ambiguity deprives a person of the notice requirement of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and, therefore, renders the statute unconstitutional. AMBIT A boundary line that indicates ownership of a parcel of land as opposed to other parcels; an exterior or enclosing line. The limits of a power or jurisdiction. The delineation of the scope of a particular subject matter. AMBULANCE CHASER A colloquial phrase that is used derisively for a person who is hired by an attorney to seek out NEGLIGENCE cases at the scenes of accidents or in hospitals where injured parties are treated, in exchange for a percenta ge of the damages that will be recovered in the case. Also used to describe attorneys who, upon learning of a personal injury that might have been caused by the negligence or the wrongful act of another, immediately contact the v ictim for consent to represent h im or her in a lawsuit in exchange for a contingent fee, a percentage of the judgment recovered. AMBULATORY Movable; revocable; subject to change; capable of alteration. An ambulatory court was the former name of the Court of King’s Bench in England. It would convene wherever the king who presided over it could be found, moving its location as the king moved. An ambulatory disposition is a judgment, DECREE, or sentence that is subject to change, amendment, or revocation. A will is considered ambulatory because as long as the person who made it lives, it can always be changed or revoked. AMENDMENT The modification of materials by the addition of supplemental information; the deletion of unnec- essary, undesirable, or outdated information; or the correction of errors existing in the text. In practice, a change in the pleadings— statements of the allegations of t he parties i n a lawsuit—may be achieved if the parties agree to the amendment or if the court in which the proceed- ing is pending grants a motion for the amendment made by one party. A judgment may be a ltered by an amendment if a motion to do so is made within a certain time after its entry and granted by the c ourt. The amendment of pleadings and judgments is regulated by state codes of CIVIL PROCEDURE and the rules of federal civil procedure. A constitution or a statute may be changed by an amendment. A will, trust, corporate charter, and other legal documents are also subject to amendment. CROSS REFERENCE Constitutional Amendment. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE The American Association for Justice (AAJ) (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, or ATLA) is a NONPROFIT organization that represents the interests of PERSONAL INJURY attorneys. The AAJ is the world’slargesttrialbar organization, with more t han 5 6,000 members worldwide. AAJ’s goals are to safeguard the interests of p eople who seek redress for injury and to protect individuals from abuses of power. Any person who is licensed to practice law in any country, state, or jurisdiction, who is committed to the ADVERSARY SYSTEM, and who, for the most part, does not represent the defense in personal injury LITIGATION is eligible for membership. In 1946, a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in workers’ compensations litigation founded the National Association of Claimants’ COMPENSATION Attorneys (NCACCA). In 1972 NACCA b ecame ATLA, a nd in 1977, the organization moved its headquarters from Boston to Washington, D.C. The association changed its name once again in 2006 to the AAJ. AAJ comprises a network of U.S. and Canadian affiliates involved in diverse areas of trial advo cacy. It provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance needed to serve clients successfully and protect the civil justice system. AAJ is governed by its member- ship through a board of governors and national officers who are elected at the organization’s annual convention. AAJ committees help to setpoliciesincriticalareas,makerecommen- dations to the board of governors, and oversee staff implementation of AAJ objectives. The AAJ h as 155 staff members, including approxi- mately 30 attorneys. It publishes the monthly magazine Trial, AAJ Law Reporter,andAAJ Advocate. AAJ’s sections, each of which encompasses an area of litigation practice, include admiralty, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 258 AMBIT aviation, CIVIL RIGHTS, products LIABILITY, insur- ance, FAMILY LAW, and workers’ compensation law. Services of the sections include the publica- tion of annual directories and periodic news- letters and information exchange. AAJ also has organized litigation groups, which are voluntary networks of AAJ members sharing an interest in a particular type of case, many of which involve hazardous products. The groups share timely documents and information, much of it obtained from discovery in similar cases. The litigation groups organize programs that educate members about recent developments in their special areas. AAJ has been a leading opponent of state and federal legislative efforts to restrict the amount of DAMAGES a PLAINTIFF can recover for MEDICAL MALPRACTICE or for injuries caused by a defective product. Two major areas of litigation that emerged during the early 200 0s were related to asbestos and toxic mold. For many years, the organization has lobbied against tort reform bills, rebutting arguments that too many lawsuits have led to excessive costs and delays and that juries can no longer be trusted to render fair verdicts. The election of GEORGE W. BUSH as president in 2000 and the gain of Republican seats in both the House and Senate in 2002 brought the issue to the forefront. Although some commen- tators expected a significant number of states to approve tort reform measures, the proposals in most of these states failed. As Democrats regained control of Congress during the mid- to late- 2000s, focus on the tort reform issue became less intense. Tort reform was not a major issue during the presidential campaign of 2008. In addition to its LOBBYING efforts, AAJ provides a special ization certification program for trial skills and statistical compilation, as well as a placement service. It al so conducts seminars and conferences across the country. During the 2000s, members of the ATLA expressed concern about negative reactions to the reference to trial lawyers in the association’s name. In 2006 the members agreed to change the name to the American Association for Justice. Membership is not limited to trial lawyers and instead extends to attorneys, law professors, paralegals, and law students. Web site: http://www.justice.org FURTHER READINGS American Association for Justice. Available online at http:// www.justice.org (accessed May 12, 2009). Bogus, Carl T. 2001. Why Lawsuits Are Good for America: Disciplined Democracy, Big Business, and the Common Law. New York: New York Univ. Press. Orey, Michael. 