News & Updates

Calling all students: it's pop quiz time! Let's find out if you know your religious freedom rights at school. Imagine the following scenario: an assembly is about to take place at a local public school. It features a youth minister who preaches to students and a rock band playing religious songs. Several atheist students feel uncomfortable going to the assembly because it will include prayer. Their teacher tells them they can just watch a movie during the assembly period instead.

Is this assembly

A. Permissible under the U.S. Constitution; or
B. A violation of religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution
By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project

The Daily Beast has reported that North Dakota has enacted a drone bill that permits law enforcement drones to be equipped with weapons such as Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, and sound cannons. This is a terrible idea.

Having attended numerous drone meetings and conferences in the past several years attended by a broad array of industry, law enforcement, and other government representatives, I can confidently say that there is a broad consensus that armed domestic drones are beyond the pale. With the exception of one sheriff in Texas who mused about arming drones several years ago, the concept is never even seriously discussed in the drone community. Several states have already enacted flat bans on weaponized drones (examples include Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin).

Imagine there are two couples in line to receive marriage licenses. One is an opposite-sex couple and the other a same-sex couple. But, only the opposite-sex couple walks away with a marriage license while the same-sex couple is told to come back when the deputy county recorder has returned to the office. This exact scenario could occur at some point in Stark County, North Dakota.
From January to April North Dakota's Legislature convened in Bismarck to take up more than 800 bills.  ACLU of North Dakota's policy director, Jennifer Cook, was in the thick of it all.  Cook lobbied full-time during this session to advance and protect North Dakotans' civil liberties.

Girls are required to wear dresses. Boys are required to wear pants.

That statement may sound like it's coming from 1950, but some school districts across the United States have tried to enforce antiquated dress codes telling students exactly how they should dress for their high school graduations. They require girls to wear dresses or skirts and boys to wear pants. This is more than just a throwback to a bygone era; it's an unlawful gender-based distinction.

PO Box 1190
Fargo, ND 58107-1190
Our Mission
Our Issues
Our Staff
Sign Up
Action Center
Cases We Accept
Submitting Your Request
Criminal Law Reform
Free Speech
LGBT Rights
Racial Justice
Human Rights
National Security
Religion & Belief
Voting Rights
Womens Rights

This is a Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Learn more about the distinction between the Union and Foundation. Privacy Statement | User Agreement