Guilty as Charged
3,923 jurors voted Guilty & 1,106 voted Not Guilty
For more than a century, the American Civil Liberties Union has occupied a special place in American society. Its very name conveys a powerful promise: when Americans’ fundamental civil liberties are threatened, the ACLU will stand up and fight.
For prospective donors, however, there is another side of the organization worth examining.
The ACLU does not operate as a general legal-defense organization for Americans who believe they have been victimized by government misconduct, judicial injustice, financial wrongdoing or other abuses. Its affiliates openly acknowledge that only a small fraction of requests for assistance are accepted and that even legitimate injustices may receive no assistance.
Limited resources make selectivity unavoidable. But the more important question is how the ACLU decides which Americans and which civil liberties deserve its considerable resources.
The organization’s own case-selection guidelines provide revealing evidence.
When deciding whether to become involved in cases presenting competing organizational values, the ACLU considers not only the legal merits and effect upon civil liberties, but whether a case is likely to advance ACLU objectives, its potential impact upon allies and coalition partners, and its potential effect upon the ACLU’s own credibility and effectiveness.
Those considerations have fueled criticism—including criticism from longtime civil-liberties advocates—that today’s ACLU is different from the organization that once became famous for defending constitutional principles regardless of whether it approved of the person exercising them.
The ACLU vigorously denies abandoning that tradition. It points, correctly, to an extraordinary history that includes defending the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, representing an American citizen suspected of terrorist associations, and defending the demonstration rights of white supremacists.
But the controversy is significant precisely because the criticism concerns whether that philosophy has changed.
After Charlottesville, the ACLU developed guidelines addressing cases in which free speech potentially conflicts with other organizational values. The ACLU says those guidelines did not change its policies. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that today’s case-selection process can involve considerations extending beyond the straightforward question: Were this person’s constitutional rights violated?
That distinction matters to donors.
The ACLU is not a small volunteer organization struggling to survive. Its national entities handle enormous amounts of money. The American Civil Liberties Union reported approximately $142.7 million in revenue in fiscal 2024, approximately $141.3 million of which came from contributions. Its filing also reported approximately $9.9 million in professional fundraising fees. (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer)
Executive compensation is similarly substantial. The ACLU Foundation’s latest available IRS filing reports Executive Director Anthony Romero receiving approximately $759,792 in reportable compensation from a related organization plus $368,410 in estimated other compensation. Other senior executives received substantial six-figure compensation packages. (ACLU IRS Form 990)
There is nothing inherently illegal or corrupt about those salaries. Nor does accepting large donations prove that donors control ACLU decisions.
But those financial facts matter when ordinary Americans are deciding where to place their charitable dollars.
The ACLU itself says that its work is financed by membership dues, contributions and grants from individuals and private foundations. It also describes donations as financing litigation, communications and public-education campaigns. (ACLU Financial Information)
Consequently, the issue is not whether the ACLU performs worthwhile work. Clearly it does. Nor is there credible evidence establishing that the organization itself is a criminal enterprise.
The issue is whether the organization Americans believe they are supporting is the organization that actually exists today.
Someone donating because the words American Civil Liberties Union suggest an organization broadly dedicated to defending Americans against violations of their constitutional liberties should understand that the ACLU exercises considerable discretion over which liberties, causes and individuals it chooses to defend. Its own guidelines permit consideration of organizational objectives, coalition relationships and institutional credibility when making those decisions.
That leads to the central question Citizens for Justice places before its jury:
Has the ACLU remained a principled defender of civil liberties regardless of whose liberties are threatened—or has an enormously funded civil-liberties organization evolved into a selective advocacy institution that decides which rights, causes and Americans are worthy of its considerable power and resources?
Before contributing money, every prospective donor deserves enough information to answer that question for themselves.
The allegations presented here are matters for consideration by Citizens for Justice jurors. They do not represent a criminal conviction or judicial finding of corruption against the ACLU.