In the 1920s and 30s, a stark white-on-black banner would sometimes appear in front of NAACP headquarters in Manhattan. It read simply, “A MAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY.” The proliferating southern NAACP branches of the time would relay information about lynchings back to New York, where Walter White’s NAACP would broadcast the news by hanging out the banner.

In 2023, the ACLU, inspired by that broadcast, initiated a digital campaign to memorialize the lives of death-sentenced individuals at the time of execution, and called for an end to the death penalty. In 12 months, we memorialized 20 people executed by five states: Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Alabama. The series illustrated the full range of systemic flaws of capital punishment in America: the targeting of people of color, low-income people, people with intellectual disability and mental illness, and other marginalized persons; the rampant police and prosecution dishonesty and demagoguery; the grossly underfunded and incompetent representation; the torturous execution methods; and the slaughter of innocent people.

These executions stood against the backdrop of the ACLU’s work around the country to bring the death penalty’s flaws to light and hasten its abolition. We filed litigation in Florida challenging the discriminatory effects of “death qualification,” a jury selection practice that disproportionately excludes people of color and those with religious objections to the death penalty. We presented evidence in Kansas at a hearing in support of a broad challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty. In North Carolina, we prepared for a hearing seeking relief under the state’s Racial Justice Act, or RJA, and we launched and litigated similar challenges in California under that state’s newly enacted RJA.

We continued representing individual clients who received shockingly ineffective assistance at trials marked by discriminatory jury selection, junk science, and prosecutorial misconduct. Throughout the year, we drafted or joined amicus briefs on issues that included potentially botched executions in Arizona, the State’s suppression of evidence of a capital defendant’s innocence in Louisiana, and an illegal non-public trial in Kentucky.

We will start 2024 with a major hearing under the North Carolina RJA, and then continue our attack on racism in capital cases by seeking relief under California’s Racial Justice Act on behalf of clients facing capital trials in Riverside County, the nation’s heaviest user of the death penalty. We will be the first to challenge on direct appeal Florida’s recent legislation allowing non-unanimous juries to recommend death sentences — a practice that disproportionately silences the voices of people of color — on behalf of our client, Michael Jackson, in the Florida Supreme Court. And our practice of filing friend-of-the-court briefs before the Supreme Court in critical capital cases will continue.

Our work this year will be guided by our twin goals of preventing executions and, ultimately, abolishing capital punishment. The death penalty is out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system: it is barbaric, inequitable, and unjust. The time has come for America to end this failed experiment.

The freedom to speak out and debate matters of public concern is a fundamental right that allows our democracy to flourish. As the world bears witness to the catastrophic war in Palestine and Israel, U.S. college students on both sides of this conflict have come out to protest and speak their minds. However, across the country, at public and private universities, students supporting Palestinian human rights are being silenced and censored. In Florida, for example, state university officials, in coordination with Gov. Ron DeSantis, ordered public universities to deactivate their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters — a clear violation of the student group’s constitutional right to free speech and association.

The Unconstitutional Silencing of Pro-Palestinian Student Groups

In November, the ACLU sent out an open letter expressing our strong opposition to any efforts that stifle free speech on college campuses.

In response to this unconstitutional crackdown on pro-Palestinian student groups, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the University of Florida chapter of SJP. ACLU legal fellows Shaiba Rather and Tyler Takemoto, members of the UF SJP legal team, joined our podcast to discuss the lawsuit and why protecting free speech on campus is so important.

Kendall Ciesemier: Can you tell us what Students for Justice in Palestine or SJP is as a student organization?

Shaiba Rather: Students for Justice in Palestine is a student organization that is committed to advocacy, organizing, and educating other people on their campus, the greater community, on the struggle for Palestinian freedom. These are diverse groups of students who take time out of their schedules to take on additional labor of putting on events, flyering, staging peaceful protests, etc.

KC: What was your reaction to the order to deactivate SJP chapters on campuses? What does it mean in terms of students, civil rights, and civil liberties?

