SANTA ANA, Calif. – The ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson and Renick LLP have settled a lawsuit against Orange County’s Newport-Mesa Unified School District and Corona del Mar High School over a sexist and homophobic atmosphere that officials permitted to flourish at the school.

The settlement agreement filed today in Orange County Superior Court resolves a lawsuit over an environment that led to despicable threats of violence against Hail Ketchum, a senior at Corona del Mar High School at the time. Under the agreement, district officials will provide a written apology to Ms. Ketchum.

The district also will provide mandatory training sessions for administrators, teachers and students that will focus on the harmful impact of sexual discrimination and harassment, as well as on federal law and district complaint protocols to be followed whenever anyone experiences discrimination or harassment based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The mandated training will make it clear to administrators, teachers and students not only what constitutes sexism and homophobia, but what school officials must do to deal with it – and prevent it from spreading – according to the law,” said Hector Villagra, director of the ACLU/SC’s Orange County office.

Ms. Ketchum, who agreed to be publicly identified for the first time today, said that while the district’s apology to her is important, she’s been primarily interested in ensuring that district officials do everything they can to prevent other students from being the target of vitriolic comments and threats like those she experienced. Those attacks “were disgusting and very disturbing to me personally,” she said. “But what was really disheartening is that when I complained about them, the administrators did little to deal with them. I’m happy that the settlement provides the school with a road map of how to address situations like this more appropriately.”

The training mandated by the settlement will be conducted under the direction and guidance of the Orange County/Long Beach regional office of the Anti-Defamation League. It includes an eight-hour program later this year for all district managers, school-site administrators, principals and assistant principals. Teachers and staff at Corona del Mar will get two two-hour training sessions during the current school year, as will students.

“It’s important for high school students to be educated about bullying and homophobia. It’s crucial for school administrators and teachers not only to be aware of these issues, but how to deal with them,” said Katherine Darmer, a Chapman University law professor who is on the board of the Orange County Equality Coalition, which focuses on LGBT issues. “It’s shameful that Ms. Ketchum had to suffer through the threats and comments she did, but I’m hopeful that with this new training, school officials will be better prepared to deal with a situation like this if it comes up again.”

“California law guarantees a safe and bias-free learning environment for all students,” added Anne Richardson, a partner with Hadsell Stormer. “School officials must understand that they have a duty to take affirmative steps to change a school culture that ignores or promotes harassment and discrimination.”

Image: Karyl Ketchum and Michael Wiggins, parents of former Corona del Mar High School student Hail Ketchum.

This is my first case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I’ve argued in front of the California Supreme Court, and also seven or eight times before the 9th Circuit. But you sense that this is an even higher level, so yes, I’m nervous.
There are a lot of different issues in this case, and it’s very hard to know what the justices will focus on. Lower courts have already decided that the placement of the cross on federal property violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the government did not ask the Court to review that decision. One of the issues to be considered by the justices now is whether that violation is meaningfully eradicated by the government’s proposal to transfer ownership of the small patch of land on which the cross stands to a local veteran’s group, even though the cross will remain designated a national memorial.
It’s utterly clear that the government’s proposal does not live up to its obligation not to favor any particular religion. The cross is unquestionably a sectarian religious symbol, signifying the divinity of Jesus. As a congressionally designated national memorial to World War I veterans – one of only 49 national memorials in the country – this cross would convey the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian war dead over those of service members from other faith traditions. This would be true even if the property were to be transferred to private owners.
The cross’s message would not be, as the memorial’s defenders claim, one of commemoration for all war dead and veterans, or for all veterans of World War I. Thousands of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and members of other faiths who have served their country with honor do not regard the cross as a “universal symbol.” That’s one reason the military allows soldiers and their families to choose which religious symbol to put on headstones in military cemeteries – a policy the ACLU staunchly supports, by the way.
Another issue the justices will consider is whether the plaintiff in the case, Frank Buono, a military veteran, former assistant superintendent of Mojave National Preserve and someone who visits the area of the preserve near the cross regularly, has standing to sue. And there’s also an issue over whether the question of standing has even been properly presented to the court, since the government did not ask the Supreme Court to review the lower courts’ ruling that Mr. Buono had standing when those decisions became final in 2004.
Clearly, Mr. Buono is directly affected. And anyone who is directly affected by government favoritism of one religion can and should be able to sue, if our constitutional freedom of religion is to mean anything. Otherwise, a Jewish student “offended” by school-sponsored Christian prayers, for example, would have no legal recourse.
I’ve done a tremendous amount of preparatory work for this hearing in recent months. You always wonder, “Is there some question I haven’t thought of?” But by and large, I feel ready. I’ve done two moot courts at Harvard, one at NYU and one at Georgetown University. The moots are indispensable to preparation. They are a chance to test your arguments and how well you know them, but also to see what people who are smart think of them.
I drink decaf coffee, so tomorrow before I head to the court, I’ll have a cup or two. There’s really nothing you can do at the last minute before a major case like this except get yourself as grounded and relaxed as you can be, and try to keep your head clear.
Peter Eliasberg is the Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights for the ACLU/SC, as well as our managing attorney.

