This week, we are stepping back in time and re-visiting our conversation with author and activist, Glennon Doyle. In this conversation, Glennon talks about how to bring our loved ones into understanding of equity and justice through the use of storytelling, imagination, and conversation. On this podcast, we learn a lot about history, about civil rights issues, and about how we can use the law to move the needle. Today, we are going to spend time talking about how we can best share that knowledge with others. It’s an episode fit for such a time as this and we hope you enjoy.

I’m Paige Fernandez, the ACLU’s Policing Policy Advocate and I’m so excited to be taking the At Liberty reins for the next month. I have a confession to make: I have had a true crime obsession most of my life. My job at the ACLU and my organizing work and personal beliefs may make this surprising. I spend my time working to help communities divest from their local police forces and I talk openly about how abolition, to me, feels like the best solution to ending our carceral punishment system and police violence. These two interests feel at odds with each other, but I can’t quite figure out what it is about true crime media that has me so hooked. It’s made me wonder what its popularity has on the American psyche, particularly as it relates to our views on the criminal legal system and policing. That’s why I’m so thrilled to have Kelli Boling joining us today. Kelli is an Assistant Professor of Advertising and Public Relations in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. After 12 years as a marketing and advertising executive in North and South Carolina, Boling received her Ph.D. at the University of South Carolina in Mass Communication. Her research focuses on the audience reception of media, specifically media depiction and reception by traditionally marginalized audiences based on race and gender.

Today we are running a conversation between Amber Hikes, the ACLU’s Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and disability rights icon Judy Heumann on CVS v. Doe, a case that the Supreme Court was set to hear on Dec 8. The case threatened to attack the very foundation of disability rights laws, specifically by threatening Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. If CVS had pursued the case and won, people with disabilities would no longer have the ability to sue for discrimination that is based on ignorance as opposed to animus, or actual intent to harm. In this conversation, Judy discusses the disability rights laws we’ve fought for and won and explains why disability discrimination is consistently questioned by both the general public and the courts. Yesterday CVS reached a settlement likely thanks to the pressure of disability advocates over the past few weeks. Though this case will no longer be heard by the Court, we’re running this conversation, recorded late last week, because the argument that CVS presented has been seen in copycat arguments in different cases across the country. This issue is likely to get to the Supreme Court in some form soon. For more information on these kinds of cases, follow the ACLU across social and subscribe to our email list. We’ll keep you updated.

This week, we are bringing you a story about an upcoming Supreme Court case: FBI v. Fazaga, set to be argued on November 8th. This case will have big implications on the ability for private citizens who have been wrongfully surveilled by the U.S. government to seek redress for the infringement on their personal privacy and the damages associated. There’s a lot to dig into here, both about the case itself and also about the backdrop of the case, the 20th anniversary of the Patriot Act, an act that made it easier for Muslim Americans to be surveilled after 9/11. Joining us on this episode are Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, our client in the case, and Patrick Toomey, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s National Security Project.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging Texas’ ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy known as SB 8 -- one case brought by the ACLU and our partner organizations on behalf of abortion providers, Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, and a separate case brought by the Department of Justice, United States v. Texas. The rulings will determine whether or not abortion providers and the Department of Justice are entitled to challenge SB 8 as the law was written purposefully to skirt federal judicial review. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to rule on an emergency request to block SB 8, allowing the ban to take effect on September 1st. Since then, the majority of Texans seeking abortions have been unable to access them in the state. What does this all mean for the future of SB 8 and abortion access in the U.S. at large? That remains to be seen. There are so many unanswered questions. Brigitte Amiri, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project joins us to help break it all down. Plus, we hear from demonstrators Kenya Martin and MJ Flores rallying right outside of the Supreme Court building. If you’d like to support our right against forced pregnancy, you can donate at www.aclu.org/access. We really appreciate the support.