Blogs

On Wednesday, the Trump administration bid farewell to one of its most infamous members: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In his brief tenure, Sessions managed to dismantle and rescind an astounding range of efforts by prior administrations to protect civil rights and civil liberties and introduced new policies that endanger some of the most vulnerable citizens in the U.S.

From his draconian approach to immigration policy to his efforts to erase protections for transgender people to his many moves to dismantle his predecessors’ attempts to decrease the federal prison population, the list of Sessions’ offenses is long. We’ve rounded up some of the former attorney general’s most egregious actions below to showcase Sessions' contempt for civil rights and liberties.

Immigration

Sessions did everything in his power to speed up deportations and aid the separation of families, issuing a series of policies that trampled on due process. The Justice Department ended a program to notify immigrants of their rights during deportation cases, set arbitrary and unreasonable quotas for immigration judges, and repeatedly overruled immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals' decisions on his own initiative.

This summer, the former attorney general attracted criticism from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for requiring victims of domestic violence seeking asylum to meet a nearly impossiblethreshold during the asylum screening process. Following the summary deportation of two ACLU clients, a woman and her child who fled rape and other brutality in El Salvador, Judge Sullivan asked: “Somebody in pursuit of justice who has alleged a credible fear in her mind and is seeking justice in a United States court is just spirited away?” He went on to order the government to “turn the plane around” and return our clients to the U.S.

In September, the ACLU published a first-person account of a survivor of domestic violence from Mexico who was granted asylum prior to the introduction of Sessions’ new policy. “People like me come from countries where the police and justice system do not protect women and girls,” she wrote. “For the United States to deny us refuge says our lives mean nothing.”

Under Sessions, the Justice Department also made a series of increasingly desperate attempts to bully states and localities into colluding with its draconian detention and deportation agenda, in spite of being repeatedly blocked by the courts. And Sessions fully endorsed Trump’s decision to end the DACA program, which provides protection from deportation to hundreds of thousands of undocumented young people who came here through no fault of their own.  Sessions maintained that the relief, granted by the Obama administration, was an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”

Criminal Justice

Sessions’ efforts to dismantle civil rights and civil liberties protections gained during prior administrations are especially apparent when it comes to criminal justice. He rescinded multipleObama-era memos, including one that directed federal resources away from enforcing federal drug laws in states that have legalized medical or recreational use of marijuana. The move was part of the former attorney general’s fear-driven agenda to reinvigorate the War on Drugs and to systematically dismantle his predecessors’ efforts to reduce federal imprisonment rates. Among those efforts was Sessions’ directive to prosecutors to bring the harshest possiblecases against defendants — including people like Marion Hungerford, a mentally ill woman who was sentenced to 159 years in federal prison for helping to commit a string of armed robberies, even though she never touched the gun.

In May, Sessions falsely claimed that the settlement between the ACLU of Illinois and the Chicago Police Department was to blame for hundreds of deaths and shootings in the city. The landmark agreement followed the release of a groundbreaking report documenting officers’ unlawful use of stop and frisk. Sessions’ assertion that abiding by the Constitution increases crime is unsupported by the evidence and deeply flawed as a matter of principle. 

Throughout his tenure, Sessions resisted efforts to make the work of prosecutors more transparent and fair. Just last month, the Justice Department opposed the release of an opinion by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility that required federal prosecutors working in the state to disclose all information favorable to criminal defendants.

Sessions also sought to limit the work of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Efforts to seek justice for people killed during police encounters have been dismissed, such as when the Justice Department declined to pursue federal civil rights charges against the officers involved in Alton Sterling’s death, or have been stonewalled, as in the prolonged civil rights investigation into the killing of Eric Garner.

Under prior attorney generals, the Justice Department undertook numerous civil rights investigations into local police departments and entered into consent decrees seeking to end racially discriminatory police practices in places such as Seattle; Los Angeles County; New Orleans; Baltimore; Newark; East Haven, Connecticut; and Ferguson, Missouri. But with Sessions’ arrival, an era of systemic police reform in cooperation with the federal government came to an end. In a March 2017 memo, Sessions instructed Justice Department officials to stay out of local police officers’ business. He has also ended a critical community policing program formerly used to address racial profiling and other issues, such as excessive use of force. And just before Sessions tendered his resignation on Wednesday, he signed a memo making it harder for the Justice Department to enter into consent decrees with police departments accused of civil rights and liberties abuses. 

