That’s the question the Minnesota Branch of the ACLU raised today, arguing that Craig’s refusal to acknowledge his sexuality hindered his lawyers from making his arrest two years ago for soliciting a police officer in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom stall into a civil rights case.
The Minnesota Independent interviewed ACLU-MN President Charles Samuelson about Craig’s decision to make the case about his guilty plea, rather than his sexuality:
â€œ[The Supreme Court] can only take what his lawyers bring,â€ Samuelson said, and Craig had his attorneys bring only â€œa very small and limited technical issue about his guilty plea.â€
But Samuelson said an appeal might have been effective had Craig made civil liberties arguments that the ACLU-MN raised in a friend-of-the-court brief. â€œOur issues would probably be more attractive to the [state] Supreme Court,â€ Samuelson said.
The ACLU-MN asserted that Craigâ€™s arrest in a police sting meant to ensnare men seeking gay sex at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport menâ€™s room was a classic example of government suppression of unpopular speech.
â€œThe problem is he was reluctant to say heâ€™s a gay man,â€ Samuelson said, adding that Craigâ€™s recent retirement from office likely lowered the stakes beyond the point at which Craig would press his case, no matter what the issue.”