Schools should be safe places to learn for all students, and all students and parents have the right to expect that schools are places that clearly and unequivocally prohibit harassment and discrimination of all kinds.

This is a principle so simple and so obvious that stating it hardly seems necessary, but in this case it is. The position of Westminster school board is, simply put, that it wants carte blanche to discriminate against students who don't conform to gender norms. Even worse, it is willing to sacrifice the good of all students in order to pursue this discriminatory course.

The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, which was passed and signed into law in late 1999, addressed a serious problem: legislators passed it after hearing the disturbing stories of over 700 students from around the state, who related experiences of harassment and discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender.

These experiences included sexual harassment, violent assault, sexual assault, threats of assault, verbal harassment, and, perhaps most saddening, responses from school administrators that ranged from indifference to ignorance. Today, the problem continues. For instance, our research shows that 53% of students do not believe that their school is safe for boys who aren't as masculine as other boys. And the California Healthy Kids Survey, which surveys 7th, 9th, and 11th graders, showed that the problem of discriminatory harassment is most common among 7th graders.

This school board's commitment to preserving the right to discriminate illustrates precisely why the law was necessary. Every student deserves a safe place to learn, regardless of the biases of school board members. The ACLU strongly urges the Westminster school board to reconsider its position.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a federal lawsuit today seeking the release of a non-citizen who is being held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody indefinitely after having served his sentence.

When he was six years old, Sopheap Puth's family fled Cambodia and the dreaded Khmer Rouge regime. The family applied for and was granted status as political refugees in the United States. Mr. Puth later became a permanent resident of the United States, and he has a wife and three-year old son who are U.S. citizens. In September 2003, Mr. Puth was ordered removed from the U.S. by an immigration judge because of a criminal conviction for car theft. After Mr. Puth served his sentence and was released on parole, he was detained by ICE, formerly the INS.

He is being held in custody at the Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster, California, north of Los Angeles, where he has been held for over six months since he was ordered removed from the country.

"My husband has served his sentence," said Rebecca Puth, Sopheap Puth's wife. "All we want is a chance for our son to spend time with his father."

The ACLU-SC's lawsuit relies on a 2001 Supreme Court case, Zadvydas v. Davis, which held that immigration officials may not detain non-citizens for more than six months after they are ordered removed unless there is a significant likelihood of removing them in the reasonable foreseeable future. In Mr. Puth's case the government has been unable to remove him to Cambodia thus far, and it has not shown that it will remove him in the near future. The ACLU-SC's suit calls on the government to release Mr. Puth from detention under an order of supervision.

"We do not dispute that the government has the right to remove Mr. Puth," said Ranjana Natarajan, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "All we ask is that they follow established law and not detain him indefinitely. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the government may not indefinitely detain non-citizens when it cannot remove them within the reasonable foreseeable future."

"He should have a chance to be with his three-year old son, even if it's just for a few months," she added.

Mr. Puth is one of hundreds of immigrant detainees from across the country who have been forced to sue the government in order to be released from indefinite detention. The government continues to insist on its right to detain such immigrants, even when removal is not imminent.

ADELANTO, CA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, together with the law firm of Bingham McCutchen, today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Native American inmate who has faced serious disciplinary sanctions - including the loss of all visitation rights --for his refusal to comply with a California Department of Corrections grooming policy requiring all male inmates to maintain hair no longer than three inches in length. Billy Soza Warsoldier is a Cahuilla Native American whose religious beliefs prohibit him from cutting his hair except upon the death of a loved one.

"Punishing Warsoldier for practicing his religion is both unnecessary and illegal," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "A prison inmate shouldn't have to choose between remaining faithful to his religion and maintaining contact with his children and grandchildren."

Billy Soza Warsoldier is currently incarcerated at the Adelanto Community Correctional Facility in Adelanto, California. Mr. Warsoldier is a Cahuilla Native American. Both the Cahuilla tribe and the federal government have recognized his status as a Cahuilla. According to Mr. Warsoldier's faith, his long hair embodies the strength and wisdom he has acquired over his lifetime, and he would lose that strength and wisdom, and jeopardize his status in the afterlife, if he were to cut it. Therefore, since 1971, Mr. Warsoldier has cut his hair only once, upon his father's death in 1980.

"I don't understand why I'm being punished for practicing my faith," said Billy Soza Warsoldier, who is serving time for a non-violent offense. "My tradition tells me that if I cut my hair, I may face taunting and ridicule from deceased members of my tribe. I would prefer to take the state's punishment than violate my faith."

As a result of his refusal to cut his hair in compliance with the prison's grooming policy, Mr. Warsoldier has lost visitation rights, has been removed from prison vocational courses, and is prohibited from receiving quarterly packages, among other sanctions.

The ACLU of Southern California and Bingham McCutchen are asking the court to enjoin prison officials from enforcing the grooming policy against Mr. Warsoldier. In addition, all disciplinary sanctions imposed on Mr. Warsoldier as a consequence of his non-compliance with the grooming policy should be removed.

"Bingham McCutchen has a long history of providing pro bono representation to California prison inmates in such areas as health care, disability accommodations, and systemic due process violations," said Nora Cregan, partner in Bingham McCutchen's San Francisco office and chair of the firm's pro bono committee. "Mr. Warsoldier's case extends that commitment to the area of religious freedom, and we are proud to team with the ACLU to represent Mr. Warsoldier in his effort to vindicate his right to practice his religion. There is no reason why prison officials cannot accommodate Mr. Warsoldier's sincere religious beliefs that require him not to cut his hair."