One Determined Dreamer Has Paved the Way for Other Aspiring Lawyers in Pennsylvania

By Molly Tack-Hooper, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Parthiv Patel (Photo: Ben Bowens)

On February 8, Pennsylvania quietly posted a new rule about who can become a lawyer.  The amended rule, adopted by Pennsylvania’s Board of Law Examiners (an arm of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court), makes clear that DACA recipients are eligible to be licensed attorneys in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

This may seem obvious. Of course DACA recipients should be able to be lawyers—just like anyone else who graduates from law school in the U.S., passes the bar exam, and satisfies the “character and fitness” requirements. Immigration status has no bearing on someone’s ability to be a good lawyer.

But before this month, there was no official word from Pennsylvania on this issue.

The new rule stops short of welcoming all qualified candidates to the bar, regardless of immigration status. It applies only to non-citizens with DACA status or some future equivalent status based on a DACA successor program. It is hopefully not the last word from Pennsylvania about immigration status and fitness to be a lawyer, but it was an important step in the right direction.

And the new rule was a long time in the making.

You can trace its origins back to December 2017, when ACLU client Parthiv Patel became the first Dreamer admitted to the Pennsylvania bar.

Or maybe further back to October 2016, when the Board of Law Examiners initially rejected Parthiv from the bar because of his DACA status, and the ACLU appealed and began advocating for his admission in what would become a year-long fight involving letters of support from dozens of respected institutions from across the commonwealth and beyond.

Or maybe even further back to 2012, when Parthiv got his DACA status, and his future opened up.

Deferred Action and Law School Dreams

Parthiv Patel was born in India. Like every beneficiary of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Parthiv was brought to the United States as a child. Like many, he grew up believing he was American. It was not until his late teens that he learned he was undocumented.

Under DACA, he was eligible to get authorization to work in the United States, and a small window of time during which the federal government promises not to deport him.

With that breathing room, Parthiv was able to set his sights on becoming a lawyer. He had seen how his immigrant parents had been cheated and lost money, unable to navigate the American legal system to protect their rights and without the resources to hire expensive lawyers. He wanted to become a lawyer to protect other small business owners against fraud.

After receiving DACA, Parthiv was accepted to the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law in Philadelphia.

Done with Law School But Not Yet a Lawyer

Three years later, in July 2016, Parthiv spent several days sitting alongside thousands of other law school grads taking the Pennsylvania and New Jersey bar exams. Like virtually all of his classmates, he was stressed about the grueling exam. And like many, he was anxious about whether he would clear the “character and fitness” evaluation, but for very different reasons from his colleagues.

What he was worried about what his immigration status. He was, as far as he knew, the first Dreamer to apply for a bar license in Pennsylvania or New Jersey.

In October 2016, just before Pennsylvania bar exam results were going to be posted online, Parthiv got a phone call from the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners. They told him, “I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is, congratulations, you passed the bar exam! The bad news is that we can’t admit you because of your DACA status.”

Opting Out of Exclusion

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can’t require U.S. citizenship as a condition of becoming a lawyer.  But a 1996 federal statute prohibits states from giving “benefits”—including professional licenses—to non-citizens without certain forms of legal status.

The statute contained an “opt out” provision, though. The law allows states to opt out of the prohibition by affirmatively deciding to confer certain benefits without regard to immigration status.

The ACLU-PA, along with Fred Magaziner and Rhiannon DiClemente from Dechert LLP and Samuel Stretton, represented Parthiv in appealing his Pennsylvania bar denial. In Pennsylvania, the courts have the exclusive power to regulate lawyers. So we argued that the Board of Law Examiners should exercise that authority to opt out. Dozens of organizations agreed with us and wrote letters of support.

More than a year after it had rejected him, the Board of Law Examiners finally sent Parthiv the standard letter that goes out to everyone who has been admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania.

Further to Go

There are thousands of other would-be non-citizen lawyers who missed out on DACA and may never get to become lawyers in Pennsylvania under the current rules.

In fighting for Parthiv’s bar admission, we argued that his admission should not be contingent on his DACA status. We stressed that all qualified candidates should be eligible to become lawyers, regardless of immigration status. Even without work authorization under DACA, undocumented people can legally work as lawyers in the United States on a pro bono basis or as independent contractors or solo practitioners.

Pennsylvania—and every state—should go further to remove barriers to professional licensing based on immigration status.

But in an era of near-constant, overwhelming bad news for immigrants, the step Pennsylvania took to open the doors of the legal profession to Dreamers—as imperfect as it is—is still a step in the right direction. Apart from the young, future lawyers who will benefit from the rule change, standing with Dreamers also has powerful symbolic value. Hopefully it will prompt other states—most of which have not addressed this issue yet—to lift barriers to bar admission based on immigration status and take other steps to protect undocumented people.

So welcome to the bar, Pennsylvania Dreamers. Together, we can keep fighting to make our profession—and our country—more inclusive.

