(San Francisco, CA, March 5, 2009) Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General's Office appeared before the California Supreme Court today to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples the right to marry. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait - in this case sexual orientation - that has no relevance to the group's ability to participate in or contribute to society. Because the case has serious implications for the constitutional rights of all Californians, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. The California Supreme Court, which has struck down several other initiatives in the past, is expected to issue a decision within 90 days.

"This case is about far more than the right to same sex marriages," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU of Southern California. "It's about the core tenet of our constitutional democracy -- that the fundamental rights of historically disadvantaged minorities do not depend upon the will or whim of the majority. If Prop. 8 stands, then the constitutional check on the majority will have been replaced by a blank check. Presidents Madison and Lincoln would turn over in their graves at the notion that the majority can always have its way with minorities."

The ACLU, NCLR and Lambda Legal filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by only 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Proposition 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.

"Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state," said Shannon P. Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who argued the case before the Court. 'Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited."

"It is simply wrong'legally and socially'to short-circuit the California Constitution and its equal protection guarantees," added Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and co-counsel in the legal challenge to Proposition 8. "Proposition 8 is no 'garden variety' amendment that changes a tax or zoning or safety rule in a way that affects everyone equally. This is a radical attempt to strip a cherished constitutional right from just one targeted minority group and then to stop the courts from doing their most basic job of upholding the constitutional promise of 'liberty and justice for all.'"

The case before the court is unprecedented because no other initiative-amendment has successfully taken away a fundamental right only for a particular minority. Because Proposition 8 would, for the first time, change the Constitution in a way that strips a minority group of its constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The Attorney General's Office argued that the right to marry is an 'inalienable right'_ that can not be selectively eliminated from one group without compelling reasons.

An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the court to strike down the initiative. Because the issues at stake have such important implications for other minority groups, Raymond Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, who represents the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked and was given permission to appear in court today. He argued that allowing Proposition 8 to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.

"Our state Constitution was created to ensure equal treatment under the law for every Californian,'_ said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. 'Prop. 8 changes that fact by taking away a fundamental freedom from one particular group and mandating government discrimination against a minority. We hope the court upholds the Constitution's promise of equality."

The ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal are 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 arguments today also included 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 case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al.

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.

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.

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

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The ACLU of Southern California today applauded the Laguna Beach City Council for repealing an anti-sleeping ordinance that criminalized individuals for being chronically homeless. The City Council action came three months after the ACLU/SC, the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school, sued the affluent city for its unconstitutional harassment and intimidation of disabled homeless residents.

The city had used the ordinance as a premise for its police officers to wake and subject homeless residents to harassment, threats and intimidation; conduct unjustified stops of them that resulted in middle-of-the-night interrogations and warrant checks; and to confiscate their property, among other punitive steps.

“We’re pleased that the city recognizes it cannot treat its most vulnerable residents as if they were a law-enforcement problem that can be eliminated with citations and harassment,” said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU/SC. “We hope the city’s leaders will now seek a long-term solution to chronic homelessness by providing shelters and supportive services. This will not only take people off the street but, as has been shown time and time again in communities across the country, provide taxpayers with a more cost effective and humane way to treat homeless individuals who might otherwise end up in already overburdened public emergency medical facilities, or in the hands of law enforcement.”

Andra Barmash Greene, the managing partner of Irell & Manella LLP’s Newport Beach office and co-counsel in the case, added that she hopes the council’s action “is the first step in addressing issues of homelessness in Laguna Beach. What the City Council has still not addressed is whether previously issued citations will be rescinded or expunged.”

Hector Villagra, director of the ACLU/SC’s Orange County office, noted that the ACLU/SC and its partners will monitor the city’s new policy for dealing with homeless people to ensure that the Laguna Beach Police Department does not revert to the criminalization of the past.

“This is a step in the right direction, but whether it will resolve the lawsuit remains to be seen,” Villagra said. “We challenged the mistreatment of the homeless, not the justification for it. If the city is going to continue to harass homeless residents under other provisions, then we are essentially in the same position as we were before the repeal.”

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 23 last year after yearlong discussions between city officials and attorneys representing the homeless failed to yield necessary revisions to Laguna Beach’s policy toward homeless persons. The legal action sought to prevent the city from harassing and intimidating the homeless, particularly for the involuntary and necessary act of sleeping.

The long-term solution is for Laguna Beach to provide more shelter support and services that can help chronically homeless people get off the streets and into supportive environments where their disabilities can be treated. Currently there are no beds regularly available to the city’s homeless residents, while the lone nonprofit rehabilitative center south of downtown Laguna Beach has limited sleeping space and strict rules that make it difficult for chronically homeless residents to qualify for one of its beds.

WASHINGTON - In the wake of three immigration detainee deaths over the last six months, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced legislation today to adopt humane and legally enforceable standards for immigration detention facilities. The need for Congress to pass such legislation is underscored by recent deaths of immigration detainees in Monroe, Louisiana, Farmville, Virginia and Central Falls, Rhode Island. This bill, H.R. 1215, Immigration Oversight and Fairness Act of 2009, provides basic protections for immigration detainees including access to medical care, phones, legal materials, and law libraries. It also ensures protections for unaccompanied children, sexual abuse victims, survivors of torture, families with children and other vulnerable populations.

"Unfortunately, the federal government has failed to exercise meaningful oversight of immigration detention facilities nationwide,' said Joanne Lin, ACLU legislative counsel. 'The ACLU regularly receives complaints from immigration detainees whose cries for medical care go unanswered. All too often, the ACLU learns of detainees who have died from both serious diseases such as cancer and mundane conditions such as bacterial infections when earlier intervention could have made a difference. Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's bill is necessary to introduce oversight and transparency into the immigration detention system.'

In recent years, the immigration detainee population has skyrocketed, now exceeding over 300,000 annually and approximately 30,000 daily. The explosion in immigration detention has been accompanied by growing numbers of immigration detainee deaths, numbering nearly 90 since the establishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2002. Many of these deaths involved young detainees in their 20s and 30s, with U.S. citizen spouses and children.

The cases of ACLU clients Raymond Soeoth and Amadou Diouf, both of whom were immigration detainees, highlight the importance of this legislation as a safeguard against forcible drugging. Both detainees were forcibly injected with a combination of antipsychotic drugs even though neither had a history of mental illness. Soeoth, a Christian minister from Indonesia, sought political asylum in America based on religious persecution. Diouf, a native of Senegal married to a U.S. citizen, had a stay of deportation at the time he was drugged. After the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) ended its policy of forcibly drugging deportees, but stopped short of issuing regulations that would have given the new policy the force of a strictly enforced law.

'This bill will help protect the heath and welfare of anyone imprisoned by Immigration and Customs Enforcement,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants' rights and national security for the ACLU of Southern California. 'If passed, this legislation should help ICE change its institutional culture and become more accountable, paving the way for the humane treatment of those in immigration detention.'