U.S. Supreme Court Declares State Marriage Bans for Same-Sex Couples Unconstitutional

June 26, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a sweeping and historic decision that affords gay and lesbian couples the same legal right to marry and recognition of their marriages as different-sex couples. The ruling invalidates discriminatory laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and as a practical matter, requires all 50 states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“The Supreme Court today welcomed same-sex couples fully into the American family. Gay and lesbian couples and our families may be at peace knowing that our simple request to be treated like everyone else – that is, to be able to participate in the dignity of marriage – has finally been granted,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and HIV Project. “Today’s historic victory comes on the backs of same-sex couples and advocates who have worked for decades to dismantle harmful stereotypes and unjust laws in the quest for equal treatment.”

The court’s 5-4 opinion holds that state marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Recognizing that “marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death,” the Court held that the Constitution grants to same-sex couples the right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

"Today's decision has been 50 years in the making and will stand with Brown vs. Board of Education as one of the landmark civil rights moments of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Now we take the battle for full legal equality to the states, where 31 states have yet to pass any statewide LGBT non-discrimination laws.  The wind is at our backs, and we are now on the cusp of achieving full legal equality for LGBT Americans across the country."

The case is captioned Obergefell v. Hodges and is made up of cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  The American Civil Liberties Union represented plaintiffs in Kentucky cases Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear and in Ohio case Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges with private firms.

“We’re very excited for our clients, and for other families all over the country, who no longer have to have their relationships relegated to second-tier status,” said Dan Canon, attorney at Clay, Daniel, Walton and Adams representing Kentucky plaintiffs. “This is the right decision – one that puts the U.S. on the right side of both history and humanity.”

More than fifty courts ruled in favor of marriage equality following the Supreme Court’s watershed 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In January 2015, the high court granted review of an aberrant Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld marriage bans in the four states – the first appeals court to do so after Windsor.

“We started this case with a dying married man – John Arthur – and a death certificate. Without recognition of his marriage, this last document recording his life on earth would be forever wrong.  Now the Supreme Court has ruled that Ohio must recognize his marriage and Jim Obergefell will be properly recorded as his surviving spouse,” said Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch representing Ohio plaintiffs. “This ruling will protect LGBT families from cradle to grave in medical and all other respects.  May John Arthur rest in peace.  We are thrilled and honored to help make this ruling a reality.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a sweeping and historic decision that affords gay and lesbian couples the same legal right to marry and recognition of their marriages as different-sex couples. The ruling invalidates discriminatory laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and as a practical matter, requires all 50 states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“The Supreme Court today welcomed same-sex couples fully into the American family. Gay and lesbian couples and our families may be at peace knowing that our simple request to be treated like everyone else – that is, to be able to participate in the dignity of marriage – has finally been granted,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and HIV Project. “Today’s historic victory comes on the backs of same-sex couples and advocates who have worked for decades to dismantle harmful stereotypes and unjust laws in the quest for equal treatment.”

The court’s 5-4 opinion holds that state marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Recognizing that “marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death,” the Court held that the Constitution grants to same-sex couples the right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

"Today's decision has been 50 years in the making and will stand with Brown vs. Board of Education as one of the landmark civil rights moments of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Now we take the battle for full legal equality to the states, where 31 states have yet to pass any statewide LGBT non-discrimination laws.  The wind is at our backs, and we are now on the cusp of achieving full legal equality for LGBT Americans across the country."

The case is captioned Obergefell v. Hodges and is made up of cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  The American Civil Liberties Union represented plaintiffs in Kentucky cases Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear and in Ohio case Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges with private firms.

“We’re very excited for our clients, and for other families all over the country, who no longer have to have their relationships relegated to second-tier status,” said Dan Canon, attorney at Clay, Daniel, Walton and Adams representing Kentucky plaintiffs. “This is the right decision – one that puts the U.S. on the right side of both history and humanity.”

More than fifty courts ruled in favor of marriage equality following the Supreme Court’s watershed 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In January 2015, the high court granted review of an aberrant Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld marriage bans in the four states – the first appeals court to do so after Windsor.

