Danville, VA – Federal Judge Michael F. Urbanski today issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, “during the pendency of this case, from continuing its present practice of routinely opening its meetings with Christian prayers” and “from invoking the name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at Board meetings.”

Referring to opinions of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that have struck down sectarian opening prayers at local government meetings, Judge Urbanski wrote:  “Given the clear pronouncements of the Fourth Circuit in Wynne and Joyner, there can be little doubt that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits” of her claim that the prayers violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The judge found, “Every time the plaintiff attends a Board meeting and comes in direct contact with an overtly Christian prayer, she experiences a recurring First Amendment injury.”   He noted that the Board will still be permitted to engage in nonsectarian prayers.

Rejecting the suggestion that his ruling evinced “hostility” toward religion, Judge Urbanski quoted the Supreme Court:  “The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by government.”

“Judge Urbanski recognized that clear legal precedents prohibit the Board of Supervisors from opening its meetings with sectarian prayer,” said ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg.  “We are pleased that the Board will be restrained from this unconstitutional conduct while this case is pending.”

“This ruling reaffirms the principle that when government favors one religion over others, it violates the religious freedom of all,” added Glenberg.

In a separate opinion, Judge Urbanski denied Pittsylvania County’s request to dismiss the case.  A third opinion denied plaintiff Jane Doe’s request to remain anonymous, giving her thirty days either to appeal the ruling or disclose her identity to the court.

“Given the degree of anger this lawsuit has engendered in Pittsylvania County, we are disappointed that the judge did not grant our request for anonymity.  We are consulting with our client about how best to proceed,” said Glenberg.

The controversy in Pittsylvania began on August 16, when Glenberg wrote a letter to Board of Supervisors members asking them to cease opening their meetings with sectarian prayer.   The letter pointed out that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that opening prayers at government meetings must not represent any one particular religious belief.  Most recently, in July, the Fourth Circuit struck down sectarian prayers at meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina as unconstitutional.

Instead of complying with these clear rulings, the Board announced its determination to continue offering explicitly Christian prayers to open meetings.   At its meeting the same day that the Board received the ACLU’s letter, Board members offered five separate sectarian prayers.   The ACLU then filed suit against the Board on behalf of Jane Doe.

The opinion granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction can be found at: https://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120203PittsylvaniaGovtPrayerDistCourtOpinionPI.pdf.  The opinion denying defendants’ motion to dismiss is at https://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120203PittsylvaniaGovtPrayersDistCourtOpinionDismissal.pdf.  The opinion denying the request for anonymity is at https://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120203PittsylvaniaGovtPrayerDistCourtAnonymity.pdf.

Contact: Kent Willis, Executive Director, (804) 644-8022

Virginia, like many states across the country, is encountering a growing problem in its prison system: an aging inmate population.  “Elderly” inmates, those age 50 or older as designated by the National Institute of Corrections, comprise the fastest growing group in prison.

In 1990, Virginia incarcerated 900 elderly inmates, now there are over 5,000.

Virginia’s tough-on-crime laws from the 1980s and 1990s, particularly the abolition of parole and mandatory minimum sentences, ignored the science governing effective corrections and ushered in a period in which politics and antiquated notions of vengeance dictated correctional philosophy.  As a result the state’s prison population began to swell, and in the intervening decades, those once youthful offenders have become “geriatric” prisoners.

In addition to having more inmates in prison who are older in age, studies have shown that people in prison age faster than those in society.  By age 50, the average prisoner is physiologically 15 years older than a comparable person in society.

Elderly inmates, like older citizens generally, have higher medical costs due to illness and injury.   It can cost three times as much to incarcerate an elderly inmate as it does a younger prisoner.

Moreover, elderly inmates often have special needs.  So, in addition to all the security measures prison officials must be concerned about, they now also have to find ways to accommodate disabled prisoners who need handicap toilets and grab bars or have wheelchairs, and deal with prisoners who have dementia or cannot understand instructions.

