LOS ANGELES - A federal district court ruled Friday that a proposed transfer of the federal land on which a Latin cross sits in the Mojave National Preserve to a private party is unconstitutional.

Judge Robert J. Timlin, who held in July 2002 that the cross situated on a prominent rock in the preserve violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, ruled that an obscure section of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2004 Act designed to facilitate the exchange of the land on which the cross sits to the Veterans of Foreign Wars "violates (the) court's judgment ordering a permanent injunction" to remove the cross.

"The judge's decision sends a clear message that the federal government should not endorse one religion over another," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The courts have consistently held that the cross in the Mojave National Preserve violates the First Amendment."

In his ruling, Judge Timlin wrote: "It is evident to the court that the government has engaged in herculean efforts to preserve the Latin cross on federal land and that the proposed transfer of the subject property can only be viewed as an attempt to keep the Latin cross atop Sunrise Rock without actually curing the continuing Establishment Clause violation by Defendants."

Eliasberg said the decision clears the way for removal of the cross.

The Mojave Desert cross sits on a federal land preserve in southeastern California between the cities of Barstow, Calif. and Las Vegas, Nevada. The preserve encompasses roughly 1.6 million acres of the Mojave Desert. The cross itself is located in a section of the preserve known as Sunrise Rock and has been covered by a plywood box since 2002.

Last summer the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous decision by Judge Timlin that the presence of a cross located on the federal Mojave Desert Preserve is a sectarian religious symbol and violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit's opinion was written by Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.

The Ninth Circuit did not address whether Section 8121 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2004 would allow the federal government to swap the land for other desert land or if the section "would pass constitutional muster."

The National Park Service (NPS), the agency that is charged with maintaining the cross, had been on notice about First Amendment violations since 1999 when the ACLU/SC sent a letter threatening legal action if the cross were not removed. In December of 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives added a rider to an appropriations bill that prevented the use of federal funds to remove the cross.

SACRAMENTO - A broad coalition of privacy rights, women, consumer, and conservative groups are supporting a bill introduced by Bay Area Sen. Joe Simitian that would prohibit any document created by the state, county, or municipal government from containing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag or other device that can broadcast an individual's personal information. The tags are tiny devices with miniature antennae that can broadcast personal information or enable that information to be scanned remotely.

"This bill is all about protecting people's right to privacy, personal safety and financial security," Sen. Simitian said. "This measure will protect families and individuals from having their most private information broadcast to anyone who is able to collect it. My hope is that state and local government will be part of the solution, not part of the problem."

RFIDs are already widely used in the retail sector to track product inventory and chip readers are readily available to those outside government. The personal information that can be broadcast from documents like driver's licenses includes an individual's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, photograph, fingerprint, social security number and any other unique personal identifier or number. Such personal information can then be read remotely without one's knowledge.

The information contained in the tags can also be used for the purposes of stalking or kidnapping and for identity theft. Last year, more than 39,000 Californians were victims of identity theft and these devices would make that crime even easier to commit. RFID's embedded in public employee identification tags and other official documents could also enable the government to track the movements of the document-bearer.

The legislation was introduced on Feb. 23, days after a company in Sutter, Calif. withdrew its pilot program from an elementary school when parents successfully petitioned to have the radio frequency identification tags removed. The students were required to wear the ID badges that included the device along with the student's name, photo, grade, school name, class year and the four-digit school ID number.

"We fully support this legislation that will protect families throughout California. We don't want to see our children treated like pieces of inventory with their personal information made available to anyone that has the right technology," said Jeffrey and Michele Tatro, parents of a thirteen-year old Sutter elementary student who had to wear the mandatory device. "No person should ever be forced to carry an RFID tag. It violates fundamental rights to privacy, it is demeaning, and it threatens our family's physical and economic security."

"These types of tracking devices lessen security," said Pam Noles, a policy associate with the ACLU of Southern California. "By allowing the bearer's personal details and location to be pinpointed with ease, RFID-enabled badges compromise safety."

Beth Givens, founder and executive director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, added: "This bill will protect students, families and individuals who are required to carry government issued IDs. In addition, public employees should not be put in a situation where their document enables them to be monitored and tracked by anyone who has the right technology."

The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumer Action, the California Commission on the Status of Women, California National Organization for Women, and the Statewide California Coalition for Battered Women are supporting the bill.

SACRAMENTO - The American Civil Liberties Union today cheered a decision by California's Court of Appeal throwing out a legal challenge by anti-gay activists to the state's comprehensive domestic partnership law.

"Today's decision is a great victory for the many families who have had to worry that they would lose the protections that our legislature chose to provide same-sex couples and their families through its domestic partnership law," said Christine Sun, a staff attorney for the ACLU. "Many couples can rest easier knowing that there are protections for their families during times of crisis."

Today's decision affirms an earlier trial court decision dismissing challenges to the domestic partnership law brought by Campaign for California Families and Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund that claimed the law violated a California law that bans recognition of marriages by same-sex couples from other states.

"While we are grateful for today's decision, it only underscores the fact that the law still comes up far short of full marriage rights," added Sun. "Lesbian and gay Californians who make the same types of commitments that married couples make shouldn't be denied the right to marry."

Equality California, as well as 12 California couples who are registered domestic partners, petitioned the court and were allowed to participate in the lawsuits brought by the anti-gay groups. The legal team representing Equality California and the 12 couples includes the Law Office of David C. Codell, the ACLU and its affiliates in Northern California, Southern California and San Diego, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal.

AB 205, which went into effect on January 1, 2005, provides registered domestic partners with many important protections and significant responsibilities. Protections for families headed by same-sex couples include: community property, mutual responsibility for debt, parenting rights and obligations such as custody and support, and the ability to claim a partner's body after death. The law does not allow for joint tax filing and certain other protections under state law, and does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that married couples enjoy.