A Local Judge Turned a Couple’s Wedding Day Into a Nightmare

Alex and Krisha Parker

By Golnaz Fakhimi, Immigrants’ Rights Attorney

May 23, 2017, should have been the best day of Alex Parker and Krisha Schmick’s young lives; it was the day they were getting married. But it turned into a nightmare when a magisterial district judge in suburban Harrisburg summoned federal officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the courthouse to investigate Alex’s immigration status.

Alex, who is 22 years old, was born in Guatemala.  When he was a baby, he came to the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident, on the basis of a prospective adoption by an American family. His status has remained the same ever since.

When Alex and Krisha decided to go forward with their wedding plans, the only form of ID that he had at the time was an ID from the Guatemalan consulate.  That ID was accepted by officials in Perry County, Pennsylvania, who issued Alex and Krisha a valid marriage license. Perry County did not conduct marriage ceremonies at the time, though.

So Alex and Krisha made an appointment for a marriage ceremony before Magisterial District Judge Elizabeth Beckley in Camp Hill, in Cumberland County. To begin their married lives together, their final task was to say, “I do,” in front of her.

Instead of conducting the ceremony as expected, Judge Beckley had a court officer detain Alex, she inquired into Alex’s immigration status herself, and she refused to accept Alex’s answers about having lawful status. Krisha left in a panic to search for documents at home that confirmed Alex’s status. Alex desperately contacted a caseworker of his from his time in foster care, asking that she please immediately send over those documents to the courthouse. On her end, Judge Beckley called ICE.

Alex and Krisha felt utterly panicked and distraught over what was unfolding. They were afraid that unless they could prove that Alex was here lawfully, not only would they not be married but ICE would rip them apart, lock up Alex in detention, and possibly deport him.

When the ICE officers arrived, they checked Alex’s fingerprints and confirmed that he is, in fact, a lawful resident. Judge Beckley apologized to Alex and Krisha but insisted that Alex would keep having problems like this if he used the consular ID. Krisha and Alex awkwardly went forward with the ceremony, in part, because they had already paid the fee for it.

Today, Alex and Krisha are happily married and living in Florida. And today we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Judge Beckley and the court officer who worked with her on the Parkers’ wedding day. The actions of Judge Beckley and the court officer were unlawful. By holding Alex, they engaged in unreasonable detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Beckley also discriminated against Alex on the basis of his ethnicity and national origin, in violation of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And she interfered with the fundamental right of Alex and Krisha to get married, which is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Local law-enforcement officials don’t have authority to enforce civil immigration laws, and, when they try to do so, they throw people’s lives into upheaval and chill other community members from engaging with law enforcement.  This hurts public safety in our communities.  When local court personnel undertake civil immigration enforcement, the harms can be even more concerning.

This wasn’t the first time Judge Beckley called ICE to report people before her who were getting married. Prior to Alex and Krisha, she had ICE arrest a groom from Tajikistan and his best man.

We’re filing this lawsuit to stop this from happening to any other couple that comes before Judge Beckley or any other judge in Pennsylvania. The freedom to marry is a fundamental right for everyone.

It’s the End of the Road for the State Legislative Session. So What Happened?

Football player Malcolm Jenkins lobbying in Harrisburg for the passage of the Clean Slate Act.

By Elizabeth Randol, Legislative Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania

It’s official: Today marks the legal end of the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s two-year legislative session. The ACLU-PA’s work in Harrisburg often ranges from hair-on-fire to hurry-up-and-wait. Sometimes we’re able to celebrate our proactive work getting good legislation enacted. But much of what we do, and no less important, is defensive — trying to prevent bad bills from passing or making bad bills less bad.

If there’s one mantra we repeat at the ACLU-PA, it’s to pay attention to your state legislators. Bills passed in Harrisburg often have a far greater and more immediate effect on your life than those enacted in Congress.

Wins

In the 2017-2018 legislative session, we celebrated two major victories that will significantly improve the chances of people getting back on their feet post-conviction. The first was the passage of the Clean Slate Act. This new law – the first of its kind in the nation – automatically seals from public view the criminal records of people convicted of certain summary and misdemeanor offenses if they are not convicted of another crime within ten years.

The legislature also repealed a longstanding mandate to suspend drivers’ licenses of people convicted of crimes unrelated to operation of a vehicle, many of them drug offenses. Repealing this mandate will prevent more than 20,000 Pennsylvanians a year from unnecessarily losing their licenses.

We also successfully beat back yet another attack on reproductive freedom when Governor Wolf vetoed an abortion ban that, had it been enacted, would have been the most restrictive ban in the country and stopped a discriminatory amendment from the CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) reauthorization bill, which sought to prohibit insurance coverage for transgender-related healthcare services.

Losses

The most frustrating loss this session was a bill that enabled the use of police-worn body cameras in Pennsylvania. While the use of body cameras can be an effective means of ensuring police transparency, the bill exempts footage from the state’s right-to-know law, severely restricting public access to video recorded by police cameras. As a result, it undermines the ability to hold police accountable and instead equips them with a powerful data collection and surveillance tool.

On the Lookout

There’s no rest for the weary – the General Assembly returns and reboots in January. Next session we anticipate continued fights against abortion bans, so-called “sanctuary city” legislation, restrictions on police transparency, and a proposed amendment to the PA Constitution known as Marsy’s Law.

The most significant battle we are preparing for is a campaign to prevent the reinstatement of mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania. Reinstating these archaic provisions is an invitation to regress by re-adopting outdated and ineffective “public safety” measures that disproportionately damage communities of color and concentrate unreviewable power in the hands of prosecutors.

The midterm elections didn’t change the balance of power in Harrisburg — we still have a Democratic governor and Republican-controlled House and Senate. Democrats did pick up five Senate seats (breaking the Republican supermajority) and 11 House seats, which may result in increased negotiating leverage for Democrats. But those wins came at the expense of losing most of the moderate Republicans remaining in the legislature. And that may, unfortunately, result in an even more polarized legislature heading into the 2019-2020 session.

We know that it can feel like there are a lot of fires burning right now for people who care about civil liberties – not to mention basic human decency. We’re going to need you to achieve our goals at the state legislature next year. So rest well, enjoy the holidays, and we’ll talk again in January.

Tell politicians that immigrants are an integral part of our commonwealth

Washington State 05-01-17 May Day March

Call to oppose SB 10: 1-844-803-2258

This week, Pennsylvania lawmakers will proceed to vote on Senate Bill 10 (SB 10). The passing of SB 10 will further endanger the civil liberties of immigrants. Immigrants are an integral part of our commonwealth. Many community members, including US citizens, will become hesitant to report emergencies and crimes and to help law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of crimes; this will jeopardize public safety. In addition, SB 10 will drain local resources by diverting them towards a federal responsibility. Congress funded ICE more than $7 billion in fiscal year 2018; do the feds really need help from PA? 

Please take a few minutes to make a call to express opposition for the bill. You can utilize the toll-free number 1-844-803-2258 to connect to your local senator. Once on the line, tell them your name, enter your zip code, and tell your senator: 

“Senate Bill 10 will force local police to act as an extension of the immigration system, which drains already limited local resources and erodes community trust in law enforcement. Please oppose Senate Bill 10 because it will squander valuable resources while jeopardizing public safety. ”

Look up your senator >> http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/

After deportation, a murder in central Mexico: The case of Juan Coronilla-Guerrero

By Andy Hoover and Matt Stroud, ACLU of Pennsylvania

c’s wife told a federal judge that he could be killed if he was deported back to central Mexico. The judge decided to deport him anyway — and Coronilla-Guerrero was killed. Photo via the American-Statesman.

For a decade, irresponsible public officials and other public figures have used xenophobic rhetoric to fuel a hateful anti-immigrant movement. Some — among them, former Hazleton mayor and now Congressman Lou Barletta and former DOJ bureaucrat and now Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach — have gained power by using fear of immigrants as a launching pad for their ambitions, even while their most extreme ideas continuously lose in court. That xenophobia charged our current president’s run to the White House, and its inevitable conclusion is now being seen around the country, as ICE and Border Patrol agents harass, intimidate, and arrest people wherever and whenever they can find them.

Advocates for immigrants’ rights have a fairer, more compassionate vision of America — as a place where people can seek refuge from extreme poverty, extreme violence, and political persecution.

On Tuesday, the Austin American-Statesman reported about the case of Juan Coronilla-Guerrero.

Coronilla-Guerrero was arrested by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 3 when he showed up for a routine court appearance to address misdemeanor charges in Travis County, Texas. That he was picked up in a so-called “sensitive location” highlights how aggressive immigration enforcement has become.

In a federal hearing that followed Coronilla-Guerrero’s arrest, his wife described the gangland environment that she and her husband escaped when they left central Mexico for Austin. She warned a judge that her husband would likely be murdered if he were deported.

The judge wasn’t moved; Coronilla-Guerrero was sent back to his home country. His wife’s warning soon proved prescient: Three months after he arrived in Mexico, Coronilla-Guerrero’s body was discovered on a roadsidenear where he lived with his wife’s family.

As immigration enforcement gets more and more aggressive, we hear stories like this — of immigrants who are essentially refugees, begging to stay in the United States, and being arrested and/or deported regardless. NPR reportedWednesday about the parents of a two-month-old being arrested by Border Patrol agents while their child underwent a serious operation. In Pennsylvania, we hear frequent stories of immigration raids, ramped-up enforcement. When Hurricane Harvey devastated Texas’s Gulf Coast, a worry among undocumented immigrants was whether or not they could go to shelters without being arrested and deported.

Under Trump, Mexicans are “rapists” and we must build a “big, beautiful wall” to keep them out. Under Trump, the problem of immigration is not how to assimilate “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” but rather to lend a bullhorn to the “voices of immigration crime.”

But as that fearful, xenophobic philosophy spreads throughout federal law enforcement agencies — and as immigration-related arrests spike to record levels — the aggression of the fierce anti-immigrant movement championed by Trump, Barletta, Kobach, and their ilk creates new heartbreaking stories, new martyrs. Coronilla-Guerrero’s death shows the dangers of deportation itself. It highlights that claims that the United States is overrun by violent immigrants is a fallacy, a claim unsupported by data.

