LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Bear Valley Unified School District announced today that they will enter into a settlement that will protect students' right to free speech.

Under the agreement, the district will update its speech and dress code to reflect the constitutionally protected rights of free expression and speech that all students enjoy. In the spirit of promoting these constitutionally protected rights, the district and the ACLU/SC, will jointly organize a forum for teachers and students to provide them with accurate information about students' free-speech rights and California's nondiscrimination policies. At the request of district officials, the ACLU/SC will also provide training for teachers on California law governing nondiscrimination and student speech.

'We applaud the district for swiftly acting to ensure that every student is guaranteed his or her constitutionally protected right to free speech, especially on controversial political matters,' said Peter Bibring, ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'The new policy sends a strong message that the rights of students under California law will be respected, while helping to clarify those rights for students and educators.'

The agreement arose from an incident on Nov. 3, one day before California voters cast their ballots on Proposition 8. That day, Mariah Jimenez wore a T-shirt to school on which she had written, 'Prop. 8 Equals HATE.' The proposition sought to amend the state constitution and prohibit same-sex marriage.

During Jimenez' sixth-period class, a teacher objected to the shirt and sent Jimenez to the principal's office, who insisted Jimenez either take off the shirt or remain in his office. Jimenez took off the shirt and returned to class.

In a two-page letter to Jimenez, district Superintendent Carole Ferraud acknowledged that school officials violated the student's constitutionally protected free-speech rights by forcing her to choose between removing her T-shirt or staying in the principal's office.

'We know that students do not shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression when they enter the school grounds and the fact that you were put in a position to have to make a choice between removing your shirt or remaining in the administration office was, in fact, a violation of your freedom of speech,' Ferraud stated in the letter sent to Jimenez today. 'The district extends apologies to you for taking adverse actions based on your lawful right to free speech.'

Upon hearing about the settlement Jimenez said, 'I'm glad the district apologized and recognized that I was exercising my free-speech rights. As a student, it's very important to me to be able to express myself and my political views about discrimination. With this settlement, I believe I have done something to protect other students' rights.'

The district has agreed to revise its policy to include language that explicitly states the speech protections guaranteed to students under established state and federal law, including the right to exercise freedom of speech and press by using bulletin boards, buttons and other materials not sanctioned by the school, as long as the speech is not obscene, libelous or slanderous, or creates a clear and present danger.

'The school district should be commended for using this opportunity to educate both teachers and students about the importance of free speech and nondiscrimination,' said Lori Rifkin, staff attorney for the ACLU/SC.

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging Prop. 8 on Thursday, March 5, 2009. We join a coalition of civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars in arguing that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote.

New Outreach Campaign Launched (2.2.09)

The ACLU of Southern California has partnered with Join the Impact and other national LGBT groups on Tell3, a Web-based public education campaign encouraging LGBT people and their supporters to have three conversations with friends and family to help build support for LGBT equality. Take a look, and spread the word!

Overview of the Prop 8 Challenge (1.9.09)

On November 5, 2008, the day after Proposition 8 was approved by voters, the California ACLU affiliates joined with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and the law offices of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson, and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe to file suit in the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8.
We argue that Proposition 8 is a revision to the California Constitution, rather than an amendment, and therefore cannot be adopted by a simple majority vote on an initiative. Revisions, unlike amendments, must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to the voters or a constitutional convention. Our position is that Proposition 8 is a revision because it subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, allowing a simple majority of voters to deprive a particularly vulnerable minority, such as LGBT people, of fundamental rights, and prevents courts from exercising their unique responsibility to uphold the equal protection rights of minorities.
Our case, Strauss et al. v. Horton et al., was consolidated with cases filed by other plaintiffs, including various individuals and a coalition of cities and counties. The California Supreme Court agreed to decide the case in the first instance, without waiting for lower courts to address the issue. The court placed similar cases, filed by other plaintiffs including various civil rights and religious organizations, on hold pending the outcome in Strauss and its companion cases.
The court allowed proponents of Proposition 8 to intervene in the case to attempt to defend its validity.
In its November 19 order, the court directed the parties to brief the following issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it is a revision rather than an amendment to the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before its adoption?
On Friday, December 19, 2008, the intervenors filed their brief and the state filed its brief.
Unsurprisingly, the proponents of Proposition 8 claim it is a valid amendment. They also argue that it retroactively invalidates marriages of same-sex couples performed before its adoption.
The state Attorney General argues Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process may not deprive persons of certain fundamental rights without a compelling justification, which is not present in this case. The state also argues that even if it is valid, Proposition 8 is not retroactive.

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU'with support from civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars'argue that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote.

On November 10, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the Court would overturn Proposition 8. On CNN, he said of Proposition 8's passage, 'It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end, I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.'

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.

The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California's Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California's and the nation's civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

###

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy and public education.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The American Civil Liberties Union is America's foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education.

Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.