello 2021), providing support to concerns historically raised by communities of color-concerns renewed in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.

Many factors contribute to whether an officer stops someone and to the officer's subsequent actions. And while the RIPA data quite strongly point toward differences in stop outcomes across race and ethnicity ( RIPA Board Report 2021), these differences may echo circumstances that do not reflect an individual officer's bias. The reason and context for the stop likely influence an officer's decisions and actions-for example, an officer may simply warn a driver stopped for speeding. Hence, differences in stop experiences between Black and white people may reflect differences in the reasons for the stop (Figure 2).

Independent of race and ethnicity, if an officer observed a person committing a crime, if a person has a warrant, or has a weapon, that person likely will be detained and searched, and possibly booked into jail after a stop. Such situations may be more adversarial-including the potential for use of force-than a traffic stop. If an individual is acting erratic, possibly due to behavioral health issues, an officer may shift decisions and actions. The prevalence of such situations across race and ethnicity may contribute to differences in outcomes.

Additionally, younger/inexperienced drivers may be more likely to violate traffic laws, and hence are plausibly more likely to be stopped than older and more experienced drivers. With men and adolescents/younger adults engaging in relatively more criminal activity, officers may place more scrutiny on younger men when they are stopped than on older individuals or women, independent of race/ethnicity (e.g., Ulmer and Steffensmeier 2014).

On average, Black Californians stopped by law enforcement are perceived to be younger compared to white Californians who are stopped (Technical Appendix Table A2). People stopped are also more often males. Relatively higher shares of Black persons are stopped for reasonable suspicion, outstanding warrant for an arrest, or mandatory supervision of a parolee/probationer. The latter two categories make a search more likely, as a warrant for a search is not needed, nor is cause, in California. Officers also report visibly seeing contraband in a higher share of stops of Black people than of white people.

Among the 15 largest law enforcement agencies, California Highway Patrol made more than 60 percent of all stops in 2019 of white individuals, but only about 35 percent of stops of Black individuals. And while Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) accounts for almost 31 percent of stops of Black Californians, the agency made only 10 percent of stops of white Californians; partly reflecting that a higher share of the Los Angeles population is Black (about 8%) compared to statewide (about 6%). Agency-level differences in policing strategies, missions and roles, as well as officer behavior and biases, are also possible contributing factors.

Accounting for Differences in Personal Traits and Contexts

Differences in contexts, location, and agencies likely contribute to racial disparities in stop outcomes. Our goal here is to use regression models that adjust to account for differences across race/ethnic groups in such factors, and move us towards more "apples-to-apples" comparisons.

That is, we seek to compare stop outcomes across race/ethnicity for, say, individuals of the same age and gender, stopped for the same reasons by a given law enforcement agency. We also adjust for whether the officer reported seeing contraband, and whether the person had an outstanding warrant or is on parole or probation. (See Technical Appendix B for a detailed discussion of the analysis and regression model.)

These estimated differences in outcomes across race and ethnicity serve as a starting point for understanding how experiences with law enforcement differ for people of color compared to white people. We aim to provide a more complete picture of what the data tell us these differences look like. As we will show, the approach provides information on how contexts affect an officer's actions and decisions, which may contribute to different experiences during a stop. Moreover, it also directs us towards contexts that deserve closer examination as particular sources of disparity.

Over 10 percent of all stops involve a search of the person or property. For Black Californians the likelihood of being searched is more than twice that of white Californians-a search rate of 20.5 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively (Figure 3). The disparity between Black and white people stands out compared to all other race/ethnic groups; furthermore, individuals perceived to be Asian or of South Asian/Middle East origin are less likely to be searched than white individuals.

Black People Are More Likely than White to Be Searched, Partly due to Context of Stop

Focusing on the Black-white inequities, after we adjust for officer-perceived personal traits such as age, gender, and disabilities, the gap shrinks somewhat, to 10.9 percentage points (second columns in Figure 3). When we additionally adjust for differences in the reported reason for the stop, the gap in Black-white search rates drops to 7.2 percentage points (third columns in Figure 3).