One wonders how those sympathetic to Coronilla-Guerrero will respond.

IN OTHER NEWS
(Criminal justice news deserving of an in-depth look.)

The

A fascinating investigative report from USA Today delved into The Wall, and whether it’s realistic. Of course it’s not, but the details of its impossibility are fascinating. Photo via USA Today.

“‘Build the Wall.’ Three words energized a campaign. But could it be done? What would it cost? What would it accomplish? Our search for answers became this, a landmark new report, ‘The Wall.’ The task was massive. We flew the entire border, drove it too. More than 30 reporters and photographers interviewed migrants, farmers, families, tribal members — even a human smuggler. We joined Border Patrol agents on the ground, in a tunnel, at sea. We patrolled with vigilantes, walked the line with ranchers. We scoured government maps, fought for property records. In this report, you can watch aerial video of every foot of the border, explore every piece of fence, even stand at the border in virtual reality. Still, breakthrough technology would mean nothing if it didn’t help us better understand the issues — and one another.”

“The records depict a slush fund for DA and police spending that runs the gamut from the mundane to the downright bizarre, all enabled by laws that empower police to seize property from individuals sometimes merely suspected of criminal activity. In one instance, the forfeiture ‘bank’ helped top off the salary of a former DA staffer who once served as campaign manager to now-jailed District Attorney Seth Williams. (The office maintains these expenses were appropriate and eventually reimbursed.) Other forfeiture dollars paid for at least one contract that appears to have violated city ethics guidelines — construction work awarded to a company linked to one of the DA’s own staff detectives. (The DAO said it is now conducting an ‘internal investigation’ into these payments.) With little concern for public scrutiny, the clandestine revenue stream also paid for much more: $30,000 worth of submachine guns (equipped with military-grade laser sights valued at $15,000) for police tactical units; a $16,000 website development contract; custom uniform embroidery; a $76 parking ticket; $1,000 in raccoon-removal services; a push lawn mower; a pair of outboard motors; and tens of thousands in mysterious cash withdrawals — along with thousands of other expenses.”

THE APPEAL — The Appeal is a weekly newsletter helping to keep you informed about criminal justice news in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and beyond. If you’d like to receive this weekly newsletter, you can subscribe here.

JOIN— The ACLU of Pennsylvania’s mailing list to stay up to date with our work and events happening in your area.

DONATE — The ACLU is comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the ACLU that conducts our litigation and education efforts. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible to the donor to the extent permissible by law. Learn more about supporting the work of the ACLU of Pennsylvania here.

We’ve embarked on an ambitious project

By Matt Stroud, Criminal Justice Researcher, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Protesters in Phoenix speak out against ICE’s 287(g) program. Photo via Flickr user Basta287g.

If the 45th president of the United States has reminded us of anything, it’s that government agencies require as much scrutiny now as they’ve ever required before — if not much more. At ACLU-PA, we’ve taken that as a cue to more closely follow the news, to more actively track the actions of lawmakers, and to more doggedly file records requests for information such as budgets or police complaints or internal governmental communications.

When it comes to records requests, we file them not to hector public employees, but rather to engage with the governing process. Sometimes this is done in pursuit of very specific information. (One of our summer interns, Emilia Beuger, this week filed a request with the city of Pittsburgh for body camera footage related to a particular police interaction, for example.) And sometimes it’s done merely to let government agencies know we’re watching.

Along those lines, we’ve embarked on an ambitious project.

You’ve heard of the 287(g) program? It’s one of the “top partnership initiatives” of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It deputizes local police departments to act as immigration officials — to request immigration papers from individuals, and to otherwise “receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions,” according to ICE’s website. In 2012, the Obama administration scaled back 287(g) in light of racial profiling allegations. It ultimately shut the program down in 2015.

When we read that the Trump Administration planned to reinstate 287(g), we decided to find out which Pennsylvania police departments wanted to join in.

In recent months, we’ve been slowly rolling out our own program to do so — to ask whether local police departments have requested to be a part of 287(g), and, if so, what their communications with ICE have looked like. This has been no small task; there are nearly 1,200 municipal, county, and state police departments in the commonwealth. But with the help of a team of volunteers, we’re filing requests with all of them, and finding interesting information.

While ICE posts a list of established 287(g) partners online, it certainly doesn’t note who’s asking to take part, and who’s, by reasonable extension, hoping to target undocumented immigrants in their communities for arrest and deportation. We’ve not only identified departments that have made their interests in 287(g) known to ICE, we also have reason to believe that, in at least one case, our questions have inspired law enforcement officials to rethink their request to become trained as a 287(g) department.

There’s a lot more to be done. Stamping out racial profiling and civil liberties violations doesn’t start or end with identifying which police departments want to target undocumented immigrants. But letting police know that we’re here, paying attention to them if they do — well, we think that’s a step in the right direction.

