"Real ID" Bill Could Become Law Without Congressional Review Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Whistleblower Patriot Act "Sneak and Peek" Should Disappear into the Sunset Defense Dept Says Releasing Torture Photos Would Violate Geneva Conventions In the States: Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting New D.C. Law Protects Protest Rights YOU CAN HELP PROTECT OUR BASIC FREEDOMS by joining with over 400,000 card-carrying members of the ACLU. Our rights as individuals -- the very foundation of our great democracy -- depend on our willingness to defend them, and as an ACLU member, you'll be doing your part. Click now to safeguard our Bill of Rights by becoming an ACLU member. Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting A lesbian who has spent her life helping children is challenging a Missouri policy barring lesbian and gay people from serving as foster parents. Represented by the ACLU, Lisa Johnston is challenging the policy in state court after an administrative judge denied her application solely because she is a lesbian. Johnston has a deep commitment to helping children -- in her current job with Head Start, she consults with childcare homes on developmentally appropriate curricula. In 2003, she applied to the Department of Social Services (DSS) to become a foster parent to a child that she and her partner hoped to raise together. After completing seven of nine foster-parent training sessions, DSS notified Johnston that because she is a lesbian, it would no longer consider her for placement. Johnston appealed the decision, and although the administrative judge found her "exceptionally" qualified to foster parent, he denied her application in March 2005 solely because of her sexual orientation. On April 8, the ACLU filed a petition in the Jackson County Circuit Court asking the court to review the order from DSS. The ACLU charges that DSS's decision banning Johnston from foster parenting is illegal. Under Missouri law, every potential foster parent is already required to undergo strict screening before being qualified to foster parent. Categorical bans like the one enacted by DSS don't protect children, but merely unnecessarily disqualify people who could be good parents. Get more information about this case. New Resource for LGBT parents: The ACLU recently launched a new online toolkit designed to provide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents with the information they need to protect their relationships with their children. Click on the parenting section at aclu.org/getequal. New D.C. Law Protects Protest Rights The D.C. City Council has approved a new law that strengthens the First Amendment rights of peaceful protesters and limits police use of "protest pens" and mass arrests. The "First Amendment Rights and Police Practices Act of 2004" declares that people have a right to demonstrate "near the object of their protest so they may be seen and heard," and makes clear that people do not need police permission to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of speech. The law also prohibits police from arresting an entire assembly when only a few people are breaking the law, requires police to display visible identification when handling demonstrations, restricts the use of police lines to entrap demonstrators who have not broken any law, and prohibits the use of tear gas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters. Read the complete press release. Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online -- forward this newsletter to a friend. May 12, 2005 The Real ID Act, which sets the stage for a national ID card system, will probably be enacted without any hearings or debate because Congress attached the controversial measure to the appropriations bill that includes funding for military operations. The legislation also rolls back asylum laws and attacks immigrants. "The Real ID Act was sold as an illegal-immigration fix bill, when in fact it reduces every American's freedom," said Timothy Sparapani, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The provisions of this bill could not have passed on their own. Sadly, their inclusion in a 'must pass' bill means that immigrants and citizens alike will face an unnecessary loss of freedom and privacy." "The federalization of drivers' licenses, and the culling of all information into massive databases, creates a system ripe for identity theft," Sparapani said. "New standards could place our most private information - including photographs, address and social security numbers - into the hands of identity thieves." The House passed the underlying measure last week; the Senate is expected to vote this week. By passing this bill -- the REAL ID Act -- Congress created a national ID system and failed to protect your privacy. Please write your Members of Congress today to express your disappointment in their failure to prevent passage of this legislation. Urge them to oppose future legislation that would infringe on your privacy and to block appropriations for implementing the REAL ID Act. Take Action! Click here to contact your Members of Congress and express your disappointment. Learn more about the dangers of the Real ID Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals last week upheld the dismissal of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' case, despite a Justice Department report saying that Edmonds' whistleblower allegations were "the most significant factor" in the FBI's decision to terminate her. Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting serious security breaches and misconduct. Edmonds challenged her retaliatory dismissal by filing a federal lawsuit, but her case was dismissed last July after Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the so-called "state secrets privilege" and retroactively classified briefings to Congress related to her case. The state secrets privilege has historically been rarely invoked, and even more rarely employed to dismiss an entire case at the outset. When properly invoked, it permits the government to block disclosure of evidence that would cause harm to national security. In the Edmonds case, however, the government used the privilege to urge dismissal of the entire lawsuit, insisting that every aspect of Edmonds' case involves state secrets - including where she was born and what languages she speaks. "This decision endangers us all. If government employees cannot report security breaches without retaliation, then national security, and all Americans, suffer," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, who argued the case on behalf of Edmonds. "We are determined to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court." Read more about the Edmonds case. Lawmakers met last week to examine sections of the Patriot Act, including section 213, which authorizes "sneak and peek" searches, permitting unlimited delayed notification to the targets of search warrants. These warrants are available in all criminal cases where the federal government says notification would result in destruction of evidence, danger, flight from prosecution, intimidation of a witness, or serious jeopardy to a criminal investigation. The ACLU has long argued that this catch-all "serious jeopardy" clause is too broad and must be narrowly curtailed. When the Patriot Act was passed, Congress made sure some of the most extreme powers would "sunset" this year unless Congress reauthorized them. While "sneak and peek" is not one of them, the ACLU and its allies have called for Congress to modify this power to ensure that proper checks are put into place. In July 2003, the House adopted - by an extraordinary margin - an amendment that would bar federal law enforcement from implementing "sneak and peek" search warrants. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID), along with bipartisan allies in both chambers of Congress, has introduced the "Security and Freedom Enhancement Act." The measure would make corrections to the Patriot Act - including section 213 - to bring it back in line with the Constitution. Learn more about the ACLU's work to bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution. In a stunning act of hypocrisy and chutzpah, the government has claimed that turning over Iraq torture photos would violate the Geneva Conventions. Until now, the Bush Administration has shown only contempt for the Geneva Conventions, and it has built its policies dismissing the application of international humanitarian law. "The Geneva Conventions were intended to protect prisoners, not to provide governments with a basis for withholding evidence that prisoners have been maltreated," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer. "It's disgraceful that the Defense Department is attempting to contort the Conventions in this way." Through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the ACLU and the NYCLU have sought the release of photographs and videotapes, in addition to documents, that would shed light on the systemic abuse of detainees held by the United States overseas. The Defense Department has refused, stating that it would violate the government's obligations under the Geneva Conventions. To mark the one-year anniversary of the release of photos from Abu Ghraib, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes" and PBS's "NOW." Details and transcripts from both appearances can be found here: "60 Minutes," 5/02/2005 PBS "NOW," 4/29/2005 Click here to learn more about the lawsuit. Privacy Statement This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.