News & Commentary

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the R.I. Commission for Human Rights, and Rhode Island for Community and Justice today expressed concern about the latest results of a study finding racial disparities in traffic stops in the state, while expressing hope it would spur police departments to meaningfully tackle this persistent and troubling problem.

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown issued the following statement today in response to Governor Raimondo’s issuance of an executive order requiring all internet service providers seeking contracts with the State to adhere to “net neutrality” principles:

The ACLU has appealed to the R.I. Supreme Court a Superior Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a problematic Providence housing ordinance that prohibits more than three “college students” from living together in certain areas of the city.  In her February 2018 decision, Superior Court Judge Maureen Keough acknowledged “strong reservations concerning the effectiveness” of the ordinance, but ultimately ruled against the students and found the ordinance constitutional.  In 2016, ACLU of RI cooperating attorneys Jeffrey L. Levy and Charles D. Blackman filed the lawsuit on behalf of the owner and tenants – four Johnson & Wales undergraduate students – of a house in the Elmhurst section of Providence. The City ordinance makes it illegal for more than three “college students” to live together in a non-owner-occupied single family home in certain residential areas. The lawsuit argues that the ordinance is discriminatory and ineffective in its stated purpose of improving neighborhoods, and violates the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection of the law. ACLU attorney Levy said today: “This case presents an important opportunity for the Supreme Court to show that Rhode Island’s Constitution reflects our values as a community. College students represent the future of our state, and we should not tolerate laws that discriminate against students or treat them as second-class citizens.” “The Court’s decision clearly recognized the questionable utility of this ordinance. From our perspective, the ordinance’s failure to effectuate its goal demonstrates that it is arbitrary and unnecessarily infringes on individuals’ constitutional right to choose where they live, and with whom,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of RI. More information about the lawsuit, FHC v. City of Providence, is available here.

The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s pattern of separating married couples and families pursuing lawful immigration status. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is Rhode Island resident and mother Lilian Calderon, who was recently released from detention as the result of earlier ACLU court action.

In his latest update on the state’s compliance with a court order designed to ensure the timely provision of food stamp assistance to needy families, Special Master Deming Sherman indicated that the Department of Human Services’ timeliness in processing requests for food stamp benefits went slightly down, not up, in February. ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown called it “frustrating” that, rather than improving, the state’s compliance rate had gone down.

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown issued the following statement today in response to the inclusion of a question about citizenship status in the 2020 census:

The ACLU of RI today applauded the formal filing of regulations this week by the RI Department of Education (RIDE), requiring all public school districts to adopt a comprehensive policy outlining the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming students.  The regulations take effect on April 17, 2018, and all schools must have a compliant policy in place by July 1, 2018. “As the federal government continues to undermine the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming students, we applaud RIDE’s actions to mandate school districts to have clear and comprehensive policies in place to protect this group,” said Steven Brown, ACLU of RI executive director. The regulations are the result of an ongoing effort by local organizations, including the ACLU of RI, to protect this group of students, which faces unique discrimination in the school setting. The regulations emanate from a petition that the ACLU and nine other groups – including the RI State Council of Churches, GLAD, and the RI Commission for Human Rights – filed with RIDE last September seeking the adoption of statewide regulations on the subject. Specifically, the new regulations mandate districts have policies in place that are consistent with state and national best practices, and “address, at a minimum, such issues as confidentiality and privacy, discipline and exclusion, staff training, access to school facilities and participation in school programs, dress codes and official school records and use of preferred names and pronouns.” In 2016, RIDE released a detailed model policy that aimed to address the specific needs of trans students and ensure schools’ compliance with civil rights laws.  However, schools were not mandated to adopt the model policy, and research conducted last year by the ACLU revealed that many RI schools had no policy in place to protect the rights of this vulnerable group. The ACLU said it will be monitoring RI schools districts to ensure that those still without a compliant policy implement one by the July 1, 2018 deadline. By the ACLU’s last count, there were at least seven school districts across the state without adequate policies in place, including Chariho, Exeter-West Greenwich, Newport and Woonsocket. Click here for the RIDE regulations.

Lately, we’ve been getting a lot of calls about both red light cameras and speed cameras.*  One thing is clear: drivers are pretty angry. If you aren’t mad about them, you probably should be:

There's been a lot of talk about a bill introduced in the General Assembly that would “require Internet service providers to provide digital blocking of sexual content and patently offensive material . . . and allow consumers to deactivate digital block upon payment of a twenty dollar ($20.00) fee.”  This legislation is clearly unconstitutional, inevitably ineffective, and ultimately counter-productive.