Tyler Takemoto: The Supreme Court soundly holds that the First Amendment protects these types of student groups from a university’s efforts to deactivate them. When we saw this deactivation memo from Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, we knew it violated these students’ First Amendment rights.

SR: This memo calling for deactivation targets SJP chapters across University of Florida’s school districts without accusing University of Florida SJP itself of wrongdoing. Instead the memo cites two statements from an entirely independent and separate group’s toolkit — the National SJP. The attempt to punish University of Florida SJP for another group’s speech violates the First Amendment, and goes against basic principles in our legal system: guilt by association and independent advocacy that is not made at the direction of or in coordination with a terrorist organization is not material support for terrorism.

KC: What do you think is the real goal of deactivating these chapters?

SR: Silencing dissent, especially for causes like Palestinian freedom, isn’t new. The efforts by Gov. DeSantis and Chancellor Rodrigues echoes a concerning national trend that is very aggressive. The focus on material support accusations are crucial. Using this term implies that a student group is offering support to a recognized terrorist organization. It’s a loaded term that historically has been used against marginalized groups, from post 9/11 targeting of Muslim communities to weaponizing it against activists in an attempt to stifle dissent. Governments know that there is this trump card and will use it. And in this case, they’re using it to totally cut out the legs of pro-Palestinian movements.

Why We Must Reject Efforts to Restrict Constitutionally Protected Speech on College Campuses

Calls to punish and silence student activists betray the Constitution and the spirit of free inquiry that is critical to life at public universities.

KC: Can you tell us about what the lawsuit the ACLU and partners filed seeks to do, and what is the main argument from SJP?

TT: Our lawsuit seeks to challenge this unconstitutional memo to deactivate SJP chapters and prevent it from going into effect. Alongside our lawsuit, we filed a preliminary injunction aiming to block the state of Florida from enforcing the memo, a move to protect University of Florida SJP from the already chilling effects on free speech this memo has caused.

SR: This case can feel unique because of how urgent and sensitive it might be — however, this is well in line with decades-old Supreme Court precedent. Our complaint says that you can’t discriminate based off a viewpoint, you can’t interfere with a student group’s right to associate or speak on college campuses, and there is no exception for pro-Palestinian speech — full stop.

KC: The ongoing crisis in Palestine and Israel has sparked concerns about campus safety as students take action and voice their opinion. However, pro-Palestinian efforts have gained particular criticism from schools and local governments. What role does protecting students’ right to free speech play in ensuring campus safety?

SR: In moments of dissent and heated political tension, universities might be tempted to silence protests as a shortcut to creating a peaceful environment. The thinking might be, “If I cut out the protests, disorder is not going to affect my campus.” But silencing student voices isn’t a real solution. Universities must be steadfast in keeping all students’ free speech rights protected while guaranteeing everyone feels safe to learn and live on campus — and recognizing freedom of speech is not a threat to that goal.

TT: We’re seeing a concerning trend, predominantly one-sided, to punish students for speaking in this moment. Job offers have been rescinded for speaking in favor of the Palestinian cause, a disturbing effort to paint pro-Palestinian speech with a broad brush as dangerous, harmful, or even pro-terrorist. In these moments, I believe it’s crucial to make sure that our First Amendment rights are being enforced across the board to enable a nuanced and truthful conversation in this really painful and difficult time.

KC: There have been calls for university presidents to investigate their campus SJP chapters. Could you walk us through how this prompted our call to action?

SR: Once again, we are in heightened political tension, political moments, and ultimately there is no viewpoint exception to the First Amendment, and that also means there is no Palestine exception to the First Amendment. The ACLU stands firm in defending free expression, regardless of the perspective.

TT: College campuses have historically been at the forefront of free expression and diverse viewpoints around complex ideas. Anecdotally, as a recent law grad, I’ve witnessed calls to investigate my peers simply for aligning with student groups or signing sympathy letters expressing sympathy with the Palestinian cause. This has definitely created a McCarthyite atmosphere on these campuses where expressing opinions can lead to public shaming and accusations of extremism.

