| Type | Non-profit |
|---|---|
| Founded | July 1966 by Arthur Kinoy, William Kunstler, Ben Smith and Morton Stavis |
| Location | New York City, New York, U.S. |
| Key people | Michael Ratner, President Emeritus; Jules Lobel, President; Alex Rosenberg and Peter Weiss, Vice-Presidents; Vincent Warren, Executive Director; Baher Azmy, Legal Director; William P. Quigley, Associate Legal Director[1] |
| Services | Advocacy, litigation, public education |
| Website | CCRJustice.org |
The Center for Constitutional Rights[2] (CCR) is a non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, U.S., co-founded in 1966 by William Kunstler and others.
CCR has focused on civil liberties and human rights litigation and activism, as well as providing legal assistance to people imprisoned in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.
Contents |
The Center, originally the Law Center for Constitutional Rights, was set up to give legal and financial support to lawyers who were representing civil rights movement activists in Mississippi at the height of the struggle against racial segregation and economic injustice. Its founders were Morton Stavis, Arthur Kinoy, Ben Smith and William Kunstler. The Center conceived of itself as a "movement support" organization—that is, an organization that concentrated on working with political and social activists to use the courts to promote the activists' work. Cases were chosen not necessarily because they could be won, but also because they would raise public awareness of an issue, generating media attention, or energizing activists harassed by local law enforcement in the southern US. In this regard, the Center differed from more traditional legal non-profits such as the ACLU, which was more focused on bringing winnable cases in order to extend precedents and develop the law, as well as pursuing First Amendment issues.
The current organization was formed from the merger of the original Center for Constitutional Rights (formed in 1966 by Kunstler, Kinoy, Stavis and Smith) and the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (ECLC).
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Center brought scores of cases on behalf of civil rights activists, many of which made their way to the Supreme Court. Despite the Center's ready embrace of litigation strategies promising "success without victory" (as the title of CCR President Jules Lobel's book put it), many of these lawsuits resulted in victories and set lasting precedents.
The 1980 decision in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, using the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) of 1789 (unearthed by CCR attorney and current Vice-President Peter Weiss), opened U.S. courts for victims of human rights crimes to bring suit against perpetrators from anywhere. From the early 1980s through 9/11, the Center was known for bringing such claims for violations of international law in United States courts.
Since 9/11, CCR has been known for bringing a variety of cases challenging the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition, detention and interrogation practices in the so-called "Global War on Terror". According to CCR's website, primary issues for advocacy and public education include: illegal detentions[3], particularly with regards to the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp; surveillance and attacks on dissent[4], which fights the U.S. government's involvement in unlawful surveillance, monitoring and intimidation of activists such as the Black Panthers; criminal justice and mass incarceration[5], including jail expansions and unjust detentions; corporate and human rights abuse both domestic and international; government abuse of power[6], primarily encompassing CCR's challenge to the Bush administration's policy of extraordinary rendition; racial, gender and economic justice[7]; and international law and accountability[8].
Wikisource has
Center for Constitutional Rights
|
Al Odah v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 3067 - 2007: Al Odah is the latest in a series of habeas corpus petitions on behalf of people imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The case challenges the Military Commissions system’s suitability as a habeas corpus substitute and the legality, in general, of detention at Guantanamo.
Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F. 3d 559 - 2009: This case challenges U.S. government’s extraordinary rendition policies and highlights the experience of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen allegedly sent by the United States to be tortured in Syria. He has never been charged, and has been found by the Canadian government to be uninvolved with terrorism. He and CCR seek an acknowledgment of the U.S.'s alleged involvement and an end to the rendition program.
Abtan v. Blackwater, 611 F.Supp.2d 1 - 2009: CCR filed suit on behalf of the civilian victims of the September 16, 2007, Blackwater Baghdad shootings in Nisoor square, Baghdad, by Blackwater USA’s armed contractors. The suit charges that Blackwater “created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life.” Blackwater is also accused of extrajudicial killing and war crimes, assault and battery, wrongful death, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, training and supervision.
