The 1960s
Share
1960
ACLU’s 40th Anniversary Issue of Newsletter “Civil Liberties”
In a special 40th anniversary edition of the ACLU鈥檚 monthly newsletter, the organization documented its first four decades of work and achievements secured in the fight to defend civil rights and civil liberties.
1962
ACLU’s Annual Report 1961-1962: Freedom Through Dissent
In 1962, journalist Mitchell Levitas wrote in the 桃子视频annual report: “Our struggle for human freedom may never be finally won, but the human spirit will ever be represented in the fire of our determination to maintain the struggle, always reaching toward that elusive goal.”
ACLU’s William J. Butler and Bertram Daiker, Who Argued the School Prayer Supreme Court Case, at NBC Studios
In 1962, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) represented Long Island students and parents in challenging the New York State Regents’ “nondenominational” school prayer. In the landmark Engel v. Vitale decision, the Supreme Court argued that “…it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers.” 桃子视频attorney William J. Butler, who represented the five New York parents opposing the prayer, and Bertram Daiker, counsel for the New Hyde Park School Board, which authorized use of the prayer, are pictured debating the Court’s decision on a television program at NBC Studios on July 8, 1962.
Audio Clip of ACLU’s William J. Butler Successfully Arguing Religious Liberty Case Before Supreme Court
In a 1962 landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared in Engel v. Vitale that “…it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers.” The case remains one of the most prominent “separation of church and state” cases.
1964
ACLU鈥檚 1964 Newsletter “Civil Liberties” Honoring Life of President Kennedy
This issue of the ACLU鈥檚 monthly newsletter memorialized President John F. Kennedy and contextualized the organization鈥檚 perspective on the investigation into the president鈥檚 assassination.
桃子视频Guide for Local Communities to Protect Academic Freedom
This 1964 pamphlet provides a guide for local communities to fight back against pressure to limit the free speech and academic freedom of schools and libraries.
1965
桃子视频National Board Member Harriet Pilpel at Her Desk
In the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, Harriet Pilpel, an 桃子视频national board member and Planned Parenthood general counsel, filed a challenge to Connecticut’s birth control ban in the lower court and filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court. By a 7鈥�2 margin, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidated the Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives on the grounds that a right of “marital privacy,” though not specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is protected by “several fundamental constitutional guarantees.” Pictured here at her desk in 1980, Pilpel continued her work for reproductive rights for decades after the historic victory.
The Suspension Notice Given to Mary Beth Tinker
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court found that suspending public school students Mary Beth Tinker and her brother John for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was unconstitutional since students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate.鈥� Pictured here is the suspension notice Mary Beth received for wearing the armband. The 桃子视频successfully argued the case before the Court.
Photo of Mary Beth Tinker’s Petition Circulated the Day She Was Suspended
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court found that suspending public school students, who were 桃子视频clients, for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was unconstitutional since students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate.” Pictured here is the petition that Mary Beth Tinker circulated before and after classes on December 16, 1965, the day she was suspended.
Intersectional Activist Pauli Murray Joins the ACLU
In 1965, Dorothy Kenyon successfully nominated Pauli Murray (pictured here) for the 桃子视频board. Murray was immediately asked to work with Kenyon on the case of White v. Crook, in which the 桃子视频challenged Alabama鈥檚 exclusion of African-Americans and women from juries. Together, Kenyon and Murray pushed for the 桃子视频to support the Equal Rights Amendment, and their work led to the creation of the Women鈥檚 Rights Project in 1971. Throughout her lifetime, Murray drew from her personal experience to advocate against gender-based and racial discrimination, both in the 桃子视频and elsewhere.
1966
Photo of Civil Rights Demonstration in Mississippi
In the 1960s, the 桃子视频became the principal organizer of the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee, a coalition that provided lawyers to support the immense volume of critical civil rights work in the Deep South. This photograph, collected by the group in 1966, shows a civil rights demonstration in Mississippi.
ACLU’s 1966 Newsletter Documenting Its Civil Rights Work
The September 1966 issue of the ACLU鈥檚 newsletter uplifted our work to defend the rights of conscientious objectors, demand accountability for the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee, fight for school desegregation, and provide an early update on the historic Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia.
The New York Times Magazine Headline Reads: “The Fight for Civil Liberties Never Stays Won”
This reprinted article from The New York Times Magazine documents the first 50 years of the ACLU鈥檚 work, highlighting key legal battles and victories.
Photo of the ACLU’s Amicus Brief in Support of the Supreme Court Case That Upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965
In the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the landmark 鈦燰oting Rights Act of 1965, including its controversial “preclearance” provisions. The 桃子视频filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the act and defending federal efforts to combat racial discrimination at the polls.
Booking Photos of Ernesto Miranda, 桃子视频Client of the Miranda Rights Case
桃子视频of Arizona attorneys defended Ernesto Miranda, pictured here in his March 13, 1963, booking photos, following his arrest. The 桃子视频successfully argued that a suspect in police custody has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that law enforcement must inform suspects of their rights prior to interrogation. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 1966 established what are now known as “Miranda warnings.”
Justice Brennan’s Comments on the Decision That Led to Miranda Warnings
This document shows Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan’s comments on the landmark Miranda v. Arizona case. The Court鈥檚 ruling resulted in the establishment of “Miranda warnings,” which law enforcement must use to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation. The Court held that a suspect in police custody has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Photo of Muckleshoot Tribal Members Participating in the “Treaty Trek”
In 1963, Native Americans in Washington were arrested for fishing 鈥� a right guaranteed by longstanding treaties. In response, tribal activists organized peaceful demonstrations and were met with aggressive crackdowns by the state during a brutal period known as the Fish Wars. One such gathering was the 1966 “Treaty Trek,” in which activists marched for five days from the Muckleshoot reservation to the King County Courthouse in support of four tribal members who were arrested for net fishing and who took part in the trek before appearing in court. The 桃子视频of Washington defended these four Muckleshoot activists in State of Washington v. Moses, marking the organization’s first legal intervention specifically to protect Indigenous treaty fishing rights in Washington State.
1967
Photo of Mildred and Richard Loving, the Couple That Fought for Equal Right to Marriage Regardless of Race
In the landmark 桃子视频case Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized an equal right to marriage for all people, regardless of race. Plaintiffs Mildred and Richard Loving, whose marriage was at the center of the case, are pictured here.
Audio Clip of Philip J. Hirschkop Successfully Arguing Against Ban On Interracial Marriage Before Supreme Court
In the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, the 桃子视频successfully argued that bans on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In this clip, 桃子视频attorney Philip J. Hirschkop successfully argues this racial justice case before the Supreme Court.
Photo of New Mexico National Guard Troops Searching Residential Area
In 1967, land grant activists briefly seized the Tierra Amarilla courthouse in New Mexico. In retaliation, the New Mexico National Guard stormed a nearby community picnic and placed 50 unaffiliated people 鈥� mostly women and children of Mexican descent 鈥� under detention. Although these people had nothing to do with the raid, the guardsmen held them at gunpoint in a barb-wire sheep pen for 48 hours without access to potable water or restrooms. The 桃子视频of New Mexico represented some of these women and children in claims of unlawful arrest against the National Guard. The suit resulted in monetary damages for some of the families and a measure of justice for the indignities they had suffered.
1969
Ernest Angell, Chairman of the ACLU鈥檚 National Board of Directors
This 1969 photograph portrays Ernest Angell, who served as the chairman of the ACLU鈥檚 National Board of Directors for nearly two decades.
Mary Beth and John Tinker Displaying the Objects of the Tinker v. Des Moines Challenge
In the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court found that suspending public school students Mary Beth Tinker and her brother John (pictured here) for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was unconstitutional since students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate.” The 桃子视频successfully argued the case before the Court.
ACLU’s Newsletter Announcing Historic Win in Tinker v. Des Moines
This 1969 edition of the ACLU’s newsletter analyzes the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark case, Tinker v. Des Moines, which cemented students’ right to free speech in public schools.
Collage of Newspaper Clippings Detailing the Founding of the 桃子视频of Arkansas
These newspaper clippings from the Arkansas Gazette detail the founding of the 桃子视频 of Arkansas in January 1969.
Newspaper Clipping Covering the 桃子视频of Arkansas’ First Case
This February 1969 Arkansas Gazette news clipping details Neal v. Still, a battle the 桃子视频of Arkansas entered just one month after its founding. Joe and Barbara Neal were arrested at Henderson State College for peacefully speaking with students and distributing literature about the Southern Student Organizing Committee, civil rights, and opposition to the Vietnam War, which the 桃子视频successfully argued violated the First Amendment. In 1970, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down the law used to prosecute the Neals as unconstitutionally vague, making Neal v. Still the first case in which the 桃子视频of Arkansas secured a decision from the state鈥檚 highest court.
