About the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project
The Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration.
Founded in 1998, the Project brings lawsuits throughout the country with lasting impact on public understanding of, and government response to, drug use and drug policies. The Project’s legal strategies are built on the idea that fighting for civil rights means more than just persuading judges. It means changing hearts and minds. We work on the frontlines with communities most affected by drugs and drug laws to integrate litigation with innovative public education campaigns and to develop tools to help these communities demand justice.
The Project has an unparalleled track record, having successfully litigated issues ranging from racial profiling in drug law enforcement to protecting medical marijuana users and their doctors from prosecution. We will continue that tradition of success, combining litigation, education, and community empowerment to achieve a humane and sensible drug policy that respects basic human rights and the liberties enshrined in our nation’s Constitution.
| Attorneys with the Drug Law Reform Project have litigated the following cases, among others, over the past six years, as counsel for either a party or an amicus curiae. |
|
Samson v. California, 126 S. Ct. 2193 (2006) Fourth Amendment challenge to law enforcement officers conducting suspicionless search of parolee. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the suspicionless search of a California parolee does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Read more >> |
| Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, 126 S. Ct. 1211 (2006) Challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to Federal Government’s refusal to allow the possession of the hallucinogenic substance hoasca to adherents of a particular religious group. In a 8-0 decision, the Court affirmed the issuance of an injunction against the Government, holding that the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in barring the individuals’ sacramental use of the hallucinogen. Read more >> |
|
Board of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls,
536 U.S. 822 (2002) Challenge to constitutionality of school’s suspicionless drug-testing policy, where the Project argued that students have a right to be free from random, unannounced, and suspicionless drug testing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld suspicionless drug testing of students who participate in extra-curricular activities. Read more >> |
| United States Dep’t of Housing & Urban Develop. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002) Constitutional and statutory challenge to Federal government’s “one strike and you’re out” policy for low-income housing project tenants, where the tenant’s family member or friend—but not the tenant herself—was caught with a controlled substance. The Court upheld the policy even as to those tenants who were unaware of the drug possession or who had attempted to intervene to stop the drug use. Read more >> |
| United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) Applicability of medical-necessity exception to federal statute prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of marijuana, where cooperative was distributing medical marijuana to seriously ill patients in California. The Court held that the exception does not apply. Read more >> |
| Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) Challenge to public hospital’s policy of subjecting pregnant women to involuntary drug testing. Under the policy, 29 of the 30 women who were tested were African American. The Court held that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read more >> |
| United States v. Ricks (to be argued Fall 2006, 3d Cir.) Defense of individual convicted of possessing crack cocaine, agreeing with district court that courts have discretion to depart from the notorious 100:1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing ratio. Read more >> |
| Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) Challenge to ordinance that permits arrest and conviction of homeless individuals for sitting or lying on sidewalks. The court of appeals held that the ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read more >> |
|
Thompson v. Sandoval, unpublished order (9th Cir. 2006) Lawsuit brought on behalf of two California prisoners claiming that the state has a policy of denying parole to inmates who were addicted to alcohol or drugs prior to their incarceration. The court of appeals held that prisoners were entitled to discovery to prove their claim that the state’s policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. |
|
Turner v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 354 F.3d 890 (D.C. Cir. 2004) Constitutional and statutory challenge to the District of Columbia’s refusal to certify and release results of initiative vote to approve the use of medical marijuana. The court ruled for plaintiffs and issued an injunction requiring the certification and release of the vote count. Read more >> |
| Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) First Amendment challenge to Federal Government’s policy of threatening to punish physicians for communicating with their patients about the potential medical benefits of using marijuana. The court of appeals held that the Government’s policy was unconstitutional and upheld a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the policy. Read more >> |
| Marchwinski v. Howard, 309 F.3d 330 (6th Cir. 2002), 60 Fed. App. 601 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (affirming by equally divided court) Challenge to Michigan’s policy of randomly testing welfare recipients for drug use. An equally divided en banc court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Michigan’s policy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read more >> |
| Doe v. Bridgeport Police Dep’t, 434 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D. Conn. 2006) Class-action lawsuit on behalf of injection drug users who use a syringe exchange program to avoid contracting HIV and Hepatitis C. The Court has issued two permanent injunctions prohibiting law enforcement officers from arresting or otherwise punishing class members for possessing drug-injection equipment. Read more >> |
| United States v. Patel, plea bargain prior to trial (N.D. Ga. 2006) Challenge to racial discrimination, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the investigation and prosecution of dozens of South Asian convenience store clerks who were accused of selling ingredients that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. The defendants received a plea agreement prior to trial. Read more >> |
