LOS ANGELES - In a case that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today, the

American Civil Liberties Union submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of public employees'

First Amendment rights to expose corruption on the job.

"A public employee who speaks up in the public's interest by reporting suspected police

misconduct to his superiors should not lose his First Amendment protection against retaliation by

his employer. Instead he should be praised and held up as a positive example of a whistleblower," said Peter Eliasberg, Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights at the

ACLU of Southern California.

The case, originally filed in federal court in Los Angeles in March 2000, centers around an

attempt by Richard Ceballos, a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County District

Attorney's Office, to expose police misconduct. While working on a criminal case, Ceballos wrote

a memo to his supervisors saying that he believed a deputy sheriff had falsified an affidavit used

to obtain a search warrant in the case. His superiors decided to proceed with the prosecution.

After Ceballos informed the defense counsel about his findings, he was subpoenaed to testify at a

hearing to dismiss the case. The judge denied the motion and Ceballos was removed from the

prosecution's team.

Ceballos said his removal from the prosecution was the first of many acts of retaliation for his

whistleblowing: He was denied a promotion, demoted to the rank of trial deputy and transferred from Pomona to the El Monte branch of the District Attorney's office.

"In an era of increased government secrecy, it is critical that we protect the First Amendment right of government employees to expose government misconduct, both to their supervisors and to the public at large," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the national ACLU. "Government

accountability is at the heart of the First Amendment, and it is not enhanced when whistleblowers are silenced."

Six months before Ceballos raised the issue of corruption on the part of the deputy sheriff, Los

Angeles had been shaken by the Rampart scandal, a series of abuses involving corruption by an

anti-gang unit of the LA Police Department. After considering the facts, consulting with his

colleagues and superiors and taking into account the increased scrutiny in Los Angeles on police

misconduct, Ceballos recommended that the criminal case be dismissed.

A district judge dismissed the lawsuit. Ceballos then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the lower court's decision holding that Ceballos' speech was protected under the First

Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in February 2004.

Ceballos' attorney, Bonnie Robin-Vergeer of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, will argue the

case. Attorneys Eliasberg and Shapiro submitted the amicus brief along with Michael Small of the

lawfirm Akin and Gump on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the

national ACLU and the ACLU of Southern California.

LOS ANGELES - In response to a lawsuit brought to silence an evangelical scholar who monitors the fundraising and spending practices of several ministries and their leaders, an Orange County court will hear Dr. William Alnor's motion to throw out a defamation suit against him.

After news reports of an emergency fund-raising appeal that claimed that up to $200,000 of the Christian Research Institute's money may have been lost due to a "bizarre" postal error by "novice employees," Alnor investigated the claim.

Alnor spoke with several representatives of the U.S. Postal Service who confirmed that CRI and Hanegraff were the subjects of an investigation and subsequently posted an article on his Web site, www.cultlink.com, stating that CRI and Hanegraff were under investigation for mail fraud. Alnor was then sued for defamation by the Christian Research Institute and its leader Hank Hanegraaff, who is also known as the Bible Answer Man.

In response to the defamation suit, Alnor filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit with the ACLU of Southern California and attorneys Becki Kieffer and Kevin Kieffer of Ross, Dixon & Bell. The hearing in Orange County Superior Court is set for Oct. 28.

"Dr. Alnor's comments were well-researched and completely in the scope of the law. He has done nothing wrong. This kind of suit is exactly the reason the California Legislature passed the anti-SLAPP law, which allows suits that chill freedom of expression to be thrown out of court quickly," stated Peter Eliasberg, Managing Attorney of the ACLU of Southern California.

Dr. Alnor, the son of a United Methodist minister, is the author of several books and is both a writer and an educator. He has been involved in evangelical causes since the late 1970s.

"My Web site is in the public interest," Alnor said. "What I publish is well researched and I stand behind it all. I think it's appalling that the Christian Research Institute would try to hide the truth by filing a frivolous lawsuit."

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it would no longer pursue legal action against an Orange County-based adoption agency after the agency signed a binding agreement with the state that it would no longer discriminate against applicants based on sexual orientation.

"There are 500,000 children in foster care in the U.S., many in temporary emergency facilities awaiting foster families or adoption. By denying us placement solely because we are lesbians, Olive Crest was ignoring the needs of the children the state had placed in their care," said Shannon Rose, M.D., a pediatrician and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics who brought the lawsuit along with her partner Jane Brooks, a lawyer specializing in family law. "We are pleased that our lawsuit has helped to force Olive Crest to abandon its discriminatory policy."

The ACLU brought a discrimination lawsuit against Olive Crest Foster Family and Adoption Agency on May 1, 2003 on behalf of Rose and Brooks. They applied to Olive Crest to become foster parents in July 2002. Shortly thereafter they were told by a social worker at the agency that they were 'pre-certified' for placement. But in September 2002, they were notified by the agency that their application had been suspended and were informed of a new recruitment policy that gave preferential treatment to "nuclear families." Rose and Brooks were further informed by their social worker - who quit her job over Olive Crest's handling of their case - that this policy was implemented to discriminate against lesbian and gay applicants.

"Decisions about adoption and foster care placement should be based on what's best for the children, not on discriminatory policies that bar placements with lesbian and gay people," said Christine Sun, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Decades of research have found that gay people are just as capable of being good parents as straight people and their children are just as well adjusted."

The discriminatory treatment of Rose and Brooks by Olive Crest motivated the state to pursue its own legal action against the agency. In April 2005, Olive Crest entered into a settlement agreement with the state that it would strike its policy of favoring "nuclear families" and no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation. The agreement puts the agency on probation for two years. If Olive Crest is found to have violated the agreement during the probationary period, the agency's license will be automatically revoked.

"Now that Olive Crest appears to have ended its discriminatory practices, there's no need to continue this lawsuit. If, however, we find they are not living up to their end of the bargain, you can bet we'll be notifying the state," added Sun.

Attorneys Jilana Miller, Connie Tcheng and Jessie Sisgold from the San Diego office of the Heller Ehrman White and McAuliffe assisted the ACLU with the case.