“We started this case with a dying married man – John Arthur – and a death certificate. Without recognition of his marriage, this last document recording his life on earth would be forever wrong.  Now the Supreme Court has ruled that Ohio must recognize his marriage and Jim Obergefell will be properly recorded as his surviving spouse,” said Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch representing Ohio plaintiffs. “This ruling will protect LGBT families from cradle to grave in medical and all other respects.  May John Arthur rest in peace.  We are thrilled and honored to help make this ruling a reality.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a sweeping and historic decision that affords gay and lesbian couples the same legal right to marry and recognition of their marriages as different-sex couples. The ruling invalidates discriminatory laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and as a practical matter, requires all 50 states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“The Supreme Court today welcomed same-sex couples fully into the American family. Gay and lesbian couples and our families may be at peace knowing that our simple request to be treated like everyone else – that is, to be able to participate in the dignity of marriage – has finally been granted,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and HIV Project. “Today’s historic victory comes on the backs of same-sex couples and advocates who have worked for decades to dismantle harmful stereotypes and unjust laws in the quest for equal treatment.”

The court’s 5-4 opinion holds that state marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Recognizing that “marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death,” the Court held that the Constitution grants to same-sex couples the right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

"Today's decision has been 50 years in the making and will stand with Brown vs. Board of Education as one of the landmark civil rights moments of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Now we take the battle for full legal equality to the states, where 31 states have yet to pass any statewide LGBT non-discrimination laws.  The wind is at our backs, and we are now on the cusp of achieving full legal equality for LGBT Americans across the country."

The case is captioned Obergefell v. Hodges and is made up of cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  The American Civil Liberties Union represented plaintiffs in Kentucky cases Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear and in Ohio case Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges with private firms.

“We’re very excited for our clients, and for other families all over the country, who no longer have to have their relationships relegated to second-tier status,” said Dan Canon, attorney at Clay, Daniel, Walton and Adams representing Kentucky plaintiffs. “This is the right decision – one that puts the U.S. on the right side of both history and humanity.”

More than fifty courts ruled in favor of marriage equality following the Supreme Court’s watershed 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In January 2015, the high court granted review of an aberrant Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld marriage bans in the four states – the first appeals court to do so after Windsor.

“We started this case with a dying married man – John Arthur – and a death certificate. Without recognition of his marriage, this last document recording his life on earth would be forever wrong.  Now the Supreme Court has ruled that Ohio must recognize his marriage and Jim Obergefell will be properly recorded as his surviving spouse,” said Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch representing Ohio plaintiffs. “This ruling will protect LGBT families from cradle to grave in medical and all other respects.  May John Arthur rest in peace.  We are thrilled and honored to help make this ruling a reality.”

“The overwhelming change in public opinion regarding marriage equality is astonishing, even to those of us who have worked on LGBT rights for decades,” said Jeffrey A. Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri. “Today’s decision makes marriage equality the law of the land. This is a day that will be noted in history books for Missouri’s same-sex couples, and all Americans, who had to wait to obtain a marriage license so they can marry in their home state.” 

“Given the clarity of the Supreme Court’s mandate, couples should have no trouble whatsoever obtaining a marriage license in any Missouri county, beginning today,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri.  “Keep in mind that the ACLU is available to resolve any problems that might arise.”

“It is gratifying that now other same-sex couples will be able to enjoy the emotional, legal and financial security that marriage has given our family and, in particular, our young daughter.  The laws of our country are now in sync with the general public’s acceptance of marriage equality,” said Jim MacDonald and Andy Schuerman, one of the 10 married plaintiff couples in the ACLU’s lawsuit  Barrier v. Vasterling. 

“We are ecstatic, not only for ourselves, but for all Missouri couples who will no longer have to wait to marry in their home state,” said Angela Curtis and Shannon McGinty, plaintiffs in the ACLU of Missouri’s lawsuit,Lawson v. Jackson County Recorder of Deeds. “We are no longer in limbo and can set a date and complete our wedding plans.” 

  

ACLU Asks State Court to Release Grand Juror Doe From Secrecy Requirement

May 29, 2015

Once again, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri is seeking to release Grand Juror Doe from the oath of secrecy—this time through the state court instead of federal court. The change is because on May 5, U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel ruled that the Missouri courts should be given the opportunity to resolve this issue before Juror Doe pursues a federal constitutional challenge.

Grand Juror Doe, who served on the grand jury which investigated the killing of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, is suing Robert McCulloch, prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County. Doe would like to talk about the experience of serving on a grand jury, the evidence presented and the investigation in a way that could contribute to the public dialogue concerning race relations.

“We were encouraged that the federal court clearly understood our claim that this is a unique situation and Juror Doe deserves to be able to speak freely,” explains Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “Without permission from a court, grand jurors would be committing a crime to discuss their service.”

