ADELANTO, CA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, together with the law firm of Bingham McCutchen, today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Native American inmate who has faced serious disciplinary sanctions - including the loss of all visitation rights --for his refusal to comply with a California Department of Corrections grooming policy requiring all male inmates to maintain hair no longer than three inches in length. Billy Soza Warsoldier is a Cahuilla Native American whose religious beliefs prohibit him from cutting his hair except upon the death of a loved one.

"Punishing Warsoldier for practicing his religion is both unnecessary and illegal," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "A prison inmate shouldn't have to choose between remaining faithful to his religion and maintaining contact with his children and grandchildren."

Billy Soza Warsoldier is currently incarcerated at the Adelanto Community Correctional Facility in Adelanto, California. Mr. Warsoldier is a Cahuilla Native American. Both the Cahuilla tribe and the federal government have recognized his status as a Cahuilla. According to Mr. Warsoldier's faith, his long hair embodies the strength and wisdom he has acquired over his lifetime, and he would lose that strength and wisdom, and jeopardize his status in the afterlife, if he were to cut it. Therefore, since 1971, Mr. Warsoldier has cut his hair only once, upon his father's death in 1980.

"I don't understand why I'm being punished for practicing my faith," said Billy Soza Warsoldier, who is serving time for a non-violent offense. "My tradition tells me that if I cut my hair, I may face taunting and ridicule from deceased members of my tribe. I would prefer to take the state's punishment than violate my faith."

As a result of his refusal to cut his hair in compliance with the prison's grooming policy, Mr. Warsoldier has lost visitation rights, has been removed from prison vocational courses, and is prohibited from receiving quarterly packages, among other sanctions.

The ACLU of Southern California and Bingham McCutchen are asking the court to enjoin prison officials from enforcing the grooming policy against Mr. Warsoldier. In addition, all disciplinary sanctions imposed on Mr. Warsoldier as a consequence of his non-compliance with the grooming policy should be removed.

"Bingham McCutchen has a long history of providing pro bono representation to California prison inmates in such areas as health care, disability accommodations, and systemic due process violations," said Nora Cregan, partner in Bingham McCutchen's San Francisco office and chair of the firm's pro bono committee. "Mr. Warsoldier's case extends that commitment to the area of religious freedom, and we are proud to team with the ACLU to represent Mr. Warsoldier in his effort to vindicate his right to practice his religion. There is no reason why prison officials cannot accommodate Mr. Warsoldier's sincere religious beliefs that require him not to cut his hair."

WASHINGTON - Marking the first time Supreme Court has been asked to review whether federal courts have jurisdiction to hear human rights claims brought by foreign citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in two closely watched international human rights law cases that will come before the Court tomorrow.

In the two consolidated cases, the Court will review the right of a Mexican national who was kidnapped at the direction of U.S. officials to sue both his kidnapper and the U.S. government.

"What is at stake here is the right of survivors of human rights abuses to seek redress for their grievances, including torture, forced labor and sexual slavery," said Paul Hoffman, former legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, who has been litigating the cases since 1990 and will appear before the Justices tomorrow. "These cases send a message around the world that human rights abusers -- including the U.S. government -- are not above the law and cannot escape responsibility for their acts."

In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 03-339, the ACLU is defending Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain's right to bring civil claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act against Francisco Sosa, who had been hired by officials at the Drug Enforcement Agency to kidnap Dr. Alvarez-Machain at his office in Guadalajara, Mexico. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 03-485, the ACLU is also defending Dr. Alvarez-Machain's right to bring claims against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for its role in arranging his kidnapping.

The Alien Tort Claims Act, enacted in 1789 and contained within the nation's first Judiciary Act, will be a central legal matter of deliberation before the Court. The Act, which the Court is reviewing for the first time, allows non-U.S. citizens to bring civil lawsuits for human rights abuses committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

Siding with Sosa, the Bush Administration seeks to reverse the widely shared consensus of U.S. federal courts which since 1980 have recognized that violations of widely held international human rights norms can be redressed in U.S. courts. The Administration has also been joined by a number of multi-national businesses that are seeking to avoid potential liability under ATCA for any alleged complicity in human rights violations.

Dr. Alvarez-Machain was eventually awarded $25,000 in damages in his case against Sosa. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Sosa -- supported by the Bush Administration -- is arguing that the Alien Tort Claims Act does not create a right to sue and the lawsuit therefore should have been dismissed.

