Today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Anderson vs Roe, California's challenge to the January 28 Ninth Circuit Court decision upholding the June 4, 1997 District Court ruling blocking California from reducing the public benefits of eligible new state residents. The January Ninth Circuit ruling was the first Circuit Court decision stopping a state from using the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act to cut the benefits of new residents.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in Anderson vs Roe in January 1999. The ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties represent defendants in this challenge along with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. This is California's second attempt to reduce welfare benefits to women and children, many of whom are fleeing domestic violence in their states of origin.

Governor Wilson first tried to cut the benefits of new arrivals with a waiver from the Bush Administration in 1992, a scheme the ACLU of Southern California challenged in Green vs Anderson. The District Court declared that proposed policy unconstitutional in 1993 and the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision in 1994. The Supreme Court dismissed California's appeal in February 1997.

ACLU/SC legal director Mark Rosenbaum who will deliver oral arguments before the Court in this case next January said, "This case will decide whether our constitution treats newcomers as bonafide citizens. The Court's decision will affect women and children who come to California seeking to rebuild their lives, but who are met by a governor trying to set up a two-tier system to penalize them for being victims of violence and abuse. That is tragically unsound given California's extraordinarily high cost of living. His cruel scheme failed before the Court before and we expect it to fail now. California cannot detach itself from the union just to keep out poor people seeking a better life."

Judge David Levi issued a preliminary injunction in Doe vs Anderson in June of 1997. The judge said that California may not institute laws that thwart the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by treating new state residents differently from longer-term residents. The Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in January of this year, stopping Governor Wilson from reducing public assistance benefits to qualified families who have lived here for less than one year to the amount they would have received in the state they left.

If California is allowed to reduce benefits to new residents to the amount they would have received in their state of origin, a family of four from Mississippi, for example, would receive $144 a month rather than California's allotment of $673.

Martha Davis, legal director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund said, "This is a pivotal case for women fleeing domestic abuse, who are forced to move across state lines in order to avoid stalking and violence. Our constitution guarantees that women in this situation must be treated like all other California residents."

Calling the ruling a major victory for disabled and elderly bus riders who rely on lifts and equipment to let them travel on MTA buses, the ACLU of Southern California hailed the ruling received today from U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall granting a preliminary injunction in Beauchamp vs Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority [98-0402 CBM (BQRx)].

In her September 22 ruling Judge Marshall said plaintiffs demonstrated a high likelihood of prevailing on their claims of discrimination by the MTA and its subcontractors. The judge also ordered the MTA to maintain the accessibility equipment, safety equipment, and radios on all its buses in proper working order and to promptly repair any such equipment that is out of order. Additionally, the judge ordered that buses with equipment designed for disabled bus riders must stop and board these passengers and that if a bus is not able to board a passenger because of broken equipment, the driver must stop and inform the disabled rider and report the problem immediately by radio.

Hailing the ruling ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg said, "This injunction is a great victory for all disabled bus riders in Los Angeles County. For too long, the MTA has treated riders in wheelchairs like second-class citizens. These riders are regularly denied access to the buses because the wheelchair lifts are constantly broken, or drivers do not even bother to stop to pick them up. Even when they do get on the buses, the safety equipment meant to hold them place does not work, or drivers refuse to use it, thus endangering them and other passengers on the bus. This injunction sends a clear message that its high time for the MTA to obey the law and provide equal access to riders who use wheelchairs."

Cooperating attorney Stanley Fleishman said of the ruling, "This is a major victory for all people with disabilities and the elderly. Transportation is key to the enjoyment of life including the right to work, socialize and take part in their community. This represents a major step towards equal opportunity for the disabled and the elderly."

This ruling affects all disabled bus riders in Los Angeles County following Judge Marshall's August 25 ruling granting plaintiffs' motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

The lawsuit was filed in January to force the MTA to meet the basic transportation needs of mobility-impaired bus riders. The suit charges that the MTA is failing miserably in its obligation to provide "full and equal access" to disabled bus riders. In June, the ACLU sought the preliminary injunction to force the MTA to make good its promise to correct the problems before a trial.

Plaintiffs charge that the MTA is breaking the law by failing to keep its wheelchair lifts in proper working order and that, on some lines, the lifts are broken more than 60% of the time. Repeatedly, mobility-impaired riders have waited for buses only to have the drivers pass by the stop without picking them up. Worse still, drivers will pick up passengers who can walk on to the buses only to shut the door in the face of disabled riders. The MTA has also endangered riders in wheelchairs by failing to keep its safety equipment in working order or to use this equipment properly. The deplorable conditions on MTA buses have resulted in physical injuries, humiliation, emotional distress, and loss of wages to plaintiffs. Mobility-impaired riders had repeatedly complained about the failure to accommodate their disabilities, to no avail.

Today plaintiffs in Valley VOTE vs City of Los Angeles announced settlement of the lawsuit filed against the City of Los Angeles for violation of the First Amendment rights of signature gatherers by city employees at the city-run Van Nuys Airport last June.

Speaking at the news conference ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg said, " We are pleased with this settlement because it helps remedy the harm that Valley Vote suffered in its effort to gather petition signatures. But this lawsuit also resulted in the City Attorney's making clear to all City employees that First Amendment rights must be protected. From now on, all city employees should be completely aware that they must be careful before they take any steps that infringe on these precious rights. We are hopeful that this lawsuit and Mr. Hahn's actions will ensure that in the future the First Amendment rights of Valley Vote and ALL citizens of Los Angeles will not be subject to the kind of action that occurred at the Van Nuys Air Show."

On August 17, the ACLU of Southern California filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the manager of the city-owned Van Nuys airport for discrimination against a San Fernando Valley group seeking signatures for a petition to initiate a study on the creation of an independent city in the San Fernando Valley.

As part of the settlement, City Attorney James Hahn will issue written directives to all city employees specifying that the rights inherent in the First Amendment may not be violated and clarifying the rights of citizens to seek signatures and carry and distribute petitions as part of the political process.

On August 26 Governor Wilson signed legislation clarifying that Valley VOTE would be granted 180 days in which to collect signatures required to initiate a study on Valley independence. The group has now until November 27 to gather the needed signatures although VOTE members anticipate gathering the necessary signatures by mid-October. Plaintiffs, Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment (VOTE) charge that city employees impeded group efforts to collect signatures at several locations including a well-attended air show. The ACLU claimed that by excluding Valley VOTE petitioners from the Van Nuys Air Show, city workers violated both United States and California constitutional guarantees of free political speech in public places and also demonstrated a pattern of discrimination against Valley VOTE.

The ACLU emphasizes it takes no position on the issue of San Fernando Valley cityhood. Representation of Valley VOTE is based solely on the ACLU's continuing commitment to defend the free speech provisions of both United States and California constitutions, which ensure the right of individuals to engage in all speech, including political speech, in a public area.