KC: As young people, why is it so important as young people to be helping other young people express their points of view?

TT: The First Amendment protects your right to organize and demonstrate on behalf of causes that you believe in. Regardless of whether you’re in K through 12, you don’t have fewer rights just because you’re a student — and the ACLU is here to ensure you know your free speech rights and have the freedom to make your voice heard.

As 2023 draws to a close, we’re reflecting on crucial wins and our ongoing advocacy for civil liberties and civil rights. We’re also looking to the work ahead that will determine whether rights around the country are diminished or expanded. With the 2024 election on the horizon, we will see new challenges to reproductive freedom, trans rights, voting rights, and the many other constitutional freedoms we work so hard to protect. Our work has never felt more critical. Here are a few places we’ll be focusing our energy and expertise in the new year.

Credit: Sharon Vanorny

While a case heads to the Supreme Court that could have devastating nationwide impacts on mifepristone, a safe and effective medication to manage abortion and miscarriage care, we will continue to challenge bans on abortion in states including Arizona and Georgia.

Arizona’s High Court Must Protect Abortion Access

This 150-year-old ban would drag present-day Arizonans into a dangerous past.

We will also continue our work to secure more critical wins for abortion rights at the ballot box building on victories in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania this year.

Credit: Sam Braslow

We are closely watching state-level legislative attacks on trans rights, and will continue to take legal action to protect access to gender-affirming care. In November, we asked the Supreme Court to review Tennessee and Kentucky’s unconstitutional ban on health care for transgender youth, and expect to hear from the court early next year. Our nationwide affiliate network is standing ready to defend LGBTQ people and our families from yet another legislative session where their freedom, safety, and dignity will once again be debated and attacked. Already, lawmakers have pre-filed bills attacking gender-affirming care, targeting teachers that support trans youth, and denying transgender students a safe and inclusive education.

Credit: Rachel E. Thomas

Our efforts against racially discriminatory gerrymandering and to expand voting rights will become more crucial than ever during the upcoming election year. Among our many voting and redistricting-related cases are Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and AR NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, in which we are suing against unlawful mapping that undermines the political power of Black voters.

As public opinion on the death penalty continues to sour, in 2024 we’re putting the death penalty on trial in North Carolina. In a landmark Racial Justice Act hearing, we’ll be arguing that racial discrimination tainted the death sentence of Hasson Bacote, who was sentenced to death by a jury of 10 white and two Black jurors in a case where the prosecution struck three times more Black jurors than white jurors.

North Carolina v. Hasson Bacote

Hasson Bacote is challenging his death sentence under the first-of-its kind law, the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA).

This is all happening in Johnston County, the site of at least four lynchings between Reconstruction and World War I, and where KKK billboards were proudly displayed through the 1970s. The case could pave the way for others on North Carolina’s death row to challenge their sentences.

Everyone should have access to economic opportunity and get the chance to build their financial future, not just the few who have been born into generational wealth. That’s why we believe baby bonds are a crucial tool to address economic inequality. These investment accounts are created by federal, state, or local governments to help ensure that children have a secure economic future. As adults, they can use these funds to pay for higher education, homeownership, or entrepreneurship — three of the most proven ways to build wealth in the U.S. Several states have already passed or are proposing baby bond legislation, and Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley have proposed a national baby bond program.

Credit: Will Martinez

A new law in Texas would allow state law enforcement to arrest and detain people over suspicions about immigration status, and authorize judges to order people deported. The ACLU and partners filed a lawsuit against this extremist and unconstitutional policy and will continue other defense efforts across the country against unlawful anti-immigrant policies.

Credit: Erich Martin

The ACLU will continue to advocate for people and communities harmed in the name of national security, particularly people of color and those who dissent against the government. In Florida, for example, we’re fighting to overturn a discriminatory and unconstitutional law that bans many Chinese immigrants — as well as immigrants from six other “countries of concern” — from buying a home in the state.