People with disabilities have a right to equal access under the law, including equal access to voting, education, and protections in the criminal legal system. But too often, policies and practices at the polls, and in schools, jails, and prisons violate our fundamental rights. These violations hinder access to the ballot, risk students’ health and safety, and trap people with disabilities in the carceral system.

At the ACLU, we’re fighting back in the courts and in legislatures to help people with disabilities access their rights. In honor of Disability Pride Month this July, we’re highlighting a few of our recent battles and wins for disability rights across the country.

More than 250 bills restricting access to voting have been introduced in 43 states since the 2020 election. While most of these laws are intended to suppress the votes of people of color, the effect of these laws falls most heavily on low-income people with disabilities — who are very often in communities of color. People with disabilities have faced years of barriers to voting, including inaccessible polling sites, inaccessible online voter registration, and inaccessible voting machines that polling staff can’t operate. Now, people with disabilities are also facing additional barriers at the polls and with voting by mail. While in some states, the pandemic has made voting by mail more accessible, in others, politicians have passed voter suppression bills that make casting a ballot more difficult or even impossible for voters with disabilities — especially for those who are Black.

The ACLU has active litigation tackling this issue in many states. In Georgia and in Texas, we’re challenging voter suppression laws that make it harder for all residents to vote — especially for people with disabilities in low-income communities of color. We argue that these restrictions not only violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, but also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We won’t stop fighting until every eligible voter has equal access to the ballot.

Students with disabilities have a right to a public education, with their peers, and without risking their health and safety. This includes students whose disability makes them more vulnerable to severe complications from COVID-19. However, in the highly charged political climate we are living in, some states chose to prohibit schools from being able to require face masks — even at the height of the pandemic. This forced students with disabilities and their families to make an impossible decision: go to school and risk contracting COVID-19? Or stay home and lose out on their education?

The ACLU — along with our grassroots partners and affiliates — sued on behalf of these students with disabilities. We successfully argued that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require public schools to provide equal access for students with disabilities. They cannot segregate students with disabilities by making them go to school remotely. And, they must provide reasonable modifications — even to state laws — if this is necessary to give a student with a disability equal access to their education.

In South Carolina, we challenged one such state ban last year in federal court alongside our allies — and won an order blocking its enforcement. The district court made it clear that the state’s ban on school mask mandates violates federal disability rights law because it discriminates against students with disabilities in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

In Iowa, we also filed suit challenging the state’s ban on mask mandates in schools and won in the district and appeals court. While the Eighth Circuit has since ruled that the injunction is moot — because students can now get vaccinations and treatment — our lawsuit helped instill important protections for students with disabilities at the height of the pandemic.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, states continue to challenge these rulings — but the ACLU will keep fighting to ensure all children with disabilities have equal access to their education.

American Civil Liberties Union

Bans on School Mask Mandates Discriminate Against Disabled Kids | American Civil Liberties Union

Prisons and jails are the lands that forgot the ADA. People with disabilities have a right to reasonable accommodations for their disability while incarcerated, on probation, or on parole — but prisons and jails operate as if these laws don’t apply to them.

For example, for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, prisons and jails are required to provide access to American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, real time captioning, pocket talkers, and other auxiliary aids and services. But they seldom do. When prisons fail to provide these accommodations, incarcerated deaf people may never be able to learn the rules of the prison, defend themselves in disciplinary hearings, or even hear meal call.

Without these services, incarcerated people with hearing disabilities also cannot communicate with guards, medical staff, counselors, and family. The lack of communication access can also leave those on probation or parole with an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of conditions and requirements, putting them at constant risk of being returned to prison as well as hindering their ability to re-integrate into society through access to employment, health, and housing. As a result, people who are deaf or hard of hearing tend to be imprisoned more often, incarcerated longer, and returned to prison more quickly than others.

In Georgia, we have filed suits against the state’s Department of Corrections and the Department of Community Supervision. These state institutions have repeatedly failed to provide appropriate communication access to deaf and hard of hearing people, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court turned back the clock nearly 50 years in the fight for abortion rights. In overturning Roe v. Wade, the court’s ruling dismantles federal constitutional protections and relegates women and all people who can become pregnant to second-class status. It’s a shameful step backward for civil rights and liberties, and a devastating blow to activists who have been fighting for decades to protect this right.

In light of this ruling, Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director and director of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty, talked to Chelsea Tejada, a staff attorney in the Reproductive Freedom Project, about how the abortion fight has evolved over the years and the path forward. Here’s what they had to say about this unprecedented ruling and what comes next.

Chelsea: This is a horrible moment, how are you holding up, Louise?