To better manage the aging prisoner population, Virginia has a geriatric prison, Deerfield Correctional.  However, it remains an expensive effort, costing $28,000 a year to house inmates there compared with $19,000 for the rest of the population.

The high expense of incarcerating elderly inmates might be justified if the prisoners remained a threat to society.  However, almost all aging prisoners pose little to no risk to public safety.  Regardless of the original crime committed, the likelihood of committing another crime drops by 90% once the age of 50 is reached.

It’s a simple truth: Society is not safer when we keep wheelchair-bound or cane-using inmates behind bars.

Unless reforms are enacted, Virginia’s aging prison population will continue to grow exponentially in the coming years.  Major policy reforms include the repeal of mandatory minimum laws, particularly for drug-related offenses, reinstituting parole, and the repeal of habitual offender laws (i.e., “three strikes, you’re out”).  Recognizing that wholesale reforms to these harsh sentencing practices may take some time, short-term efforts can still ease the burden on our prison system.

Del. Patrick Hope, Del. Beverly Sherwood, and Sen. L. Louise Lucas have proposed reforms to Virginia’s law on conditional release of geriatric prisoners.  Under current law, many older prisoners, except for class one felons, may petition the Parole Board for conditional release.  Del. Hope’s proposal, HB 165, would allow all prisoners over 60 to submit such petitions.  Bills introduced by Del. Sherwood (HB 1064) and Sen. Lucas (SB 290) would keep the age and time-served criteria the same, but make qualifying prisoners automatically eligible for parole consideration.

Unfortunately, a House subcommittee yesterday killed both House bills.  Del. Sherwood’s bill will die despite having the support from the governor. SB 290 has not yet been heard, but even if it fares well in the Senate, it will likely meet the same fate as the House bills once it crosses over to the other chamber.

Given the state’s tight budget and the growing costs to house elderly inmates, one wonders why Virginia’s legislators don’t support bills aimed at reducing the number of older prisoners who pose little or no risk to public safety.  It seems that legislators still prefer politics and vengeance over scientific evidence.

Winston Churchill said, “Nothing is more costly, nothing is more sterile, than vengeance.”  Maybe it’s time for Virginia to let go of being tough on crime and start being smart on crime.

Richmond, VA– The House Privileges and Elections Committee today approved a bill, on a 16-6 vote, that would require voters who are unable to show an approved ID at the polls to cast a provisional ballot.

“This bill serves absolutely no function but to make it more difficult to vote in Virginia,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “Most people carry IDs these days, but if they don’t, or theirs has been misplaced or stolen, they will have to cast a ballot that will not be counted unless the electoral board is convinced of the voter’s identity at a meeting held the day after elections.”

“Every indication is that elderly persons, low-income persons and racial minorities— who have the same constitutional right to vote as everyone else—will be the most affected by this law,” added Willis.

“This bill is based entirely on the myth that there is rampant voter impersonation fraud in our electoral system,” added Willis.  “In fact, recent studies show the opposite to be true.  Voter impersonation, which is a felony, is almost impossible to pull off in today’s world.  Besides, how many people are willing to risk time in prison, a hefty fine, and a lifetime voting ban to cast one vote on one election day?”

Under current Virginia law, voters who do not have an ID at the polls are allowed to cast a regular ballot after signing a form swearing to their identity.   A provisional ballot, however, is not counted until the electoral board meets and verifies the voter’s identity, even though the voter’s name appeared on the poll book on Election Day.

The House Privileges and Elections Committee also approved a companion bill that closes electoral board meetings called for the purpose of evaluating provisional ballots.  HB 63 passed on a 17-5 vote.

“Under these two bills, not only will many voters need to appear before the electoral board in order to have their votes counted, but the electoral board’s proceedings will be cut off from the press and others we depend on to keep election officials accountable,” said Willis.

SB 1, a voter ID bill with provisions similar to those of HB 9, was introduced in the Senate and earlier this week passed a Senate Privileges and Elections subcommittee on a vote of 4-3.  SB 1 will be heard by the full Senate committee on Tuesday, January 31.