This difference is driven by significantly higher search rates of individuals on parole/probation and with outstanding warrants compared to traffic violations, combined with more Black than white persons stopped for being on correctional supervision or having an outstanding warrant. Search rates vary notably across law enforcement agencies (see Technical Appendix Table A2), reflecting differences in factors such as mission of agencies (CHP vs. police department vs. sheriff's departments), jurisdictional crime rates, and policing practices.

Furthermore, demographic characteristics differ across jurisdictions. For example, Los Angeles has a higher share of Black people than San Francisco, while San Francisco has a higher share of Asians than Los Angeles. If, for example, Black residents tend to live in cities where law enforcement may conduct searches more often across all racial and ethnic groups, then the Black-white disparity in search rates may partly reflect location.

When we adjust for average differences in search rate across law enforcement agencies and for fixed characteristics of a jurisdiction, the Black-white gap drops further to 4.1 percentage points. In other words, adjusting for perceived personal traits, context of stop, and location reduces the gap by about two-thirds. And while this suggests that these factors matter, we also find that Black people are still 1.5 times more likely to be searched during a stop than white people.

Contraband and Evidence Are Found Less in Searches of Black People than White

As a share of stops, contraband and evidence are found relatively rarely-in only about 2.4 percent of stops. So-called unconditional discovery or yield rates-the share of stops, as opposed to the share of searches, in which contraband or evidence was found-vary across perceived race and ethnic origin. For example, officers found some contraband and evidence in 4.4 percent of stops of Black persons, 2.5 percent with Latino persons, 1.8 percent with white persons, and 1 percent with Asian persons (Technical Appendix Table A7).

As a share of searches, contraband or evidence was found more often-in 21.4 percent of searches. The discovery rate, also known as conditional discovery or yield rate, varies little by race/ethnicity (Figure 4), from 19.3 percent for those perceived to be of South Asian/Middle Eastern origin to 23.9 percent for those perceived to be multi-race/ethnicity. Searches yield contraband or evidence in 0.6 percentage points fewer searches of Black people compared to searches of white people, or at rates of 21.6 percent and 22.2 percent, respectively.

The small Black-white gap increases as we control for personal traits and contexts reported by the officer. Officers are more likely to find contraband and evidence in searches of juveniles and young adults compared to older adults, and in searches of men compared to women-young men are represented more often in searches of Black individuals. Adjusting for perceived personal traits increases the gap to -0.8 percentage points, and adjusting for reason for the stop increases it to -1 percentage point.

The data also include information on the basis for the search, and searches most likely to yield contraband or evidence are searches when the officer reports either seeing or smelling (which includes canines) contraband or evidence. Officers more often report such basis for searches in stops of Black individuals than white (see Technical Appendix Table A2), which in turn means that when we adjust for the basis, the gap more than doubles to -2.3 percentage points. Put differently, officers discover contraband in their searches of Black people about 10 percent less than in searches of white people.

Adjusting for differences across law enforcement agencies does not appreciably change the Black-white gap in yield rates. Furthermore, when we break down contraband and evidence by separate categories (weapons, drugs, property, or other), the discovery rate gap is entirely driven by a lower likelihood of finding drugs in searches of Black than white Californians. The estimated gap, adjusted for all factors, is a statistically significant difference of -2.7 percentage points between the Black and white yield rate for drugs (Technical Appendix Table B5).

Officers issue at least a warning in about 88 percent of all stops; thus, most stops lead to some enforcement. However, Black Californians are more likely to be stopped without any enforcement.

Black People Are Overrepresented in Stops with No Enforcement and with Arrests

Officers issue at least a warning in fewer stops of Black persons compared to white, at 79.3 percent and 89.8 percent, respectively (Figure 5; also see Technical Appendix Table A11). Put differently, about one-fifth of stops of Black persons lead to no enforcement versus one-tenth of stops of white persons. The percentage-point gap is roughly the same if enforcement is at least a citation (53% and 64%, respectively).

However, stops of Black individuals are more likely to result in an arrest, at 9.5 percent of stops compared with 5.6 percent of stops of white individuals resulting in a jail booking. In other words, almost 1 in 10 Black people stopped are booked, while slightly more than 1 in 20 white people are.

Adjusting for perceived personal traits reduces the Black-white gaps somewhat, by about 1 percentage point for low enforcement and about half a percentage point for the highest enforcement. When we adjust for the reason for the stop, it reduces the estimated gaps notably: -6.3 percentage points for issuing at least a warning and 0.9 percentage points for likelihood of a booking (Figure 5). This is driven by more stops of Black people for reasons that do not lead to enforcement compared to white people, as well as high shares of booking, such as reasonable suspicion and parole/probation stops.

The drop in the gap around the likelihood of a booking is also partly due to most stops for an outstanding warrant lead to a booking (almost 70%), and Black Californians are overrepresented in stops for this reported reason. Lastly, when we adjust for enforcement rates across law enforcement agencies, the Black-white gap in the likelihood of the stop leading to at least a warning narrows notably (Figure 5). This shows that differences in enforcement rates are partly driven by more Black Californians than white Californians being stopped by law enforcement agencies that make more stops without enforcement. And while adjusting for all factors considered here lowers the observed gap notably, it also points towards widespread differences in enforcement across agencies.

When law enforcement stops an individual, the interaction may be limited to verbal communication or it can widen to involve use of force and weapons. With the reported information captured by the data, we can create hierarchical variables of increasing levels of intrusiveness up to the level of an officer's weapon being used.

Black people Are More Likely than White to Experience Intrusive Actions

In 27.8 percent of stops of Black Californians, the officer asks the individual to step out of the vehicle or something more intrusive. For stops of Latino Californians, the share is 17.2 percent, while for stops of white and Asian Californians, the shares are 12.8 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively.

In other words, Black people are slightly more than twice as likely as white to at least be asked to step out of the vehicle. More generally, Black people are at least twice as likely as white people to experience each of the levels of intrusiveness defined here.

Adjusting for personal traits and context of the stop greatly reduces Black-white gaps in our measures of intrusiveness and use of force. While Black civilians are 7.5 percentage points more likely than white civilians to be at least handcuffed, that gap drops to 6.5 percentage points more when we adjust for personal traits (Figure 6). Adjusting for the reason for the stop shrinks the gap to 3 percentage points.

Furthermore, there is tremendous variation across law enforcement agencies in the race/ethnicity of individuals stopped and in the level of intrusiveness. For example, CHP makes about 60 percent of all stops of white Californians versus 35 percent of all stops of Black Californians (Technical Appendix Table A2). CHP also has the lowest share of stops where individuals are handcuffed, at 1.5 percent of all stops (Technical Appendix Table A5).

Therefore, when we adjust for differences across agencies, the Black-white gap related to handcuffing drops to 1.5 percentage points. In other words, for a Black person with otherwise the same personal traits as a white person, stopped for the same reason, by the same law enforcement agency, the likelihood of being handcuffed is one-fifth of the gap of 7.5 percentage points. Still, Black Californians are statistically significantly more likely to be handcuffed than white Californians, even after adjusting for the above factors-by 1.5 percentage points.

An Officer's Weapon Is More Likely to Be Involved in Stops of Black People than White

Officers report that 16,918 out of the 3,992,074 stops (0.4%) involve an officer's weapon. This includes an officer pointing a firearm at the individual (14,988 of all stops) as well as an officer's weapon being used, which includes firearm, electric device such as a Taser, chemical spray, baton, or bitten by a canine (1,930 of all stops).

Stops of Black individuals are more likely to involve an officer's weapon than stops of white individuals. But adjusting for differences in shares of stops where either a weapon is found, the stop is made for reasonable suspicion, or includes an individual with an outstanding warrant for an arrest reduces the Black-white gaps markedly.

