The American Civil Liberties Union is experiencing some uncomfortable déjà vu. George Zimmerman's acquittal in the shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin has triggered the specter of an awkward and often raucous debate the group thought it had put behind itself two decades ago.
After the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the videotaped beating of African-American Rodney King, ACLU leaders split sharply over the possibility of a federal trial for the officers. The group eventually suspended its policy opposing double jeopardy — only to reverse itself the following year.
A New York Times editorial back then called the ACLU "torn by internal disagreement." A Boston Globe column described the organization as "twisting itself up in knots." The heated debate highlighted one of the ACLU's challenges: It is perhaps the nation's foremost advocate for civil liberties — but it also has a long history advocating for civil rights. More than 20 years later, President Barack Obama's comments reacting to the Zimmerman verdict dwelled on race while calling for respect for the trial process and the jury verdict.
"The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner," he said Friday. "The juries [sic] were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works." Meanwhile, the ACLU's first public reaction drew notice in some quarters for leaning heavily toward racial justice — while staying silent on civil liberties and due process in the Florida case. "Last night's verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement on July 14, the day after the Florida jury's verdict. "This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime."
The statement went on to call for additional federal guidance on the use of race in law enforcement and for a new federal law aimed at ending racial profiling. But it was the specific reference to an "imperative" for DOJ to investigate under criminal statutes — an apparent endorsement of the calls of many civil rights activists and groups for a federal prosecution of Zimmerman — that threatened to reopen old wounds. That call came even though the ACLU's long-standing policy, restored in 1993 after the King debate, explicitly rejects such an option. "There should be no exception to double jeopardy principles simply because the same offense may be prosecuted by two different sovereigns," the policy says. (Also on POLITICO: 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies continue) Romero's statement stirred concern among some civil libertarians that in a rush to join the chorus of outrage over the Zimmerman verdict, the group had turned its back on the policy it settled on two decades ago. In an apparent attempt to stem the controversy, a top ACLU official wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday to make clear that the group does not favor a second prosecution of Zimmerman in federal court. "We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case," Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office, wrote. (WATCH: President Obama's full remarks on Trayvon Martin) "The ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case," she wrote.