Transgender Rights

Shortly after Trump was inaugurated, Sessions began systematically reversing hard-won legal protections for transgender people. In February 2017, the Justice Department revoked a guidance issued in 2016 by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice on the rights of transgender students under Title IX.

In May 2018, the former attorney general took his efforts to dismantle protections for transgender people into the criminal justice system when he introduced a new policy mandating prison placements based on assigned sex at birth, except in rare cases. The policy, which endangers transgender people in prison, replaced a former rule, which required that gender identity — a person’s authentic, core understanding of their own gender — play a central role in whether a person is held in a male or female prison.

In October of this year, the Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court attacking an appeals court decision in favor of our client Aimee Stephens. Aimee, a transgender woman, was fired from her job of six years at a funeral home after coming out to her employer. After Aimee sued the funeral home, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled for her in March, stating that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “No one should be fired because of who they are,” Aimee wrote for us in October.

Sessions disagrees. The Justice Department’s critique of the appeals court reflects its ongoing attack on transgender people. And last year, Sessions declared that transgender people would no longer be protected from sex discrimination under Title VII, changing the rules for all federal programs. Attacks like these bolstered an October announcement that the Trump administration plans to eliminate nondiscrimination protections for trans people found in federal civil rights law by changing the definition of “sex.”

Voting Rights

Voting rights also came under attack during Sessions’ reign over the Justice Department. A controversial memo from the Department of Commerce to the Census Bureau in 2018 mandating the addition of a question on citizenship to the Census was triggered by an earlier request from a Trump appointee in the Justice Department.

When career civil rights attorneys in the Justice Department refused to sign on to efforts by the administration to roll back voting rights, Sessions — who once called the Voting Rights Act “intrusive” — simply cherry-picked political appointees to work on those issues instead.

After Sessions

Following Sessions’ forced resignation, Trump quickly moved to place Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general. Whitaker, a lawyer and former prosecutor, was Sessions’ chief of staff. There is little reason to believe that he will not follow in his predecessor’s footsteps on issues of civil rights and civil liberties. All those who care about civil liberties and civil rights will need to keep a close eye on the Justice Department. Sessions’ tenure was a disaster, and his replacement promises more of the same.   

This blog was originally posted on ACLU's Speak Freely.

Date

Friday, November 9, 2018 - 10:15am

Featured image

Jeff Sessions

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Criminal Law Reform Immigrants' Rights Voting Rights LGBTQ Rights

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

On Tuesday, voters turned out in record numbers for the midterm elections — and there is good evidence that health care motivated many of them to head to the polls. They voted to expand Medicaid in several states and elected more women than ever before to represent them in Congress.

But less than 24 hours after ballots were cast, the Trump administration moved to undermine access to women’s health care, releasing a series of rules, one proposed and two final, attacking insurance coverage for both abortion and contraception.

On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that would create burdensome and unnecessary regulations designed to cause insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace to stop covering abortion care. The proposed rule could push abortion care out of reach for many of the 1.3 million people who purchase plans through the government marketplaces, and possibly more if insurers opt to drop coverage in additional plans. 

Without coverage, some may be forced to delay care or may be unable to access care altogether. Low-income women and families, for whom denial of abortion care can mean being pushed deeper into poverty, will bear the greatest burden if the rule takes effect.

Another set of rules released Wednesday would allow virtually any employer or university to deny people birth control coverage on the basis of religious or moral objections. These rules are the administration’s latest attack on the ACA’s popular birth control benefit, which requires insurance plans to cover birth control without a co-pay. In short, they mean that you could lose birth control coverage — a benefit that is guaranteed by law — simply because your boss objects to it.

The timing of these rules, just a day after the election, was a calculated move. It illustrates that the Trump administration is well aware that pushing health care out of peoples’ reach doesn’t do well at the ballot box. And that’s exactly what these rules will do if they take effect. 

The rules on birth control coverage are set to take effect in 60 days, but earlier versions of the rules proposed last year have been blocked by courts in Pennsylvania and California. Courts could, and should, block this week’s final rules as well.