Louise: I’m full of rage and tears. I’m gutted for all those now and in the years to come who will not get the abortions they need for their lives, their families, their health, and their futures. For all those now and in the years to come whose lives and families will be upended by being forced to have a child. I’m in a rage over a court that looks to the status of our rights in 1868 to determine if the Constitution provides protection today, over its disdain for the lives of Black women given this country’s high maternal mortality rate, and over the idea that the state can force people to give birth. I may not live to see the change I want to see, but I will be all in with you and my colleagues at the ACLU in the push to get there.

C: Agreed. It is infuriating to see the court say that our rights today depend on what the ruling white, male class thought more than 150 years ago. It is an absolutely heartbreaking decision that will have a devastating impact on the health, lives, and dignity of millions of people across the country. It must be particularly hard for you to see this happen after you worked for decades in the fight to protect the constitutional right to abortion. Can you share what initially brought you to this work?

L: I came to the ACLU to work on reproductive rights. At the time, I was motivated by women’s rights. I’m 60. I grew of age in a different time. My mother was born when women couldn’t vote. She spoke of the challenges of unplanned pregnancies. I saw her frustration at what wasn’t possible for her and what wasn’t possible for other women. I saw fighting for abortion access as essential to a broader fight for equality. I didn’t understand in 1989 the importance of this work for transgender men and nonbinary people. I do now.

Now I’m here for gender justice, fighting for the right for women and all people who can become pregnant to access abortion, as well as for people to have children, to raise the children they have, to access gender affirming care, to live our authentic lives, and more. How did you come to this work, Chelsea?

C: I am so grateful for all the work you and others have done to advance gender justice. I pursued a career in reproductive rights litigation because I believe access to abortion is fundamental to an individual’s ability to control one’s body, life, and future. I understood that even when there was a constitutional right to abortion, it still existed for many only on paper: I had seen gerrymandered conservative state legislatures chip away at the right to abortion, making it impossible for many to access this essential health care and forcing them into parenthood all the while not providing any social safety network to help them raise those children. I wanted to stop those attacks and work to expand access, so that the right was a reality for every person. And that’s still what I want — even more so now that the Supreme Court has made abortion even more inaccessible and stigmatized. It is scary to hear the Supreme Court say that if you get pregnant, the government can control your body and force you to give birth. What keeps you fighting after a setback like this?

L: I have a new mantra that keeps me going, even at times like this: The only thing harder than continuing is stopping.

We don’t have to win — in the sense of a court victory or the signing of a new law — in order to do right. We do right by shining a light on harm. We do right by trying to hold the government accountable. We do right when we call out the oppressive structures that keep pushing against us, trying to hold us back, trying to crush us.

We do right by fighting for our own liberation. We are speaking our own truths — about pain, our pride and joy in who we are, our vision of something more beautiful and just. We do right by giving voice to our pain and our vision, to guide the journey that lays ahead. We do right when we enable dissenters to speak the truth about injustice, to provide some solace, to demand change. We do right when we don’t let silence sit. We do right by saying to people who need an abortion: The court may have abandoned you, but we see you. You are not alone.

There’s no shame in struggling. I think we all are. But it’s the vision of what happens if we stop that gets me going every time.

C: Do you have any advice for someone who is just getting started advocating for reproductive rights?

L: In general, I’m less interested in offering advice and more interested in listening and learning from those at the start of their journey, who are bringing a fresh perspective to these unprecedented times. There’s already so much wisdom in the generations that follow mine — about gender and intersectionality and organizing, for example. At a recent ACLU gathering, after hearing a younger colleague from Kentucky speak, and today, talking to you, Chelsea, I think, “You are the future, and I can’t wait to see what you do.”

All that said, I do have a couple of things to add. I know a lot of folks — like me — are angry. And given the current climate — particularly with the threats to voting rights — I’ve seen folks get angry about calls to vote and some of the usual tactics for change, thinking them too ineffectual. I get it, I really do. But I think about the 2024 election, and what could happen if more elected officials hellbent on further eroding our civil rights and liberties wind up in office. But no one should stop at the ballot box. The struggle for our freedom is long term. The moment is extraordinary, with more to come. We need a vision and an array of tactics, creative and traditional. And we need staying power. What advice would you give to people who want to help?

C: There are so many ways and places to get involved in the fight: Tell your abortion story; speak to your loved ones about why abortion is important; write a letter to the editor in your local or school paper in support of reproductive autonomy; get involved in local, state, and federal elections; and push for better abortion policies — including in blue states — to improve access. Remember there is essential movement work outside litigation, such as through organizing and practical support networks. You could even become a health care worker who supports people during pregnancy, like a doula or midwife or nurse or doctor or pharmacist. Those who can should donate to abortion funds, show up for protests, call your representatives, sign petitions, and spread the word. There is something for everyone to do no matter where you are.

L: Chelsea, what do you want people to know about this decision?

C: First and foremost, I want everyone to know the real world impacts that this decision is having, and will continue to have, on individuals and families across the country. When the opinion came out, there were people in waiting rooms ready to get taken back for their appointments who then had to be turned away. We’ve heard that many of these patients were in tears, despondent that they would not be able to end their pregnancies that day as expected. And since then, many others have been, and will continue to be, denied access to this essential health care. The Supreme Court said it is fine for states to force these individuals to remain pregnant against their will and suffer the health risks and life-altering consequences of continued pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting.

I also think its important for folks to know that despite the court framing this as a decision that leaves it up to each state to decide whether abortion is allowed, the opinion also busts the door open for Congress to ban abortion nationwide the moment anti-abortion politicians wrangle a majority. We may have a patchwork landscape now, but without a federal constitutional right to abortion, its possible that this essential health care could get banned everywhere. It’s also good for people to know what might be next: A court that is willing to take away a constitutional right that has been in place for nearly 50 years, and around which people have ordered their lives, is a court that will not hesitate to erode other rights. The decision is horrible in and of itself for its outright attack on abortion, but I’m also afraid of what it means for our right and ability to access birth control and gender-affirming care, and to marry who we love.

L: A lot of advocates have talked about how Roe was “the floor, not the ceiling,” reflecting the fact that Roe has never been enough to ensure abortion access reaches everyone who needs it. What is the ceiling to you?

C: There is no ceiling when it comes to bodily autonomy and self-determination! The Supreme Court might think that it should be up to states to decide whether and when abortion is permitted, but I think it should be left to the individual who is pregnant to decide. Pregnant people are experts in their own lives. They always deserve to be trusted to make the decisions that are right for them, their health, their families, and their futures. While this is far from our recent or current reality, even in this difficult moment I am trying to focus on the potential future we could create together, where everyone has the ability to control their body and make important life decisions for themselves — whether it be terminating a pregnancy, accessing contraceptives, or accessing gender-affirming care. Louise, what message do you have for people on this long road ahead?

L: I will quote from remarks made recently by Deborah Archer, the president of the ACLU: “Every day, we have to wake up and fight and move forward, because if we’re not pushing forward, not fighting to move forward, we’re going to be pushed back — and that really just isn’t an option.”

The recently completed U.S. Supreme Court term was the most conservative in a century, as President Trump’s three nominees exercised their newfound power to turn the law radically to the right. The ACLU was involved in many of the court’s most consequential cases, including on abortion, religious liberty, criminal defendants’ rights, voting rights, and free speech. Here is a brief summary of the court’s major civil liberties and civil rights decisions.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — the landmark decision recognizing the federal constitutional right to abortion nearly 50 years ago. The decision marks the first time the court has eliminated a right so central to the equality and autonomy of half the nation. It will allow anti-abortion politicians in states across the country to ban abortion and force countless people to remain pregnant and have children against their will. As we continue to fight in court, often employing state constitutional arguments, the ACLU will mobilize supporters across the country to take to the streets, lobby their representatives, and head to the polls in defense of the right to abortion.

Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson

The ACLU, along with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, challenged a novel Texas law that banned abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, a blatantly unconstitutional law at the time, but assigned the power to enforce the law to private citizens rather than state officials in an attempt to evade federal court review. Ordinarily, one would challenge such a law by suing the state officials charged with enforcing it. But the Supreme Court ruled that because no state officials were authorized to enforce it, no suit could be brought to block the law in advance. Because the law imposed draconian financial penalties, it had the effect of shutting down all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy in Texas.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

The Supreme Court sided with a public-school football coach who demanded the right to pray after games at the 50-yard-line. The decision significantly erodes the separation of church and state in public schools. The ACLU and the ACLU of Washington filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the school had a right under the Establishment Clause to stop Kennedy’s prayers, out of concern that they would be seen as carrying the school’s imprimatur, and risked coercing students to pray to play.

Carson v. Makin

The court ruled that the state of Maine was constitutionally compelled to use taxpayer funds to support private religious schools, even where they engage in indoctrination, as long as the state supported private secular schools. Maine offers residents who live in rural areas that do not have a public school subsidies to send their children to private schools, but excluded those that engaged in religious indoctrination. The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the practice, on the ground that using government money to support religious schools raised serious Establishment Clause concerns. The case turns the religion clauses on their head, compelling what was once prohibited: official support of religious indoctrination.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

The Supreme Court struck down New York’s restriction on concealed carry and eroded the legal basis for gun regulations, ruling that states can regulate guns today only if they can point to similar laws in the 18th and 19th centuries — even though the threat of gun violence today differs markedly from those eras. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts made clear, however, that in their view, states could impose various prerequisites before granting a public carry permit, including background checks and training requirements, as long as they restrain licensing officials’ discretion. The New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the unregulated carrying of weapons in public undermines the sense of safety required for an open, healthy democracy, and that state and local governments have long imposed strict regulations on the public carrying of guns.

