Being born into poverty often determines what the rest of your life looks like — not just for you, but for your kids and the generations that follow. Babies born into poverty face limited opportunities and begin their adult lives at a significant disadvantage. This persistent disparity is a major obstacle to achieving systemic equality.

Wealth inequality in the United States has reached alarming levels, particularly when viewed through the lens of racial disparities. This wealth gap isn’t just about money; it’s about historical and systemic injustices like redlining and discriminatory policies that have plagued marginalized communities for far too long. Currently, the net worth of a white family is eight times greater than that of a Black family. Everyone should have access to meaningful economic opportunities and get the chance to build their financial futures, not just the few who have access to wealth. To confront this pressing issue, we need proactive strategies.

Enter “baby bonds” — a simple yet profound idea, primarily originated and championed by economist Dr. Darrick Hamilton. Imagine every child in America receiving a government-funded savings account at birth, managed by federal, state, or local governments until adulthood. These accounts are designed to provide children with the economic resources needed to begin building long-term economic security and generational wealth — and a pathway out of poverty for millions of babies every year.

The way it works is simple: Babies are automatically enrolled at birth and receive a seed deposit that is income-dependent, meaning that lower-income families receive larger deposits, embodying a targeted, universal policy aimed at reducing wealth inequality. Federal and/or state treasuries would invest and administer the funds, which would grow over time until recipients choose to access them when they become adults. At that point, 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.

The impact of baby bonds can be transformative. Baby bonds can break the cycle of poverty and make prosperity achievable for the next generation. If administered nationally, baby bonds could shrink the racial wealth gap from 91 percent to 25 percent. By providing targeted support to lower-income communities, primarily Black and Latine, baby bonds seek to rectify some of the systemic injustices and disadvantages they disproportionately face.

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen in the U.S. — and it should be treated as a national emergency. Congress needs to strongly consider creating a national baby bonds program, such as that proposed in the American Opportunity Accounts Act (AOAA) as introduced by Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley. Under the bill, every child born in the U.S. would be provided with a government-funded savings account with seeded and annual deposits based on income. At birth, each child would receive $1,000 with an annual supplement of up to $2,000, with children from the lowest-income households receiving the maximum amount. If the AOAA had been implemented 25 years ago, Black children today would have a median account balance of $27,500, Hispanic children would have $19,800, and white children would have $7,100.

States have already stepped up to the plate. Connecticut led the way and became the first to pass legislation in 2021, providing eligible babies with $3,200 in investment accounts. Washington, D.C. initiated a similar program, with potential funds growing to $25,000 by age 18. In 2022 California followed, offering up to $8,000 to eligible children who have lost a parent to COVID-19 or are in long-term foster care.

And the momentum is growing stronger. This year, eight additional states have considered or proposed baby bond legislation, including New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Nevada, Louisiana, Maryland, and Massachusetts. While eligibility would be universal under the AOAA, only babies born under Medicaid are typically eligible under state legislation, underscoring the need for a national program.

As baby bonds catch fire across the country, it’s clear this idea is resonating with Americans of all backgrounds. A recent national YouGov poll commissioned by the ACLU revealed broad support for establishing baby bond programs. Contrary to assumptions that support might be limited to high-cost living areas, the poll results indicate that people from diverse living environments are in favor of baby bonds. Across racial lines, there is also overwhelming support. Specifically, 73 percent of Black voters, 64 percent of Latine voters, 54 percent of white voters, and 60 percent of AMEMSA and Indigenous voters expressed their endorsement of baby bonds.

This widespread support highlights the policy’s potential to bridge racial disparities and garner support from a diverse range of communities. The most notable finding is that support also spans across the political spectrum. A majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are all in favor of the baby bonds policy. This bipartisan support is particularly noteworthy, given that economic investments of this nature often face partisan opposition.

The ACLU stands firmly in support of baby bonds, recognizing their potential to reshape the landscape of racial and economic justice. It’s time to take a bold step toward a more equitable future, where every child has a chance to thrive, regardless of their family’s economic circumstances — at both the state and federal levels.

