Full-Time
Racial Justice Center Director
ACLU
1,001-5,000 employees
Civil liberties defense via legal advocacy
Compensation Overview
$140k - $170k/yr
New York, NY, USA
In Person
Willingness to travel mostly within New York State.
Master's, PhD
 Business & Strategy (1) |
|---|
Get referred to ACLU
See people who can refer or advise you
- 10+ years of progressive responsibility in policy advocacy and/or litigation in areas at the intersection of racial justice, civil rights, and civil liberties.
- 5+ years of progressive management experience, supervising and directing a diverse team of professionals, including litigators, policy advocates, and/or organizers.
- A graduate degree in a relevant field, such as public policy or law, is preferred.
- A sophisticated analysis and knowledge of racial injustice and white supremacy in America, its history and manifestations, and movements to demolish it.
- Demonstrated success working with communities of color on civil rights or other policy issues.
- Demonstrated project and time management skills, including organization, attention to detail, and follow-through.
- Demonstrated experience engaging in creative problem solving, strategic flexibility, and good judgment.
- Experience with strategic planning.
- Excellent communications skills, and the ability to effectively communicate complex issues to diverse audiences.
- Excellent research and analytical skills.
- A well-developed network of allies and partners in civil rights, civil liberties, or related fields, and the ability work collaboratively and diplomatically.
- A strong personal commitment to honoring diversity and a personal approach that values and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability, and socioeconomic circumstances is a must.
- Willingness to travel (mostly within New York State) for speaking events, meetings, and conferences.
- Establish and implement statewide strategies for the NYCLU to address racial injustice through an integrated program of advocacy, research, organizing, lobbying, public education and litigation.
- Collaborate with the Executive Director to define the Center’s strategic priorities and build a portfolio with a focus on identifying new areas of work, adjusting existing work to reflect a racial justice analysis, and advancing work where the NYCLU is currently engaged.
- Work across NYCLU’s departments and working groups to develop and implement a racial justice docket and messaging, including adjusting our existing work where necessary to better reflect a racial justice analysis.
- Provide leadership and support to the NYCLU’s Racial Justice Working Group, an interdepartmental group of NYCLU staff working to advance racial justice.
- Build strong and resilient partnerships with allied organizations, experts, and policymakers.
- Identify and assemble an interdisciplinary team to execute the Center’s work plan.
- Manage and supervise Center staff, including conducting regular performance evaluations and developing and implementing individualized professional development plans.
- Supervise and direct the day-to-day functioning of the Center.
- Work with the Development Department to identify new revenue opportunities to grow the Center’s staffing and work.
- Provide leadership, strategy, and coordination across the organization on racial justice issues.
- Serve as a key external spokesperson on racial justice issues in the press, the legislature, internal discussions, the nationwide ACLU network, and NYCLU publications.
- Keep abreast of developments in the field and urgent threats to racial justice and guide our responses.
- Actively support the NYCLU’s internal and external commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The ACLU defends civil liberties in the United States by engaging in legal advocacy, public education, and lobbying to protect rights across areas like freedom of speech, privacy, and equality. It helps individuals and communities facing government overreach and discrimination, including immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and racial minorities, by pursuing legal cases, conducting public campaigns, and influencing policy. The organization relies on donations, grants, membership fees, and merchandise sales to fund its work, enabling ongoing litigation, advocacy campaigns, and educational programs. What sets the ACLU apart is its long history and broad approach, combining court cases, policy work, and public education with a large, diverse funding base to defend civil liberties on many fronts. Its goal is to safeguard the constitutional rights and freedoms of all people in the United States.
Company Size
1,001-5,000
Company Stage
Seed
Total Funding
$130K
Headquarters
New York City, New York
Founded
1920
Get referred to ACLU
See people who can refer or advise you
Simplify's Take
What believers are saying
- August 2026 cases against Texas A&M and Penn State Health keep ACLU central.
- Massachusetts wins in April and August 2026 protect voter data and abortion access.
- Fifty-four federal tort claims against immigration agents create a new multi-state enforcement campaign.
What critics are saying
- Fifth Circuit dismissed W.M.M. v. Trump on August 13, 2026, delaying relief.
- Texas A&M and Texas Tech censorship fights face hostile regents and politically appointed boards.
- Dependence on donor enthusiasm risks budget shocks if headline cases stop winning or stagnate.
What makes ACLU unique
- National litigation platform spans Texas, Massachusetts, Florida, and federal appellate courts in 2026.
- Brand turns constitutional disputes into national fundraising and volunteer mobilization within days.
- Few nonprofits match its ability to pair courtroom wins with state affiliate organizing.
Help us improve and share your feedback! Did you find this helpful?
Benefits
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance
Paid Vacation
Parental Leave
401(k) Retirement Plan
401(k) Company Match
Professional Development Budget
Growth & Insights and Company News
6 month growth
↑ 5%1 year growth
↑ 5%2 year growth
↑ 5%Rising Up for solutions to end mass incarceration. You'll get all my stories in your inbox, PLUS full access to 3 free stories a month before I ask you to upgrade to a low-cost paid membership. Access to audio interviews is always free! No spam ever, unsubscribe anytime. Listen to story: Download: mp3 (Duration: 31:41) FEATURING ELLEN FLENNIKEN - Its nation and its world are overrun by billionaires and bigots, but they are few and Rising Up With Sonali is many. On this series, exclusive to subscribers of Rising Up With Sonali and viewers of Free Speech TV, you'll hear conversations with changemakers in the movements for social justice, and dig into the nuts and bolts of values, strategies, tactics, narratives, and building power. This week on Rising Up for Justice, Ellen Flenniken, Chief Advocacy Officer at the Vera Institute of Justice and Director of Vera Action joins me. The Vera Institute is the oldest and largest criminal justice reform organization in the country. Ellen comes to Vera from the ACLU, where she led the national abuse of power and criminal justice campaign teams as National Campaign Director. ROUGH TRANSCRIPT: Sonali Kolhatkar: I have used Vera's research so many times over the years in stories I've written and interviews that I've prepared for. It's just been such an incredible resource, and of course, Rising Up With Sonali'll get into that research. But that's the part that I see. How do you explain what Vera Institute does, what its main goals are? Ellen Flenniken: Yeah. So you know Vera in a similar way that so many people do, and what Rising Up With Sonali say is kind of its unique lane here is that Rising Up With Sonali bring the data, the evidence, and the solutions to the fight to end mass incarceration, and protect immigrant rights, and build safe and thriving communities. So at Vera, as you mentioned, I lead the organization's advocacy team. So my team drives the work across policy, politics, and campaigns. And in its work, Rising Up With Sonali really try to center the solutions that Rising Up With Sonali offer on anti-racism, particularly given the ways in which the criminal justice systems and immigration systems operate on this history of racism and bias. So that's kind of at the core of who Rising Up With Sonali is as an organization, and my team in particular is focused on the politics of crime and safety in addition to the policies that actually deliver safety and justice. This post is for paying subscribers only. Sign up now and upgrade your account to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for paying subscribers only.
Flock tries to quell surveillance fears as questions pile up. by: Sophie Brams, Miranda Nazzaro, The Hill Posted: Aug 16, 2026 / 06:48 PM EDT Updated: Aug 16, 2026 / 06:48 PM EDT TAMPA, Fla. (The Hill) - Flock Safety is facing a growing backlash across the country from communities and civil liberties advocates concerned over the surveillance technology company's network of AI-powered license plate readers. Amid a wave of privacy lawsuits and terminated contracts, Flock announced changes to its privacy and data retention policies Thursday in an attempt to quell concerns around mass surveillance and misuse by law enforcement. The policy updates signal Flock is feeling the public pressure, but privacy advocates and lawyers told The Hill that leaving the company to regulate itself is not enough. Michael Soyfer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, called the changes "pretty much just window dressing." "I think it's really just an effort, as the tide has turned on them, to quiet down all of the legislative and public opposition to their mass surveillance business model," Soyfer told The Hill. Flock offers a system of automated license plate readers, video cameras and audio detection devices that not only record license plate numbers, but specific details about a car to create what the company calls a "vehicle signature." These details include the make, model and color of the car along with unique features like bumper stickers, decals, and accessories. The company does not use biometric data or facial recognition. Flock argues a license plate is "just a start" in law enforcement investigations, and the additional information can be crucial for missing persons or criminal searches. While communities acknowledge the technology's use in emergencies, many feel the information collection amounts to a massive database and unwarranted mass surveillance of drivers on the road. "A network of ALPR cameras has the ability to reveal where you have gone over a long period of time, and that, in turn, can reveal lots of things, intimate, private things about your life," Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Thursday about automated license plate readers. "Where you're spending your time, who you're spending your time with, what sorts of doctors you go to, where you might worship, all the sorts of things that you can imagine are revealed by just figuring out where you've traveled over time," Crocker added. Flock states the customer owns the data and decides which external agencies or people it can be shared with. The data automatically deletes after a set period, usually a default of 30 days, which civil liberties groups argue is too long and prompts deeper profiling. The tech firm announced last week it will shorten the recommended default data retention window from 30 to seven days, though local or state policy can override it. It also announced an "evidence mode," which will allow detectives to preserve specific automated license plate reader data as evidence in "exceptional cases." The American Civil Liberties Union, which has several pending cases against Flock, said the retention policy "seems positive at first blush," but "the devil will be in the details" on how the evidence mode is interpreted. Flock also introduced a new option for cities to control which types of offenses call for other agencies' access to Flock cameras, attempting to strike a balance between community control over data sharing and law enforcement collaboration. Recent news reports have also raised concerns of law enforcement misusing the technology for personal business or surveillance. An investigation by The Washington Post found that more than 50 officers had been accused, charged with or convicted of misusing Flock or other license plate readers to spy on exes or romantic interests. Flock's changes, announced nearly two weeks after the Post report, will also require customers to implement its "audit assistance" feature to spot abnormal activity and flag for administrator review. Its "proactive lockout" feature automatically suspends access if a user's activity meets a threshold for abnormal behavior until an administrator review. In a CBS interview, Flock CEO Garrett Langley apologized for cases where its data was misused by law enforcement officers. "Hindsight tends to be very clear," he told CBS. "I think of course, we could have done more earlier, and we listen and we learn, and we'll continue to move forward because until everyone has an equal level of safety in this country, we have work to do." Despite the policy changes, how an agency stores and shares its data is still heavily influenced by state and local policy. Nathan Wessler, the deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, argues "there should be a judge in the mix" for the murkiness around data access. The debate has made its way to the courts, where two Virginia residents are suing the city of Norfolk over its 170-plus Flock camera network, which they argue can "extensively track" people's movements and be used by law enforcement to deduce patterns of behavior. "That's absolutely a risk, and it's one that's magnified by the increasing use of artificial intelligence and other software tools to derive insights from these data without any human involvement to surface patterns that would otherwise be hidden," said Soyfer, one of the lead attorneys representing the plaintiffs. District Court Judge Mark Davis, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, sided with the city, holding that the license plate readers do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they do not capture the "whole" of someone's movements. But Soyfer argues the lower court's reasoning "fundamentally misunderstood" the legal theory underpinning the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark Carpenter case, which courts use as a framework to evaluate whether dragnet-style surveillance tactics infringe on constitutional privacy protections. The Supreme Court extended Carpenter's logic in last term's Chatrie case, which focused on law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to identify a bank robber in Virginia. The majority held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone location data, so that warrant was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. Norfolk, however, contends that drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in automated license plate readers data because cameras only record license plates already in public view. "The government does not violate any such reasonable expectation when it photographs what anyone on the street could already see," attorneys representing the city wrote in an appellate brief. "Indeed, both the Supreme Court and this Court have recently made clear that use of security cameras in public places raises no constitutional problem." Wessler, who argued the Carpenter case before the Supreme Court in 2018, said that framing is a "total misdirection" since challenges to Flock are not around the license plate capture but the other data collected. "The question is, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of your physical movements as you go about your life in your car? This is not about individual plate reads as you happen to pass a camera or a cop car," Wessler said. Similar lawsuits have also been brought elsewhere, including against the city of San Jose, Calif. Attorneys in both state and federal cases claim the city's roughly 500-camera network collects data that government employees across the state access "indiscriminately" tens of thousands of times per day. Meanwhile, lawmakers across the aisle in Washington are raising alarm about the technology. The issue has gained recent attention on the right, stoking privacy-conscious conservatives despite the party's support for law and order. At least two bills have been filed in Congress this year to restrict the use of Flock. But advocates are mostly looking to the states, where legislative action can move quicker without typical Washington hurdles. At least 23 states have statutes or other rules governing the use of automated license plate readers, according to the ACLU. "There's an element about being accountable to people now that suggests we should be focusing our efforts in the states," said Tom Bowman, policy counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology's Security and Surveillance Project. "States are much more likely to act quickly and put in meaningful safeguards against the abuse and misuse of ALPR systems."
ACLU of Hawai[[ʻ]]i welcomes new Community Field and Marianita Lopez Executive fellows. ACLU of Hawai[[ʻ]]i welcomes two new fellows bringing fresh perspectives and experience to advance civil rights, community advocacy, and organizing across the islands. August 12, 2026 2:13 pm MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 12, 2026 MEDIA CONTACT Nanea Lo, Communications Manager Phone: (808) 766-5425 Email: [email protected] HONOLULU, Hawai[[ʻ]]i - The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai[[ʻ]]i ("ACLU-HI") welcomes Catherine Titzer as its new Community Field Fellow and Zain Jafri as its Marianita Lopez Executive Fellow. Both bring valuable experience in advocacy, research, organizing, and community-centered work to support ACLU-HI's mission to defend and expand civil rights and liberties across Hawai[[ʻ]]i. "We are thrilled to welcome Catherine and Zain to the ACLU of Hawai[[ʻ]]i team," said Executive Director Salmah Y. Rizvi. "Their passion for justice, commitment to community, and unique perspectives will help advance our work toward a more equitable Hawai[[ʻ]]i." Catherine Titzer - Community Field Fellow Catherine is the Community Field Fellow with the ACLU of Hawai[[ʻ]]i, where she supports campus organizing, public education, and community-based advocacy across the islands. She recently graduated from Stanford University, where she studied Symbolic Systems and Dance. While at Stanford, she served as Co-President of Stanford ACLU and led the first large-scale digital humanities project on Hawaii's plantation life. Her experience spans public history, nonprofit advocacy, and digital humanities through roles at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, the Pro Bono Institute, End Rape On Campus, and Stanford's Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis. Catherine's work brings together technology, history, and community engagement to expand access to Hawaii's history and advance equity for historically marginalized communities. "Working with the ACLU of Hawai[[ʻ]]i is an incredibly meaningful opportunity to me - I'm really excited to serve our communities and continue to uplift Hawaii's history!" Zain Jafri - Marianita Lopez Executive Fellow Hailing from Lahore, Pakistan, Zain is the Marianita Lopez Executive Fellow at the ACLU of Hawai[[ʻ]]i, supporting the Executive Director, Salmah Y. Rizvi. He holds a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a B.A. in English from Lahore University of Management Sciences, with experience in political organizing and community advocacy. "It's an honor to be able to contribute to ACLU Hawaii's efforts across multiple avenues to protect civil rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I look forward to being useful to the cause." Outside of work, Zain enjoys playing and studying chess. The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i strives to build an equitable society. Its mission is to protect and promote the civil liberties and fundamental rights enshrined in the United States and Hawai'i constitutions through litigation, legislation, and public education. Aclu-Hi serve - and center the voices of - its impacted and vulnerable communities, regardless of background, status, or circumstance. As a non-partisan non-profit organization, Aclu-Hi provide its services at no cost to the public, and Aclu-Hi never accept government funds. By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement. All fields are required unless labeled optional.
Martha Rossiter joins the ACLU of Wyoming as legal director. In this role, Rossiter will lead and expand the ACLU's legal program to provide strategic leadership on both litigation and legal advocacy to advance civil liberties and civil rights in the state. August 7, 2026 10:41 am Media contact. Martha Rossiter is the new legal director for the ACLU of Wyoming. In this role, Rossiter will lead and expand the ACLU's legal program to provide strategic leadership on both litigation and legal advocacy to advance civil liberties and civil rights in the state. Rossiter comes to the ACLU with nearly two decades of experience in criminal defense and civil rights proceedings, litigating jury trials in more than 100 criminal and civil cases in both state and federal courts. She started her career with the Kern County Public Defender's office in Bakersfield, Calif., where she defended the constitutional rights of people facing criminal charges. She later litigated civil rights cases involving law enforcement agencies in Southern California before moving to South Dakota in 2017 to join the Pennington County Public Defender's Office. Rossiter brings that experience and passion to the ACLU, motivated to continue to fight for the people in the communities she loves. "The ACLU has a long history of protecting civil liberties and advancing justice through advocacy and litigation. I am honored to be given the opportunity to participate in that work," Rossiter said. "I look forward to working alongside our dedicated team in helping defend Constitutional rights in service to communities across Wyoming." Rossiter is a cum laude graduate from the University of South Dakota and the University of La Verne College of Law in Southern California. About the ACLU of Wyoming The American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming is a chapter and program of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, a non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights. The ACLU believes freedoms of press, speech, assembly, and religion, and the rights to due process, equal protection and privacy, are fundamental to a free people. In addition, the ACLU seeks to advance constitutional protections for groups traditionally denied their rights, including people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit communities. The ACLU of Wyoming carries out its work through selective litigation, lobbying at the state and local level and through public education and awareness of what the Bill of Rights means for the people of Wyoming. By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement. All fields are required unless labeled optional.
Records raise urgent questions about broken medical claims system for ICE/CBP detainees. When VA stopped processing claims, ICE warned the abrupt termination could lead to "medical complications or loss of life" Thursday, American Oversight released new records raising urgent questions about whether the Trump administration is meeting its obligation to provide adequate medical care to people in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody after it disrupted the longstanding system responsible for processing payments for offsite treatment. Federal law and agency policies mandate that ICE and CBP provide medical care for people in their custody. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the records American Oversight obtained document more than 233,000 medical, dental, and pharmacy claims totaling more than $96 million that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) processed on behalf of ICE's Health Service Corps (IHSC) last year, illustrating the extraordinary scale and seriousness of the medical care flowing through the system immediately before payments stopped. The VA's decision to suddenly end its decades-long practice of processing claims created - in ICE's words - an "absolute emergency," because "lack of this support will delay critical medical care" as the "health, welfare, and lives of [people] in ICE and CBP custody are significantly at risk." ICE even warned that the abrupt termination could lead to "medical complications or loss of life." The records include previously undisclosed data documenting 233,772 claims processed by VA on behalf of IHSC and CBP between Jan. 1 and Oct. 7, 2025, as well as the interagency agreement that previously facilitated this arrangement and VA's August 2025 notice to ICE that it would terminate its longstanding claims processing support in order to reallocate resources to other programs. The newly released claims data provides an unprecedented snapshot of the serious healthcare needs that often cannot be met in federal detention facilities - at a time when the detained population has skyrocketed, nearly doubling between January 2025 and January 2026. The records include claims associated with treatment for serious medical conditions, including heart attacks, strokes, traumatic brain injuries, acute kidney failure, mental health crises, infectious diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, pregnancy-related care, dehydration, heat stroke, starvation, suicide attempts and suicidal ideation, and physical and sexual abuse, among many others. "These records expose some of the potential human consequences of an immigration detention system that has grown increasingly punitive and abusive under the Trump administration. They document hundreds of thousands of medical claims for people in ICE and CBP custody receiving treatment for everything from starvation and heat stroke to suicide attempts and alleged physical and sexual abuse," said its Executive Director Chioma Chukwu. "The data illustrates both the immense medical needs of people held in detention and the extraordinary scale of the care that was flowing through the system before payments came to a halt. Given the Trump administration's well-documented record of preventable deaths and other serious harms linked to inadequate medical care in immigration detention, the public has every right to know whether human beings in government custody are receiving the medical care they need. That imperative is only more urgent as the administration rapidly expands detention at enormous taxpayer expense while continuing to dismantle oversight and accountability. A federal government that chooses to deprive people of their liberty must also assume responsibility for providing adequate health care. These records raise urgent questions about whether it is meeting that obligation." To replace the sudden void created by VA, ICE awarded two no-bid contracts for over $110 million to Acentra and Ardent last fall, to process claims and reimburse offsite providers on behalf of IHSC and CBP. However, it appears that providers have not been paid for care provided on or after Oct. 1, 2025, despite Acentra reportedly receiving nearly $45 million, and might not start issuing payments for months to come. In May 2026, VA stepped back in to process claims with dates of service through Sept. 30, 2025. Publicly available government contracting information suggests that ICE has started looking for new vendors who could assist with claims processing despite their previous $110 million sole source awards. Because of ICE's inability to effectively and efficiently reimburse providers, there is a risk that detainees may not receive urgent, critical medical care. A recent report on immigration detention in California noted that this interruption in claims processing "has caused widespread disruption in the provision of appropriate medical care at facilities in California." ICE's failure to pay these bills has led to some medical providers denying services to detainees. Members of Congress recently opened an investigation following reports that people died while in ICE custody after not receiving appropriate offsite care. Experts warn that delayed care has already contributed to the skyrocketing number of deaths in detention. Previously, American Oversight partnered with the ACLU and Physicians for Human Rights to release "Deadly Failures: Preventable Deaths in U.S. Immigration Detention," which revealed that 95 percent of deaths in ICE custody during the first Trump administration were preventable or potentially preventable with proper medical care.