
Systemic Equality: Equal Access, Better Futures
Systemic Equality is A Racial Justice Agenda
Since our nation’s founding, discriminatory policies and laws have created an unequal system in which Black communities have had their civil rights and liberties denied and have been systematically locked out of opportunities in education, housing, employment and more.
Through our Systemic Equality agenda, the ACLU will use nationwide litigation, advocacy, and public education to advance laws and policies rooted in racial equity and end discriminatory policies, laws, and practices that have an outsized impact on Black communities.
The ACLU will also continue to evolve our own culture, systems, and processes to drive progress toward our internal racial justice commitments, including by committing sustained recruitment and hiring efforts to recruit more diverse talent pools, developing initiatives to promote and retain Black leadership, engaging Black-owned and Black-led businesses, and more.
When we have full and equal access to education, jobs, housing, voting rights, and more, better futures are possible.
A Spotlight on Fair Housing

Why Fair Housing is Key to Systemic Equality
Here’s how discrimination continues to impact access to housing today, and why we’re fighting to ensure all people have equal access.

Apply for the ACLU-NBLSA Southern Legal Internship (SLIP) Program
SLIP interns will contribute to crucial campaigns in the issue areas that most affect Black and Brown communities.

Fair Housing
Our goal is to expand access to stable, affordable housing.
Historic and ongoing segregation and discrimination has prevented marginalized groups — particularly Black communities — from accessing safe, affordable housing and home ownership.
Equal access to housing is a civil right. We must work to reduce mass evictions and barriers to housing opportunities that disproportionately impact Black women renters, and restore important housing protections to expand equal access to housing opportunities for everyone.
Everyone deserves equal access to safe and stable housing.
Our fair housing work includes:
- Challenging Mass Evictions and Barriers to Housing Opportunities: Black women and their families make up the demographic group most likely to face eviction in the United States, resulting in a myriad of harms and reinforcing segregation. Our multi-part campaign includes securing the right to counsel in eviction cases, prohibiting the consideration of prior eviction records in tenant screening, and more.
- Advocating for the Right to Representation: We are engaged in right to representation campaigns in Delaware and New Jersey to ensure all people facing eviction have the ability to assert their rights in court.
Historic and ongoing segregation and discrimination has prevented marginalized groups — particularly Black communities — from accessing safe, affordable housing and home ownership.
Equal access to housing is a civil right. We must work to reduce mass evictions and barriers to housing opportunities that disproportionately impact Black women renters, and restore important housing protections to expand equal access to housing opportunities for everyone.
Everyone deserves equal access to safe and stable housing.
Our fair housing work includes:
- Challenging Mass Evictions and Barriers to Housing Opportunities: Black women and their families make up the demographic group most likely to face eviction in the United States, resulting in a myriad of harms and reinforcing segregation. Our multi-part campaign includes securing the right to counsel in eviction cases, prohibiting the consideration of prior eviction records in tenant screening, and more.
- Advocating for the Right to Representation: We are engaged in right to representation campaigns in Delaware and New Jersey to ensure all people facing eviction have the ability to assert their rights in court.

Voting Rights
Our goal is to expand voting access for and build the political power of Black communities.
Black people and communities of color, in particular, have faced numerous obstacles to meaningful participation in the political process, including the redistricting process. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits the drawing of district lines that dilute the voting strength of communities of color. When Black people and communities of color are minimized through the redistricting process, they are not adequately represented in our democracy, perpetuating the systemic inequality many voters of colors already face.
Redistricting plans should fairly reflect the political strength of communities of color. As data from the last Census confirms, nearly all of the country’s growth over the past decade is attributable to the growth in our nation’s communities of color. Fair maps and voting policies must adequately reflect that reality.
The right to vote should be equally accessible to everyone.
Our voting rights work includes:
- Equal and Fair Political Representation: As part of our ongoing work to ensure legislatures reflect their constituencies and address the longstanding underrepresentation and disempowerment of Black communities, we will advocate for fair voting district maps in six priority states in the South to obtain more equal representation for Black voters.