Jessica Barahona-Martinez and her three children arrived at the southern U.S. border in 2016. Fleeing gang violence and government persecution in El Salvador, she came seeking asylum and a better life. Like many asylum seekers with family in the United States, after being apprehended by Border Patrol, she and her children were released to live with her sister, who is a lawful permanent resident, in Virginia. Her release came with strict reporting requirements as her asylum case proceeded through the courts.

For over a year, Jessica attended every check in with ICE. She complied with all conditions — even when ICE told her during a Friday check in to go home, say goodbye to her children, and report to a detention center the following Monday. She was arrested and detained in June 2017 and unjustly remained in ICE custody for over six years — only being released late September 2023 following a federal court’s intervention.

Courtesy of Jessica Barahona-Martinez

We first learned about Jessica’s case earlier this year during a visit to detention centers in Louisiana. After hearing of her years-long plight, we couldn’t fathom what would justify such treatment — particularly for a single mother of young children. We were certain it was a mistake — a legacy of harsh immigration policies of the previous administration — that would quickly be rectified after bringing attention to her case. But instead, ICE dug in its heels, refusing to release Jessica despite her family connections, no history of criminal convictions, and a perfect record of compliance with ICE reporting conditions.

ICE arrested Jessica because El Salvador sought an INTERPOL Red Notice, essentially an international warrant that seeks the arrest of someone who has left the country. It’s true that she was charged with a crime in El Salvador — alleged extortion of $30 associated with a gang. But the charge was pretextual: Police in El Salvador targeted her because she is a lesbian woman and rebuffed their sexual advances. After being detained for eight months in horrific conditions, including being abused by police, she was acquitted of the charge due to lack of evidence. Facing threats from rival gangs after being falsely labeled a gang member, she fled to the United States. After she had already left the country, El Salvador sought to retry her for the charge and later pursued an INTERPOL Red Notice.

El Salvador has a long history of abusing the Red Notice system. However, the Department of Homeland Security continues to use these notices and other unreliable information to arrest, detain, and deport people from El Salvador. In Jessica’s case, the notice was deleted by the Interpol Commission in record time after her pro bono counsel presented evidence of the pretextual prosecution and her claim of innocence. Yet even then ICE refused to release her.

Jessica’s detention was unjustified from the start, and became even more unconscionable as it extended year after year with no end in sight. During this time she was granted asylum twice by an immigration judge, yet each time, the government appealed — arguing she was barred from asylum based on the criminal charge in El Salvador, despite acknowledging she may well be innocent of the charge. As a result of being locked up for more than six years, her mental and physical health severely deteriorated, and she was deprived of contact with her children during key moments of their lives.

We took on Jessica’s case and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus early last month, which alleged that she was being detained illegally. Following our filing, both the ICE regional field office in Louisiana, and ICE headquarters in D.C. once again rubber stamped her detention. But we pushed forward.

Late last month, a federal court in Louisiana issued an order stating that, if our allegations were true, the government was violating her right to due process by continuing to detain her. The court granted our request for an expedited schedule and ordered the government to respond within four calendar days with a justification for her detention. Notably, the court stated that it would not grant any extension due to the prolonged nature of her detention. Hours later, Jessica was free and reunited with her children and sister. After six years of detention, three of which were in an ICE detention center over 1,000 miles away from her family, the moment they were reunited was emotional.

“I got my life back when I returned to my children’s side,” she told us on the phone after she was released. “Today, I feel like I was born again, surrounded by the greatest love, my children and my family. After 6 long years of being detained, I finally feel whole.”

