The Department of Justice (DOJ) today withdrew a proposed regulation that would allow government agencies to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests with false statements that the documents sought do not exist, when, in fact, they do. Providing such false denials has apparently been a practice at DOJ for decades, which was most recently revealed in a FOIA lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC) on behalf of a number of Southern California Muslim individuals and organizations.

The groups originally filed a FOIA to request information on whether the FBI had been spying on them in 2006. The DOJ responded by repeatedly stating that no documents existed that were responsive to their request. ACLU/SC filed suit on their behalf. United States District Judge Cormac Carney then reviewed the documents, at which time he discovered that the government had repeatedly lied in its responses. The government claimed that national security concerns justified denying the documents’ existence, but Judge Carney disagreed vehemently in a ruling last April, adding that no national security interest ever justifies making false statements to a court.

The ACLU Washington Legislative Office and members of Congress across the ideological spectrum including Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mark Udall (D-CO), and Representative Lamar Smith (R-IL) in particular, along with OpenTheGovernment.org, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and other open government groups, helped pressure DOJ to withdraw this regulation.

Although the DOJ has now withdrawn the proposed regulation, it has declined to state that it will stop providing deceptive responses in such cases. The open government community will work with Congress and the administration to create effective guidelines and oversight that ensures government agencies will provide sufficient information to understand how FOIA requests are handled, so that citizens can effectively use the courts to protect their right to government information while still protecting the government’s need for secrecy in a very narrow circumstances.

“We’re pleased that the Department of Justice intends to refrain from writing this type of deceptive practice into its regulations,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, deputy legal director at ACLU/SC. “But we’re concerned at what we’re not hearing: that DOJ won’t at some point again try to conceal the truth from citizens and from the courts entrusted with protecting their civil rights. As the Obama Administration should know, our government can only function well when it is transparent.”

The case is Islamic Shura Council v. FBI, 8:07-cv-01088 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

GSAs (Gay Straight Alliances) help create a positive school environment, which is the objective of the ACLU/SC's student rights project. Excerpted from the ACLU Blog of Rights:
GSAs are school clubs that aim to create safe and supportive environments for students to learn about homophobia, transphobia, and other types of oppression and prejudice. They are places to have important discussions, to make friends, and to get support from peers. They can help educate the school community — even people who aren’t in the club — about issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity. And they can help fight the discrimination, harassment, and violence that plague so many students.
Research has shown that students at schools with GSAs experience less harassment and are more likely to feel safe — which makes every day a whole lot easier. That’s why we at the ACLU are such big fans. And that’s why we’ve put together this step-by-step video on how to start a GSA! It guides you through five steps for starting a GSA, from explaining why you want a club to things to do when you start meeting.

The Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), has registered over 4,000 GSAs across the country and in every state in the U.S., so chances are everything will go smoothly! But if you’re worried that your school administration won’t be supportive, it’s particularly important to make sure you follow the steps laid out here. These tips will make it easier for the ACLU to support you if you need our help.  And we have lots of additional resources on our website that may be helpful too.  We’re here to support you through every step of starting a GSA - before you start, when you’re putting up posters, if you run into opposition, and during your meetings.
No one should be bullied. Starting a GSA helps ensure that everyone feels safe at school. It might sound like a big project, but it’s a hugely important one — and if you have any questions or just want to get some general advice about starting a GSA at your school, please contact us. You don’t have to do it alone!

Amidst all the talk of immigration reform and the need to secure our borders, it's easy to forget that our government already imprisons thousands of immigrants for months, often years, in several hundred immigration detention centers scattered across the United States.
Take, for example, the Reverend Raymond Soeoth, a Christian minister who fled Muslim majority Indonesia with his wife after the couple faced persecution for practicing their faith. When his asylum application was denied in 2004, the U.S. government incarcerated Reverend Soeoth at an immigration detention center in Los Angeles. Even though he posed no danger or flight risk and had never been convicted of any crime, he spent over two and a half years in detention while the courts decided whether to reconsider his asylum claim.

Sadly, despite the Department of Homeland Security's claims that such prolonged detention is reserved for the worst of the worst, all too often thousands of immigrants like Reverend Soeoth wind up in immigration detention. Nearly half of those detained have never been convicted of any crime, while many others were convicted of minor offenses long ago, and are detained years later by immigration authorities trying to deport them based on those old offenses.
Remarkably, during those two and a half years, immigration authorities never afforded Reverend Soeoth the most basic element of due process — a hearing before a judge to determine whether his detention was necessary. He was separated from his wife, who was forced to shutter the corner store they ran together, and his congregation, all because our government would not give him a 15 minute bond hearing before a judge. In February 2007, after the ACLU filed suit, a federal court ordered such a hearing for Reverend Soeoth. The judge decided that he presented no danger or risk of flight and ordered him released on bond. Since that time he has reunited with his wife and congregation, rebuilt his life and will likely be granted asylum soon.
The human tragedy created by the detention of Reverend Soeoth and thousands of others like him is made even worse by its exorbitant cost. As taxpayers, we spend $45,000 per detainee per year — a total of $1.9 billion in the past fiscal year — with $100 million more than that requested for the fiscal year 2012 budget, needlessly imprisoning many people who present no threat to our society. As the public debates the merits of shrinking the size of government and bringing the scope of federal power in line with constitutional constraints, we should seriously consider proposals that ensure due process for immigrants by placing reasonable limits on their prolonged detention. Our most basic values as a free country demand an end to the needless of detention of Reverend Soeoth and the thousands of others who deserve better from this great nation.
The ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project receives hundreds of letters each month from individuals inside immigration detention who have been locked up for years, fighting their cases to remain in the United States. Many of them are refugees, lawful permanent residents with US citizen family members, and others who pose no threat to the community.
You can read some of their letters here.