Black people and communities of color, in particular, have faced numerous obstacles to meaningful participation in the political process, including the redistricting process. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits the drawing of district lines that dilute the voting strength of communities of color. When Black people and communities of color are minimized through the redistricting process, they are not adequately represented in our democracy, perpetuating the systemic inequality many voters of colors already face.
Redistricting plans should fairly reflect the political strength of communities of color. As data from the last Census confirms, nearly all of the country’s growth over the past decade is attributable to the growth in our nation’s communities of color. Fair maps and voting policies must adequately reflect that reality.
The right to vote should be equally accessible to everyone.
Our voting rights work includes:
- Equal and Fair Political Representation: As part of our ongoing work to ensure legislatures reflect their constituencies and address the longstanding underrepresentation and disempowerment of Black communities, we will advocate for fair voting district maps in six priority states in the South to obtain more equal representation for Black voters.

Criminal Justice
Our goal is to improve public safety by investing in Black communities instead of punishment.
Investing in punishment while undermining what we need for equal and thriving communities has resulted in overcriminalization and the unjust and unequal treatment of our communities — especially Black communities.
We improve public safety by addressing root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, while also focusing on strengthening communities through investments in promising solutions. These include increasing access to affordable housing, jobs, education, health care, and mental health and substance use services in our communities. At the same time, we must work to reduce the number of people incarcerated, surveilled, and criminalized by law enforcement and in the courts. We must challenge dehumanizing conditions in jails and prisons and ensure that people returning to our communities are equipped for success. We must challenge cruel, extreme, and discriminatory punishments such as the death penalty and life without parole. We must work to erect meaningful constitutional guardrails on law enforcement — including jail and prison administrators.
We have the power to choose and to invest in real solutions that increase equality, justice, and safety for all of us.
Our criminal justice work includes:
- Challenging Policing: Part of a larger campaign to reimagine community safety that uses litigation and integrated advocacy to challenge racially-biased policing practices and advance community-based and non-punitive approaches to public safety.
- Shrinking the Geography of Mass Incarceration: An integrated effort, our litigation and advocacy will focus on developing legal challenges to stop funding for the expansion or construction of prisons, jails, and detention centers.
- Ending Racially Discriminatory Jury Selection in the Death Penalty: The jury selection process in death penalty trials, known as “death qualification,” removes otherwise qualified jurors from serving in capital trials based on their opposition to the death penalty. The process discriminates against Black jurors, who are disproportionately opposed to the death penalty. The history of the death penalty in America is inextricably tied to the history of lynching, and the opposition to the death penalty within the Black community is rooted in that history. This disenfranchisement from jury service is a fresh injustice compounding the injustice of racial terror and violence.
Investing in punishment while undermining what we need for equal and thriving communities has resulted in overcriminalization and the unjust and unequal treatment of our communities — especially Black communities.
We improve public safety by addressing root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, while also focusing on strengthening communities through investments in promising solutions. These include increasing access to affordable housing, jobs, education, health care, and mental health and substance use services in our communities. At the same time, we must work to reduce the number of people incarcerated, surveilled, and criminalized by law enforcement and in the courts. We must challenge dehumanizing conditions in jails and prisons and ensure that people returning to our communities are equipped for success. We must challenge cruel, extreme, and discriminatory punishments such as the death penalty and life without parole. We must work to erect meaningful constitutional guardrails on law enforcement — including jail and prison administrators.
We have the power to choose and to invest in real solutions that increase equality, justice, and safety for all of us.
Our criminal justice work includes:
- Challenging Policing: Part of a larger campaign to reimagine community safety that uses litigation and integrated advocacy to challenge racially-biased policing practices and advance community-based and non-punitive approaches to public safety.
- Shrinking the Geography of Mass Incarceration: An integrated effort, our litigation and advocacy will focus on developing legal challenges to stop funding for the expansion or construction of prisons, jails, and detention centers.
