LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.

"At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."

Throughout his career, Judge Alito has promoted an expansive view of executive authority and a limited view of the judicial role in curbing abuses of that authority. Two years ago, Justice O'Connor eloquently expressed what is at stake in these critical times when she wrote: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Romero also noted that Judge Alito has written a series of troubling decisions on race, religion, and reproductive rights while sitting on the federal appeals court. These are precisely the issues in which Justice O'Connor often cast a critical swing vote on a closely divided Supreme Court.

"Issues like affirmative action, immigrants rights, gun violence and reproductive freedom are of vital importance to Californians and may very well wind up before the Supreme Court in the near future" said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Samuel Alito does not have a good record on these and other important issues. If appointed to the Court he could seriously damage the freedoms we have all come to expect."

The ACLU vote came after a special meeting of its 83-member national board this weekend, which has voted to oppose only two nominees in its 86-year history: Justice William Rehnquist (in his initial nomination to the Court) and former Solicitor General and law professor Robert Bork.

In December, the ACLU issued a 68-page report summarizing Judge Alito's record on civil liberties and civil rights. The ACLU sent the report along with a letter expressing "deep concern" to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking member Patrick Leahy, urging the committee to conduct a thorough review of Judge Alito's record.

The ACLU, founded in 1920, participates in more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone besides the U.S. government itself.

LOS ANGELES - Only one day after widespread reports that the FBI is monitoring and infiltrating political organizations, the three California affiliates of the ACLU are seeking information about the intelligence gathering efforts of law enforcement agencies in this state.

The Public Records Act request is being sent to Attorney General Bill Lockyer and focuses on the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) and information that it may have received from the FBI.

"The government should not be wasting resources spying on peaceful critics exercising their First Amendment rights,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Reports of the FBI illegally monitoring California organizations concern us greatly and are unacceptable.'

Tuesday, the national ACLU released FBI documents that were obtained after the organization filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out whether the FBI's partnerships with local law enforcement in Joint Terrorism Task Forces has resulted in increased surveillance of political and religious activity. The documents released on Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee showed the FBI expanding the definition of "domestic terrorism" to include citizens and groups that participate in lawful protests or civil disobedience.

In the Public Records Act request, the ACLU thanked Attorney General Lockyer for issuing guidelines two years ago protecting privacy rights under the California constitution but cautioned: "with the growing use of state and local law enforcement officials on Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) run by the FBI there still exists the possibility of entanglement of local law enforcement in federal activities that exceed the scope of their authority under California law."

The ACLU is seeking records on the ACLU California affiliates and chapters, Greenpeace, PETA, United for Peace and Justice, Food not Bombs, Code Pink, Peace Fresno, War Resisters League West, College Not Combat, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee among others.

Under the California Public Records Act, the agencies have 10 days to respond.

ORANGE, Calif. - Dozens of concerned community members filled a Santa Ana forum Thursday night in opposition to Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona's proposal to enter into an agreement with the federal government to enforce immigration laws.

The forum, which was sponsored by several local groups including the ACLU Southern California, raised concerns about the plan, which forum participants said would not improve public safety, but would instead hinder it while leaving local taxpayers to foot the bill.

"This proposal does not take into account the actual cost or the harm it will cause to community policing," said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, an ACLU/SC staff attorney. "Law enforcement already has the authority to arrest previously deported felons. This proposal will not solve crime, something law enforcement officials agree with nationwide, and it will not make the public safer."

Despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposals, Orange County and the city of Costa Mesa are slated to enter into an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Costa Mesa City Council agreed last week to allow their city police to enforce federal immigration law and become a part of Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona's October proposal, which has yet to be approved by the County Board of Supervisors.

"Instead Orange County will be stuck paying the price for a costly and needless endeavor that is potentially harmful to the safety of our community. Even the former Costa Mesa police chief said the plan would be a 'huge mistake,'" Escobosa Helzer said.

Three major areas of concern with the proposal include:

* Orange County law enforcement is already stretched thin. Under the proposal overburdened officers and deputies will be asked to double their jobs and would have to master and enforce both their regular duties and added immigration enforcement.

* Even though deputies and police officers would be carrying out federal duties, the bill would be passed onto city and county residents who would have to subsidize federal responsibilities with local tax dollars - the amount could easily balloon into the hundreds of millions.

* If local law enforcement is permitted to enforce immigration law in addition to criminal law, the immigrant community will be reluctant to seek help when they are the victims or witnesses of crimes. That means if an immigrant witnesses an attack, a robbery or even a rape they may be hesitant to report the crime or describe the perpetrator to police.

Groups participating in the event include: ACLU of Southern California, Anti-Defamation League Orange County/Long Beach Region, Los Amigos of Orange County, South Asian Network, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).