Black Californians are roughly three times more likely than white Californians to experience a stop that involves a weapon, at about a 0.6 percentage point higher likelihood (Figure 7). Adjusting for personal traits-such as more young Black adults than white stopped-reduces the gap to about 0.5 percentage points. As stops based on reasonable suspicion-especially an outstanding warrant-are more likely to involve weapons than all other reasons for stops, and with Black individuals overrepresented in these categories, adjusting for such differences reduces the Black-white gap to 0.3 percentage points.

However, a weapon found during a search is most strongly associated with a stop involving an officer's weapon, increasing the likelihood by almost 10 percentage points versus no contraband or evidence found. This adjustment reduces the Black-white gap to about 0.2 percentage points. While reported incidents of officers using a weapon are rare, the Black-white gap and patterns of adjustments are similar.

Are racial disparities in outcomes greater in traffic stops than in stops for reasonable suspicion-the two most common reasons for stops? Do they differ across agency type? To answer these questions, we examine Black-white differences in outcomes separately by reason for stop and agency: the statewide California Highway Patrol compared to local law enforcement (that is, police and sheriff's departments).

Traffic Stops by Police and Sheriff's Departments Show Greatest Disparities

Generally, traffic stops have the greatest Black-white disparities, especially among local law enforcement agencies. Roughly two-thirds of traffic stops are for moving violations, while about one-third are for equipment and non-moving violations; in these traffic stops, more than three times the share of Black Californians than white Californians are then searched by police and sheriff departments (Figure 8; Technical Appendix Table A10).

CHP traffic stops rarely result in a search, and the Black-white disparity is notably less; Black drivers are searched at a rate of 1.5 percent of stops, and white drivers are searched at a rate of 1.2 percent. While search rates are much higher in stops for reasonable suspicion, for individuals with a warrant, or for someone on parole/probation, the disparity is much less. This is true whether the stop is made by local law enforcement agencies or CHP, but for those types of CHP stops, search rates of Black people are even lower than for stops of white people.

When drivers are searched during stops for traffic violations, the search is less likely to yield contraband or evidence than when the stop is for reasonable suspicion, outstanding warrant, or known parole/probation, especially in the relatively rare searches in CHP stops.

However, when local law enforcement agencies search white Californians during traffic stops, the yield rate is somewhat higher than during stops for reasonable suspicion, outstanding warrant, or parole/probation. The Black-white gap for yield rate is notable: some contraband is found in 25.1 percent of searches of white people and in 19.1 percent of searches of Black people. Both local and statewide agencies report higher yield rates for Black than white Californians when stopping for reasonable suspicion.

When police and sheriff departments make stops for traffic violations, a higher share of Black drivers are stopped without the officer issuing a warning compared to white drivers (Figure 9): 23.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively. In CHP stops for traffic violations, almost everyone, Black or white, receives at least a warning, 98.5 percent and 98.6 percent, respectively. While being stopped for a traffic violation rarely results in a booking, both state and local law enforcement agencies book Black drivers more often than white, about 3.5 percent and 2.5 percent respectively.

Furthermore, when local law enforcement agencies make stops for traffic violations, Black drivers are more likely to experience more intrusive actions that white drivers. For example, in 8.6 percent of these stops by the 14 police and sheriff's departments, Black drivers were handcuffed compared to 3.5 percent of white drivers. For CHP, the shares were 1.5 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively.

Traffic stops that involve an officer's weapon are very unusual, but Blacks are overrepresented in those instances (0.17% and 0.05% of traffic stops for Black and white drivers, respectively). Stops made for reasonable suspicion or of individuals with a warrant or on parole/probation are markedly more likely to involve a weapon than traffic stops, and also more likely in stops of Blacks than whites. For example, when local law enforcement agencies stop for reasonable suspicion, interactions involve a weapon in almost twice the share of stops of Blacks compared to whites, 2.9 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively (for CHP stops for reasonable suspicion, the shares are 2.4% for Blacks and 1.6% for whites).

Given the notable differences between CHP and the local law enforcement agencies, and the type of stop, we also estimated regression models restricted to traffic stops separately for statewide and local law enforcement agencies (results shown in Technical Appendix Tables B17-B21). Broadly, the results show that the estimated Black-white gaps in the post-stop experiences in traffic stops made by police and sheriff departments are much less sensitive to inclusion of demographics and the contextual factors included in our analysis. In other words, the notable disparity discussed above remains, and additionally, fully adjusted Black-white gaps in traffic stops made by CHP are substantially smaller. Black-white disparities in the likelihood of being booked, however, are not appreciably smaller for CHP traffic stops than for those made by local law enforcement agencies, and are greater once we adjust for all of the factors.

Our analysis of the 2019 RIPA data, which includes nearly 4 million stops from the 15 largest law enforcement agencies in California, reveals notable differences across race/ethnicity in experiences with law enforcement during a stop, differences that significantly stem from context of the stop, agency and jurisdiction characteristics, and personal civilian traits. However, even after adjusting for these factors, stark racial disparities persist-particularly between Black and white civilians-and may represent a conservative estimate of racial bias.

Black Californians are significantly more likely to be stopped than white Californians, and experiences during stops and outcomes afterward also vary. We find that Black individuals are more than twice as likely to be searched as white individuals. Overall, searches yield some kind of contraband or evidence in slightly more than one-fifth of searches.

Black people are also overrepresented among stops not leading to enforcement as well as in those leading to an arrest. The seemingly contradictory pattern is partly due to a higher share of Black people stopped for reasonable suspicion, having an outstanding warrant, or being on parole/probation-contexts where stops are investigatory and do not lead to any enforcement, or they are more serious and may result in a booking.

The lower share of searches yielding contraband and higher shares of stops without enforcement suggest such practices may be inefficient. Similarly, experiences during a stop are more intrusive for Black individuals than white, even when we adjust for differences in contexts.

We also find that Black people are at least twice as likely as whites to experience so-called intrusive outcomes, ranging from being asked to step out of a vehicle, to being handcuffed, to the stop involving a weapon. While relatively rare, officers report that in about 0.4 percent of stops involve an officer's weapon. Stops of Black individuals, however, are three times more likely to involve a weapon than stops of white individuals. Accounting for context reduces the disparity, but stops of Black Californians are almost twice as likely to involve an officer's weapon as stops of white Californians.

These racial inequities persist despite adjusting for context, providing empirical support for concerns historically voiced by communities of color. However, context around a stop does explain part of the observed racial gap. Differences in context-such as whether a person was stopped because of a traffic violation versus an outstanding arrest warrant-expose officers to varying risk levels when interacting with the community. Law enforcement might examine whether traffic stops in particular can be reduced without leading to any negative impact on public safety.

While traffic stops are intended to make our streets and highways safer to travel on, they represent the majority of stops and interactions between officers and citizens, generating many of the inequities discussed in the report around experiences with a stop. This focus holds particular relevance for police and sheriff departments, where more than one-third of traffic stops are for an equipment or non-moving violation (e.g., expired registration or overly tinted windows). By reducing these stops, law enforcement could mitigate some of the racially disparate experiences communities of color face, as well as reduce the risk of injury present for both officers and individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Disparities in Law Enforcement Stops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent debate over police reforms has centered on how law enforcement engages with people of color, prompted by continuing concerns over racial inequities in criminal justice. In our analysis of data for nearly 4 million stops, we examine how interactions-ranging from search to use of force-differ for Black and white people, while considering factors such as stop context and law enforcement agency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Racial Profiling in LA - Look at sections 2.2 and 2.4

# data[].attributes.subject
Racial Profiling in LA - Look at sections 2.2 and 2.4

# data[].attributes.headline
10 things we know about race and policing - Graphs and Statistics!!

# data[].attributes.subject
10 things we know about race and policing - Graphs and Statistics!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Days of protests across the United States in the wake of George Floyd's death in the custody of Minneapolis police have brought new attention to questions about police officers' attitudes toward black Americans, protesters and others. The public's views of the police, in turn, are also in the spotlight. Here's a roundup of Pew Research Center survey findings from the past few years about the intersection of race and law enforcement.

How we did this

Most of the findings in this post were drawn from two previous Pew Research Center reports: one on police officers and policing issues published in January 2017, and one on the state of race relations in the United States published in April 2019. We also drew from a September 2016 report on how black and white Americans view police in their communities. (The questions asked for these reports, as well as their responses, can be found in the reports' accompanying "topline" file or files.)

The 2017 police report was based on two surveys. One was of 7,917 law enforcement officers from 54 police and sheriff's departments across the U.S., designed and weighted to represent the population of officers who work in agencies that employ at least 100 full-time sworn law enforcement officers with general arrest powers, and conducted between May and August 2016. The other survey, of the general public, was conducted via the Center's American Trends Panel (ATP) in August and September 2016 among 4,538 respondents. (The 2016 report on how blacks and whites view police in their communities also was based on that survey.) More information on methodology is available here.

The 2019 race report was based on a survey conducted in January and February 2019. A total of 6,637 people responded, out of 9,402 who were sampled, for a response rate of 71%. The respondents included 5,599 from the ATP and oversamples of 530 non-Hispanic black and 508 Hispanic respondents sampled from Ipsos' KnowledgePanel. More information on methodology is available here.

4Nearly two-thirds of black adults (65%) say they've been in situations where people acted as if they were suspicious of them because of their race or ethnicity, while only a quarter of white adults say that's happened to them. Roughly a third of both Asian and Hispanic adults (34% and 37%, respectively) say they've been in such situations, the 2019 survey found.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 things we know about race and policing in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black adults are about five times as likely as whites to say they've been unfairly stopped by police because of their race or ethnicity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Court Cases - Racial Profiling: This page presents a number of court cases to look at.  Choose one that looks interesting to you. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Court Cases - Racial Profiling: This page presents a number of court cases to look at.  Choose one that looks interesting to you. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court Cases | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union — beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.

# data[].attributes.headline
WHO does racial profiling? In this article, scroll down and click on the link on that topic. 

# data[].attributes.subject
WHO does racial profiling? In this article, scroll down and click on the link on that topic. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Racial profiling is a longstanding and deeply troubling national problem despite claims that the United States has entered a "post-racial era." It occurs every day, in cities and towns across the country, when law enforcement and private security target people of color for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches without evidence of criminal activity and based on perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. Racial profiling is patently illegal, violating the U.S. Constitution's core promises of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Just as importantly, racial profiling is ineffective. It alienates communities from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

"National security" has long been used to justify the unconstitutional profiling of, and discrimination against, Muslim, Black, Brown, and other historically marginalized communities. Since September 11, 2001, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities have been discriminatorily profiled by federal law enforcement, local police, and border officers. We have also seen federal agencies use race, ethnicity, national origin, and/or religious beliefs to profile and target Asian Americans, particularly Chinese American scientists and academics.

The federal government's encouragement of unprecedented raids on immigrant communities and workplaces by local law enforcement in cooperation with federal agencies has targeted Latine communities in particular. These policies have unjustly expanded the purview of and undermined basic trust in local law enforcement, alienated immigrant communities, and created an atmosphere of fear. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has led to a dramatic increase in hate crimes against and racial profiling of people of color.

The ACLU's work on racial profiling encompasses major initiatives in litigation, public education, and advocacy, including lobbying for passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigating on behalf of individuals who have been victims of racial profiling by airlines, police, and government agencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Profiling | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU's work on racial profiling encompasses major initiatives in litigation, public education, and advocacy, including lobbying for passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigating on behalf of individuals who have been victims of racial profiling.

# data[].attributes.headline
WHEN does racial profiling happen?  In this article, scroll down and click on the link for that topic.

# data[].attributes.subject
WHEN does racial profiling happen?  In this article, scroll down and click on the link for that topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Racial profiling is a longstanding and deeply troubling national problem despite claims that the United States has entered a "post-racial era." It occurs every day, in cities and towns across the country, when law enforcement and private security target people of color for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches without evidence of criminal activity and based on perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. Racial profiling is patently illegal, violating the U.S. Constitution's core promises of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Just as importantly, racial profiling is ineffective. It alienates communities from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

"National security" has long been used to justify the unconstitutional profiling of, and discrimination against, Muslim, Black, Brown, and other historically marginalized communities. Since September 11, 2001, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities have been discriminatorily profiled by federal law enforcement, local police, and border officers. We have also seen federal agencies use race, ethnicity, national origin, and/or religious beliefs to profile and target Asian Americans, particularly Chinese American scientists and academics.

The federal government's encouragement of unprecedented raids on immigrant communities and workplaces by local law enforcement in cooperation with federal agencies has targeted Latine communities in particular. These policies have unjustly expanded the purview of and undermined basic trust in local law enforcement, alienated immigrant communities, and created an atmosphere of fear. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has led to a dramatic increase in hate crimes against and racial profiling of people of color.

The ACLU's work on racial profiling encompasses major initiatives in litigation, public education, and advocacy, including lobbying for passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigating on behalf of individuals who have been victims of racial profiling by airlines, police, and government agencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Profiling | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU's work on racial profiling encompasses major initiatives in litigation, public education, and advocacy, including lobbying for passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigating on behalf of individuals who have been victims of racial profiling.

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT is racial profiling?  In this article, scroll down for that topic. 

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT is racial profiling?  In this article, scroll down for that topic. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Racial profiling is a longstanding and deeply troubling national problem despite claims that the United States has entered a "post-racial era." It occurs every day, in cities and towns across the country, when law enforcement and private security target people of color for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches without evidence of criminal activity and based on perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. Racial profiling is patently illegal, violating the U.S. Constitution's core promises of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Just as importantly, racial profiling is ineffective. It alienates communities from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

"National security" has long been used to justify the unconstitutional profiling of, and discrimination against, Muslim, Black, Brown, and other historically marginalized communities. Since September 11, 2001, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities have been discriminatorily profiled by federal law enforcement, local police, and border officers. We have also seen federal agencies use race, ethnicity, national origin, and/or religious beliefs to profile and target Asian Americans, particularly Chinese American scientists and academics.

The federal government's encouragement of unprecedented raids on immigrant communities and workplaces by local law enforcement in cooperation with federal agencies has targeted Latine communities in particular. These policies have unjustly expanded the purview of and undermined basic trust in local law enforcement, alienated immigrant communities, and created an atmosphere of fear. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has led to a dramatic increase in hate crimes against and racial profiling of people of color.

The ACLU's work on racial profiling encompasses major initiatives in litigation, public education, and advocacy, including lobbying for passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigating on behalf of individuals who have been victims of racial profiling by airlines, police, and government agencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Profiling | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU's work on racial profiling encompasses major initiatives in litigation, public education, and advocacy, including lobbying for passage of data collection and anti-profiling legislation and litigating on behalf of individuals who have been victims of racial profiling.

# data[].attributes.headline
Office of Environmental Justice (part of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency)

# data[].attributes.subject
Office of Environmental Justice (part of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mission, organization and contact information for OLEM, which provides policy, guidance and direction for EPA emergency response and waste programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Justice | Flatland in Focus

# data[].attributes.headline
Red lining (started in the 1950s) keeping people of color from renting or buying houses in white communities - What does that have to do with environmental justice?  This video explains it clearly.  Take notes!

# data[].attributes.subject
Red lining (started in the 1950s) keeping people of color from renting or buying houses in white communities - What does that have to do with environmental justice?  This video explains it clearly.  Take notes!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From the Ground Up: Environmental Justice in Elizabeth, New Jersey