- Ending Racially Discriminatory Jury Selection in the Death Penalty: The jury selection process in death penalty trials, known as “death qualification,” removes otherwise qualified jurors from serving in capital trials based on their opposition to the death penalty. The process discriminates against Black jurors, who are disproportionately opposed to the death penalty. The history of the death penalty in America is inextricably tied to the history of lynching, and the opposition to the death penalty within the Black community is rooted in that history. This disenfranchisement from jury service is a fresh injustice compounding the injustice of racial terror and violence.

Economic Justice
Our goal is to reduce the racial wealth gap.
Systemic inequities and barriers keep people — particularly people of color — from accessing the mainstays of economic life; including education, employment, and homeownership; resulting in racial disparities in wealth and income. These disparities result from a combination of ongoing discrimination, structural inequality, and biases across our institutions, and emerge in new forms of technology, including through artificial intelligence, that influence nearly every facet of life.
Through litigation and advocacy, we aim to remedy deeply entrenched sources of inequality and ensure that access to opportunity and the ability to build wealth is available to all.
All people should have an equal opportunity to earn a living, find a home, and get an education.
Our economic justice work includes:
- Exposing Discriminatory Hiring and Lending Tech: Leveraging research and integrated advocacy, we will promote a more equitable approach to AI policy and expose and stop the use of biased, discriminatory hiring and lending technologies that perpetuate hiring and employment discrimination.
Systemic inequities and barriers keep people — particularly people of color — from accessing the mainstays of economic life; including education, employment, and homeownership; resulting in racial disparities in wealth and income. These disparities result from a combination of ongoing discrimination, structural inequality, and biases across our institutions, and emerge in new forms of technology, including through artificial intelligence, that influence nearly every facet of life.
Through litigation and advocacy, we aim to remedy deeply entrenched sources of inequality and ensure that access to opportunity and the ability to build wealth is available to all.
All people should have an equal opportunity to earn a living, find a home, and get an education.
Our economic justice work includes:
- Exposing Discriminatory Hiring and Lending Tech: Leveraging research and integrated advocacy, we will promote a more equitable approach to AI policy and expose and stop the use of biased, discriminatory hiring and lending technologies that perpetuate hiring and employment discrimination.

Education Equity
Our goal is to ensure all students have equal access to high quality education and safe schools.
All students have a right to an equal education, but students of color (particularly Black students), students with disabilities, and low-income youth have historically been marginalized, criminalized, and under-resourced by the public school system.
We will challenge unconstitutional disciplinary policies that disparately target Black students and infringe on their right to a safe learning environment. We will also support race conscious admission policies to increase access to underrepresented groups who face systemic barriers to higher education.
All students deserve equal access to a high quality education, a safe learning environment, and a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.
Our education equity work includes:
- Defending Race Conscious Admissions: The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions.
All students have a right to an equal education, but students of color (particularly Black students), students with disabilities, and low-income youth have historically been marginalized, criminalized, and under-resourced by the public school system.
We will challenge unconstitutional disciplinary policies that disparately target Black students and infringe on their right to a safe learning environment. We will also support race conscious admission policies to increase access to underrepresented groups who face systemic barriers to higher education.
All students deserve equal access to a high quality education, a safe learning environment, and a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.
Our education equity work includes:
- Defending Race Conscious Admissions: The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions.
How Can We Achieve Systemic Equality?
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Yasmin Cader explains what needs to be done in the fight against systemic racial discrimination in order to create a world in which everyone’s civil rights and liberties are recognized.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
Florida Supreme CourtDec 2024
Capital Punishment
Michael Jackson v. State of Florida
This case gets at the very heart of our right to a jury trial. Traditionally and historically, the right to a jury trial has promised that a person could not be punished unless every single person in a group of one’s peers agreed, by jury vote, that that was the just outcome. However, Florida feels differently. When it comes to the death penalty, Florida is one of only two states that has decided that the “right to a trial by jury” does not guarantee that a person will be sentenced to death by a unanimous jury. Instead, in Florida, a person can be sentenced to die even if four people on their jury think they should live. The state requires just eight of twelve jury votes for a death sentence, which not only disproportionately affects people of color, but the very ideals at the heart of the rights of citizenship.Status: Ongoing -
Press ReleaseFeb 2025
Capital Punishment
ACLU Responds to Supreme Court Decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma
WASHINGTON – In a major win for due process, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted Richard Glossip, a man on Oklahoma’s death row, a new trial and a chance to be fully exonerated. Richard Glossip was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to death for allegedly asking Justin Sneed – the prosecution’s star witness – to murder another man. Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence connecting Glossip to the murder, and Glossip maintained his innocence throughout. His conviction was overturned by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals but, despite inconsistent testimony from Sneed at retrial, Glossip was convicted again. It was only then, after two trials and two appeals, that an independent investigation revealed that the prosecution had deliberately destroyed key evidence and additional potentially exculpatory and impeachment evidence was made available to the defense. Those files revealed that Sneed lied at trial about facts that cast his entire testimony into doubt. Despite these new revelations about prosecutorial misconduct, Glossip unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief, until the Supreme Court last year stayed his execution and agreed to hear the case. “Richard Glossip has been fighting for two decades to prove his innocence; today the Supreme Court assured that he will finally have his day in court,” said Brian Stull, deputy director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project. “Today’s decision reveals the error-prone and arbitrary nature of the death penalty, and the devastating impact of false testimony and wrongfully withheld evidence. Even after it became clear that prosecutors had buried exculpatory evidence, the machinery of the death penalty continued to grind on for years. This case shows that we cannot trust the state convict and imprison only the innocent, let alone to ensure that innocent people are never strapped to the execution table. It is long past time to end the death penalty in our country.” The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that prosecutors violated Glossip’s due process rights by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence and using Sneed’s false testimony to convict Glossip. The brief further highlights Oklahoma’s sordid history of violating these rights. “Time after time, Oklahoma prosecutors have violated these precedents, despite repeated notice that their actions were not in compliance with the U.S. Constitution,” the brief reads. This glaring pattern of errors almost led to the execution of an innocent person. It teaches that the government cannot be trusted to reliably, fairly, and equitably determine who should live and who should die. Glossip v. Oklahoma is part of the ACLU's Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.Court Case: Glossip v. OklahomaAffiliate: Oklahoma -
Press ReleaseFeb 2025
Capital Punishment
North Carolina Judge Finds Racial Bias in Death Penalty in Landmark Case
RALEIGH, N.C. – In a landmark case, a North Carolina judge ruled today that race played an impermissible role in jury selection for Hasson Bacote, a Black man who challenged his death sentence under the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA). The court found evidence of discrimination in Bacote’s case, the cases prosecuted by North Carolina Assistant District Attorney Greg Butler, as well as in Johnston County and District 11, relying upon statistical, cultural, historical, and social science, in addition to court files and records. Consistent with prior case law, he ruled that the RJA does not require defendants to make a showing of discrimination in their own case but found that Bacote did prove discrimination in his case. “This decision provides more definitive proof that capital prosecutions in North Carolina are tainted with racial bias and discrimination,” said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Capital Punishment Project. “What we saw in Mr. Bacote’s case is that the more we look for evidence of discrimination in our state’s capital jury selection system, the more we find. This ruling creates a path to justice for the hundred plus individuals who have filed claims and whose cases were similarly tainted with bias.” In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Wayland J. Sermons Jr. found that prosecutors deliberately struck Black jurors from jury service in Bacote’s case at three times the rate of white jurors. In his findings of discrimination, the judge also cited the prosecutor’s references to thinly veiled racist phrases to refer to Black defendants, like “thug,” “piece of trash,” and “predators of the African plain.” “I am deeply grateful to my family, my lawyers, the experts, and to everyone who fought