CCR v. Bush: This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the NSA’s surveillance of people within the United States without warrant or prior court approval.
Daniels v. City of New York, 291 AD 2d 260 - 2002 / Floyd v. City of New York, 739 F. Supp. 2d 376 - 2010: This case forced the New York City Police Department to end their practice of stopping and frisking people solely on the basis of their race or national origin. The case also highlighted the practices of the NYPD Street Crimes Unit (responsible for the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo), leading to its disbandment. The case’s settlement created an internal audit system of officers engaged in stop and frisks, the results of which are turned over to CCR on a quarterly basis. In addition, the settlement required the NYPD to begin “know your rights” public education programs. CCR is currently attempting to compel the NYPD to comply with the terms of the settlement.
Estate of Ali Hussamalde Albazzaz v. Blackwater Worldwide: This case is a civil suit filed on behalf of the family of an Iraqi man killed when Blackwater Worldwide personnel opened fire on allegedly innocent bystanders in and around Al Watahba Square in Baghdad. CCR is charging Blackwater Worldwide with war crimes.
Khan v. Bush: This suit is filed on behalf of Majid Khan, a U.S. asylum-holder who was held in secret detention at a C.I.A. "black site" for three years, after which he was transferred to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. CCR has filed a habeas corpus submission on his behalf.
Kunstler v. City of New York, 439 F.Supp.2d 327 (2006): This lawsuit charges the New York Police Department with unlawfully arresting allegedly peaceful anti-war protesters and holding them for allegedly excessively long periods of time.
Mamani v. Sanchez de Lozada / Mamani v. Sanchez Berzain, 636 F.Supp.2d 1326 (2009): These two suits have been filed against the former President of Bolivia, Gonzalo Daniel Sánchez de Lozada Sánchez Bustamante and former Minister of Defense, Jose Carlos Sánchez Berzaín for their alleged roles in the deaths of civilians during popular protests against the government of Bolivia in September and October 2003.
Matar v. Dichter, 500 F. Supp. 2d 284 - 2007: CCR presented a federal class action lawsuit against the former Director of Israel’s General Security Service (GSS), Avi Dichter, on behalf of Palestinians killed or injured in a 2002 “targeted killing” air strike in Gaza. It charged him with extrajudicial killing, war crimes and other gross human rights violations. The case was dismissed, and the dismissal upheld on appeal.
Saleh v. Titan, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 - 2005: Saleh is a federal class action lawsuit against Titan and CACI International Incorporated, contractors who provided interrogation services at Abu Ghraib. The lawsuit accuses the contractors of cruel and humiliating treatment during interrogations.
Turkmen v. Ashcroft: This suit, filed on behalf of a class of Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens, is a class action civil rights lawsuit contesting their being swept up by the INS and FBI in a racial profiling dragnet following 9/11.
United States v. City of New York (formerly Vulcan Society v. City of New York): This is an Equal Opportunity Commission charge filed by CCR on behalf of the Vulcan Society, an organization of Black firefighters in New York City. The lawsuit charges Fire Department of New York with discriminatory hiring practices.
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 626 F.Supp.2d 377 (2009), Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. Shell Petroleum Development Company: These are three lawsuits focusing on the human rights abuses against the Ogoni people in Nigeria. They are being brought against the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company (Royal Dutch/Shell), the head of its Nigerian operation, and Royal Dutch/Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary for their complicity in the abuses.
Zalita v. Bush, 127 S. Ct. 2159 - 2007: This case forwards a habeas corpus petition for Mr. Al Qassim, a Libyan refugee currently detained in Guantanamo after almost six years who the U.S. government wishes to transfer back to his native country despite the possible threat of torture and persecution.
Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 US 479 - 1965: The Center for Constitutional Rights’ first major case was a successful suit against the Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee to invalidate the use of state anti-subversion laws to intimidate civil rights workers. CCR won the case in the Supreme Court and established that such intimidation had a “chilling effect” on First amendment rights and was therefore unconstitutional.
Abramowicz v. Lefkowitz, 1972: Abramowicz challenged New York state laws that restricted abortion, and served as a model for challenges to similar laws in other states. This case marks the first instance of challenge to abortion statutes being argued by women plaintiffs in terms of women’s right to choice rather than a doctor’s right to practice.
United States v. Dellinger, 1972: CCR attorneys William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass defended the “Chicago 8”, a group of social movement figures, after the 1968 Democratic National Convention demonstrations and consequent police repression. The eight defendants, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Bobby Seale, were anti-war, civil rights and human rights activists, and Students for a Democratic Society and Black Panther Party members. The eight were found not guilty of their conspiracy charges, but five were found guilty of crossing state lines to incite a riot. However, the Center was able to appeal and then overturn these charges, based on the judge's bias and the refusal to screen jurors for possible cultural and/or racial bias'.
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 357 F.Supp. 1051 (1972): Although this case began as a challenge to New York City’s forced maternity leave policies, its resolution created a precedent that established local government accountability for unconstitutional acts and created the right to obtain damages from municipalities in such cases. Since 1978, this precedent has been used by lawyers and non-profits as a tool to challenge police misconduct, civil rights violations, and other local unconstitutional acts.
United States v. Banks and Means (Wounded Knee), 1974: United States v. Banks and Means is a 1974 case in which the CCR defended American Indian sovereignty at Wounded Knee and represented leaders in the American Indian Movement charged with conspiracy and assault in a standoff with the FBI. After a nine-month trial, Chief Judge Fred J. Nichols of the Federal District Court of South Dakota dismissed all of charges against Russell Means and Dennis Banks, the two leaders of the American Indian Movement occupation of Wounded Knee (known as the Wounded Knee incident), on grounds of governmental misconduct. Six charges had been dismissed earlier for reasons of legal insufficiency and the failure of the prosecution to present enough evidence to warrant submission to a jury.
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 - 1980: Filártiga established a precedent for the use of the Alien Tort Statute to allow foreign victims of human rights abuses to seek justice in U.S. courts. CCR represented the family of Joelito Filártiga, the son of a left-wing Paraguayan dissident who had been tortured and killed by Paraguayan police. The precedent created by this case has facilitated subsequent international human rights cases, including Doe v. Karadzic, and Doe v. Unocal, cases which established that multinational corporations and other non-state actors can be held responsible for their complicity in human rights violations.
Crumsey v. Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 1982: Crumsey v. Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) sought an injunction and monetary and punitive damages from the Ku Klux Klan on behalf of five Chattanooga women injured during a shooting spree. The claims were brought under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The plaintiffs won $535,000 in damages and the KKK was served with an injunction prohibiting the group from engaging in violence and from entering the Black community. This was the first time that KKK victims secured monetary relief in such a suit. Equally important, CCR secured an injunction against the Justice Knights and associated individuals to prohibit their campaign of assault, intimidation, and harassment.
Texas v. Johnson, 1989: 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court invalidating prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states.
Paul v. Avril, 1994: Paul v. Avril is a case in which Haitian President Proper Avril was charged with human rights violations. In July 1994 a federal magistrate awarded a $41 million damage judgment to the victims of Prosper Avril, who was found responsible for torturing political dissidents. The decision in this case – the first in which any Haitian dictator or member of the military was ever held responsible in any court of law anywhere for human rights abuses - was another success using the principle established in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala.
Doe v. Karadzic, 2000: In this case, CCR won a $45 billion judgment against Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadzic for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The 1995 Second Circuit decision in this case recognized that rape and sexual violence constitute torture and genocide and laid the groundwork for cases against non-state actors, including multinational corporations.
Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 - 2004: CCR represented Guantanamo detainees seeking fair trials and an end to their indefinite imprisonment without charge. The Supreme Court case established precedent for U.S. courts’ jurisdiction over the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, affirming detainees’ right to habeas corpus review. This right was later putatively revoked when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. CCR brought many of the same habeas corpus petitioners to the Supreme Court again in Boumediene v. Bush, decided in 2008, in which the Supreme Court declared the relevant parts of the MCA unconstitutional and restored the rights won in Rasul.