Public outcry and protests in Puerto Rico brought on the resignation of Governor Ricardo Rosselló, the successor he appointed — former politician and lawyer Pedro Pierluisi — had to step down yesterday. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court unanimously decided that appointing Pierluisi as governor without Senate confirmation is unconstitutional. Wanda Vázquez, the former secretary of justice, took the oath as governor before the end of day yesterday. Puerto Ricans are now in a new period of doubt in its leadership, with many wondering how long the seemingly unpopular Vázquez might be governor.

After a month of nonstop developments, protests have continued in the island. It all began when hundreds of thousands of protesters were unleashed onto the streets of Puerto Rico, cities across the U.S., and many other countries populated by the island’s ever-growing diaspora decrying former Gov. Rosselló. Why? Because on July 13, the contents of a Telegram group chat managed by Rosselló were leaked to the public, and immediately led to mass protests calling for his resignation. Days before, federal agents began a series of arrests after a grand jury handed down corruption indictments against a government official and contractors. Arrests are likely slated to continue.

A general strike was declared on July 24, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million people peacefully protesting across the island. People affiliated with all local political parties, Democrats and Republicans, single mothers, the elderly, people with disabilities, all stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of young people, the LGBTQ community, and women protesting in the streets. The crowd of protestors was enormous, over 500,000 occupying 12 lanes of the Luis Ferré Highway just in San Juan, the capital, and saturating other major towns and cities with people. To put the magnitude of the protest into perspective, close to one-third of Puerto Rico’s population was estimated to be present for the general strike.

The protests went on for days and were sustained by the perseverance and creativity of our people. People danced, sang, and even went scuba diving in protest. People prayed, practiced yoga, and banged pots and pans all night in protest.

For over a week, ACLU of Puerto Rico legal observers worked around the clock to ensure that the people’s right to protest was protected. Our volunteers and staff were caught in the middle of violence initiated by the Puerto Rico police acting as political agents of the governor. Unfortunately, blood was shed almost nightly for days. ACLU observers documented the excessive use of force against protesters and immediately and publicly called out the government for failing its promises to reform the police.

Protesters were expressing their indignation with the ongoing corruption scandals and the offensive, misogynistic, homophobic, and grossly insensitive rants in the chat messages by the governor’s male associates — and Rosselló himself. The governor and cabinet members joked about shooting political enemies. They did not even spare the victims of Hurricane Maria from their mockery, while many families are still trying to claim the bodies of their loved ones.

When the chats leaked, we the people of Puerto Rico got a close and personal look at our government officials. What we saw was the inner workings of a government that disrespected its own people. The Telegram “Chat-gate” added insult to injury and became the spark that jumpstarted a peaceful revolution. It was the first time in Puerto Rico’s history that a governor resigned.

But it was not just about the leaked chats. Frustration with historic colonial repression, the fiscal oversight board appointed by Washington, and the incompetence and corruption of its government was the last straw for many Puerto Ricans. The Rosselló administration did little to stop the pilfering and years of corruption that eventually left U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico with no essential services for months, even years, after Hurricane Maria. Institutions were left to collapse, and the money needed for post-Maria recuperation and rebuilding was simply not there. The Rosselló administration exacerbated the suffering of the poor, the elderly and the disabled.

Even while working to recuperate from the devastation of the hurricane, politicians and the members of the board continued to hand out lucrative, multimillion-dollar contracts to their friends and cronies. All while schools and medical services were shutting down. Puerto Rico’s Department of Education handed out millions of dollars in contracts, while it shut down hundreds of schools and privatized others. Children with disabilities and their families had to leave the island to get much-needed care. This is just one example of many. In return, families saw themselves separated and dispersed across the United States and several countries. It has been Puerto Rico’s largest exodus since the 1950s.

We are still watching history unfold, and it is likely that the revolution and protests have not ended. Puerto Ricans have awakened from over 500-years of colonial oppression to the realization that power truly lays within us, its people. We are no longer willing to remain silent when our leaders spew hate and corruption.

William Ramirez, ACLU of Puerto Rico

Read More

Hurricane Maria Exposed the U.S.’s Long Neglect of Puerto Rico
President Trump’s Response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico Confirms Second-Class Citizenship

Late Friday evening, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a temporary green light to begin construction of the border wall using military funds Congress denied. The order, while temporary and limited to specific wall projects where fencing already exists, threatens to permanently damage border communities, the environment, and our Constitution’s separation of powers.

But it’s not the “big victory” President Trump quickly declared. The fight continues.

Most importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet decided the case. The case — which we filed on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC) — now goes back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There, we’ll be asking the court to further expedite ongoing appeal proceedings.

It’s important to be clear on what the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court actually said on Friday. The Supreme Court didn’t give Trump’s abuse of emergency powers the stamp of approval, or say anything about whether the wall construction was lawful. Nor did the Supreme Court say that our clients lack standing — even the government concedes that Sierra Club and SBCC members face harm from the construction of a 30-foot wall on the lands they use and treasure.