Vega v. Tekoh

The Supreme Court ruled in Vega v. Tekoh that a person cannot sue a police officer under federal civil rights laws for violating their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by failing to provide a Miranda warning. The ACLU, which represented Ernesto Arturo Miranda in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona case, filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Terence Tekoh, who was illegally interrogated without Miranda warnings. With this decision, the court further widens the gap between our constitutional guarantees and our ability to hold government officials accountable for violating them.

Egbert v. Boule

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to federal police accountability in Egbert v. Boule, when it ruled that Border Patrol officers cannot be sued for damages when they violate constitutional rights. The case, in which the ACLU filed an amicus brief, involved Robert Boule, who runs a bed-and-breakfast on the U.S.-Canada border. Boule sued Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert for damages for violating his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Boule is not entitled to seek financial damages for the harm caused by Egbert’s excessive force and retaliation, even assuming Egbert violated the Constitution. The ruling further limits people’s ability to hold Border Patrol agents accountable in court, and undercuts an important deterrent to misconduct.

United States of America v. Vaello-Madero

The Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause does not require Congress to extend Supplemental Security Income benefits to residents of Puerto Rico on the same terms as all other U.S. citizens. The ACLU and our partners filed an amicus brief urging the court to rule that residents of Puerto Rico, and residents of all federal U.S. territories, are entitled to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, and that this law violated equal protection.

FBI v. Fazaga

The Supreme Court ruled that the government may assert the state secrets privilege in defending a case alleging unlawful surveillance targeted at Muslims based on their religion. Decades ago, in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress established protections for people challenging abusive spying in court, and the ACLU argued that that statute superceded the state secrets privilege. The court rejected that argument, making it much harder for those who have had their rights and privacy violated by discriminatory surveillance to prove their claims in court.

Garland v. Gonzalez

This case addresses whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the government to provide a bond hearing to demonstrate the need for detention before detaining immigrants for more than six months during immigration proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal immigration statute does not require such hearings, regardless of how long proceedings take. But it left open, to be decided by the courts below, whether the Due Process Clause requires such hearings. There is no more fundamental due process principle than that the government cannot lock someone up for months or years without a hearing.

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center

The Supreme Court allowed the Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to intervene on appeal in this case in order to continue his eleventh-hour attempt to revive an abortion ban that two courts had held unconstitutional. While continuing to defend our prior victory in federal court, last week the ACLU, ACLU of Kentucky, and Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaiʻi, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky filed a state court challenge seeking to block two abortion bans, asserting the Kentucky Constitution protects the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston

In Shurtleff v. Boston, in which the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting Camp Constitution, a fundamentalist Christian group, the court ruled that Boston violated the First Amendment when it selectively refused to allow a Christian group access to temporarily fly the group’s flag in front of City Hall. For more than a decade, Boston approved nearly 300 applications to fly private flags on its flagpole without denying a single applicant — until Camp Constitution sought to fly its Christian flag. While recognizing that the display of a religious flag on government property typically would violate the Establishment Clause, our brief argued, and the court agreed, that where a city turns its flagpole into a public forum for all comers, it can’t turn away a flag simply because it is religious.

Biden v. Texas

The Supreme Court rejected Texas and Missouri’s claims that immigration law requires the Biden administration to maintain the cruel “Remain in Mexico” policy instituted by the Trump administration. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that this policy is statutorily required, opening the door to the Biden administration to end it once and for all.

Ramirez v. Collier

Does the Constitution require an individual facing the death penalty the right to have his minister present, praying and laying on hands, in the execution chamber? The Supreme Court ruled that it does. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of ministers who had done precisely that during executions, and former prison wardens, who had overseen dozens of executions and argued that the individual’s religious freedom could be honored consistent with security concerns.

Migliori v. Lehigh County Board of Elections

Rejecting an effort to block an ACLU voting rights victory, the Supreme Court denied a request to stop the counting of 257 timely received mail ballots in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The ballots had been held up and not counted because they lacked a handwritten date on an outer return envelope. But that date made no difference to the validity of the ballots, which under law were valid if received by election day. Every vote matters, and every valid vote should be counted. As a result, these voters finally had their ballots counted, as required by federal law.

Nance v. Ward

Georgia death-row prisoner Michael Nance learned that, due to his unique medical conditions, which had developed over many years of living on death row, his execution by lethal injection would likely be torturous, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU and our partners filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Nance, arguing that, contrary to the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning, individuals facing execution should be allowed to challenge the method of their execution under 42 USC 1983, and are not restricted to habeas review (which imposes strict limits on such claims in most cases). The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling sided with Michael Nance and the ACLU.