If you have suggestions for other public records requests that ACLU-PA should pursue, please get in contact. I’m at mstroud@aclupa.org. Let’s file dogged public records requests together.

IN OTHER NEWS

(Criminal justice news that could use a second look.)

Port Authority’s new fare check policy implements a federal background check on individuals who don’t pay for their fare, which would be enforced by the Port Authority Police. Photo from the Pittsburgh City Paper.

  • City Paper: “Advocates are concerned Port Authority’s new fare-check policy could lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants: ‘Once Port Authority runs your name, ICE will check that name and can detain you.’”

“The new policy, which Port Authority hopes to implement in August, will have riders pay as part of an honor system. Port Authority Police officers will check riders for proof of payment on light-rail cars and at T stations, run federal background checks on riders who don’t pay, and potentially charge repeat offenders with criminal offenses. Ruiz is terrified about what might play out because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has access to the same FBI database through which Port Authority Police will run fare-evaders’ names and addresses. She says this means that forgetting to pay a $2.50 fare one time could lead to a deportation. ‘They are basically turning [light rail] into a border checkpoint,’ says Ruiz.”

  • Good Men Project: “Philadelphia Police Fatal Shooting of Fleeing Black Suspect Akin to 2014 Cover-Up”

“But despite the progress of the police department here — it’s reported that the majority of recommendations issued by the Department of Justice related to use of force and training has been adopted — what does it say about the agency when a rookie and a veteran assigned to the same Police District both use lethal force — Mr. Carrelli before the DOJ issued their report and recommendations and Mr. Pownhall, who may or may not have been equipped with a Taser, nearly two years afterwards — when their life isn’t immediately in jeopardy; no reasonable person would fear for their life when the perceived threat is retreating. I asserted the aforementioned when Mr. Tate-Brown was killed, and I’m asserting it again on behalf of the late Mr. Jones. It’s demoralizing that more than two years after Mr. Tate-Brown was unjustly murdered, there’s no justice realized or on the horizon, only déjà vu.”

THE APPEAL — The Appeal is a weekly newsletter helping to keep you informed about criminal justice news in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and beyond. If you’d like to receive this weekly newsletter, you can subscribe here.

JOIN— The ACLU of Pennsylvania’s mailing list to stay up to date with our work and events happening in your area.

DONATE — The ACLU is comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the ACLU that conducts our litigation and education efforts. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible to the donor to the extent permissible by law. Learn more about supporting the work of the ACLU of Pennsylvania here.

The work of defending civil liberties goes on

ACLU of Pennsylvania Executive Director Reggie Shuford addresses the crowd at the “Show Love for the Constitution” event. | February 15, 2017. (credit: Ben Bowens)

Dear supporter,

In some ways, our country changed on November 8. The United States elected a leader who, by all measures, is hostile to the basic foundations and principles that we stand for. President Trump and his regime deserve every ounce of pushback we can gather, and the ACLU will be on the front lines of the resistance.

And yet, at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, we have always taken the long view. Issues that are with us today were with us before November 8 and, to one degree or another, would have continued regardless of who was elected, including mass incarceration, police brutality, inequality for gay and transgender people, and efforts to compromise women’s access to reproductive healthcare.

You may have heard that there has been a major increase in giving to the ACLU since the election. While much of that growth has occurred at the national level, in fact, here in Pennsylvania, our membership has tripled. We saw a notable rise in donations after Election Day, but the real surge of giving happened after the weekend of the Muslim Ban. It was in that moment that many Pennsylvanians realized the significance of the threat to our values and to the people we most cherish.

You have put your trust in the ACLU in these challenging times. We are grateful for that trust and take it as a responsibility. Thank you.

The generous outpouring of support we’ve received in recent months has allowed us to think big about our work. It is my intention to add new staff to our existing staff of 22. Our current team has the talent, skills, and persistence to take on the many challenges before us. I also know that we can advance the cause of civil liberties throughout Pennsylvania by bringing even more talented people on board. The times demand it. Your support enables it.

In the months ahead, you’ll hear more about our Smart Justice campaign, our effort to reform, reinvent, and revamp the criminal justice system; our Transgender Public Education and Advocacy Project; the campaign for District Attorney in Philadelphia; the many bills we’re advocating for and against at the state capitol; and more litigation to push back against government excesses wherever they occur.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania is prepared to thwart the Trump administration’s worst instincts as they play out in the commonwealth.