1999. Assuming the Risk: The Mavericks, the Lawyers, and the Whistle-Blowers Who Beat Big Tobacco. Boston: Little, Brown. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is a NONPROFIT, nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping older Amer icans achieve lives of independence, dignity, and purpose. Founded in 1958 by Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, AARP is the oldest and largest organization of older Americans, with a membership of 40 million. The National Retired Teachers Associa- tion (NTRA), which was founded in 1947, is a division of AARP. Membership in AARP is open to anyone age 50 or older, working or retire d. More than one-third of the association’s mem- bership is in the workforce. The AARP head- quarters are in Washington, D.C. By the early 2000s, AARP had fulfilled its goal of having staffed offices in all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. AARP has an extensive network of local AARP chapters, its National Community Service Programs and NTRA members to involve members, volunteers, the media, community partners, and policymakers in carrying out its objectives. The organization is led by a 21-member BOARD OF DIRECTORS and has an administrative staff that carries out the group’s day-to-day activities. The organization is funded almost entirely by annual membership dues. The AARP has been an effective advocate for issues involving older persons, in part because of its large membership and its ability to mobilize its members to lobby for its positions before Congress and government agencies. The organization has concentrated much of its LOBBYING effort on SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, and long-term care issues. The AARP has fought zealously to protect the Social Security benefits of retired citizens and has resisted efforts by Congress to change the system itself. Its Advocacy Center for Social Security develop s policy proposals and lobbies Congress. The AARP Advocacy Center for Medicare seeks to ensure the availability of affordable, quality health care for older individuals and persons with disabilities. In the early 2000s, it worked to develop ways of maintaining the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS 259 short-term SOLVENCY of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and was preparing for the long-term needs of the aging baby boom ers. With the dramatic growth in managed health care plans, the AARP has sought to educate its members about this new way of providing services and to empower older people by telling them what their rights are under this system. However, AARP lost a significant and protracted court battle in 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the AARP challenge to a proposed rule from the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), which created a new exemption to the AGE DISCRIMINATION in Employment Act (ADEA) (AARP v. EEOC, 2008 WL 754343, ___ U.S. ___ [2008]). The new exemption allows employers to reduce retiree health benefits for anyone 65 or older (i.e., eligible for Medicare). The Third CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals sided with EEOC in finding that Congress had delegated to the EEOC complete authority to create exemptions under ADEA (AARP v. EEOC, 489 F.3d 558 [3rd Cir. 2008]). The association also has been actively involved in voter education. A major, nonparti- san component of the association’s legislative program is AARP/VOTE, a voter education program designed to inform the public about important PUBLIC POLICY issues and the positions of candidates for public office. Through issue and candidate forums and voter guides, AARP/ VOTE works to promote issue-centered cam- paigns and a more informed electorate. The organization also provides many benefits to its members. The AARP licenses the use of its name for sele cted services of chosen providers. For example, it offers members a choice of insurance plans. Because most of the plans are neither age-rated nor medically underwritten, the association can make HEALTH INSURANCE available to many of its members who otherwise would be unable to obtain coverage because of pre-existing conditions. The association receives an administrative allowance or a roya lty from the providers and the income realized from these services is used for the general purposes of the association and its members. AARP operates a nationwide volunteer net- work that helps older citizens. Programs include information and support for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren, legal hotlines, and INCOME TAX preparation. These and other programs are funded, in part, by federal grants. The association produces two national radio network series and publishes a monthly maga- zine, AARP The Magazine; a monthly newspaper, the AARP Bulletin; and a quarterly Spanish- language newspaper, Segunda Jeventud. As older adults have gained computer skills, the organiza- tion’s Web site has become increasingly popular. Outreach programs launched by AARP in the early 2000s include a collaborative national effort to help prepare people for independent living, long-term care, and end-of-life care, as well as a pilot program to promote physical activities for healthy aging. FURTHER READINGS American Association of Retired Persons. Available online at www.aarp.org (accessed September 26, 2009). Kimbol, Anne. 2008. “Medicare and Retiree Benefits: The Impact of AARP v. EEOC.” Health Law Perspectives, University of Houston Law Center, April 2008. Text available online at http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/ perspectives/homepage.asp; website home page: http:// www.law.uh.edu/ (accessed August 5, 2009) Morris, Charles R. 1996. The AARP: America’s Most Powerful Lobby and the Clash of Generations. New