Why did you cut off the rest of that sentence? It concludes: "...in violation of Section 1983 of title forty-two of the United States Code, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York."

They attacked the practice on multiple grounds including Fourth Amendment grounds which I think you'll agree has nothing to do with race, so no, the whole suit was not based on the assertion that the stops and searches were unconstitutional only because they were being carried out in a racist way. The fact that the stops were racist was only one of several issues put before the courts and each of those issues were addressed by the courts on their own merits.

> But who stands up for Civil Liberties?

Many organizations, activists and individuals. It's not as if the ALCU is the only group in the country concerned with standing up for civil rights.

> If they aren't willing to stand up and fight for Civil Liberties (without regard whatsoever to "marginalized" status), then who is?

Even limiting ourselves to the ACLU, why should they have zero regard whatsoever for marginalized status? Do you think that there's some bar you have to have to clear where if your rights are violated they won't care if you aren't "marginalized" enough? Do you think that the marginalized status of a person whose rights are being violated could never be relevant as to why their rights were violated? Or that their marginalized status couldn't ever have an impact on their ability to fight against the violation of their rights without outside support? Why shouldn't they consider every factor in a case?

> I care about freedom as a principle without regard whatsoever to anyone's standing in society.

I think most members of civil rights orgs would tell you they also care about freedom as a principle which applies to everyone no matter what their standing in society.

> The freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are neither more or less important than the freedom of everyone else

I agree, but the freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are more often violated than the freedoms of everyone else, which is why they are often front and center in civil rights legislation.

Your argument, to me, sounds a bit like someone complaining that doctors and researchers focused on chickenpox put more emphasis on children than adults. "Everyone's health matters without regard whatsoever to anyone's age!" well... that isn't being contested, but it doesn't change the fact that most people who suffer from chickenpox are children and that helping children with chickenpox would also help prevent many adults from catching chickenpox or that it's the natural place for doctors and researchers to focus their efforts.

Who is going around saying that civil rights violations are acceptable when they aren't committed against someone from a marginalized group? Who is refusing to do anything about civil rights violations when they are committed against people who aren't marginalized enough?

We all agree that civil rights violations are terrible no matter who is impacted, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to stop violations when marginalized groups are impacted, or that we shouldn't acknowledge the conditions that make violations against marginalized groups more prevalent or that we shouldn't acknowledge that it's often harder for marginalized groups to fight back against such abuses without lots of external support.

You seem to be railing against some kind of bias that, generally speaking, doesn't appear to exist.