No one should be subjected to immigration detention without justification, and certainly not the six years of detention that Jessica was forced to endure. President Biden has repeatedly promised to build a more humane immigration system, one that reduces the use of immigration detention and encourages alternatives to detention, which allow people to remain with their families. But Jessica’s case proves that something isn’t working: The immigration detention system is broken if it allows for people like Jessica to be needlessly locked up for years. And Jessica isn’t alone. Tens of thousands of immigrants remain locked up in immigration detention — the overwhelming majority without any legal representation and isolated from legal services as well as their family and loved ones. They deserve the right to make their case, too.

Racial discrimination exists in many forms. It can be as violent and overt as police brutality or as subtle as lines drawn on a voting map. In the latter case, the act may seem innocuous or technical, but the impact is significant.

Just look at what happened in January 2022. Ahead of the midterm elections, South Carolina’s majority-white and majority-Republican Legislature redrew Congressional District 1 (CD 1) to maintain political power. But it purposefully targeted Black communities to do so. Mapmakers unnecessarily moved thousands of Black voters out of the district in textbook racial sorting.

But the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race.

That’s what’s being argued in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Arnold & Porter challenged the map on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and an individual voter, Taiwan Scott.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

South Carolina intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

In January 2023, a unanimous federal three-judge court ruled that CD 1’s configuration in the 2022 map was unconstitutional because the Legislature sorted Black voters by race, and that therefore South Carolina would have to redraw it. The state appealed the ruling, however, and the Supreme Court is now set to hear oral argument on October 11.

Here’s a closer look at why this redistricting case is so important and what it could mean for Black communities in South Carolina — and across the country.

Redistricting is the process of redrawing the district maps on the basis of which public officials are elected. This process occurs every 10 years to account for new census data and population changes, because the Constitution requires that each district have roughly the same number of voters.

Redistricting can affect election outcomes from the federal to the local level. As a result, it can affect how communities are represented in government and how resources are distributed for health care, education, and infrastructure.

The redistricting process is vulnerable to abuse: it is an opportunity for legislators interested in protecting their seats to pick their preferred voters and to displace disfavored ones. A “gerrymander” refers to a district map that has been drawn to manipulate the outcome of elections. The term was coined in 1812, referring to a salamander-shaped district designed to favor Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s political party.

Today, districts are drawn using vast amounts of data, with increasingly sophisticated methods and software that heighten the ability of legislators to pick and choose between voters. This precision enhances the opportunity for gerrymandering.

South Carolina’s Legislature, for example, gerrymandered CD 1 by targeting and drawing Black communities out of the district, “exiling” them to adjacent districts — as the trial court found in the Alexander case.

Gerrymandering, by skewing the composition of a district, can prevent voters’ voices from being heard and unfairly distort election results.

Redistricting and gerrymandering affect all communities, but, in practice, they often have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. That’s because these practices are often employed to limit their ability to vote for representatives who can advocate for their needs and make their voices heard. When legislatures sort by race, as the court found happened in South Carolina, the legislatures also entrench the belief that representatives need only respond to members of a particular group.

How Much Do You Know about Redistricting?

How does redistricting become gerrymandering, and what does that mean for your voting rights? Test your knowledge.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

In South Carolina’s CD 1, gerrymandering prevents voters from accessing representatives who could fight for economic development, affordable housing, healthcare, resources for historically Black colleges and universities, and broadband internet, among many other issues.

South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters. It acted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest such as satisfying an obligation under the Voting Rights Act. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments also forbid intentional racial discrimination.

In January 2023, a panel of three federal judges unanimously concluded that South Carolina’s congressional map is unconstitutional.

The ACLU works to ensure that redistricting takes place in a fair way that respects all voters and their communities.

In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the ACLU is advocating for the implementation of a fair and lawful CD 1 map in time for the 2024 election cycle.

The case is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on October 11. Because the lower court applied settled legal principles and concluded that the CD 1 map was unconstitutional based on extensive evidence, we are confident that the Supreme Court will do the same.

Black voters in CD 1 have already had to vote under an unconstitutional map once in the 2022 midterm elections. They shouldn’t have to endure that injustice in the upcoming 2024 elections, or ever again. We will fight until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.