The Justice Department announced last week that, after nearly two decades, it would resume executing prisoners on federal death row. The announcement ends a de-facto moratorium on the federal death penalty that has been in place since 2003. Five men are scheduled to be executed by lethal injection in December and January, with additional executions to follow, according to Attorney General William Barr.

This announcement comes at a time when public support for the death penalty is at an all-time low. States can decide whether to invoke capital punishment for people convicted of certain crimes in their state; in recent years, the number of executions has shrunk and a growing number of states – now 21 plus the District of Columbia – have abolished the death penalty, with four more states holding a moratorium. Since the last federal execution in 2003, 9 states – including New Hampshire just this year – have ended the practice.

However, the federal government can seek the death penalty for violations of federal law against people in any state, including those without the death penalty. In other words, though Mainers opted to abolish the capital punishment over 130 years ago, the federal death penalty can still affect Mainers.

Maine has a long history of rejecting this cruel and inhumane practice, and was the third state to end capital punishment – the Maine legislature first abolished the death penalty in 1876, before reestablishing it for murder in 1883, and finally abolishing it for the second time in 1887 after a botched execution two years earlier.

We are proud that Maine ended this callous practice over a century ago. The ACLU, and many others, argue that the death penalty violates the Eight Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and that it ignores Constitutional guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Capital punishment is state-sponsored, premeditated killing that violates civil liberties and the fundamental values of our democracy.

The death penalty system is also applied unfairly and arbitrarily. Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is not about the severity of the crime, but rather it is largely dependent on how much money the defendant has, the skill of the attorney, the race of the victim, and where the crime took place. Across the country, people of color are more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white. The death penalty also wastes resources and has no public safety benefit. It has not been proven to deter crime, and murder rates are lower in states without the death penalty than in those with it.

And all too often, mistakes are made and innocent people are sentenced to death. Nationally, for every nine people executed, one is exonerated and released from death row. Since 1973, more than 160 people in 26 states have been released from death row because they were innocent. It’s impossible to say how many others weren’t able to prove their innocence before being executed.

Over a century ago, Mainers realized that the death penalty is an unfair and unjust practice. It’s time for the rest of the country – and the federal government – to catch up.

They’re at it again. We have received numerous reports that CBP agents are ramping up bus raids in Maine. In these raids, armed CBP agents board the bus to question riders about their citizenship and travel plans—without any individualized suspicion and without a warrant. The ACLU believes these warrantless raids violate passengers’ constitutional rights.

The recent uptick in bus raids comes a little over a year after ACLU of Maine sued CBP seeking public records about its bus surveillance. This lawsuit resulted in a court order requiring CBP to produce internal training records about its authority to conduct the raids—information CBP had tried to keep secret.

For years, CBP has resisted the basic rule that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies in all encounters with law enforcement. CBP agents have said they do not need a warrant to question people if they are within 100 miles of international borders or the coast, which includes all of Maine.

Yet, as revealed by the recently released materials, CBP’s own internal training materials reflect their understanding that the Fourth Amendment applies to bus raids, which they call “transportation checks.” In their internal training materials, CBP states that almost all “transportation checks” begin as “consensual encounters”—consistent with Fourth Amendment requirements for suspicionless stops by law enforcement.

What does it mean for an encounter with law enforcement to be “consensual”? Just what it sounds like. It means that you only have to stay and answer the officer’s questions or submit to a search if you consent. And that consent must be voluntary.

But CBP does not want people to know that most bus raids depend on people’s consent to answering their questions. To translate:  CBP doesn't want you to know that you don't have to answer. Worse, CBP tried to hide this fact from the public.

In response to our public records request, CBP redacted the rule about consent—which was spelled out in a Supreme Court case, United States v. Drayton.

CBP claimed that revealing this rule about consent would disclose protected law enforcement information—even though the rule comes from a public Supreme Court case interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The court rejected CBP’s argument and ordered it to disclose the training materials without redactions. And when it did, the unredacted records revealed the following internal training materials:

That’s right: CBP's own training materials state, “A bus passenger has the right to refuse consent to search.”

The fact that CBP wants to keep that right a secret only shows the power of the people when you know your rights.

To be clear, in some cases, CBP may have a valid authority for questioning, so it is important to clearly ask the officer: “Am I free to leave?” The officer has a duty to answer that question honestly, and, if they are relying on consent, they must answer yes. You can also clearly state: “I do not consent to a search.”

When CBP relies on consent to perform a bus raid, passengers and bus companies have a choice. And one of those constitutionally protected choices is saying NO to CBP.

So just in case we weren't clear, we'll say this again: Concord Coach Lines has a duty to protect its passengers by also saying NO to CBP’s warrantless bus raids.