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.
Read more.

New Outreach Campaign Launched

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

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 ACLU of Southern California has 3,000 square feet of office space available at its headquarters in downtown Los Angeles, convenient to downtown courthouses, Staples Center and LA Live, and the 110 freeway. The space is divisible to 250 square feet and is ideally set up for a small law practice, labor organization or nonprofit. On-duty guard service and security cameras, 24-hour building and elevator key-card access. For lease rate and contact information, please download a pdf of our flyer.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has condemned the practice of racial profiling and agreed to promptly revise its anti-bias instruction to officers, expand diversity training and develop community outreach programs as part of a settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

The settlement resolves a claim brought against the department for stopping and searching dozens of African-American community college students based on their race during an incident on the campus of Los Angeles Trade Technical College in October 2007.

Under the settlement, the Sheriff's Department will implement sorely needed changes, including examining current anti-racial-bias procedures. Additionally, the department will revise its policy to state that department officials will do everything within their power 'to guarantee racial profiling and bias-policing are not practiced.'

'Our constitution and laws protect the community against law-enforcement harassment based on skin color, and this settlement is one step towards ensuring that the Sheriff's Department never allows that to happen again,' said Catherine Lhamon, racial justice director at the ACLU/SC. 'This agreement brings the department into the 21st century and provides the community with important protections against racial profiling.'

Added Jeffrey H. Dasteel, a partner at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP: "Skadden is very proud of its tradition of commitment to pro bono service, and particularly of its work with the ACLU on matters of racial justice. With this agreement, the Sheriff's Department acknowledges that racial profiling cannot and will not be tolerated."

The claim was brought against the department after 14 sheriff's deputies walked onto the campus of L.A. Trade-Tech on Oct. 17, 2007, allegedly looking for drug dealers, and detained 33 black students and one Latino student who attempted to take pictures of the incident.

Deputies searched the male students and forced the entire group, including four women, to sit on the ground in the middle of campus with their hands behind their heads, some for more than an hour. Deputies harassed and humiliated these students, treating them like criminals in front of the faculty, administrators and fellow students. Yet the students were never told why.

'We were all so upset about what happened. Knowing the department will make changes to the way they go about treating people is something I am proud of,' said Rev. Darrin Simington, a youth minister at the Alpha and Omega Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles, who was among the dozens of people detained by deputies in the incident. 'We look forward to seeing the new changes in the department, especially because these changes will be written in stone.'

Officials from the Sheriff's Department have defended their actions, saying they were part of an investigation into illegal drug dealing on campus. But a report by the Los Angeles Community College District, which oversees the school, concluded that the roundup constituted racial profiling.

As part of the settlement, the Sheriff's Department will widely distribute the revised policy within its ranks and post it at L.A. Trade-Tech. The supervising deputy at the community college will also meet with the students harassed to explain the changes the department will make.

'With the ACLU behind us, we were able to get something real accomplished,' Rev. Simington said.