York: Times Books. Van Atta, Dale. 1998. Trust Betrayed: Inside the AARP. Chicago: Regnery. CROSS REFERENCES Age Discrimination; Elder Law; Senior Citizens; Senior Citizens: How to Avoid Being Defrauded; Senior Citizens “Scamming the Elderly” (In Focus). AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION The American Bankers Association (ABA) is composed of banks and other financial institu- tions. It seeks to promote the strength and profitability of the banking industry by LOBBYING federal and state governments, building industry consensus on key issues, and providing products and services, including public affairs support and legal services, to its member banks. Membership in the ABA includes community, regional, and money-center banks (the nation’s major banks) and holding companies, as well as savings associations, trust companies , and savings banks. The ABA, which was founded in 1875, is the largest banking trade association in the United States. The organization includes more than 95 percent of the commercial banking industry as members. As of 2009 these members employ more than two million people and have more than $13 trillion in assets. The ABA’s headquar- ters are in Washington, D.C. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 260 AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION The ABA places great emphasis on represent- ing the interests of banks before Congress and state legislatures. The association takes stands on banking and bank-related bills as they move through Congress, attempts to influence the interpretations of laws and regulations by banking regulators, and is actively involved in state LITIGATION that has implications for the banking industry. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, ABA representatives frequently testified before Congress, filed official letters of commen t, and sponsored trips by state associations to the nation’s capital. During this time, BankPac, the banking industry’s POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE and one of the strongest committees nationwide, raised and distributed millions of dollars for congressional elections. The ABA fought legisla- tive effor ts to regulate the fees banks charge customers to use automated teller machines (ATM) and has challenged in court the member- ship policies used by credit unions to gain customers. ABA also became involved in suc h issues as ATM accessibility for blind persons, predatory lending practices, SOCIAL SECURITY reform, and MONEY LAUNDERING. In 2001 the ABA established the ABA Mortgage Solutions program, which assists mem- ber banks in the secondary mortgage market. When a lender initially makes a loan, it has a choice to keep the loan as part of its portfolio or to sell the loan on the secondary mortgage market. The ABA’s program became the most widely used in the banking industry. By 2009, the total amount of mortgages sold through this program surpassed $100 billion. Several major banks and organiza- tions are involved in this program, including the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (Fannie Mae). The ABA operates the American Institute for Banking (AIB), which is the largest provider of banking education. The AIB teaches more than 100,000 students annually. In addition, the ABA sponsors approximately 24 residential schools with 3,700 students covering specialty areas within banking and the prestigious Stonier Graduate School of Banking. New technology has provided new opportunities as well. American Financial Skylink is a satellite TELECOMMUNICATIONS network that delivers news, information, and training directly to banks through regular telecasts. Other ABA affiliates include the following: ABA eCom, which facilitates electronic banking and COMMERCE over the INTERNET; the ABA Education Foundation, which provides resources for consumer education; and the ABA Marketing Network (ABAMN), which informs and educates banks in the marketing of their products and services. The ABA SECURITIES Association assists sections of the banking industry that are competing in the securities business. Since the early twentieth century the ABA has produced the ABA Banking Journal,a monthly magazine that focuses on news and analysis of the financial services industry. The journal is published for the ABA by Simmons- Boardman Publishing Corp. Though the ABA is a NONPROFIT organization, it operates the for-profit Corporation for Ameri- can Banking (CAB). CAB was created to facilitate group buying of services, allowing participating banks to receive CAB-arranged discounts on long- distance telephone service, overnight package delivery, office products, and copying products. FURTHER READINGS ABA Banking Journal. Available online at http://www.ababj. com/ (accessed May 3, 2009). American Bankers Association. Available online at http:// www.aba.com (accessed May 3, 2009). Lovett, William A. 2005. Banking & Financial Institutions Law in a Nutshell, 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/ West. Malloy, Michael A. 2003. Principles of Banking Regulation,2d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION The American Bar Association (ABA) is a nationwide organiz ation to which qualified attorneys voluntarily belong. With more than 413,000 members, the ABA is the largest volun- tary professional organization in the world. The ABA was founded in 1878 to improve LEGAL EDUCATION, to set requirements to be satisfied for admittance to the bar, and to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information among its members. Over the years, the ABA has been largely responsible for the further develop- ment of American jurisprudence; the establish- ment of formal education requirements for persons seeking to become attorneys; the formu- lation of ethical principles that govern the PRACTICE OF LAW; and the creation of the American Law Institute (ALI) and the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, both of which advance the fair administration of justice through encouraging uniformity of statutes and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 261 judicial decisions whenever practicable. For several years, the ABA has been prominently involved in the recommendation and selection of candidates for the federal JUDICIARY, the accredi- tation of law schools, and the refinement of rules of legal and judicial ethics. Applicants for membership in the ABA must meet certain criteria. They must be members in good standing of the bar of a state, TERRITORY, or possession of the United States. They must also have good moral character and pay the designated dues. Law students qualify to be members of the Law Student Division of the ABA if they attend an ABA-approved law school and pay the specified dues. The ABA continues to put great emphasis on promoting diversity within its membership and has initiated several programs designed to bring more women and racial and ethnic minorities into the profession. The ABA provides various forums through which attorneys continue their legal education during their careers. The association’s national institutes are held frequently in areas of law that have become topical or have undergone sweep- ing reform. In conjunction with the ALI, the ABA holds seminars in order to continue the professional education of interested members. Within the ABA, members may participate in the activities of numerous sections, which range in size from about 2,300 members to more than 70,000 and are organized according to specialized areas of law. Various committees exist that deal with such topics as judicial selection, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY and discipline, lawyer referral services, and the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE of law. Other committees are concerned with topical areas, such as prepaid legal services, MALPRACTICE, legal problems of the elderly, and public-interest law. The ABA employs more than 750 profes- sional staff members to assist committees, sections, and individual members. The ABA is involved in the political process through its seven-person Governmental Affairs Office (GAO), a LOBBYING effort that serves as the “eyes, ears and voice” of the organized bar at the seat of the national government in Washington, D.C. The GAO staff is housed with about 170 other ABA staffers in the ABA’s Washington, D.C. office. (The ABA’s main offices are in Chicago, with more than 500 staff members.) The lobbying group in Washington, D.C., headed by the ABA ’s associate executive director, testifies on Capitol Hill more of ten than any other trade association. The ABA’s lobbyists offer detailed information and analysis on various technical issues, such as tax or antitrust legislation. On issues such as ABORTION, which many ABA members and leaders consider as having an EFFECT on the legal system, the ABA offers its voice along with those of other interested groups. Another influential ABA committee is the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. This committee consists of 15 members, includ- ing one representative for each federal circuit, two representatives for the Ninth Circuit, and one at-large member. The President of ABA selects members based on professional compe- tence, integrity, and devotion to public service. The committee rates each judicial nominee as “well qualified,”“qualified,” or “not qualified.” The committee lists these ratings with the initials WQ, Q, and NQ. For example, when President GEORGE W. BUSH nominated JOHN ROBERTS to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005, the ABA committee rated Roberts as WQ. Equal access for all to the justice system has become an increasingly important theme in the ABA’s mission. The association has sought for a number of years to increase and improve free legal services to needy persons by practicing lawyers. These lawyers donate some of their work PRO BONO publico (for the good of the public). In 1981, the ABA created the Private Bar Involvement Project, now called the Pro Bono Project, which acts as a national clearing- house of information and resources for various pro bono programs around the United States. When it began, there were 66 organized projects nationwide; by 1995 there were more than 950. The ABA actively supports several major legislative priorities on topics that have been in the forefront of American political and govern- mental affairs. The ABA has called for a MORATORIUM on the death PENALTY until certain procedures and policies are put into effect that mandate fair and IMPARTIAL administration of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. The Death Penalty Morato- rium Implementation Project had produced a number of reports focusing on specific states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Illinois. These reports typically demonstrate flaws in capital punishment procedures used in those states. Since the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS in 2001, the ABA has stepped up its opposition to laws GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 262 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION requiring extra verification of citizenship for immigrants. Additionally, the ABA has urged that U.S. citizens and legal residents detained as “enemy combatants” be afforded due process rights and that military tribunals authorized to conduct trials of suspected terrorists be used in limited circumstances. The ABA has also an- nounced its opposition to the incommunicado DETENTION of nationals held in undisclosed loca- tions by IMMIGRATION officials or the HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT . The ABA continued to PROTEST detentions of nationals in such locations as Guantanamo Bay during the early 2000s. The ABA holds annual conventions and midyear meetings to discuss designated legal topics and ABA matters. It publishes the monthly American BAR ASSOCIATION Journal , an annual directory, and various journals and newsletters reporting the work of its sections and commit- tees. The ABA also supports the activities of affiliated organizations, such as the American Bar Foundation, which sponsors research activi- ties in law. The ABA provides a social outlet for its members through which members meet to freely exchange ideas and experiences that add to the human dimension in the practice of law. The ABA has eleven goals: 1. Promote improvement in the U .S. system of justice 2. Promote meaningful access to LEGAL REPRE- SENTATION and th e U.S. system of justice for all persons regardless of their econom- ic or social condition 3. Provide ongoing leadership in