Contact:  Kent Willis, Executive Director, 804-644-8022

Richmond, VA– Earlier today a House Health, Welfare and Institutions subcommittee voted in favor of House Bill 62, which repeals current Virginia law providing state funding for an abortion to low-income women when a doctor believes and certifies that the fetus would be born with a gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.

“Today’s vote is both shameful and callous,” said Katherine Greenier, Director of the Patricia M. Arnold Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU of Virginia.  “HB 62 denies low-income women access to safe care for no other reason than their poverty.  No woman plans to have an abortion, but if she needs one, every woman deserves the opportunity to make the best decision for her circumstances. Women and their families should have access to safe and affordable health services, especially in a medical crisis.”

Pro-choice advocates and medical professional groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, provided testimony opposing HB 62.

Despite expert medical testimony opposing the bill, subcommittee members voted 4-1 in favor of it, siding with anti-choice advocates who were unable to provide any scientific data to support their arguments that there are sometimes “false positives” in the diagnosis of fetal anomalies.  Del. Algie Howell (D-Norfolk) was the lone dissenting vote.

The availability of funding for abortions for low-income women when there are fetal anomalies has been part of the Virginia code for decades.  In the past fiscal year, only 23 women received state Medicaid funds to terminate their pregnancies based on a fetal anomaly diagnosis at a cost of less than $15,000 to the Commonwealth.

HB 62 was introduced by Del. Mark Cole and will be heard next by the full House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee.

“The ACLU of Virginia and its allies in the Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition urge legislators to put medical expertise above politics and oppose HB 62,” added Greenier.

Contact:  Katherine Greenier or Kent Willis, Executive Director, 804-644-8022

Yesterday marked the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion and recognized that patients and their physicians are the best judges of which procedures are medically necessary.  By guaranteeing women the autonomy to decide whether and when to be a parent, the Court advanced equality for women by allowing them freedom in major life decisions.

Last year, we saw an aggressive assault on women’s health and the rights protected by Roe.  In 2011, legislators around the country introduced more than 1,100 anti-reproductive rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from 2010. Politicians seek to chip away at Roe through a variety of means, including bans on certain procedures, instituting waiting periods, mandating ultrasounds before abortions, prohibiting insurance policies in the state from covering abortion, and placing unnecessary and onerous regulations on abortion facilities.

Our representatives in the Virginia legislature are no exception. In the 2012 General Assembly session, we face numerous bills that remind us of the need to be vigilant about protecting choice.

While pro-choice activists celebrated the anniversary of Roe this weekend, anti-choice legislators introduced HB 1285 and SB 637, which ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation except when necessary to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or death, of the mother.  These bans, premised on the allegation that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, will have heartbreaking consequences for real women and their families.

Because of the inherently private nature of a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy, the high court has recognized that a woman should “be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion” when deciding whether to continue or terminate a pre-viability pregnancy.  A ban on abortion starting at 20 weeks, which is a pre-viability stage of pregnancy, directly contradicts longstanding Supreme Court precedent.  No matter the justification, it is unconstitutional.

Moreover, the exceptions provided in these bills are very narrow.  The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a health exception can be limited to only those affecting a major physical function.

HB 1285 and SB 637 are not the only bills introduced this session to restrict women’s reproductive rights. HB 1, which grants fertilized eggs the same rights, privileges and immunities, as people, is aimed at banning all abortions in the Commonwealth.  It puts the government, lawyers, and courts in the middle of our personal and private decisions.

HB 1 lays the legal foundation to outlaw abortions in Virginia in the event of a reversal of current Supreme Court precedents, even for rape or incest victims, or when the life of the woman is at risk. Further, this bill could be used to ban commonly used FDA approved methods of birth control, including “the pill” and emergency contraception.

Under current Virginia law, low-income women may receive state support for an abortion when a physician certifies that the fetus has an incapacitating physical or mental anomaly.  By removing this source of funding from state law, HB 62 denies poor women access to safe care.

The bills introduced this session are just part of the trend in Virginia of putting politics ahead of women’s health.  Last year, during the drafting of emergency regulations for abortion facilities, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ignored the state’s own medical professionals and pushed the Virginia Board of Health to impose medically irrelevant requirements on women’s health facilities.

Now, the Board of Health has proposed that the emergency regulations, which are the most onerous in the country, be adopted as the permanent rules.

These regulations pose a significant threat to patient access to health care.  Specifically, the time and resources required to physically alter health centers for no medical reason are likely to increase financial barriers for patients as well as reduce women’s ability to find a health care provider. Low-income women and rural women will have even less access to safe abortion care and family planning services.

Restricting access to abortion will not reduce the demand for abortion services. Instead, these measures will succeed only in endangering women’s health by forcing women to postpone receiving abortion care or seek unsafe alternatives.

As these bills and policies illustrate, Virginia’s anti-choice legislators and elected officials have launched a full-scale attack on abortion rights.  So as we celebrate the liberties afforded by Roe, we must also remember the need to safeguard them.

Celebrate Roe today by speaking out against these attempts to destroy a woman’s right to choose.

Please submit a comment to the Board of Health urging them to amend the proposed regulations for abortion facilities in Virginia.

You can also learn more about the bills affecting reproductive freedom on our website, and sign up to become a grassroots lobbyist to receive action alerts about these bills and others affecting civil liberties.

Richmond, VA–In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that police may not place GPS tracking devices on the cars of citizens without first obtaining a warrant.

“When this often divided Supreme Court can come together and agree on such an important decision about protecting individual privacy, that’s cause for celebration,” said Kent Willis, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia.

“Advances in technologies that invade individual privacy are constantly testing the Constitution,” added Willis.  “Not only do we need the Supreme Court to reaffirm the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, but state legislators should be stepping forward to create laws to protect, not diminish, privacy rights.

The decision renders unconstitutional on its face HB 807, a bill currently in the Virginia General Assembly that prevents most private parties from placing GPS devices on others’ vehicles, but explicitly empowers the police to use such devices without a warrant.

The ruling, U.S. v. Jones, also clarifies a muddy Virginia case, Commonwealth v Foltz, which challenged the right of the Fairfax County police to track a suspect using a surreptitiously placed GPS tracking device on his car without first obtaining a warrant.  The ACLU of Virginia filed a brief in Foltz, arguing that the police had violated the suspects Fourth Amendment rights, the same conclusion the U.S. Supreme Court came to today.

In Foltz, however, the Virginia Court of Appeals first ruled that the police could use the device without violating the suspect’s constitutional rights.  Later, in an en banc decision, the same court decided that the contested evidence did not directly arise from the use of the GPS device, and vacated the earlier decision.  This left the Virginia courts with no say on an important emerging national issue regarding privacy rights.

“The message in the Jones case will resonate far beyond this particular ruling,” said Willis.  “This is the Supreme Court saying loudly and clearly that it will not allow privacy-invading technologies to slip between the cracks in the Fourth Amendment.  The case is likely to be cited for years to come, as more and more cases involving the erosion of privacy find their way into the courts.”

The National ACLU and the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital filed an amicus brief in Jones, which can be found online at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/10-1259_bsac_american_civil_liberties_union.pdf.  The ACLU of Virginia amicus in Foltz can be found online at: http://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Foltz-Amicus-VA-Ct-of-Appeals.pdf.

Contact:   Kent Willis, Executive Director, 804-644-8022

RICHMOND, Va. – Fighting to make public government efforts to obtain internet users’ private information without a warrant, today the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) plan to file an appeal in the legal battle over the records of several Twitter users in connection with the government’s WikiLeaks investigation.

The ACLU and EFF represent Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir. The appeal, filed jointly with other Twitter users Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp, challenges U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady’s November decision refusing to unseal or publicly list all orders that may have been sent to companies other than Twitter and any related motions and court orders.

“These people want to try to protect their privacy and their First Amendment rights, and the government should not be able to prevent that by hiding court records. Our courts are public. Secret court orders and secret court dockets should not be permitted, except in extraordinary circumstances,” said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “This case is just one example of the unfortunate recent trend to make our court processes less open and transparent.”

Jonsdottir and the other Twitter users involved in the case did not appeal the judge’s decision requiring Twitter to turn over their records.

Attorneys for Jonsdottir are Fine of the ACLU, Rebecca Glenberg of the ACLU of Virginia and Cindy Cohn, Lee Tien and Marcia Hofmann of EFF. The motions were joined by attorneys from the law firm Keker & Van Nest LLP and the Law Office of John D. Cline on behalf of Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp, respectively, as well as local counsel in Virginia.

Case documents and more information are available at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/twitter-wikileaks-court-order

Contact: Kent Willis, Executive Director, 804-644-8022

The Virginia General Assembly for 2012 is underway, and while there are a lot of important issues to be debated, legislators tend to focus on those that are most visible to the public, such as the budget and transportation, or those that advocacy groups demand to be heard, such as reproductive rights and access to the polls.  Many other important issues, especially if potentially controversial, are often quickly and quietly set aside by legislators, who would rather they not become part of the public discussion.

One such issue in Virginia is the extensive, unnecessary, and counterproductive use of solitary confinement in Virginia prisons.  Long neglected and rarely discussed, solitary confinement has recently become a topic in the media, and now three legislators have finally introduced a bill to investigate the practice in Virginia.

Whether or not the bill will pass in 2012 is up in the air, but now that the issue has garnered some attention, it will at the very least be an important part of the legislative discussion this year.

Solitary confinement is the most dehumanizing and devastating punishment meted out in U.S. prisons.  It is a 23 hour per day lockdown, often paired with sensory deprivation and complete isolation.  Inmates eat alone, have no group activities, and the only interaction a prisoner has with another human is when a tray of food is slid under the cell door.

The most common misconception about solitary confinement is that it is reserved for prisoners who are the “worst of the worst” and for situations in which no other options are available.  However, it was recently revealed that a large number of prisoners are in solitary confinement and that the reasons they are there have little to do with accepted correctional philosophy.

The Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC) admits that 1,800 Virginia prisoners are in solitary confinement and that many of them have been there for years, some for decades.  Nationally, an estimated 25,000 prisoners are in isolation, meaning that Virginia’s rate of solitary confinement is roughly three times the national average.

Medical and legal experts argue that prolonged isolation increases suicide rates, depression, decreased brain function and hallucinations.  It seems that we are finally learning that solitary confinement is the antithesis of what these prisoners need to be rehabilitated and to possibly re-enter society one day.

Most troubling is the use of solitary confinement for inmates with mental illness.  DOC admits that nearly 30% of prisoners in solitary confinement have been diagnosed as mentally-ill, although that is probably an understatement.  And no one knows how many prisoners go into solitary confinement without mental illness only to develop some form of it as a result of the conditions of confinement.

Doctors say solitary confinement is especially problematic for those who are mentally ill, and the courts have consistently held that prolonged use of solitary confinement on mentally-ill prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  Yet, Virginia prisons continue to blithely embrace the practice.

Solitary confinement is no longer off the radar.  Other states have begun to pass laws limiting its use, and Virginia should do the same.  HJ 126, introduced by Delegates Patrick Hope and Charniele Herring and Senator Adam Ebbin, is only a study of the issues, but at the very least it will give us a clear picture of solitary confinement in Virginia and let us know what the consequences are.

Studies show us that prison systems which emphasize rehabilitation over cruelty and that offer mental health treatment make us all safer by promoting reintegration of former prisoners into society and reducing recidivism.   It also saves tax dollars, an idea that should resonate with legislators.

You can help increase awareness of solitary confinement by signing the ACLU pledge here.  And if you or someone you know has been affected by solitary confinement, please tell us your story.