Central to the second case, United States v. Alvarez-Machain, is the fundamental question of whether a person kidnapped by hired contractors of a U.S. government agency has the right to hold the United States accountable for those illegal actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

As the lower courts have found, Dr. Alvarez-Machain's kidnapping was planned and supervised by DEA officials in the U.S. so that he could stand trial in the U.S. for his alleged role in the murder of a DEA agent in Mexico. In dismissing the case, the presiding judge called the government's charges against Dr. Alvarez-Machain "wild hunches and speculation."

After Dr. Alvarez-Machain was acquitted, he brought a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The U.S. government has argued that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not apply to activities that take place in other countries. However, the lower courts have generally found the FTCA applies when the unlawful activity was directed by government officials located in the United States -- an exception known as the "headquarters doctrine."

"Now the Supreme Court is faced with the decision either to affirm the role of U.S. courts in enforcing basic human rights principles or to concur with the Administration's claim that human rights violators can obtain a safe haven in the United States," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU.

"Both cases will likely have an important impact on efforts to use U.S. courts to curb governmental and non-governmental abuses beyond our borders," Shapiro added. "More broadly, the ACLU's participation in these cases represents yet another step in our increased efforts to press international human rights norms in the U.S. courts as an added layer of protection for civil liberties."

Next month, the Court will have another opportunity to review U.S. actions with regard to international law, in challenges to the government's denial of due process to U.S. citizens designated as "enemy combatants" and to the indefinite detention of hundreds of foreign nationals at a military base in Guant'namo Bay, Cuba. The ACLU is participating as a "friend of the court" in those cases. For more information, go to http://www.aclu.org/court/courtmain.cfm

The ACLU's brief in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain is online at http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=15152&c=261

The ACLU's brief in United States v. Alvarez-Machain is online at

http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=15153&c=261

LOS ANGELES - This morning, the ACLU of Southern California, together with the ACLU of Northern California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit arguing that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty, and privacy.

The suit was filed on behalf of six same-sex couples, five of whom had upcoming appointments to obtain marriage licenses at San Francisco's City Hall. The couples had their appointments cancelled as a result of the California Supreme Court's order yesterday directing San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Two organizations, Our Family Coalition and Equality California, are also parties in the case.

"We have an opportunity here to end marriage discrimination in California," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Loving, committed same-sex couples should not be denied the rights extended to all other Californians under the state's Constitution."

The couples in the suit:

' Lancy Woo and Cristy Chung have been in a committed relationship for 16 years. They have a five-year old daughter, Olivia. Lancy and Cristy had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall on March 30th.

' Joshua Rymer and Timothy Frazer have been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years. Joshua and Tim met in 1994 and exchanged wedding rings in a private ceremony in 1995. They had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall at 2:00 P.M. on March 17th and were planning to have a small ceremony at City Hall, to be followed by a reception and renewal of vows at their home in Sonoma.

' Jewell Gomez and Diane Sabin have been together for 11 years. Jewell is a writer and the Program Director at the San Francisco Arts Commission. Diane is a chiropractor. Diane and Jewell had obtained an application for a marriage license and intended to marry.

' Myra Beals and Ida Matson are 61 and 68 years old, respectively, and have been in a committed relationship for 27 years. They had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall on Friday, March 12, 2004 - one day after the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Friends and family had made plans to join them in San Francisco on March 12 to celebrate their marriage with them.

' Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker have been together in a committed relationship for three and a half years. Arthur and Devin had an appointment to get married at San Francisco Hall at 3:00 P.M. on March 11th. They bought wedding rings and arrived at San Francisco City Hall about 2:45 P.M. on March 11, along with several family members and friends who were there to witness and celebrate their wedding. Arthur and Devin were in the process of completing an application for a marriage license when they were informed that no further marriage licenses would be issued to same-sex couples.

' Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper have been together in a committed relationship for 15 years. Jeanne and Pali had an appointment to get married at San Francisco City Hall at 3:00 P.M. on March 11th. They arrived at San Francisco City Hall on that date, accompanied by about fifty family members and friends, including many who had traveled from out of state to attend their wedding celebration. Jeanne and Pali were on the steps of City Hall with their family members when they were told that no more marriage licenses would be granted.

The two organizational plaintiffs in the suit:

' Our Family Coalition is a San Francisco Bay Area organization dedicated to promoting the civil rights and well being of families of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members.

' Equality California is the leading state-wide advocacy group protecting the needs and interests of same-sex couples and their children in California.