| Alexander v. Goose Creek Police Dep’t, settled (D. S.C. 2006) Challenge to constitutionality of actions of law enforcement officers, who, in a public school, handcuffed and pointed guns at the heads of 150 students based on an erroneous allegation that one student was selling marijuana. A court-approved settlement provides the school’s students with full Fourth Amendment rights—the only high school students in the country who enjoy such broad protections against search and seizure. Read more >> |
| Kelly v. Paschall, settled prior to trial (W.D. Tex. 2005) Lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and prosecutorial misconduct, in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when a substantial percentage of the adult male African-American population of Hearne, Texas was arrested on drug charges due solely to the testimony of one undercover law-enforcement officer. The plaintiffs received a favorable settlement, the details of which are confidential, prior to trial. Read more >> |
| American Civil Liberties Union v. Mineta, 319 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. D.C. 2004) Challenge to federal statute that prohibited mass transit grantees from receiving federal funding if they displayed advertisements criticizing the Government’s drug policy. The district court declared that the statute violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and issued a permanent injunction against enforcing the statute. Read more >> |
| Banks v. Wagner, settled (D. S.D. 2004) Class-action lawsuit on behalf of Native American students in public school who were subjected to suspicionless drug sweeps, in violation of the United States and South Dakota constitutions. The lawsuit resulted in a permanent injunction prohibiting the school district from conducting any further suspicionless drug searches. Read more >> |
| Whipple v. Lordsburg Municipal Sch. Bd. of Educ., settled (D. N.M. 2001) Challenge to public school’s policy of conducting drug-dog sniffs during lockdowns of students in grades 5-12. The lawsuit resulted in the school district agreeing permanently to stop all drug-dog sniffs. Read more >> |
| Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist., 133 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2001) Sixth-grade student’s constitutional challenge to his public school’s policy requiring drug testing of all students. The court declared that the school’s policy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and issued an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of this policy. Read more >> |
| United States v. Brunet, settled (D. La. 2001) Defense of two businessmen who operated electronic music venues and who were indicted for allegedly violating the Federal “crack house” law. After the Project assisted in drafting constitutional arguments against the prosecution, the Government offered a plea agreement that did not include any period of incarceration. Read more >> |
| County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales (N.D. Cal.) Lawsuit raising claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as under a federal statute, to protect California medical marijuana patients and their caregivers from arrest, prosecution, and forfeiture for allegedly violating federal law that prohibits the possession and cultivation of marijuana. The court is currently reviewing dispositive motions. Read more >> |
| ACLU of Alaska v. State of Alaska, -- P.3d -- (Ak. Super. Ct. 2006) Lawsuit claiming that an Alaskan criminal statute that prohibits the possession of small amounts of marijuana in the home for non-commercial purposes violates the privacy clause in the state’s constitution. The superior court has declared the law unconstitutional, and the state has appealed this ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. Read more >> |
| Commonwealth v. Landry, 779 N.E.2d 638 (Mass. 2002) Challenge to practice of law enforcement officers arresting participants of syringe-exchange program for possession of drug paraphernalia. The state’s highest court held that clients of a syringe exchange may lawfully possess injection equipment obtained from the exchange, and therefore law enforcement officers did not have probable cause to arrest any such client. Read more >> |
| People v. Mower, 49 P.3d 1067 (Cal. 2002) Defense of seriously ill medical marijuana patient who was convicted of cultivating and possessing marijuana. The California Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding, inter alia, that medical marijuana patients can be entitled to immunity from prosecution based on California’s medical marijuana laws. |
| Robinson v. City of Seattle, 10 P.3d 452 (Wash. Ct. of App. 2000) Challenge to city’s policy requiring urine testing of applicants for employment. The Washington Court of Appeals unanimously held that the program violated the privacy protections under the state constitution. Read more >> |
| In the Matter of Professor Lyle Craker (Administrative Law Judge, Drug Enforcement Administration) Administrative challenge to federal agency’s refusal to grant license to botany professor who wanted to conduct research into potential medical benefits of marijuana for terminally ill individuals. The Project conducted a three-week trial, and the administrative law judge is expected to issue a ruling imminently. Read more >> |
| County of San Diego v. California (Cal. Super. Ct.) Defense of doctors, as well as medical-marijuana patients and their caregivers, in county’s challenge to state’s medical-marijuana statutes. The plaintiffs claim that the medical-marijuana statutes violate an international treaty, the federal constitution, and the California constitution. Cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings are pending before the court. Read more >> |
| Students for Sensible Drug Policy v. Spellings (D. S.D.) Class-action lawsuit challenging federal law that denies student aid to individuals who have been convicted of a drug offense. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent the enforcement of this law on the grounds that it violates the Double Jeopardy Clause and Equal Protection Component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read more >> |
Drug Law Reform Project
Staff |
ACLU Drug Law Reform
Project
1101 Pacific Ave., Suite 333
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 471-9000
(831) 471-9676
(fax)