See also the Washington Post’s editorial published on January 15, 2012.

Richmond, VA–A Richmond federal judge wrote today that the Virginia law requiring that persons who circulate petitions for primary candidates be state residents is likely to be held unconstitutional.  The law was challenged by Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry and three other candidates who were excluded from the Virginia Republican primary ballot when they did not collect the requisite number of signatures from voters.

The ACLU of Virginia filed a brief in court in support of Perry, arguing that the state violated his First Amendment rights when it prohibited him using from out-of-state petition circulators to gather the signatures required for ballot access.

Although Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. agreed with the ACLU in principle, he ruled that the Republican candidates had filed their case too close to the Republican primary, scheduled for March 6, to allow the court to craft a remedy that would not substantially disrupt the proceedings.

“For the ACLU, the most important part of the decision is the judge’s recognition that the Virginia law violates the right of free speech,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.  “This clearly unconstitutional law will now almost certainly be repealed by the General Assembly or struck down in court. Either way, its end is near.”

Gibney wrote: “By imposing a state residency requirement on petition circulators, the Commonwealth reduces the quantity of such speech available to its residents, and directly infringes upon the First Amendment rights of candidates, voters, petition circulators and political parties.”

Perry filed his lawsuit on December 27, 2011, four days after learning that he would be denied a place on the Republican Party primary ballot because he had not received enough petition signatures.  Three additional candidates – former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Senator Rick Santorum — quickly joined Perry in the lawsuit.

The ACLU brief, authored by ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg, can be found online at: https://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/20120110Perryamicus-distct.pdf

Contact:   Kent Willis, Executive Director, 804-644-8022

Richmond, VA— The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments today in Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to obtain the private communications of Michael Mann, a global warming expert once employed by the University of Virginia.

“We hope the Virginia Supreme Court will take this opportunity to make a strong statement in support of academic freedom,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.  “If the government is allowed to demand to see the private records of scholars, there will almost certainly be a great chilling effect on the kind of open debate and research we have grown to expect from our universities.”

The ACLU of Virginia, American Association of University Professors, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed a joint amicus brief asking the Virginia Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s order setting aside Cuccinelli’s demand for Mann’s private communications.

Cuccinelli, whose opposition to the science of global warming is well known, created a public stir in 2010 when he sought records from UVA related to the communications and research of former professor Michael Mann, a widely published proponent of global warming theory.  Among the broad range of records sought were emails that Mann sent to, and received from, colleagues from as far back as 1999.

Cuccinelli attempted to use the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act to access Mann’s records.  Under FATA, the attorney general may issue a “Civil Investigative Demand” for information related to acts of fraud against the state, but he must first have “reason to believe” that an act of fraud has been committed and must assert the nature of the conduct under investigation.  Lawyers for UVA have argued that the attorney general has not met either of these requirements.

When UVA officials stated publicly that they were inclined to give into the AG’s demands, the ACLU of Virginia and the American Association of University Professors wrote a letter asking UVA to stand up for academic freedom by fighting the demand in court.

After UVA filed a petition with the Albemarle County Court to set aside the demand, the ACLU of Virginia and other academic freedom advocates filed a brief supporting UVA.  The court later ruled that the Attorney General had failed to specify the nature of the conduct alleged to be fraudulent and that he had no authority under Virginia law to seek records related to four of five grants in question, since they were federally, not state, funded.

After the court ruling, Cuccinelli issued a new civil investigative demand to UVA for access to documents related to Mann’s research. An Albemarle judge continued the case involving the new demand until the Virginia Supreme Court ruled on Cuccinelli’s appeal of the dismissal of his earlier demands. The court’s decision is expected in March.

The amicus brief, filed by the ACLU of Virginia and other groups in April of last year, was authored by Lisa Ewart and Mark Fleming of Wilmer Hale in Washington D.C. It can be found online at http://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/UVACuccinelliAmicusVASupCt.pdf.

Contact:  Kent Willis, Executive Director, 804-644-8022