even tho the aclu is derided by the close-minded as a group of leftist athiest kooks out to destroy christianity and deprive everyone of rights (that frequently turn out not to have been rights at all), the aclu stood up for a far-rightwing church in a valiant attempt to prevent the city of new york from infringing on the first amendment rights of its members.  

the activist federal new york judge (one of the worst of that whole genre) who originally heard the case, ruled against the congregation.

the us 2nd district appeals court rejected their argument opining: "While the 1st Amendment protects the rights of citizens to express their viewpoints, however unpopular … the individual's rights to speech must always be balanced against the state's interest in safety and its right to regulate conduct that it legitimately considers potentially dangerous."

undaunted, the plaintiff church--represented by the hard-charging aclu--battled their oppression all the way to the highest court in the land where it argued thusly:

"Even the most reviled members of our society are entitled to the fair and evenhanded application of the law."

the justices, acting unanimously, didn't agree.  the la times (12/7/04)  described what happened next:  

"in a one-line order, the high court turned away the case of Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan vs. Kelly."  

(the case was sparked by authorities enforcing a new york city anti-loitering ordinance law makes it illegal for people to "congregate in a public place … being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire." The ordinance exempts a "masquerade party or like entertainment." church members believed they hadda right to wear their hoods. )

in a totally non-related case, the supreme court also upheld the right of the san diego police department to fire an officer who had been selling--on ebay--police uniforms and explicit videos of himself masturbating in which the uniform could be seen.  altho the cop's appeal of the intial ruling in federal court was overturned by the 9th circuit court of appeals on the basis that he was free to express himself as long as it didnt interfere with his employment, the surpreme court apparently felt the city was also on the receiving end of a stroke job.

once again, the la times had the hot scoop (ahahahaha so to speak):

"There is no difficulty in concluding that Roe's expression does not qualify as a matter of public concern," the justices said in City of San Diego vs. Roe. "The debased parody of an officer performing indecent acts … was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer."

"We have little difficulty in concluding that the city was not barred from terminating Roe," the court concluded