for justice — not just in my case, but for so many others,” said Hasson Bacote, petitioner. “I want to thank Bryan Stevenson in particular for showing how unfair the jury selection was in my case. When my death sentence was commuted by Governor Cooper, I felt enormous relief that the burden of the death penalty — and all of the stress and anxiety that go with it — were lifted off my shoulders. I am grateful to the court for having the courage to recognize that racial bias affected my case and so many others. I remain hopeful that the fight for truth and justice will not stop here.” The judge’s ruling set out guidance and made important fact findings that could pave the way for others on death row with RJA claims to successfully challenge their death sentences. On Dec. 31, 2024, former Gov. Cooper commuted the sentences of 15 people on death row, including Hasson Bacote. Even though Bacote was already resentenced to life without parole, the judge issued a ruling in his case because of its importance for the 100-plus people with pending RJA claims. “Racial discrimination in our courts and criminal legal system has long impacted death penalty sentencing,” said Ashley Burrell, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “Today’s ruling affirms what we have argued all along: racism infects the death penalty. We are hopeful that future decisions will result in relief under the RJA for other North Carolinians currently on death row.” The North Carolina Racial Justice Act was a novel piece of legislation passed in 2009 that allowed people to challenge their death sentences if they could show race played a role in their trials. Those who prove racism stand to be resentenced to life without parole. Four individuals won their claims at a hearing in 2012 in Cumberland County and were resentenced to life without parole. The decisions in those cases were ultimately vacated in order to give the state more time to prepare its defense to the sweeping charges of statewide bias, although their life sentences were protected by double jeopardy. The state legislature repealed the statute in 2013, but after a legal challenge, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that those who had already filed claims under the RJA were entitled to hearings. Bacote’s case was the first to move forward since the Supreme Court ruling and is the first North Carolina case where a trial court ordered statewide discovery of prosecution notes from jury selection in all capital trials since 1980. “The sweeping evidence of discrimination in jury selection and the definitive conclusions by Judge Sermons vindicate the legislature’s decision to enact the Racial justice Act in 2009,” said Gretchen M. Engel, executive director of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. “The ruling creates an opportunity for leaders in North Carolina to turn the page on this shameful chapter for our state. At a minimum, Governor Stein and Attorney General Jackson should commit to addressing the failures of the criminal legal system and adopt policies that prevent this kind of discrimination in future death penalty cases.” Bacote is represented by the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, the ACLU of North Carolina, the Legal Defense Fund, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, and attorneys Jay Ferguson and Henderson Hill.Court Case: North Carolina Racial Justice Act Litigation (North Carolina v. Hasson Bacote)Affiliate: North Carolina -
Press ReleaseJan 2025
Capital Punishment
ACLU Urges Utah Supreme Court to Allow People on Death Row to Challenge Execution Methods
SALT LAKE CITY — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Utah filed an amicus brief in the Utah Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the Utah Constitution’s protection against “unnecessary rigor” in the carceral system and allow a group of people on the state death row to challenge their method of execution. The Utah Constitution bars “cruel and unusual punishment” using language that mirrors the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition under the Eighth Amendment. However, article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution goes further, dictating that people “imprisoned shall not be treated with unnecessary rigor.” The ACLU brief in Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections argues that this more expansive protection means that people sentenced to death should not be forced to identify an alternative when challenging their method of execution, a requirement that the U.S. Supreme Court imposed in Glossip v. Gross for federal method-of-execution challenges. “The Utah Constitution’s broad protections for incarcerated people are a feature, not a bug. History shows that the drafters of the Utah Constitution intended for these protections to be more expansive than the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution,” said Bridget Lavender, legal fellow with the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative. “Forcing people sentenced to death to overcome unnecessary barriers to challenge their execution method would violate the plain text and ignore the unique nature of the Utah Constitution.” Utah state law provides that criminal defendants sentenced to death must be executed by lethal injection, with firing squad available as an alternative in certain situations. In this case, plaintiffs challenge these two methods as a violation of the Utah Constitution's protections in article I section 9. “The Utah Constitution provides incarcerated people with more expansive protections than the United States Constitution,” said Abby Cook, staff attorney for the ACLU of Utah. “Based on our state’s unique history and the text of our constitution, our brief underscores that cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary rigor have no place in our criminal legal system.” The brief is online here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/menzies-v-utah-department-of-corrections?document=Menzies-Amicus-BriefCourt Case: Menzies v. Utah Department of CorrectionsAffiliate: Utah