Decision garnered national attention as requirement would have made Indiana one of the most restrictive states to obtain an abortion April 3, 2017 In a joint news conference today, the ACLU of...
April 12, 2017 The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit April 12, 2017, demanding government documents about the on-the-ground implementation of...
May 18, 2017 "The ACLU of Indiana stands in strong defense of a woman's right to make decisions about her health, including her reproductive health and future. For over four decades, courts...
JUNE 8, 2017 INDIANAPOLIS - The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana praised a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirming that Tippecanoe County violated the...
ELECTION DAY is Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
If you believe your voting rights have been violated, you may contact an attorney or the Election Protection Hotline (866-OUR-VOTE) or the Department of Justice Voting Rights Hotline (800-253-3931).
You have the right to vote in Indiana if:
- You are both a U.S. citizen and a resident of Indiana;
- You will be at least 18 years of age on or before the next General or Municipal Election;
- You are not currently in prison after being convicted of a crime;
- You have lived in the precinct where you vote for at least 30 days prior to the election; and
- You are registered to vote.
Any voter is eligible to vote early by casting an in-person absentee ballot. Early voting begins 29 days before an election and ends on the day prior to the election. Contact your County Election Board for information on early voting locations and times.
Go to page: Know your rights on election day!
A SURVIVAL GUIDE, FORT WAYNE EDITION
Our rights are under attack. Things are moving quickly. Are you prepared?
Join us for "A Survival Guide," part of our First Wednesday's educational series.
A Survival Guide
Wednesday, June 7, 6-7:30 p.m.
3402 Fairfield Ave
Fort Wayne, IN 46807
Hear from the ACLU of Indiana and other community advocates on how to stand up for what's right the in the face of threats and policies that undermine our core American values. I will moderate a panel including:
Ahmed Abdelmageed, member of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana Board of Directors and Assistant Dean of Experiential Education and Community Engagement at Manchester UniversityKit Malone, the ACLU of Indiana's Transgender Education and Advocacy consultantMelissa A. Rinehart, Ph.D., Lead Organizer for Welcoming Fort WayneWanda Savala, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky's Public Affairs Manager
Thanks so much for your willingness to defend our shared values of fairness and freedom. It will take all of us.
Special thanks to the event's co-sponsor, the Wunderkammer Company.
Decision garnered national attention as requirement would have made Indiana one of the most restrictive states to obtain an abortion
In a joint news conference today, the ACLU of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) shared in the victory of being granted a preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana regarding the ultrasound requirement in House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1337.
"HEA 1337 required women to travel, often great distances, to obtain an ultrasound and then at least 18 hours later, return for an abortion. The court found that this new requirement resulted in a real impediment to women and served no legitimate purpose," said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana Legal Director. "The court concluded, by granting the preliminary injunction, that PPINK was likely to ultimately succeed in its claim that the law was unconstitutional as an undue burden on a woman's constitutional rights."
Over the past year, a historic level of activism and protest has spilled out into our nation's parks, streets, and sidewalks — places where our First Amendment rights are at their height. And yet, in several states including Indiana, legislators have followed up on this exuberant activism with proposed bills that are not only far less inspiring, but also unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional.
Disappointingly, SB 285 is one such bill.
Even though these bills are cloaked with concerns about obstruction or public safety, their effect is singular: chilling protest and suppressing dissent. It is disappointing that our lawmakers would rather silence the voices of their constituents than listen and engage with them. It is unconstitutional and un-American and we at the ACLU are doing everything we can to stop it.
Editors: Please contact Christy Glesing at (317) 667-5991 for more information or to publish.
The First Amendment and existing federal and state law protect religious speech and mandate certain accommodations for religious exercise in government institutions. What the First Amendment does not permit is government endorsement of, or preference for, religious speech and subject matter in public schools.
By forcing public schools to introduce religious curricula and open up public for a for religious speech, HB 1024 puts teachers and school administrators at risk of violating the First Amendment. In sum, HB 1024 takes away the autonomy of school districts to avoid policies and practices that make them susceptible to legal challenges under the United States Constitution.
A Survival Guide to the Next Four Years will be held in cities across Indiana this year. Registration for these free community discussions featuring local panelists will open soon.
Hear from the ACLU of Indiana and other community advocates on how to stand up for what's right the in the face of threats and policies that undermine our core American values.
June 7, 6-7:30 p.m.
Location and panelists to be determined soon, but you can still RSVP today!
No doubt, the distinctions between the First Amendment's protections for an individual's free exercise of religion and the First Amendment's prohibition against government's endorsement of religion can be confusing and complicated. However, each of the arguments that Mr. Heck [ACLU declares 'war' on the Constitution, 12/18/16] presents has been addressed and squarely rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is what past U.S. Supreme Court decisions say about the issues surrounding the town of Knightstown's decision to place a cross on top of a Christmas tree in the town square:
Updated: Dec. 13, 2016
On Dec. 12, Knightstown officials removed a religious symbol from the town square in response to a lawsuit filed Dec. 8 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Knightstown, Ind. resident Joseph Tompkins. The lawsuit challenges the Town of Knightstown's display of a Latin cross on a large evergreen tree on the square. The tree is also decorated with lights and ornaments in celebration of Christmas. The plaintiff, citing a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, sought only to have the religious symbol removed, and did not seek monetary damages for the suit. Attorneys are looking at a resolution to this case.
In 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in ACLU of Illinois v. City of St. Charles, affirmed a preliminary injunction stopping the City of St. Charles from displaying a cross on a television antenna that was on top of its fire department.
"The cross is the best known symbol of Christianity and Knightstown's prominent display of this symbol represents an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 31, 2016
Indianapolis — The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana today filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Bedford, Ind. resident who is challenging a newly enacted city ordinance regulating yard signs that has the effect of stifling his political expression. The lawsuit claims that the ordinance violates the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
"The Ordinance's limitation of one general use sign on a resident's lawn is a particularly oppressive during election time when citizens wish to voice their support and opposition for multiple candidates and political issues." —Jan Menz, ACLU of Indiana staff attorney
The ACLU of Indiana filed the case against the City of Bedford on behalf of Samuel Shaw, who is seeking to stop the city from enforcing City Ordinance 15-2016, which was enacted in September.