And state and municipal officials aren’t off the hook. We’re working with immigrant communities to monitor federal immigration enforcement tactics while also standing with municipal governments that insist they won’t bend to every demand of ICE. We’re insisting that the commonwealth keeps its commitment to open beds for people who are too ill to stand trial and are being warehoused in local jails. We’re working at the state legislature to defeat efforts to hide the identity of police who seriously injure and kill people and to hide video that captures police brutality from the public. And we are active in ongoing struggles to diminish police presence in schools, to stop rollbacks of women’s reproductive healthcare, and to fight the practice of jailing people for their debts.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has the infrastructure and the experience to defend civil rights at every turn. Consider some of our recent work:

  • Our legal team successfully freed travelers who were detained at Philadelphia International Airport the weekend of Muslim Ban 1.0, our advocacy team supported the protests at airports in Philly and Pittsburgh, and our communications staff echoed the message to #LetThemIn.
  • Two weeks ago, we settled a lawsuit against the School District of Lancaster for denying enrollment at its regular high school for older refugee students. Older refugee students will now be able to attend the regular high school instead of being segregated at an alternative school.
  • Over the last month, our legislative director has been busy at the state capitol in Harrisburg lobbying against efforts to reinstate mandatory minimum sentencing, which has been suspended for two years due to court rulings.
  • In tandem with allies, our advocacy team has launched the Philadelphia Coalition for a Just District Attorney, an effort to push the candidates for district attorney to commit to reforming the criminal justice system.
  • Last week, our lawyers filed to intervene to defend a school in Berks County that has been sued for affirming its students’ gender identity. We’re representing a transgender student and a youth advocacy organization who would be harmed if the lawsuit successfully overturns the school’s practice.

These five examples are just from the last two months. In fact, four of them happened in the last two weeks.

My favorite playwright, Pittsburgh native August Wilson, said this about gratitude in his play Two Trains Running:  “You walking around here with a ten-gallon bucket. Somebody put a little cupful in and you get mad ’cause it’s empty. You can’t go through life carrying a ten-gallon bucket. Get you a little cup. That’s all you need. Get you a little cup and somebody put a bit in and it’s half-full.”

Well, thanks to you, our ten-gallon bucket runneth over.

Onward!

Reggie Shuford
Executive Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Donald Trump hasn’t f***ed up our plans at all. We’re pushing forward.

By Matt Stroud, Criminal Justice Researcher/Writer, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Lewis Black is a longtime ACLU supporter.

In late summer 2001, when Lewis Black was in the final stages of preparing to release a live, topical comedy album, the September 11 terror attacks occurred. The album was shelved; none of his jokes had the same relevance as they did before the attacks. The comedian later admitted to having a complicated reaction to this: “You know it’s a national tragedy,” he said. “It is a national tragedy. We all know it’s a national tragedy. You know that. But. Everybody in this country, as soon as it happened — everyone — had that little moment where they went, ‘Oh. Well. That really fucks up my plans.’”

“Everyone” is an exaggeration, of course. But Black was tapping into a revealing emotion there: The idea that we can sometimes dwell on our own small difficulties even as we wade in a sea of other people’s much larger tragedies. Was Black’s problem a big deal? Not really: He had to re-record his album with different material. His problem paled in comparison to the suffering that countless people experienced. But still: To him, in his little world, it was a burden. He was sidetracked.

You’d think that ACLU-PA would be empathizing with Black right about now.

When President Donald J. Trump issued his executive order on immigration, ACLU chapters nationwide had to pull some of their best people — such as Mary Catherine Roper and Molly Tack-Hooper here in Pennsylvania, and many other lawyers and advocates nationwide — away from important work, so that they could confront the civil- rights-threatening commandment that Trump handed down. We suspect similar situations are going to become commonplace for the next four years, if not longer. As a result, you would think that there are very important issues — such as criminal justice reform, the protection of student rights, and issues relating to racial justice — that the ACLU won’t have the time or resources to focus attention on. You would think that it fucks up our plans.

But the truth is that we’ve been preparing for the Trump Administration since months before he was elected. And there’s plenty of room for positivity. Protests in the streets and much-appreciated donations to groups like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Planned Parenthood, the National Immigration Law Center, and many others, have shown that support for civil rights is strong despite the actions of the president. While we will fight on the front lines of whatever civil rights battles the Trump administration decides to fight, other important issues will continue to receive attention.

  • ACLU-PA will continue working toward reducing the commonwealth’s prison population.
  • It will continue advocating for students and the LGBT community and free speech.
  • It will continue to push against civil asset forfeiture and opaque government and limits to voting rights.
  • In fact, ACLU-PA is hiring. Stay tuned for new job openings related to criminal justice and other issues on our website.
  • We’re growing. So is the movement to protect civil liberties. And just as Black re-recorded his hilarious album and released it successfully in 2002, we are continuing to do the important work that our mission has always guided us to do.

Donald Trump hasn’t fucked up our plans at all. We’re pushing forward.

IN OTHER NEWS

(Criminal justice news that could use a second look.)

Protesters gathered at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Saturday against President Trump’s executive order enacting a refugee ban. Photo from ACLU.
  • From ACLU National: “Here Is Some of the Human Misery Caused by President Trump’s Muslim Ban From Those Most Impacted.”

“We have all documents. We are real refugees. I was waiting for five years. I have endured much but I was always optimistic that I will have a brighter future once I am resettled in the U.S. But unfortunately we were told… that the US President does not allow refugees into his country. I am shocked. I used to hear America always protects vulnerable people and cares about human rights. But I do not think that is true now as this happened to us.”