“We know that racial injustices permeate multiple levels of government, and it is the job of the ACLU to seek transparency, accountability and reforms for effective change,” says Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The public, and our legislators, deserve a complete picture of how the grand jury process operated in the Darren Wilson investigation and we are fighting so Juror Doe can add to the conversation.”

Cooperating attorneys on this case are Eric Sowers, Ferne Wolf and Joshua Pierson, from Sowers & Wolf Attorneys at Law. A copy of the petition and other court documents can be found on the ACLU of Missouri website.

ACLU of Missouri Holds Annual Meeting and Reception June 20

May 19, 2015

You are invited to the ACLU of Missouri's Annual Meeting from 3-4 p.m., followed by a reception, on Saturday, June 20, at our Kansas City and St. Louis offices.

The meeting is open to the public, but members of the ACLU have the power to elect our board leadership and lay the foundation for future civil liberties victories in Missouri! Attendees will also receive an update on the work of the ACLU of Missouri.

Attendance at the 2015 Annual Meeting is free, but we ask that you RSVP to dread@aclu-mo.org if you plan to attend.

2015 ACLU of Missouri Annual Meeting
Saturday, June 20 from 3 to 4 p.m.
Immediately followed by a reception.

ACLU of Missouri's Kansas City Office
3601 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64111

ACLU of Missouri's St. Louis Office
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, MO 63108

We hope to see you on Saturday, June 20!

2015 Legislative Session Comes to a Close

May 15, 2015

by Sarah Rossi, Director of Advocacy and Policy for the ACLU of Missouri

IT’S OVER.

So what do we have to show for it?

HB 187: Immigrant Rights

A bill that would have forced immigrant students who live in, work in, and contribute to the economy of Missouri to pay international tuition at Missouri colleges and universities is dead. The ACLU lobbied hard against this bill, particularly the international tuition provision. Legislators listened, and those who care deeply about an educated workforce and making Missouri schools appealing to students from all backgrounds refrained from pushing this bill to passage. While another, less detrimental, anti-immigrant student bill is on the Governor’s desk; we will be asking him for a VETO and will continue to advocate for greater educational access for immigrant students.

HB 104: LGBT Equality

The Student Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) bill, which would have given religious student groups special rights on campuses —  namely to discriminate against religious minorities and LGBT students, died while waiting to be discussed on the Senate floor. The ACLU led the charge against this bill. Campus non-discrimination policies exist for a reason. Public schools and the student groups that receive public funds should be open to all students. Religious organizations should not receive exemptions from rules that every other group must follow. Not only is that unequal treatment, it is a violation of the separation of church and state put forth in the First Amendment.

HB 762: Police Accountability

A former law enforcement officer’s bill, to restrict the state from mandating body cameras and to make closed records of all body camera and dashboard camera footage, died one step before it hit the Senate floor. The ACLU, along with various press associations, lobbied against HB 762 every step of the way. The ACLU argued that the bill was too broad, too fast, and did not serve the interests of the public, the press, or those who may be the target of violent police action. An offer was made to work with the Representative who sponsored this bill during the interim in order to find a compromise that will address the concerns of all parties. We sincerely hope he takes advantage of that offer.  

SB 93: Free Speech on Public Campuses

This bill creates the Campus Free Expression Act to protect free expression on the campuses of public institutions of higher education. We had great advocacy support from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Alliance Defending Freedom. This bill passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support. Student groups will no longer have to worry about being cordoned off on in a remote part of campus and will be able to proclaim their messages widely.

HB 120: Privacy

Of the two bills that the ACLU helped draft and advocate for, HB 120 made it the furthest. This bill would have protected students and employees from schools and employers snooping around personal social media accounts. The ACLU worked with legislators to include extensive privacy protections for students, alongside the provisions protecting employees. After two successful hearings in the House, nearly unanimous bipartisan support on the House floor, and another successful hearing in the Senate, the bill stalled on the Senate floor and was not brought up for debate. We will try to pass this legislation again next year, building on this session’s momentum.

A more extensive legislative report is coming soon, but rest assured that the ACLU worked hard for our members and supporters from the first gaveling in of the legislature, to the moment of sine die. This was a very successful legislative session for civil libertarians, with very few bad bills hitting the Governor’s desk, while gaining forward momentum on some key ACLU legislation. 

Mustafa Abdullah to Receive ADC's Excellence in Advocacy Award

May 13, 2015

The  American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) announced today that they will present the "Excellence in Advocacy Award" to Mustafa Abdullah, program associate at the ACLU of Missouri. The award will be given at the annual Civil Rights Luncheon on Friday, June 12, as part of the 35th Anniversary ADC National Convention in Washington, DC. 

The ADC stated that Mustafa Abdullah has demonstrated a strong commitment to civil engagement through advocacy, interfaith work, and community organizing. He is a co-founder of Muslims for Ferguson, an organization of American Muslims who are committed to seeking justice for Michael Brown and supporting relevant important campaigns in Ferguson. 

When the law enforcement cracked down on protesters in Ferguson last summer following the death of Michael Brown, Mustafa organized the Muslim community to act in solidarity with the issues facing the African-American community in Ferguson.

“In seeking justice in Ferguson, I was motivated by the verses in the Qur’an that say if one part of the body is in pain, then the whole body wakes up in a fevered state,"  said Mustafa Abdullah. "Muslims for Ferguson rallied to acknowledge the pain of the Brown family and the entire community to support them in their grief and frustration.”

Past recipients of the Excellence in Advocacy Award include Hilary Shelton of the NAACP, Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and advocates from the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC).

Federal Court Sends ACLU’s Grand Juror Secrecy Case to State Court

May 05, 2015

On May 5, U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel decided to abstain in the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri’s lawsuit on behalf of Grand Juror Doe. The Court found that Grand Juror Doe may ask the St. Louis County Circuit Court to be released from the oath of secrecy based on St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch’s “disclosures and the unique circumstances of this case.” The court also found that Missouri laws might be interpreted to allow Doe to speak.

“I find that Missouri courts should be given the opportunity to resolve this issue before Juror pursues a federal constitutional challenge,” wrote Judge Sippel. “There are state court remedies available to give Juror the relief she seeks. Abstention will not impact Juror’s ability to litigate her right to speak about her grand jury experience.”

“The court refused Mr. McCulloch’s request to rule in his favor on the merits of Grand Juror Doe’s First Amendment claim,” explains Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “Instead, the judge found that under Missouri state law there might be remedies available to give Grand Juror Doe the right to speak freely, without a federal court intervening to decide the constitutionality of Missouri’s statutes. “In the coming days, we will determine how this case will continue to move forward.”

Doe, who served on the grand jury which investigated the killing of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, filed suit against Robert McCulloch, prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County, on Jan. 5. The ACLU of Missouri represented Grand Juror Doe because, without permission from a court, it is a crime for grand jurors to discuss their service. McCulloch was named as the defendant since he would be the person to bring charges against Doe.

“Juror Doe has a unique perspective and can give the public a fuller picture of how our government works,” explains Rothert. “Juror Doe is eager to speak about race relations and grand jury proceedings in Missouri and we are working diligently to make that happen.”

“The racial injustices uncovered after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown permeate multiple levels of government, and we need transparency, accountability and reforms for effective change,” says Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The public and our legislators, who are considering several bills that propose solutions, deserve a complete view of how the grand jury process working in the Darren Wilson investigation and it would be valuable for Juror Doe to add to the conversation.”

Cooperating attorneys on this case are Eric Sowers, Ferne Wolf and Joshua Pierson, from Sowers & Wolf Attorneys at Law. A copy of the complaint and other court documents can be found on the ACLU of Missouri website.

ACLU of Missouri Hires Jacob Beaumont to Lead Philanthropy Efforts

May 04, 2015

Jacob Beaumont assumed his new role as director of philanthropy for the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri in April of 2015. He is responsible for overseeing the implementation and advancement of all aspects of the organization’s development program.

Prior to joining the ACLU of Missouri, Jacob worked in politics, serving as senior staff to candidates at the local, state and federal levels in Kansas and Nevada. He has worked extensively in campaign finance and campaign management, helping to ensure that candidates at every level were not only able to raise the funds needed to run for office, but also help implement those resources in the most impactful way.

Previously, Jacob has served as development director to Headquarters Counseling Center—a non-profit that provides crisis counseling services—and as a consultant to non-profits and political organizations across the United States, helping fledgling campaigns and struggling organizations find financial stability, and putting them on the path to sustainable growth.

Jacob earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and History from the University of Kansas.

