Sunday night, March 15, the Eagle Board of the Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America, made up of three parents and three Boy Scout executives from the Council, voted unanimously to award Michael and William Randall their Eagle badges. While the decision is subject to final approval by the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, whose decision is expected in four to six weeks, the ACLU knows of no instance in Scouting's history where the National Council has refused to confirm the award once the Eagle Board has approved it.

"This victory is long past due," said Taylor Flynn, an ACLU of Southern California attorney who represents the Randall twins. "It is unfortunate that the Boy Scouts have felt the need to dig in and thwart the inspiring work of two young men who are such a credit to their Boy Scout Council, their community and this nation."

The Orange County Council had initially refused to convene an Eagle Board to hear the boys' applications, and only did so upon order by the Superior Court of Orange County. On February 23, Superior Court Judge Richard O. Frazee ordered the Council to proceed with the application process. Michael and William have been active members in Scouting for the past nine years and were selected to be members of the equivalent of Scouting's honor society, the Order of the Arrow, to which less than five percent of all Scouts belong. They submitted their applications to be Eagle Scouts in November 1997, but the Orange County Council had refused to consider their applications.

The ACLU of Southern California argued before the California Supreme Court on January 5 in Randall vs. Boy Scouts of America, Orange County Council, challenging the Boy Scout policy excluding those who will not affirm a belief in God. Michael and William had been expelled as nine-year-old cub scouts when they refused to say the word "God" in taking the Boy Scout oath.

The suit charges religious discrimination based on the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On April 25, 1991, the Orange County Superior Court granted an injunction barring the Orange County Council from refusing to allow the Randall twins to participate in Scouting or from requiring them to use the word "God" in the oath.

After a lengthy trial, on May 7, 1992, the Superior Court ruled that the Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts is a business and is subject to the anti-discrimination protections of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal on February 28, 1994. The Council appealed that ruling to the California Supreme Court. A decision from the California Supreme Court is expected later this year.

In a case that has drawn national attention because of the multiplicity of issues it raises in surrogacy cases, a California Court of Appeal ruled today that a man and woman who contracted with a surrogate mother are the child's legal parents, even though the baby was born after the couple divorced.

The ACLU of Southern California had filed an amicus on behalf of the wife, Luanne Buzzanca, to ensure her legal status as the mother of the child, whom she has raised since birth and is now two years old.

The ACLU hailed the ruling as a victory for parents and children. "The court said it best," said ACLU/SC staff attorney Taylor Flynn. "The Buzzancas brought this child into the world. Mr. Buzzanca cannot claim that he is not responsible simply because technology made it possible for him to have a child using sperm and egg donation. Biological ties are not the exclusive definition of a family."

In overturning the Superior Court ruling from last September, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District said, in part, "The trial court then reached an extraordinary conclusion: Jaycee had no lawful parents. . . We disagree. Let us get right to the point: Jaycee would never have been born had not Luanne and John both agreed to have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate."

The Court of Appeal sent the case back to the Superior Court ordering the lower court to declare Luanne the lawful mother and giving her legal custody of her daughter. The Court also ordered the lower court to declare John Buzzanca the legal father and to establish appropriate permanent child support from him for his daughter.

The matter began when the Buzzancas engaged the services of a reproductive agency in 1994. The surrogate mother was implanted with a sperm and an egg from anonymous donors. The Buzzanca's are not the biological parents of their daughter. The couple divorced a month before their daughter was born in 1995.

Mr. Buzzanca sought to waive all responsibility for the child, and asked the Superior Court to declare that neither he nor his ex-wife were the legal parents of the baby girl. Last September Superior Court Judge Robert Monarch agreed with Mr. Buzzanca and ruled that the daughter, Jaycee, had no parents. Today's ruling overturns that decision.

The California Court of Appeal today issued a decision allowing an Open Meeting Act lawsuit against the U.C. Regents and the Governor to go forward. The Court also said there is information to support plaintiffs' claim that the Governor and Regents broke the law.

The ACLU and a coalition of groups contend that Governor Wilson violated the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act by secretly locking up the votes of a majority of Regents prior to the July 20, 1995 meeting at which the Board voted to approve resolutions abolishing affirmative action at the University. Plaintiffs allege that Governor Wilson locked up the vote through a series of private phone conversations prior to the meeting. Such conduct, if proven, would violate the Open Meeting Act.

After plaintiffs filed their suit in February 1996, the Governor and Regents sought to have plaintiffs' lawsuit thrown out on procedural grounds. The trial court refused to do so, and the Court of Appeal's decision today affirms that ruling. This decision allows the plaintiffs, the UCSB student newspaper reporter Tim Molloy, and the UCSB student newspaper, The Nexus, to proceed with their claim seeking a declaration that Governor Wilson and the Regents violated the Open Meeting Act. Plaintiff will be allowed to obtain information and take depositions regarding the Governor's and Regents' alleged wrongdoing.

The decision also protects the ability of citizens and newspapers to challenge official wrongdoing in the future. This court's decision does not allow plaintiff Tim Molloy to obtain a remedy of nullification, because his suit was filed after the 30 day statute of limitation for obtaining nulification had run. However, the Court did say that, "Objective facts, of which he was aware within the 30day filing period, supported his claim that a violation had occurred." The Court also held that Open Meeting Act plaintiffs who file suit within 30 days, and then investigate the potential wrongdoing, will be protected from malicious prosecution actions.

"Today's ruling is a victory for the public's right to know" said ACLU attorney Dan Tokaji. "It will allow the Daily Nexus and Mr. Molloy, at long last, to get to the bottom of the secret conversations that occurred prior to the Regents' antiaffirmative action vote. For over a year and a half, the Governor and Regents have adamantly resisted our attempts to uncover this information. The decision today means that Governor Wilson and the Regents will have to stop stonewalling, and disclose information that should have been disclosed to the public months ago. The Court's decision also makes clear that there is good reason to believe that the Governor and Regents broke the law."

Plaintiffs will proceed with their motion to compel the Regents to answer questions under oath about their efforts to lock in the vote on affirmative action during premeeting telephone conversations with Governor Wilson and each other. A motion to compel was filed before the Court of Appeal decided to hear this case.