LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union and the State of California today announced they had reached a settlement agreement in the class action education lawsuit Williams v. California. The suit was filed by the ACLU, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), Public Advocates, Inc. and other groups on behalf of California students who attended substandard schools in California.

"This is a watershed moment for public education in California," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. "With this settlement, Governor Schwarzenegger has held California accountable for assuring equal educational opportunity for all of its children, ending decades of neglect and indifference. Equally important, it sets standards for access to books, teachers and clean and safe facilities and holds districts accountable for meeting those standards in our lowest performing schools."

"Fifty years after Brown, the dream will no longer be deferred," he continued.

The Williams lawsuit, originally filed in May of 2000, charged the state with reneging on its constitutional obligation to provide students with the bare essentials necessary for education: sufficient instructional materials, adequate learning facilities, qualified teachers, etc. Then-governor Gray Davis decided to fight the suit and retained a private law firm to litigate the case, costing tax-payers at least $18 million.

The settlement requires that all students have books and that their schools be clean and safe. It takes steps toward assuring they have qualified teachers and it holds schools accountable for delivering these fundamental elements to students. It provides nearly $1 billion to accomplish these goals: $800 million over four years to make emergency repairs in the lowest performing schools (those ranked in the bottom 3 deciles under the statewide Academic Performance Index [API]); nearly $139 million for new instructional materials for students attending schools in the bottom two API deciles; $20 million to inventory facilities needs in the lowest performing schools and $30 million to build County Superintendents' capacity to oversee low performing schools and fund emergency repairs in those schools next year.

The settlement requires legislation to:

' Provide financial assistance to repair low performing schools through a new $800 million School Facilities Emergency Repairs Account;

' Create new standards for instructional materials and facilities, and require the Concept 6 (shortened school year) calendar to be eliminated by 2012.

' Post instructional materials and facilities standards in all classrooms;

' Collect data on compliance with these standards, and teacher requirements;

' Verify this data;

' Intervene in decile 1-3 schools if the instructional materials and facilities standards are no met, and in any district having difficulty attracting, retaining or properly assigning teachers;

' Improve the teacher supply by streamlining requirements for out-of-state credentialed teachers to earn California credentials;

' Create a School Facilities Needs Assessment program;

' Require each district to implement a facilities inspection system; and

' Include new schools in the High Priority Schools Grant Program when current schools are phased out.

"We became involved in this case because conditions at my son Eli's school were dismal and unacceptable," said Sweetie Williams, father of Eli Williams, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. "When I saw the education my son was receiving I became very concerned about my son's future and wanted to do something. Being part of this case has shown me that it only takes one person to stand up when there are good people standing behind you."

"I couldn't be happier about this settlement," he continued.

"I have been privileged to represent in this case some of the strongest champions of social justice I will ever meet: students who know they and their siblings and peers deserve better and who were willing to stand up for themselves and for others."

"This historic agreement would not have been possible without the Governor's commitment and leadership on this issue," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "This settlement will bring real results to the millions of school children in California who are not being given a fair shot at a decent education."

SAN FRANCISCO - Today the California Supreme Court ruled that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and declared the licenses issued to thousands of same-sex couples invalid. The ruling does not address whether same-sex couples must be allowed to marry under the California Constitution. That issue is being litigated in a separate lawsuit brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the ACLU. Legal briefs are being filed in that lawsuit in the next few weeks, and the case is expected to move quickly in state court.

More than 4,000 couples and their families are directly affected by the Court's decision today, depriving these families of equal dignity as well as of the many legal protections granted to married couples under California law. Among the families are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on February 12, 2004.

"Del is eighty-three years old and I am seventy-nine," said Phyllis Lyon. "After being together for more than fifty years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time." One very real consequence of the Court's action is that if one of the women were to die before the other, the surviving partner would have no right to social security or pension benefits and no protection against losing their family home.

In its decision today, the Court did not rule on the ultimate issue of whether excluding same-sex couples from obtaining government-issued marriage licenses violates the California Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty, and privacy. That question is at the center of cases currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court, including Woo v. Lockyer, an action on behalf of several same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Families Coalition filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU in March, and a case on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, brought by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. These cases are similar to a Massachusetts lawsuit that led to a decision last year ordering government officials to issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples statewide. In another similar case, a Washington State trial court judge ruled last week that a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's Constitution.

"While today's decision by the California Supreme Court saddens those of us who believe in marriage equality it only serves to strengthen our determination to see that all Californians are treated as equal under law," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.

"This is a painful and difficult day for the thousands of couples whose love, commitment and desire to protect their families was placed on hold," said Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "While their families are not yet treated equally, their courageous public declarations have shown the world the harm caused by marriage discrimination and will result in our ultimately obtaining the freedom to marry."

"It is important to remember that today's decision says nothing about whether California can continue to discriminate against our families," said Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal.

While the challenge to the present law governing the issuance of marriage licenses moves forward in the courts, a simultaneous effort to change that law legislatively is also moving forward. The Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act, legislation, which is being carried by San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno and officially sponsored by Equality California, became the first marriage equality bill to pass a legislative body when it was passed by both the Assembly Rules and Judiciary Committees earlier this year.

"Denying one group of people a government issued license for the sole purpose of discriminating against them and their children flies in the face of everything that has made California great," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, sponsor of the legislation and party to the litigation on behalf of its members. "These 4000 families, and hundreds of thousands of other families headed by same-sex couples, deserve nothing less than equality and we are confident that the courts and the legislature will remedy this injustice."

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California announced on Tuesday that it will offer free legal representation to all persons in the Southern California area who are questioned by the FBI in its latest dragnet interview program.

The ACLU/SC's announcement came in response to statements from local FBI officials that they plan to question, and in fact are in the process of questioning, at least several hundred Muslims and others of South Asian, Middle Eastern, and North African descent in Southern California as part of a national initiative to interview several thousand people. In keeping with similar initiatives in the recent past, the FBI has stated that the persons targeted for questioning are not suspected of any criminal activity.

"None of the interviewees is a suspect, but going in alone for an FBI interview can be very scary, no matter who you are," said Ahilan T. Arulanantham, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Having an attorney present helps calm a person's fears and ensures that his or her rights are protected."

In past FBI interviews, subjects have complained of intrusive questions about religious beliefs and political opinions.

The ACLU/SC has offered to arrange free legal representation for all those whom the FBI seeks to interview. The organization also called on the FBI to inform interviewees of their options for legal representation.

"The FBI once again appears to be targeting people for questioning based on their religion, ethnicity, or national origin, even though it suspects them of no wrongdoing whatsoever," said Arulanantham. "This kind of profiling spreads fear and mistrust throughout the community."

The ACLU and other community groups have questioned the effectiveness of dragnet style interview programs that have taken place since the attacks of 9/11. Such interviews are reported to have alienated the very communities the government is attempting to gather information from.