ACLU Statement on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' Decision to Delay Marriage Equality Hearings

April 29, 2015

The following joint statement was issued by the ACLU of Nebraska, the ACLU of Missouri, and the national ACLU regarding the 8th Circuit Court of appeals decision to delay the hearing on cases involving challenges to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage until after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the same issue, which is expected by the end of June. The ACLU is counsel in the Missouri and Nebraska cases, which, along with cases from North Dakota and Arkansas, were scheduled for oral arguments on May 12.

"Every day that same-sex couples continue to be denied the protections and dignity that come with marriage causes serious harms to families. But after yesterday’s arguments in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, we are hopeful that very soon all Americans will have the freedom to marry the person they love regardless of their sexual orientation. As the landscape rapidly changes, more and more businesses, faith leaders and policy makers see that the discrimination enshrined in the constitutions of Nebraska and Missouri is contradictory to Midwestern values. Same-sex couples have waited too long for their love to be recognized. The ACLU will continue our efforts to end discrimination faced daily by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Midwesterners."

Category: LGBT Rights

ACLU of Missouri Releases Mobile Justice App for iPhones

April 27, 2015

Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri released the iPhone version of a smart phone app called the ACLU of Missouri Mobile Justice app — an empowerment tool for those who feel their civil rights are being violated by law enforcement officers.

The iPhone app, which can be downloaded for free through the ACLU of Missouri website, mirrors the Mobile Justice Android app released in November. They have three main functions and Know Your Rights information. Record allows citizens to capture exchanges between police officers and themselves or other community members in audio and video files that are automatically sent to the ACLU of Missouri. Witness sends out an alert when someone is stopped by police so that community members can move toward the location and document the interaction. Report gives the app user the option to complete an incident report and send it directly to the ACLU of Missouri for review. Know Your Rights provides an overview of what rights protect you when you are stopped by law enforcement officers.

The Mobile Justice Android app, released last November, has been downloaded approximately 2,500 times. “We’re expecting that number to double quickly because we had a lot of people asking when the iPhone version would be ready,” said Sarah Rossi, ACLU of Missouri director of advocacy and policy.

“Mobile Justice can be an effective and empowering tool for Missourians who want to exercise their right to record the police,” Rossi adds. “It also offers a handy ‘Know Your Rights’ section with a link to our website.” So far, the affiliate has received 571 videos and 118 reports.

A grant from the National ACLU funded the development of the Mobile Justice app by Quadrant 2 – the same developer that created the Stop and Frisk Watch app for the New York Civil Liberties Union to address racial profiling. Quadrant 2 also released Mobile Justice apps for ACLU affiliates in Mississippi, Oregon and Nebraska and is working with other ACLU affiliates across the country to do the same. The ACLU of Missouri is the first to issue the iOS version of Mobile Justice.

Learn more about the ACLU of Missouri Mobile Justice app and download it through a link on our Mobile Justice homepage.

Category: Racial Justice

ACLU Files Suit Regarding Police Harassment in a North St. Louis Municipality

April 21, 2015

Years before Ferguson erupted in the summer of 2014, the St. Louis NAACP had been receiving reports of corruption and abusive policing in St. Louis County municipalities and reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union for help. Today, the ACLU of Missouri filed a lawsuit against Pine Lawn on behalf of Adrian Wright, who was falsely arrested.

Wright was critical of former Pine Lawn Mayor Sylvester Caldwell, who used Wright’s mug shot in campaign literature to discredit his endorsement of Caldwell’s opponent for mayor. “I was wrongly accused of running a stop sign and failing to yield to a fictional emergency vehicle, threatened with a taser and arrested by a Pine Lawn police officer,” said Wright, an 80-year-old who was the Pine Lawn mayor before Caldwell. “Although all charges were dismissed, city officials ensured that my ‘perp walk’ was recorded for broadcast by a local TV station and Sylvester Caldwell later published my mug shot in campaign literature to falsely portray me as a criminal and discredit my endorsement of Caldwell’s mayoral opponent.”

“The misuse of police is a problem that is not unique to Pine Lawn,” said Adolphus Pruitt, president of the St. Louis NAACP. “While this is an extreme example, we believe there are other instances that are certainly as bad as what we’ve seen in Ferguson.”

“People become police officers out of a desire to protect and serve the community, not to oppress residents and do the bidding of the financial or political city masters,” said Jeffrey A. Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The NAACP and the ACLU are looking at, and coming after, municipalities that have lost their way.” 

Pictured, from the left, are plaintiff Adrian Wright, Mrs. Wright and Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri.

WebSanity Top Secret