Instead, in temporarily granting the administration’s request to begin wall construction, the majority’s brief, one-paragraph order stated that “the Government has made sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review.” The words “at this stage” are key. To receive a temporary stay, which the government was asking for here, the bar is lower than for normal review. The government has to show only a “fair possibility” in prevailing on the cause of action issue.

At the next stage, when our case is given full consideration, the government would have to actually establish that our clients, who are indisputably harmed by Trump’s abuse of powers, still can’t call on the courts to stop the president’s illegal power grab. That’s a much higher bar, and one the government has failed to meet in lower courts. Moreover, there are centuries-old precedents empowering courts to halt lawless executive action, and the Supreme Court has long recognized those precedents. There is a strong reason to believe it will do so again in a case where the illegality is as blatant as the president taking funds Congress deliberately and expressly denied.

That said, the government has been pushing the courts to adopt the extreme view that no injured party — not our clients, or impacted states, or even the House of Representatives — can go to court to block the president’s blatant abuse of power. It’s arguing the president’s actions are unreviewable by the courts.

That is a dangerous proposition, and it would be a huge setback for our democratic system if the Supreme Court adopts it. But Trump hasn’t succeeded in convincing five justices to give him that power yet — and for good reason.

A basic rule of our democracy is that when the government acts without legal authority, the courts are open to injured parties who seek to block that unlawful action. If the courts start washing their hands of that responsibility by not allowing people in court — as the government is encouraging they do — blatant abuses of power will go unchecked, and the rule of law will be forever damaged.

This should concern everyone, regardless of one’s political affiliation. No matter which party is in power, the courts have a critical role to play in making sure that the executive branch doesn’t have unreviewable authority to ignore the law. Otherwise, everyone from bureaucrats to FBI agents to cabinet secretaries to the president would be empowered to disregard the basic principles of our democracy.

We can’t let that happen.

As our lawsuit proceeds, we will continue to make the case that our clients, who will be harmed because of Trump’s xenophobic wall, deserve their day in court to prevent and undo that harm. The government told the Supreme Court that if our clients ultimately win, courts can order that the unlawful wall be taken down. We plan to hold the government to its word, and will seek the removal of every mile of unlawful wall built while this temporary stay is in place.

Dror Ladin, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project

Since 2001, the Riverside County, California probation department has been needlessly funneling young people struggling with grades, behavior, trauma, and mental health into the criminal justice system.

This direct line to the criminal system is the product of a partnership between local school districts and the county probation department called the Youth Accountability Team (YAT). Instead of counselors or other school and community-based supports stepping in to support and help these kids, school staff would effectively turn students over to the criminal justice system. Black and Latinx youth in particular are more likely to be referred to the criminal system through this misguided program.

Thankfully, after more than a decade of placing children on probation, this is all changing. Today, we filed a landmark settlement with the federal district court that, when approved, will end the relationship between the probation department and school districts in Riverside.

The settlement follows a lawsuit filed last year by the ACLU Foundation, together with the National Center for Youth Law and the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton. Through the YAT program, young people without legal representation entered a term of probation believing that they were avoiding more serious consequences in juvenile court, when that was often not the case. Many of these children experienced probation supervision even though they had not committed a crime. To make matters worse, the YAT program — originally intended to help divert kids from the criminal system — utilized outdated, unhelpful approaches, and violated their rights. The probation department subjected students to onerous terms like drug testing, surprise searches of their home and person, and a lengthy list of rules and restrictions.

As in many areas of juvenile justice, research on adolescent development shows that traditional models of juvenile probation are ineffective and even harmful to young people. Adults who have spent time with young people likely recognize what the research tells us: that youths have a hard time remembering and complying with a long list of rules, that long term consequences are often overshadowed by short term influences and incentives, and that they have a keen sense for fairness. These traits are a part of adolescent maturation and a product of healthy brain development. They also mean that young people are set up to fail when a probation department assigns them lengthy lists of rules and restrictions with zero-tolerance consequences.

Now, through the settlement, the county will no longer accept referrals for things that are not and should not be treated as crimes, such as school discipline problems and status offenses like truancy. Instead, these will be addressed through schools and community resources. The county is committing to reinvest millions of dollars in community organizations that can better address the challenges young people face.

When young people accused of a crime do have contact with the probation department, they will now face a system that respects their rights and aims to meet them where they are, providing positive support to get them back on the right track. Young people who are recommended for diversion will have an appointed defense lawyer from referral until they exit the program. The probation department will improve transparency and communication with families, and remove rules and restrictions that violated the constitutional rights of young people. Across the board, the department will now focus on providing support and incentives to help young people make the right decisions instead of focusing on compliance and escalating consequences. The probation department is also changing its policies and practices by working with experts to provide training to all officers on this new approach. To ensure the program’s success and foster accountability, they will track data to evaluate its progress and impact on young people of color.

The lawsuit we filed a year ago aimed to end a program that was wrong on the law, wrong on policy, and wrong for young people. This week’s settlement will not only end these practices, but provide a transformative, youth-centered framework for Riverside County to become a model in juvenile justice — not only in California, but nationwide.

Follow the Case

Sarah Hinger, Staff Attorney, ACLU Racial Justice Program
& Sylvia Torres-Guillén, Director of Education Equity, ACLU Foundations of California