improving the law to serve the changing needs of society 4. Increase public unders tanding of and respect for the law, the legal process, and theroleofthelegalprofession 5. Achieve the highest standards of profession- alism, competence, and ethical conduct 6. Serve as the national representative of the legal profession 7. Provide benefits, programs, and services that promote professional growth and enhance the quality of life of the members 8. Advance the rule of law in the world 9. Promote full and equal participation in the legal profession by members of minorities and women 10.Preserveandenhancetheidealsofthelegal profession as a common calling and its dedication to public service 11. Preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary as fundamen- tal to a free society FURTHER READINGS ABA Standing Committee on the Judiciary. Available online at http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/roster.html American Bar Association Website. Available online at http:// www.abanet.org/home.html (accessed May 11, 2009). Hobson, Wayne K. 1986. The American Legal Profession and the Organizational Society, 1890–1930. New York: Garland. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Since 1920 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has fought energetically for the rights of individuals. This private, nonprofit organiza- tion is a multipurpose legal group with 300,000 members committed to the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Although these liberties—such as free speech, equality, due process, privacy— are guaranteed to each citizen, they are never completely secure. Governments and majorities can easily weaken them or even take them away. The ACLU has had enormous success fighting such cases: Many of the most important Supreme Court decisions have been won with its involvement, and the ACLU continues to fight thousands of lawsuits in state and federal courts each year. The ACLU also lobbies lawmakers and speaks out on a wide variety of civil liberties and civil rights issues. Its devotion to these concerns makes it highly controversial. The origins of the ACLU date to WORLD WAR I, a dark era for civil liberties. War fever gripped the United States, and official hostility toward DISSENT ran high. Attorney General A. MITCHELL PALMER orchestrated much of this hostility from Washington, D.C., by ordering crackdowns on protesters, breaking strikes, prosecuting consci- entious objectors, and deporting thousands of immigrants. One group in particular stood up to him: the American Union against Militarism (AUAM), led by social reformers and radicals. Among its founder s was the pacifist ROGER BALDWIN , a former sociology teacher. In 1917, as the United Stat es prepared to enter the war, Baldwin gave the group a broader mission by transforming it into the Civil Liberties Bureau, dedicated to the defense of those the government saw fit to crush and corral. Anti-Communist hysteria worsened the civil liberties picture GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 263 between 1919 and 1920, and the upstart bureau had its hands full as Palmer, and his assist ant, J. EDGAR HOOVER, staged massive police raids that netted thousands of alleged subversives at a time. In 1920 the Civil Liberties Bureau became the ACLU. Joining Baldwin in launching the new organization were several distinguished social leaders, including the author Helen A. Keller, the attorney and future Supreme Court Justice FELIX FRANKFURTER, and the socialist clergyman Norman Thomas. The ACLU quickly joined the U.S. Congress and the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION in denouncing Attorney General Palmer for his raids—and the outcry helped end his tyrannical career. In the first annual ACLU report, Baldwin weighed the effectiveness of public activism, noting, “[T]he mere public assertion of the principle of freedom helps win it recognition, and in the long run makes for tolerance and against resort to violence.” In its weekly “Report on Civil Liberties Situation,” the group watched over a torrent of abuses: a mob forcing a Farmer-Labor party delegation in Washington State to salute the U.S. flag; a Russian chemist being arrested in Illinois for distributing “inflammatory” handbills; and the LYNCHING and burning of six black men in Florida after a black man attempted to vote.pi tp From the beginning, strict political neutral- ity was the ACLU rule. The group did not oppose political candidates and declared itself neither liberal nor conservative. This position had an important consequence: The ACLU would defend the civil liberties of all people, including those who were weak, unpopular, and despised, without respect to their views. This principle made for strange bedfellows. The Boston Globe recalled the following in its eulogy for Baldwin: [A]t one point Mr. Baldwin was engaged simultaneously in defending the rights of the KU KLUX KLAN to hold meetings in Boston, despite the orders of a Catholic mayor; of Catholic teachers to teach in the schools of Akron, despite the opposition of the Ku Klux Klan; and of Communists to exhibit their film, “The Fifth Year,” in Providence, despite the opposition of both the Catholics and the Ku Klux Klan. Consequently, while carving out a unique place for the ACLU in U.S. law, these defenses also won the organization enemies. Within a few years, the ACLU was widely known. Its first victory before the Supreme Court came in the landmark 1925 case Gitlow v. New York (268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138), in which the Court threw out the defendant’s CONVICTION under New York’s “criminal anar- chy” statute (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 160, 161, Laws 1909, ch. 88; Consol. Laws 1909, ch. 40), for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government in a printed flyer. Gitlow established that the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, which applies to the states, includes FREEDOM OF SPEECH in its liberty guarantee. By 1926 the ACLU was involved in the debate over church-state separation. It joined the so-called SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL, arguing against a Tennessee law that forbade teaching the theory of evolution in public schools (Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 [1925]; 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 [1927]). Besides bringing the group to natio nal and worldwide attention, Scopes set it on a course from which it never veered: fighting government interference in religious matters. It staged this fight with equanimity, opposing official help and hindrance to RELIGION, and it soon backed the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a series of key Supreme Court cases. This involvement laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s ruling, in a 1962 challenge originally brought by the ACLU, that school PRAYER is unconstitutional ENGEL V. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601). Between the 1930s and the mid-1990s the ACLU won (as counsel) or helped to win The ACLU’s involvement in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial brought the organization national attention. Pictured is the Scopes defense team: (l-r) Clarence Darrow, Arthur Garfield hays, Dudley Field Malone, George Rappelyea, John Neal, and Miss McClosky. BETTMANN/CORBIS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 264 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (through amicus briefs) several Supreme Court cases that profoundly changed U.S. law and life. Among these were BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 [1954 ]) (declaring racially segregated schools unconsti- tutional); MAPP V. OHIO (367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 [1961]) (severely limiting the power of police officers and prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence); GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT (381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 [1965]) (invalidating a state law that banned contraceptives and, for the first time, recognizing the concept of privacy in the BILL OF RIGHTS ); MIRANDA V. ARIZONA (384U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 [1966]) (requiring the police to advise suspects of their rights before interrogation); Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 [1967]) (striking down the laws of Virginia and 15 other states that made interracial MARRIAGE a criminal offense); Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct.1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]) (invalidating state SEDITION laws aimed at radical groups); and ROE V. WADE (410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]) (recognizing a woman’s constitutional right to an ABORTION). Rarely did these victories endear the ACLU to its opponents. Liberals often—though not al- ways—applauded the effort and the result. They praised, for instance, the ACLU fight against the Customs Bureau for banning James Joyce’s novel Ulysses, and its battle to secure publication of the Pentagon Papers during the VIETNAM WAR. Con- servatives often found the ACLU meddlesome and the results of its meddling ruinous. South- erners denounced its war on SEGREGATION, antiabortion groups blamed it for the legalizati on of abortion, and Vice President GEORGE H. W. BUSH even labeled it “the criminal’s lobby” for its insistence on combating police illegality. At times, the organization outraged nearly everyone, as when it went to court to win the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. Yet throughout its many controversies, the ACLU seldom seemed to go against its charter. Especially in the early 1990s, it did not avoid cases even w hen taking them on meant clashing with such traditional allies as femi nists and university professors over its support of the freedom to publish PORNOGRA- PHY and opposition to campus speech codes. The ACLU is often called the nation’s foremost advocate of individual rights. With dozens of Supreme Court cases and thousands of state and federal rulings behind it, the organization is a firmly established force in U.S. law. Its reach goes beyond the courts. Watchful of lawmakers, it frequently issues public statements on pending national, state, and local legislation, campaigning for and against laws. It also pursues special projects on women’s rights, reproductive freedom, chil- dren’srights, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, prisoners’ rights, national security, and civil liberties. In these areas, its goal is both to defend existing liberties and to expand them into quarters where they are not generally enjoyed. The election of GEORGE W. BUSH as president in 2000 and the gain of Republican seats in both the House and Senate in 2002 gave increased urgency to the ACLU advocacy for civil liberties. In addition to supporting the right to partial- birth abortion, the ACLU has fought for the rights of library patrons to view unrestricted INTERNET sites as well as AFFIRMATIVE ACTION programs for colleges and universities through- out the country. The ACLU opposed numerous initiatives of the Bush administration, in parti- cular, federal funding for faith-based drug treatment programs and the attempts to give sweeping new powers to domestic law enforce- ment and intelligence agencies after the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS in 2001. The ACLU has likewise advocated in favor of GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS. In 2004, the ACLU became involved in LITIGATION in California challenging the state’s refusal to gra nt marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court eventually heard the case, and in In re Marr iage Cases (183 P.3d 384 [Cal. 2008]), the court ruled that the state could not constitu- tionally prohibit same-sex couples from marry- ing. The decision was later effectively overruled with the passage of Proposition 8, a CONSTITU- TIONAL AMENDMENT in California that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. The ACLU supported BARACK OBAMA in his bid for the presidency, and with his election, Demo- crats gained control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House. In 2009, the ACLU continued to advocate its agenda; for instance, the ACLU in March 2009 submitted a letter to Obama asking him to withhold support for funding for programs the support abstinence until marriage. According to the ACLU, the money going toward those programs should be devoted to teen education about safer sex practices. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 265 Whose Civil Liberties, Anyway? The ACLU and Its Critics S ince 1920 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has stood at the forefront of nearly every great legal battle over personal freedom in the United States. The C in ACLU might easily stand for Controversial. Although the ACLU’s role as a major institution in U.S. law is indisputable, its effect on the law and on the lives of citizens is frequently in dispute. Political debate over the group yields very little middle ground and a great amo unt of passionate disagreement. Supporters agree w ith its self-styled epithet, “the guardian of liberty.” To them, the ACLU is often all that stands between freedom and tyran ny. Opponents think the organization is simply a l iberal establishment bent o n i mposing its views o n society. They fault its reading of the law, despise its methods, and rue its results. At the heart of this debate is a fascinating question: h ow does an o rganization that fights for the very foundations of the nation’s commitment t o liberty inspire s o much conflict? Even from the start, the idea of a group devoted to defending liberty (the right of each person to be free from the despotism of governments or majorities) made some observers angry. In 1917 members of the Civil Liberties Bureau, which was soon renamed the ACLU, got this welcome from the New York Times editorial page: “Jails Are Waiting for Them.” Although WORLD WAR I was a period of governmental heavy- handedness, the Times proved to be both right and wrong. In the next 75 years the ACLU became a powerful force in shaping law, and it won many more enemies than friends. By the 1988 presidential election, candidate GEORGE H. W. BUSH could make political hay in campaign speeches by attacking the ACLU as “the criminal’s lobby.” Other critics said the ACLU was anti-God, anti-American, anti-life, and so on. In the end, no jails held ACLU members (at least not for long), but no small number of people would have liked to lock them away. The case against the ACLU is actually many cases. Every time the organization goes into court, it naturally has to displease someone; LITIGATION is hardly about making friends. Although the organization has one mandate, the ab- stract ideal of freedom, it must oppose the will of specific individuals if this mandate is to be carried out. Take, for example, one of the ACLU’s civil liberties battles: religious freedom. For some, religious freedom means the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establish- ment of religion”; in other words, that people will be free from government- imposed religious worship. For many others, religious freedom implies just the opposite FIRST AMENDMENT assurance, that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of RELIGION. In a 1962 court battle, the ACLU won a point for the former, an end to PRAYER in public schools, a victory that polls indicate was unwanted and unsupported by most U.S. citizens ( ENGEL V . VITALE, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601). Equally stymied by ACLU activism are people who want to display Christian crèches on government proper- ty at Christmastime. They have their holiday hopes dashed every time the ACLU wins a court order blocking such a display on First Amendment grounds. Each victory for the organization in such cases may be another disaster in local public relations. In response, scorn heaped on the ACLU seldom fails to question its motives. The ACLU’s “yuletide work” was attacked by the conservative com- mentator John Leo in an essay in the Washington Times entitled “Crushing the Public Crèche:”“While others frolic, the grinches of the ACLU tirelessly trudge out each year on yet another crèche-patrol, snatching Nativity scenes from public parks and rubbing out religious symbols.” Leo’s point is shared by many conservatives: The government, far from remaining neutral in religious matters, is actually engaging in hostility toward religion, at the behest of ACLU “zealots.” In this view, the defense of an abstract principle has taken hold of the senses of its defenders; they have become inflexible absolutists. The conservative attorney and author Bruce Fein took this complaint much further, discovering something insidious: “A partial sketch of the ACLU’s vision of America reveals a contempt for individual responsibility, economic justice and prosperity and moral decency.” Fein meant that the ACLU defends welfare. Ascribing suspicious aims to the ACLU moves the debate into a more complicated area. The ACLU is not opposed simply because it has fought to block government-sanctioned religious displays, causing local upset and anger. Similarly, it is not opposed merely because it defends the rights of some of society’s most unpopular groups, Nazis, for example. The deeper issue is civil liberties themselves. Here people face a new question: Why does an organization that fights for the very foundations of the nation’s commitment to liberty even have to exist? The ACLU’s answer is rather simple. Civil liberties, it argues, exist only when everyone enjoys them. In other words, there is no such thing as freedom for some without freedom for all, including those individuals whom the majority may hate or whom the government seeks to silence. Loren Siegel, ACLU director of public education, wrote that the United States was founded upon not one, but two great principles. The first, democracy, is the more familiar: Themajorityrules.Thesecond principle, liberty, is not as well understood. Even in our democ- racy, the majority’sruleisnot unlimited. There are certain indi- vidual rights and liberties, enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 266 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION that are protected from the “tyr- annyof the majority.” Just because there are more whites than blacks in this country does not, for example, mean that whites can vote to take the vote away from blacks. And just because there are more heterosexuals than homo- sexuals should not mean that the majority can discriminate with impunity against the minority. But civil liberties “are not self-enforcing,” Siegel adds. Moreover, NADINE STROSSEN, former ACLU president, points out that victories in civil liberties need to be continually re-won. It is not the habit of enemies to grant their opponents the same constitutional rights that they themselves enjoy; plainly, it is the habit of enemies to ignore, restrict, or even crush those rights. Not by accident, the government or a majority of voters can do this; the weak and the few cannot. Thus, the ACLU’s commitment is precisely to those whose purchase on freedom is slim—not because the ACLU is necessarily in favor of their cause, but because it is in favor of upholding their rights. That argument sounds nice on paper, opponents say, but it is neither practical nor sensible at all times in real life. Indeed, they ask, what about the majority—why must it suffer to please the few in its midst who cause trouble, such as criminals? This is the point that Bush wanted to make with his famous “criminal’slobby” blast: The civil liberties of criminals should not be upheld atthe expense of the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. Bush, like other critics, turned this charge into a broader INDICTMENT of the ACLU: In his 1988 campaign for the presidency, he accused Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis of being a “card-carrying member of the ACLU.” The term card-carrying resonates in U.S. political history; it comes from the era of anti-Communist witch hunts and implies anti-Americanism. Ira Glasser, the ACLU’s executive director at the time, indignantly replied to Bush in the Boston Globe: “The vice president feels it is politically expedient tobeat up on us, and if the only way that he can carry it off is by engaging in McCarthyism and distorting our record, then he is willing to do it.” Despite the conservative claim that the ACLU is a liberal group, the political left also has taken shots at it. In the 1980s and 1990s, some feminists opposed the ACLU’s absolute defense of free speech. These critics were particularly distressed by the organization’s support of the speech rights of pornographers. Others on the left, notably academics, resent the ACLU’s opposition to so-called hate- speech codes that colleges and universi- ties have imposed on campuses to protect members of minorities from others’ abusive expression. Such issues have caused DISSENT even among the ranks of the ACLU itself, leading some to argue that the organization should emphasize CIVIL RIGHTS over civil liberties, that is, jettison its traditional mission in order to focus more specifically on the rights of women and racial minorities. In the ACLU’s annual report (1992–1993), Strossen dismissed this argument. Liber- ty and equality, she wrote, are not mutually exclusive. “How can individual liberty be secure if some individuals are denied their rights because they belong to certain societal groups? How, on the other hand, can equality for all groups be secure if that equality does not include the exercise of individual liberty?” Critics contend, however, that mak- ing individual rights paramount can produce results that clash with commu- nity values. They note that the ACLU has fought the implementation of the Chil- dren’s Internet Protection Act, including a provision that requires public libraries receiving federal technology funds to install filters on their computers or risk losing aid. With the First Amendment seemingly protecting most forms of Internet PORNOGRAPHY, the act seeks to prevent access on public library compu- ters, so as to prevent children from seeing disturbing images as they walk by. The act even permits adults to ask the librarians to turn off the filters. Never- theless, the ACLU persuaded a federal court in 2002 that the law violated the First Amendment. Critics of the ACLU cite this as just one more example of blind devotion to an absolutist view of free expression. In the aftermath of the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS of 2001, the ACLU exposed itself to more criticism over its objections to new federal laws and orders. It objected to proposed provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT in October 2001, at a time when very few voices were raised about protecting the right to privacy and preventing the government from gaining more police powers. It lobbied again when the act was reauthorized in 2006, and in 2009 advo- cated that three provisions of the law be allowed to sunset at the end of the year. It has challenged the indefinite DETENTION of ALIENS who are suspected of terrorist activities and ties, and questioned the invasion of email and phone traffic by federal agencies tasked with fighting TERRORISM. The ACLU promises to remain on the forefront of the debate over the scope of the Bill of Rights and the desire of citizens to be protected by their government. The WAR ON TERRORISM that began in September 2001 has generated many legal challenges by the ACLU as the federal government asserted new-found powers to monitor, investigate, and detain suspected terrorists. The ACLU will continue to find itself isolated at times as it battles for its vision of a free society. FURTHER READINGS American Civil Liberties Union. Available online at www.aclu.org (accessed July 11, 2003). Hershkoff, Helen. 1997. The Rights of the Poor: The Authoritative ACLU Guide to Poor People’s Rights. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. Schulhofer, Stephen J. 2002. The Enemy Within: Intelligence Gathering, Law En- forcement, and Civil Liberties in the Wake of September 11. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. Strossen, Nadine. 2001. Defending Pornogra- phy: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights. New York: New York Univ. Press. Walker, Samuel. 1999. In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Bill of Rights; Liberty; Right. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 267 . 19 99. In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Bill of Rights; Liberty; Right. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AMERICAN. to advise suspects of their rights before interrogation); Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 18 17, 18 L. Ed. 2d 10 10 [19 67]) (striking down the laws of Virginia and 15 other states that made. demonstrate flaws in capital punishment procedures used in those states. Since the SEPTEMBER 11 TH ATTACKS in 20 01, the ABA has stepped up its opposition to laws GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD