ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


Justice Department declares war on ACLU attorneys who oppose Trump


On Friday, the Department of Justice filed an astonishing appeal with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to intervene in the Jane Doe case that seemed to have ended last week. Doe, an undocumented 17-year-old in a federally funded Texas shelter, was denied abortion access by the Trump administration, which argues that it can force undocumented minors to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. On Oct. 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Doe must be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, which she did the next day. Now the DOJ is urging the Supreme Court to vacate that decision—and punish the ACLU attorneys who represented Doe.

Make no mistake: With this filing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department has declared war on attorneys and groups who dare to oppose it in court.


Read more


Join the discussion

  1. Harry

    This site seemed to kick a political can. I am going to kick it back. I do not like Trump, however, I do hate Hilliary, Obama, the DNC/RNC even more. All of them have destroyed America and hate RCs.

    • 1984

      Trumps methods are causing the nasty little democrats to start revealing themselves. It is going to get extraordinarily ugly.

      A side note: I am sad from the lack of interest of quality individuals to run for president.

    • F.U. Trump

      I think you might be missing the point of why this article was posted.

      Trump’s DOJ is going after ACLU attorneys. Trump’s DOJ wants to prosecute and disbar the ACLU attorneys. From Doe v. Harris, Does v. Snyder, Packingham v. North Carolina, and to the most recent parolee case against CDCR, ACLU attorneys have proven that they are the few that are on our side. I think one point of this article is to show that Trump is not on our side because he seeks to retaliate against the few people — very intelligent people, who we need on our side, might I add — that might stick up for us when we need them.

      Who will fight things like Equal Protection issues with CP, as well as the Static-99R scam that plague the new tiered registry law? If not Janice, then God I hope it’s the ACLU. Because it’s clear that the DOJ and government does not seem to care of upholding either constitutional laws or imposing bogus science.

      • Winston

        Geez people, are we not forgetting about JANICE? Janice often represents unpopular causes like IML. It’s ACLU attorneys today, but it could easily be ACSOL attorneys tomorrow! This move by Trump/Sessions’ DOJ is a very slippery slope. Other than that, I have to also agree that I hope this doesn’t stop the ACLU — or any other attorney(s) — from representing unpopular causes. You mention the STATIC 99R and Equal Protection issues in the tiered registry law. Hopefully ACLU will challenge those two if Janice, et al. doesn’t. But would it not be great if ACLU and ACSOL teamed up to fight the injustices within the new tiered registry law?

        • Grateful

          Of course Janice too. Now that she plans to challenge IML, I’m sure she might have some worries? But hopefully ACLU challenges the DOJ’s intent to seemingly retaliate. Because if they don’t, what slippery slope — the slippery slope of fear — will attorneys fearing retaliation have on potential hesitation to challenge the government in Court?

          Digression: The Static-99/R is probably the worst thing in that tiered bill/law. The fact they concealed it under the term “saratso tool” really makes you wonder why they wouldn’t be more upfront about the flawed “test” they intend to use. Did they really think no one would figure out that ‘saratso tool’ = Static-99/R?

          It doesn’t matter anyway, since the Static never seems to be challenged here in CA. In other states, yes. New York and Virginia have discredited the Static-99/R. But not here in CA. In CA, Static-99/R will become the law!!

  2. F.U. Trump

    I have the greatest respect for ACLU attorneys. They are usually most educated and highly intelligent. Unlike the DOJ attorneys, ACLU attorneys defend the Consitution against what it was designed to protect us from: government tyranny. Take the parolee First Amendment case as an example. I don’t think even Janice or Chance would have taken that (at least without lots of $$?). Yet ACLU took that man’s case, regardless of his recidivist history, and created well-written, scholarly briefs that seem absolutely perfect.

    Thank you ACLU!

    • KM

      Unless, you know, it’s an amendment to the Constitution the ACLU doesn’t like.

      • Winston

        Name one as an example?

        • KM

          First Amendment right to freedom of religion;

          The bible clearly states that gays are an abomination and when people practice that faith, the ACLU stepped in to make sure people of faith must support gay weddings.

          Not my personal opinion, but I do think religious rights TRUMP other people’s gay rights.

        • David Kennerly, Enemy Of the State, Untermensch

          I don’t believe that individuals or businesses should be prevented from discriminating against gays, either but not because I’m a religious fanatic or hate gays since, arguably, I am gay although I believe religious fundamentalism to be dangerously stupid. What I am is a libertarian who believes in individual liberty and private property and that people get to be idiots in their private lives and the uses to which they put their private property if they choose. So I agree that the ACLU was wrong to argue for compelling private companies to decorate cakes for gay weddings. Hell, WE should have such problems! Nevertheless, the ACLU has represented any number of fundamental liberty interests over the years for which we should be grateful. I’ll be more grateful if they start to show up to defend our rights.

  3. Tim Moore

    So you want to create a fascist regime?
    First step, go after the press. Second step,
    go after the civil rights attorneys…

  4. KM

    Ok this is clearly a very biased article. Can we not get into divisive politics please. That’s not the goal of this organization.

    • Winston

      It might be biased to some, but are you not troubled by the DOJ’s stance of seemingly prosecuting/disbarring individual Civil Rights attorneys for merely representing the best interests of their clients? If you can’t recognize this dangerous slippery slope, then in essence you aren’t supporting other Civil Rights attorneys like Janice. Janice probably already gets some unpopular treatment because she represents unpopular causes. Don’t let ‘fear of retribution by way of disbarment and/or prosecution’ be added to Janice’s list! Look at the big picture! Put the Trump/anti-Trump division aside: Let’s not support anyone who lets their DOJ go after the allies that fight our causes in Court. Doing so would be akin to shitting where we eat.

      • KM

        It’s a false narrative. Fake news. The DOJ isn’t trying to go after attorneys simply for defending their client’s interest. That’s why it’s biased. it’s spun to make it look that way.

  5. Michael

    It’s Donald “The Turd” Trump’s way. He figures that tactic, in which he pounces upon whomever in hopes that they will tuck tail, turn on their heels and run. Remember when Trump sued Bill Maher when Maher said he would donate $5 million to a charity if Trump could prove he wasn’t the “the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan?” Bill didn’t back down and the suit went away. The moral of that story? Never back down, always question authority, and always confront a bully.


  6. J

    I read the article and the ACLU is an absolute blessing to me and our cause. In reading the article there was definitely some misunderstandings and if what I read and comprehend is true the DOJ has every right to appeal. Just know Trump haters are gonna hate, Trump could walk on water and some Hater on here is gonna say “yeah but he got his feet wet.” All well, enjoy the ride for the next 8 years. When Trump F**ks me or my cause as a whole then I’ll complain.

  7. KM

    Let’s not forget it was Obummer that signed IML and defended ML policies first.

  8. KM

    I find it interesting that so many on here would be opposed to Trump. Afterall, popular opinion is that he is an unconvicted sex offender. Therefore, he may be more sympathetic to SOs- though perhaps not publicly. He may be persuaded to push for sensible sex offense laws under the guise of “it can happen to anybody, even you Mr. President.”

  9. David Kennerly, Enemy Of the State, Untermensch

    Yes, Obama signed it. However, it was Republicans who pushed it. Chris Smith, in particular. And it was only when both houses came under the control of the Republicans that Smith’s annual attempts at pushing his agenda finally bore fruit. And it appears that only a handful of mostly Republicans and a couple of Democrats were able to slam it through under a “suspension of the rules.” We can’t know for sure as it was a voice vote.

    I don’t like either party, I’m a libertarian. But the idea that today’s sex hysterical legal justice system is primarily a product of Democrats is complete hogwash. It is to ignore the essential participation of socially conservative religious fanatics in influencing society.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *