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.

At the end of the 2022-2023 school year, when she was 14 years old, a verbal altercation occurred between Amerie and a classmate who was berating her and other classmates. This wasn’t the first time that Amerie, a student in North Carolina, faced harassment and bullying from some of her classmates. Her mother, Regina, had repeatedly contacted the school to bring the bullying to their attention, but no interventions took place.

This time, however, the dispute required a teacher to step in, who was later bumped by a student during the intervention. Amerie was taken to the principal’s office by a school resource office (SRO), where she was questioned by the school administration with the SRO present. They determined Amerie was responsible for the physical altercation, despite the teacher saying she hadn’t been hurt and was unable to confirm who made contact with her. Amerie was told she was being sent home and would be suspended. The officer placed her in handcuffs, which were too tight and hurt her wrists.

In North Carolina, school districts continue to devote millions of dollars to the placement of armed law enforcement officers in schools, despite clear evidence of its negative impact on students and learning environments. Prioritizing funds for law enforcement in schools over counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and community-based support is a policy choice that continues to have severe consequences for children in the state, particularly Black students and students with disabilities.

It is well-established that Black students are not generally more likely to misbehave than other students, even after accounting for different socioeconomic backgrounds. Yet school officials punish Black students more frequently than their white peers. Our new report, “The Consequences of Cops in North Carolina Schools,” found that between 2021 and 2023, law enforcement and school staff filed complaints of disorderly conduct against Black students at over five times the rate of their white counterparts. This results in Black students and students with disabilities being over-criminalized, physically and mentally harmed, and funneled into the school-to-prison pipeline every year.

We recently sat down with Amerie and Regina, along with Legal Aid of North Carolina, who is handling her case, to hear about their experience with law enforcement in school and its detrimental impact on Amerie’s academic and personal life. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

ACLU: What happened when you were in the principal’s office with staff and law enforcement?

Amerie: I asked to call my mom multiple times, but they refused. They aggressively told me I was disrespectful and how my mom should have taught me better. It made me very emotional. Once I left the room, I accidentally knocked over a trash can. The officer ran out and told me I was destroying the school’s property and would now be charged. They told me because I had allegedly touched a teacher and was now destroying property, that I would be sent away and get what I deserved. An officer then put me in handcuffs.

ACLU: What happened when you were put in handcuffs? How did it make you feel?

Amerie: I kept asking the officer why I was being put in handcuffs. He did not respond and slammed me down into a seat. He took my phone from me and set it on the counter. He saw my mom calling and watched it ring. The third time it rang, he picked up my cell phone and told my mother that I was in his custody. My mom kept asking why I was under his custody, but he refused to answer. It felt like a “why is this happening to me?” situation. I asked him what I did to deserve this treatment because I had never disrespected them. I have always been respectful and used my manners when it came to staff. I asked him several times, like four or five times, if he would loosen my cuffs. I was telling him that they were cutting off my circulation. And he refused to do that. I was still shedding tears and I was telling him that he didn’t have to take the cuffs off, but to please loosen them because they were hurting me. He laughed in my face and made a comment about how I was in his custody now.

ACLU: Regina, how did you feel when you discovered what your daughter had gone through?

Regina: I was upset. I was overwhelmed. This is not the first time I have brought a situation to them to help me with my daughter. Throughout the year, we have been dealing with bullying, thoughts of suicide, stress, therapy, and medication. This is nothing new to the school; that she is going through something. She has never been aggressive. There is no documentation saying this is what she does. I thought the phone call would be our usual pep talk: “we will get through this.” The teacher explained the situation to me and said she did not feel Amerie was aggressive in any way. She did say that it was a disruption in class.

ACLU: What happened after you left the school?

Amerie: When I first got in the car, I was complaining that my wrists hurt. We left and went to urgent care. They said my cuffs were obviously too tight and cut off my circulation. There were marks and bruises that I never had before.

ACLU: How do you and your classmates feel about having police in schools?

Amerie: I feel like they overplay their part and do more than they are supposed to do. It shocks me how they do their job, because growing up I thought that they were supposed to be by your side and protect you. They normally don’t take the time out of their day to actually visit a kid’s classroom and have conversations. Now I don’t feel safe in this environment. I’m a good kid, but they never took a chance to get to know me. It’s like they’re out to get me.

ACLU: How do you think your education has been impacted since this took place?

Amerie: I feel like it ruined me in general. I don’t feel how I used to feel; being happy to go to school, or just showing up in general. I don’t want to conversate with people anymore, or be around people in general because I’m scared I might run into one of those experiences again.

ACLU: Why do you think it’s important to share this story?

Regina: I never thought that I would have a child be suicidal. As a parent you do everything you can, like keeping them in activities and sports. There are so many kids that Amerie knows that are fighting the same issues she is. I’m willing to do anything to help these kids.

ACLU: Amerie, what do you want to do in the future?

Amerie: I want to teach kids who need extra help. I have had that dream since I was in kindergarten. I feel like I can really relate to them, and sitting one on one with them could bring a lot of joy. In my school, it’s common for these kids to get bullied for how they are. I have always made sure to tell them that anything they want to do, I support them and am proud of them, even if I felt like I was not proud of myself.

Today, the Arizona Supreme Court will consider whether to resurrect a more than 150-year-old criminal ban on virtually all abortions. The court’s decision could allow that law to take precedence over Arizona’s modern abortion laws, including those passed just last year by the people’s current elected representatives.

This ban was originally struck down in 1973, thanks to a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood and physicians in Arizona, and since that time has been superseded by a comprehensive scheme that regulates abortion as a lawful medical procedure. But an anti-abortion activist and County Attorney are now asking the Arizona Supreme Court to turn back the clock. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will and face the life-altering consequences of being denied essential health care, but reviving this antiquated law in full would do just that — and, at the same time, throw Arizona’s entire contemporary legal code into confusion.

The origins of Arizona’s near-total criminal ban at issue in this case go back to 1864. To put that into context: This ban was enacted during the Civil War era, when women were not allowed to vote, and Arizona was not even a state. Yet even though Arizona’s current abortion laws permit abortion through 15 weeks of pregnancy, the 1864 ban permits abortion only when necessary to save the patient’s life. In all other situations, performing an abortion would lead to felony charges and prison time.

Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative

The Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative is one way the ACLU is confronting the criminalization of abortion care.

Given that eight in 10 Americans — who are around today — support the legal right to abortion, allowing this zombie abortion ban to be enforced against abortion providers would be profoundly undemocratic. This law — which no current elected official or Arizonan ever voted for — would condemn all those in Arizona who can become pregnant to a second-class status, denying them control over their bodies and their futures. It should come as no surprise, then, that leading medical groups are united in condemning abortion bans like these, as they threaten patients’ health and disproportionately harm marginalized patient populations.

These are not theoretical concerns. It is all too easy to predict what the full impact of imposing the 1864 ban would be, because we have seen the devastating impact of such extreme abortion bans throughout the country, since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

Following Dobbs, it is estimated that nearly a quarter of pregnant people seeking an abortion have been unable to get one. The enduring harms to women and children’s financial, medical, and overall wellbeing caused by being denied an abortion are well-documented. Abortion bans have resulted in tragic stories of pregnant patients facing dangerous pregnancy complications being denied care, children as young as 10 years old pregnant as a result of rape unable to access care in their state — and in some cases unable to get an abortion at all, as well as countless other egregious scenarios.

Of course, even before Dobbs, pregnant people faced substantial obstacles accessing abortion care. But the burdens after Dobbs on pregnant people attempting to seek care — including greater travel time, increased expenses, and the threat of prosecution for those who try to help pregnant people get care out of state — have made accessing abortions impossible for some.

Alabama Health Care Providers File Lawsuit to Prevent the Prosecution of Those Helping Patients Seek Out-of-State Abortion Care

Health care providers filed a lawsuit to prevent the prosecution of those who assist Alabamians seeking to access abortion care across state lines.

Thankfully, in a well-reasoned decision issued in December 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to impose the near-total ban on abortion across the state. (The ACLU and partners at the ACLU of Arizona, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Perkins Coie LLP have also filed our own suit seeking to ensure that the 1864 ban does not supplant Arizona’s current abortion laws.) The Arizona Supreme Court must do the same.

Although this case is principally about applying longstanding legal precedent, the stakes are high — and the chaos and harms that would result from the Civil War-era ban criminalizing nearly all abortion care are no less fundamental, undeniable, and terrifying. The Arizona Supreme Court must keep a lid on the Pandora’s box that the ban would unleash on pregnant people in Arizona, their families, and their communities.