News & Commentary

In a case with major implications for the medical privacy rights of Rhode Islanders, the ACLU of Rhode Island has today joined with the National ACLU, four other ACLU Affiliates, and the New Hampshire Medical Society in filing a “friend of the court” brief arguing that law enforcement agents need a judicial warrant in order to obtain information from state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) databases.

The passage of out of committee this week of a bill (S 138) which would reinstate a previously repealed statute governing the licensing of medical lab professionals highlighted the way that discriminatory employment patterns are reinforced by actions from the General Assembly. Oftentimes, seemingly innocuous occupational licensing bills have provisions that include expansive and vague language which could render individuals with a criminal background – no matter what crimes they have been convicted of or how long ago their conviction was – unable to procure a license, and hence employment. Such is the case with S 138, which (along with its companion bill H 5367) would resurrect a provision allowing for the denial or suspension of a laboratory professional license for a conviction of any felony or of any misdemeanor for which an “essential element is dishonesty.”

In the debates over making our public schools safer, inclusive, and more academically enriching, it’s critical to consider how measures which appear to be innocuous can significantly impact civil liberties. Many times, proposed solutions can actually widen disparities and inflict harm on students and schools that are already marginalized.

The American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU of Rhode Island have today filed a “friend of the court” brief in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island in an important immigration case in which the federal government is claiming that a person who will likely be tortured if he is extradited back to his home country cannot rely on that fact to prevent his return to that country. The ACLU brief calls that position “incorrect.”

Although some of the bills that we comment on affect civil liberties at their face value – either positively or negatively – the reason that we read every single proposed bill, and comment on 300+ pieces of legislation every year, is because the devil is in the details.

All kids in Rhode Island have the right to a free public education, no matter their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen.

Should a decision as to whether a Rhode Island author is entitled to a sales tax exemption depend on whether she has written a fictional murder mystery as opposed to an exhaustive history of the state? That is the question at the crux of a federal lawsuit the ACLU of RI filed today, challenging the state Division of Taxation’s position that a special sales tax exemption for Rhode Island authors applies only to works of fiction, and not to non-fiction, because non-fiction is not “creative and original.” The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of RI cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger, argues that making such a distinction on the content of the work violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.   The law at issue, enacted by the General Assembly in 2013, is designed to promote the work of local writers and artists. It exempts from the sales tax “original and creative works” sold by writers, composers, and artists residing in Rhode Island. At some point, however, the Taxation Division, in consultation with the RI State Council on the Arts (RISCA), determined that non-fiction books are not “original and creative works,” and therefore not eligible for the tax exemption.

The ACLU of Rhode Island today settled a federal lawsuit against the City of Cranston, successfully challenging its selective enforcement of ordinances barring the placement of commercial advertisements on city property. The suit was filed two filed years ago by ACLU volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi on behalf of Stephen Hunter, a lawyer who was threatened with fines if he did not take down signs advertising his business that he had posted at various intersections throughout the city – even though there were dozens of other advertising signs posted at the same locations and many hundreds more citywide, which were left untouched and not cited.

Even as the session enters its fifth month, we've begun to see movement on only a handful of the bills that are being tracked by the ACLU.