  • From The Intercept: “The FBI Has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement”

“Pete Simi, a sociologist at Chapman University who spent decades studying the proliferation of white supremacists in the U.S. military, agreed. ‘The report underscores the problem of even discussing this issue. It underscores how difficult this issue is to get any traction on, because a lot of people don’t want to discuss this, let alone actually do something about it.’ Simi said that the extremist strategy to infiltrate the military and law enforcement has existed ‘for decades.’ In a study he conducted of individuals indicted for far-right terrorism-related activities, he found that at least 31 percent had military experience.”

Read The Intercept’s FBI series here.

  • From The Sentencing Project: “Delaying a second chance: “The declining prospects for parole on life sentences”

“Despite this body of criminological evidence, the number of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984 — a faster rate of growth than the overall prison population. Even between 2008 and 2012, as crime rates fell to historic lows and the total prison population contracted, the number of people serving life sentences grew by 12%. By 2012, one in nine people in U.S. state and federal prisons — nearly 160,000 people — were there under life sentences. Two factors have driven this growth: the increased imposition of life sentences, particularly those that are parole ineligible, and an increased reluctance to grant parole to the 110,000 lifers who are eligible.”

THE APPEAL — The Appeal is a weekly newsletter helping to keep you informed about criminal justice news in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and beyond. If you’d like to receive this weekly newsletter, you can subscribe here.

JOIN— The ACLU of Pennsylvania’s mailing list to stay up to date with our work and events happening in your area.

DONATE — The ACLU is comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the ACLU that conducts our litigation and education efforts. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible to the donor to the extent permissible by law. Learn more about supporting the work of the ACLU of Pennsylvania here.

Anti-Sanctuary Policies: When State Law Interferes with Public Safety and Your Civil Liberties

By Amanda Cappelletti, Frankel Legislative Fellow, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Immigrants' rights - ICE officer badge

Immigrants’ rights – ICE officer badge

Currently, the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill to punish municipalities in the Commonwealth that don’t go along with the unconstitutional actions of federal immigration authorities. To achieve this, House Bill 1885 would hold a so-called “sanctuary municipality” open to civil lawsuits for the actions of individual residents. It also withholds all state money from these cities and municipalities, such as funding for drug and alcohol treatment, domestic violence centers, and other essential services that municipalities provide.

Let’s be clear: There is no such thing as a “sanctuary city.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has jurisdiction everywhere in the United States. It is their job to enforce federal immigration law. Local governments have enough to worry about without the added burden of doing the feds’ job for them.

While there are many problems with this bill, one of the most glaring is that it demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about what sanctuary policies are and why we need them. Being in the country without immigration status is a civil offense investigated by ICE. If ICE believes local law enforcement has an undocumented citizen in custody, they issue a detainer request. This asks local law enforcement to hold that person for 48 hours past their initial release date and time.

Sanctuary policies support public safety and policing goals. Witnesses and victims of crime are more likely to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement authorities when they do not have the threat of deportation looming over them. Simply put, sanctuary policies are a way of building trust between law enforcement agents and the communities they serve. When that trust is established, police are better able to pursue all criminals, making the immediate and surrounding communities safer.

Perhaps not as glaring, but certainly more pressing is the fact that HB 1885 blatantly ignores the constitutional consequences of complying with ICE detainers. Detainers are issued by ICE agents, without any authorization or oversight by a judge or other neutral decision makers. They are not supported by probable cause or any actual evidence at all. Without the constitutionally guaranteed safeguard of a warrant, detainers can and do lead to the illegal detention of individuals who have not violated any immigration laws and are not deportable. According to its own records, ICE has erroneously issued more than 800 detainers for U.S. citizens since 2008.

ICE detainers ask local law enforcement agents to blatantly violate civil liberties and act unconstitutionally by holding individuals without probable cause. As a result, numerous civil lawsuits claiming unreasonable search and seizure have been filed against municipalities and cities. Ultimately, federal courts have ruled that ICE detainers violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. One of the leading cases in this matter took place in Pennsylvania. Since Galarza, thirty-three counties have taken steps to ensure its citizens’ constitutional rights are protected, and have policies to NOT honor ICE detainer requests.

HB 1885 is so poorly written that it even includes a fictional legal standard. The bill requires law enforcement to inquire into the immigration status of someone they’ve arrested if they have “reasonable cause” that the person is in the country without authorization. “Reasonable cause” is not a legal standard. Despite three committee votes and one vote on the floor of the state House, no one in the General Assembly has bothered to fix this obvious flaw.

And that provision- carried out in a worst case scenario- could encourage police departments to engage in racial profiling and arrest people for petty offenses (like so-called disorderly conduct) for the sole purpose of checking their immigration status.

HB 1885 will fracture the already fragile trust between law enforcement and communities. It takes away a city or municipality’s much needed state funding, while also leaving it wide open for civil lawsuits from victims of unforeseen crime. If the municipality or city complies with HB 1885, it leaves itself open to violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil lawsuits which stem from that. No matter what way you look at it, HB 1885 hurts the citizens of our Commonwealth.


Amanda Cappelletti is the 2016–17 Frankel Legislative Fellow at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. She is also a fourth-year law student and a candidate for a master’s in public health at Temple University.