The proposed rule on abortion coverage cannot take effect until after a public comment period, so stay tuned for ways to make your voice heard in the coming months. The administration may have waited until after you cast your ballot to levy its latest attack, but you can still make sure that they know you are watching and that you won’t stand for it.

Blog by Georgeanne M. Usova, Legislative Counsel, Washington Legislative Office

Date

Friday, November 9, 2018 - 4:15pm

Featured image

President Donald J. Trump walks down the West Colonnade of the White House

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Reproductive Freedom

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Style

Standard with sidebar

In his final move as attorney general, Jeff Sessions on Wednesday issued a new policy that all but eliminates federal oversight of state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in unconstitutional and unlawful policing. While Sessions — a white man with money and political connections — will likely never be personally affected by this policy change, his decision to sabotage the legal instruments of federal civil rights enforcement is going to harm people and communities of color for years to come.  

The new policy sets unprecedented barriers for Justice Department attorneys to negotiate consent decrees, which are court orders jointly agreed on by the federal government and a state or local law enforcement agency accused of serious rights violations. They usually require new training and policies to resolve these violations at a systemic level, with implementation overseen by a court-appointed monitor until the agency has successfully carried out the required reforms. Such decrees have covered everything from use of force to racial bias and officer hiring and oversight to basic recordkeeping.

Ever since Sessions took office, he was openly hostile to consent decrees as a “harmful federal intrusion” on state and local law enforcement authority. And his final decision as attorney general codified his contempt.

Sessions’ final policy imposes substantive limits on consent decrees — for example, limiting the scope of reforms, restricting what tools the Justice Department can use to monitor compliance with the decree, and requiring the Justice Department to end federal oversight earlier than is often needed to complete reforms. It also imposes similar limitations on other types of settlement agreements that the Justice Department could use short of a consent decree.

These self-imposed handcuffs will make it next to impossible for the Justice Department to bring about the kinds of systemic reforms that communities of color have demanded in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago, and elsewhere. Reforming the embedded practices and culture of a rogue law enforcement agency often requires the adoption of a comprehensive plan that is backed up by thorough oversight and takes years to implement successfully. The Sessions policy attacks each of these elements — forcing the Justice Department to ask too little of the agency, do too little to verify that the agency is meeting its obligations and leave too early to finish the job.

Sessions’ maneuver is the capstone of his efforts to cut out the civil rights enforcement that Eric Holder, a former attorney general under President Obama, repeatedly described as the “crown jewel” of the Justice Department. It’s also part of the larger trend of the Trump administration cozying up to local officials like former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke who use the badge to abuse poor people, people of color, immigrants, and communities.
 
Because Sessions prioritized good relations with police interests above all else — with no questions asked — members of Congress going forward must consider the integrity of every Justice Department action on policing under his tenure. Sessions’ meticulously checked the box on eliminating his predecessors’ policies to advance constitutional policing. And perhaps for no reason other than to “have [law enforcement’s] back,” as Sessions regularly declared.
 

Sessions started and finished with consent decrees, but his impact on policing was broader than that. And with all of the distractions and blind eyes during the 115th Congress, there has been zero oversight from the Congress on just how far Sessions’ reach was.      

Sessions’ “law and order” agenda eliminated or perverted Obama-era efforts to advance constitutional policing on a range of issues. His Justice Department kicked the can on collecting data on fatal police shootings despite a now four-year-old law requiring them to do so. Sessions’ perverted a community policing program known as “collaborative reform,” using it to address violent crime instead of systemic policing failures. 

Despite bipartisan congressional efforts to rein in civil asset forfeiture, Jeff Sessions unleashed it, describing a “love” for it. Sessions cheered on police militarization when Trump eliminated all oversight and regulation of federal transfers of military weapons to law enforcement. And Sessions deemed the “centerpiece” of his “law and order” agenda, a War-on-Drugs-type program known as  Project Safe Neighborhoods, which the Congress just reauthorized.         

With a new Congress set to begin in January, it’s time for members of Congress to conduct rigorous hearings and other oversight of Justice Department policing policies. The federal government has an obligation to ensure state and local law enforcement agencies uphold and respect people’s constitutional rights — not incentivize their violation.

 

By Kanya Bennett, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office and Carl Takei, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality

Date

Friday, November 9, 2018 - 5:15pm

Featured image

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Police Accountability

Show related content

Pinned related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Blogs