A federal appellate court in California today ruled that a lawsuit filed on behalf of immigrants who have been detained for more than six months without receiving bond hearings can go forward as a class action. The immigrants are represented by the ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
"This is a huge victory for immigrants who have been held in prolonged, indefinite detention without the most basic element of due process - a hearing to determine if their detention is justified,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants’ rights and national security for the ACLU Southern California, who argued the case before the Ninth Circuit. “There have been many good decisions invalidating prolonged immigration detention in individual instances, but the government has not been following them in other cases. Because the court has allowed the case to go forward as a class action, many detainees – the overwhelming majority of whom lack legal representation – will be able to benefit from the court's final decision.”
The lawsuit, Rodriguez et al. v. Hayes et al., was originally filed in a federal district court in Los Angeles in May 2007 on behalf of Alejandro Rodriguez, an immigrant from Mexico who was detained more than three years pending completion of his removal proceedings, without ever receiving a bond hearing. In the lawsuit, Rodriquez asked for a hearing to determine if his prolonged detention was justified and to represent other similarly situated immigrants in the Central District of California. A district court in California ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to grant a class action. The ACLU appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April, 2008.
The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the government’s claims, found that it had clear jurisdiction to allow the lawsuit to go forward as a class action and that a class action would provide a remedy for immigration detainees who are unrepresented. The court explained that without class certification, “many of the putative class members likely would not be able to adjudicate their claimed need of a bond hearing,” and that class treatment was “likely necessary to provide the remedy sought.”
On an average day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detains roughly 33,400 non-citizens in federal detention facilities and local jails across the country, resulting in more than a threefold increase in the detention population since just a decade ago. In the Central District of California alone, hundreds of detainees each year are subjected to prolonged immigration detention while they fight their immigration cases.
"Many individuals in immigration detention pose no danger or flight risk that requires them to be locked up," said Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. "Yet they are deprived of their liberty, often for prolonged periods of time, without even a bond hearing to determine if such detention is justified. This violates due process, results in many individuals forfeiting meritorious claims, causes families financial and emotional hardship and is a huge drain on taxpayers' money."
“We’re hopeful that the Obama administration will now agree that people incarcerated for years should receive the basic due process protection of a hearing,” Rabinovitz added.
Over the past few years, the ACLU has filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of individual immigrants who have been held for prolonged periods of time while fighting their immigration cases, winning the release of more than a dozen individuals who were being unlawfully detained.
Lawyers on the case include Arulanantham and Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU of Southern California, Rabinovitz and Cecillia D. Wang of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Jayashri Srikantiah of the Stanford Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic, and Steven A. Ellis, William Tran and Brian K. Washington of Sidley Austin LLP.
Image: Alejandro Rodriguez