Lancaster refugee lawsuit: A whistleblower speaks out

By Matt Stroud, Criminal Justice Researcher/Writer, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Plaintiffs and their attorneys from ACLU-PA, Education Law Center and Pepper Hamilton, LLC.

Plaintiffs and their attorneys from ACLU-PA, Education Law Center and Pepper Hamilton, LLC.

Elise Chesson hadn’t been working more than a few weeks when she noticed refugee students were having trouble enrolling in the School District of Lancaster. Her testimony Wednesday offered further insights into how older refugee students in Lancaster, Pa. have been diverted away from a local public high school, the J.P. McCaskey Campus, and into Phoenix Academy, a disciplinary school run by private company Camelot Education.

In early December 2015, Chesson began as employment program manager for Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services in Lancaster, Pa. Among her responsibilities were refugee social services; she helped find education and employment options for refugees. That’s when she met 17-year-old Qasin Hassan.

A Somali refugee who’d come to Lancaster, with his family through Cairo, his documents showed that he neither spoke nor read English; Somali and Arabic were his means of communication. And he had no official education records.

When refugees arrive in the U.S., there’s typically a 90-day case management period when caseworkers like Chesson help them settle in, get accustomed to local culture, and acclimate to daily tasks such as going to the bank and buying groceries. Caseworkers are also often responsible for making sure they find a place to work or attend school.

Qasin had been in the U.S. for months and still wasn’t in school. The School District had thus far refused to enroll him.

Chesson took over the case from her colleague in late December and in her first contact with Qasin, school district officials doubled down on their refusal to enroll him. Administrators said, instead, that he should go to the local Literacy Council, a private organization, and take English classes there and get his GED instead.

Part of the reason for this decision, Chesson testified, was that the district official in charge of enrollment thought Qasin’s body language suggested he didn’t want to go to school.

Chesson responded by explaining that cultural barriers and differences might’ve suggested to SDOL administrators that Qasin didn’t want to go to school, but those were likely misinterpretations; Qasin wanted to go to school.

So Chesson continued to push for him. And eventually the district relented. They sent him to Phoenix Academy. Other options were not discussed — including the district’s public high school, McCaskey, which offered more English classes and a program called the “International School” specially tailored for newly arrived immigrants, like Qasin.

Other students in similar situations went to Chesson as well. She observed a pattern: older students with limited English language skills would experience delays being enrolled into SDOL. Or their enrollment would be denied outright. And when people like Chesson would speak out and push to get them enrolled, those kids would be sent to Phoenix Academy.

With a little research, Chesson learned that Phoenix wasn’t optimal. The students-to-teacher ratio at Phoenix was nearly four times the amount at McClaskey, for one. “Highly qualified teachers,” as defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, taught 92 percent of McCaskey classes, while 0 percent taught Phoenix classes. Phoenix did not offer Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate classes, and while 83 percent of McCaskey’s students were “college ready,” none were “college ready” at Phoenix.

Reading these stats, she asked to sit in on an orientation class at Phoenix. What she saw shocked her.

“I would have described it … like a detention center,” Chesson told the court Wednesday. Instead of emphasizing what kids would be taught, administrators emphasized how they would be disciplined — what tactics so-called “behavioral specialists” at the school would use to keep kids in line. They demonstrated “handle with care” tactics — which ended with kids being pressed face first against a “clean wall” with their hands restrained behind their backs. Phoenix administrators demonstrated this to the students at orientation — a gesture that amounted to an open threat.

“This was the first impression these kids were getting,” Chesson testified.

School administrators, she said, emphasized that “this is a school of last resort.”

They also discussed that there is no homework because students can’t bring anything into or out of the school. Girls weren’t even allowed to bring feminine hygiene products.

“Education did not appear to be a focus,” Chesson said.

“I was shocked. I was disappointed that these students who had been through so much were being placed in a school like this,” she said.

“We asked why they couldn’t go to international school at McCaskey,” Chesson said. “They just said, ‘This is how it is.’”

The pattern that had been established with Qasin and Khadidja, a seventeen-year-old refugee from Sudan who had been denied enrollment and then delayed admission to Phoenix for months, continued with more refugee students — delays, enrollment denials, then after extensive advocacy, they were reluctantly placed in Phoenix.

As time passed, Qasin went to school at Phoenix. Not only did he not receive adequate English language instruction, according to Chesson, he also found himself bullied — kids would yell at him, pull his hair, and use racial slurs against him. He eventually decided to stop going to school.

Qasin told her: ‘If you give me a choice between a prison and Phoenix Academy, I’ll choose a prison.”

Chesson is a lead witness in the case against SDOL. After more than two hours of testimony, it was revealed that her job was recently eliminated — and that she continues to advocate for refugee children to get an education, despite not being paid to do so. The district’s defense attorney, Sharon O’Donnell asked her about this — why she was still advocating on behalf of refugee students like Hassan and others when she had no official agency to represent.

“I don’t need an agency to advocate for what I feel is an injustice,” Chesson said.