When the Supreme Court overturned a half-century of precedent last June and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion first recognized in Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion politicians claimed that the court was doing nothing more than sending the issue back to the states, allowing each to decide for itself how to regulate abortion. Late last month, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador made crystal clear just how false that claim was.

In response to an inquiry from an anti-abortion state politician — asking on behalf of a constituent who wants to ban abortion nationwide — Attorney General Labrador issued a letter, declaring that Idaho’s total abortion ban “prohibits an Idaho medical provider from … referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services.”

According to the Idaho attorney general, a health care provider who gives any support or aid to a person seeking an abortion outside of Idaho — even in places where abortion remains legal — has broken Idaho law. In other words, under the attorney general’s misguided opinion, providing a woman with a referral for abortion care out of state, or even simply giving her information about the availability of abortion in a state where it’s legal, would violate the ban and could cost health care providers their licenses and livelihoods, and even put them at risk of facing criminal penalties.

This dramatic and far-reaching interpretation of Idaho law violates the free speech rights of health care providers in Idaho who desire to give their patients complete information, in accordance with their professional and ethical duties, and their consciences. Idaho cannot ban truthful speech about the availability of legal abortion services in other states without violating the First Amendment.

The interpretation is also premised on the attorney general’s dangerous and unprecedented view that Idaho law applies to abortions provided outside of Idaho’s borders — in states like Washington, Oregon, or California, where abortion remains legal. Not only is this interpretation wrong on the face of Idaho law, it also violates the Due Process Clause, which prevents the arbitrary and unpredictable denial of liberty, as well as the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, which forbids states from regulating commerce (including health care) that occurs wholly in another state. This kind of interstate meddling reveals the bad faith behind the claim that, after Roe was overturned, abortion access would be governed state by state.

Permitting the attorney general’s interpretation of Idaho law to stand would have far reaching implications for a wide range of conduct, from abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care; to any activity about which states have divergent policies. Indeed, it is already severely impacting the care that health care providers in Idaho can provide to their patients. Today, as a result of the attorney general’s opinion, doctors have been forced to deny critical information to people in need of care. And, in situations where an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the pregnant patient, the attorney general’s interpretation can be downright dangerous by denying patients information about their options and potentially delaying them from accessing the care they desperately need.

That’s why two physicians in Idaho represented by the ACLU, along with our allies at Planned Parenthood and the law firm WilmerHale, have challenged Attorney General Labrador’s unconstitutional interpretation of Idaho’s abortion ban in federal court. Earlier this week, the court held a hearing where we urged the judge to temporarily prevent the attorney general, the state boards of nursing and medicine, and Idaho’s local prosecutors from taking any steps to enforce Idaho’s ban against individuals for providing referrals for or information about out-of-state abortion care, or for actually providing that care in states where it’s legal. We hope the court will swiftly act to protect the constitutional rights of Idaho providers and the health of Idaho patients by issuing a preliminary injunction that would block the attorney general and other enforcers from applying Idaho’s ban in the manner contemplated in his opinion.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned less than a year ago, there has been an unrelenting barrage of attacks on abortion — even in states that have already completely outlawed this vital reproductive health care. We’ve always known that the war on reproductive freedom would not end with Dobbs, and Idaho’s latest attempt to punish those helping pregnant individuals access abortion care in the states where abortion remains legal is just the latest chapter in this ongoing fight. Anti-abortion extremists are sure to continue to push similar efforts to impose abortion bans far beyond hostile states’ borders in their campaign to eliminate abortion access nationwide. The only question is whether the courts will let them. We’re showing up in Idaho and across the country to make sure that every person has the right to make the best decisions for their health and future, regardless of where they live.

The Biden administration has been quietly deploying and expanding programs that surveil what people say on social media, using tools that allow agents and analysts to invisibly monitor the vast amount of protected speech that occurs online. For years, these kinds of tools have been increasingly used for a range of controversial law enforcement and intelligence purposes. But some of the most troubling programs continuously monitor the social media posts of non-citizens to decide who gets to live, study, or stay in the United States.

If you’re an immigrant or visa-holder in the United States and believe you’ve been affected by this social media monitoring, the ACLU wants to hear your story.

Social media accounts are extensions of ourselves. A single social media account can reveal a map of our family and friends; a catalogue of our personal preferences and political views; and, of course, a comprehensive diary of our thoughts and speech. Given the trove of information available online, social media surveillance threatens our rights to speak freely and live without fear of constant government scrutiny.

Through our ongoing FOIA lawsuit, the ACLU has obtained documents showing that a wide range of government agencies are monitoring and retaining the speech of U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike — whether or not those individuals are suspected of any criminal wrongdoing. Agencies continue to pour millions of dollars into technology that enables this sustained tracking of social media activity.

American Civil Liberties Union

ACLU v. DOJ: FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Information on Federal Agencies’ Surveillance of Social Media | American Civil Liberties Union

Federal agencies are investing in technology and systems that enable the tracking of social media information on U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike.

In recent years, the government has ramped up its efforts to monitor the social media activities of non-citizens. At least two Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs involve the monitoring of non-citizens who have come to the U.S. for school, work, or other reasons. Under the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Program, DHS monitors the online activities of individuals in the U.S. on student or business visas — from the moment they apply for a visa throughout their stay in the United States. Under another program known as Continuous Immigration Vetting, DHS may monitor social media and a number of other sources for “derogatory information” about non-citizens, starting when a person applies for an immigration benefit until they become a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The government’s social media surveillance can have immense consequences. For example, in August 2019, CBP officers denied entry to Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian student from Lebanon traveling to start his freshman year at Harvard. Ismail, like other non-citizens hoping to enter the United States, was likely subject to the State Department’s policy requiring nearly all visa applicants to disclose their social media handles. After an hours-long interrogation about Ismail’s political views, religious affiliations, and friends’ social media posts, Ismail’s visa was canceled and he was promptly deported.

While Ismail was eventually allowed to pursue his studies in the U.S., the government continues to engage in the suspicionless social media monitoring of non-citizens, including many Black and Brown immigrants and visitors who want to become citizens or pursue degrees here. Once DHS collects this information, it may use it to guide immigration decisions, including those involving deportation, visa revocations, and naturalization.

Suspicionless monitoring of social media infringes the rights of people who are living in the U.S. and are protected by the First Amendment. Individuals who suspect they are being surveilled may fear expressing themselves freely out of concerns over government scrutiny or retaliation. This is a loss for the people whose speech is chilled and for all those who benefit from vibrant online conversations and exchanges of ideas.

Government surveillance also often disproportionally targets racial and religious minority communities and those who dissent against government policies. The ACLU has called on both DHS and the Justice Department to reform their policies that allow biased profiling and investigations. And of course, surveillance undermines our basic notions of privacy. Even individuals who post publicly online do not expect the government to digitally archive their online activity without any suspicion, or to scrutinize their friends, contacts, and associations on social media platforms.

Social media surveillance is also ineffective and lacks empirical support. Analyzing social media is notoriously difficult, given the sheer volume of information and the many ways in which individuals’ online messages can be misinterpreted — especially when those posts span many different languages and cultures. One office within DHS recently rejected a proposal to expand the agency’s collection of social media information after concluding that the monitoring had little utility. The Biden administration has also reportedly considered halting social media vetting for some categories of refugees given concerns about “the efficiency of the process.”

Given the harms of this surveillance, and its demonstrated lack of effectiveness, DHS should end its existing social media programs. Until then, we need to know more about how the government monitors our social media and the impact of this surveillance on communities and individuals.

If you think you are or have been affected by this surveillance, we want to hear from you. Please fill out this form or email us directly at sms_intake@aclu.org. The ACLU will keep strictly confidential any information you provide and will not share it outside the ACLU without your permission.