LOS ANGELES - In a ruling today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous federal district court decision that the presence of a cross located on the federal Mojave Desert Preserve is a religious symbol and violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Ninth Circuit's published opinion was written by Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.

"The Court took a look at this issue and concluded that the case couldn't be clearer: a religious symbol on government property violates the U.S. Constitution," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "At every level the courts have rightly agreed with this principle and there's no reason to believe that any amount of political grandstanding is going to impact years of established jurisprudence on these matters."

The cross in the Mojave desert sits on a federal land preserve in southeastern California between the cities of Barstow, California 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.

The National Park Service (NPS), the agency that is charged with maintaining the cross, has 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.

Last week, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agreed to remove a cross from the County's official seal rather than face costly litigation in what would likely be a losing court battle.

"The ruling couldn't be more timely," said Eliasberg. "And the message couldn't be clearer to those who would have the County engage in a costly, and losing battle to defend something that is Constitutionally indefensible. Those who suggest that a reasonable defense could be mounted against such a clear Constitutional violation are engaging in an uninformed, disingenuous campaign."

LOS ANGELES - In a stinging rebuke to the California Department of Corrections today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the release of Billy Soza Warsoldier, a Cahuilla Native American who had refused to cut his hair short on religious grounds, from the Adelanto Community Correctional Facility in Adelanto, California. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, together with the law firm of Bingham McCutchen, had filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Warsoldier after learning that he was being penalized for practicing his religion, a central tenet of which is the prohibition of cutting his hair except upon the death of a loved one. Mr. Warsoldier was denied visitation rights and other privileges for refusing to comply with the Department of Corrections' grooming policy, which stipulates that male inmates must keep their hair no longer than three inches.

The religious liberty suit was filed on behalf of Mr. Warsoldier on March 31st, 2004. On May 3, a federal district court sided with the state, denying Mr. Warsoldier's request for an injunction barring enforcement of the policy against him. At that time, Mr. Warsoldier was scheduled to be released from prison on May 21, 2004.

Only after the district court had denied the injunction was Mr. Warsoldier informed that, as a direct consequence of his refusal to violate his religion, he would be additionally punished by an extension of his time in prison until July 7, at the soonest. On May 21 - the date Mr. Warsoldier was to be released - the ACLU and Bingham McCutchen filed an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting that Mr. Warsoldier's punishments - including his additional prison time - be withdrawn immediately. The court granted the emergency request and ordered the state to release Mr. Warsoldier while his appeal is pending.

"We're very gratified by the court's decision," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Delaying Mr. Warsoldier's release for even one day as punishment for his adherence to his faith was a gross violation of his rights. We'll continue to fight this unjust policy until no inmate is made to suffer for practicing his religion."

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, at the time the case was filed. "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."

LOS ANGELES - As hundreds of same-sex couples in Massachusetts become the first in the country to obtain marriage licenses pursuant to a ruling by a state supreme court, lesbian and gay couples in California fervently hope that the legislature and courts will move quickly to end marriage discrimination in California as well.

"We are thrilled for the couples who have fought so hard to achieve this remarkable victory for equality in Massachusetts," said Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the first same-sex couple to be married in California after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of this year. "Fifty-one years ago when we began our life together, we couldn't have imagined this day would come, and yet even now, it is long overdue," said Lyon and Martin. "As we celebrate today with the couples in Massachusetts, we are keenly aware that lesbian and gay couples in California do not yet have a secure right to marry in our own state."

Lyon, 79, and Martin, 83, have been together for more than fifty-one years. They were married in California on February 12, 2004. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has asked the California Supreme Court to invalidate their marriage and that of the more than 4,000 other same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco.

On March 12, less than 24 hours after the California Supreme Court order issued an order directing San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Lancy Woo and Christy Chung, a lesbian couple who have been together for sixteen years and have a five year old daughter, filed a lawsuit seeking the right to marry. The lawsuit asserts that excluding lesbian and gay people from marriage violates the California Constitution.

"Like the many other lesbian and gay couples who love and commit to each other, we understand the deep desire on the part of same-sex couples in Massachusetts to secure respect and equality for their relationships," said Woo and Chung. "It is out of that desire that we have committed to be part of the lawsuit here in California that is challenging marriage discrimination and seeking to end the inequality faced by lesbian and gay couples in this state once and for all."

Woo and Chung, as well as nine other same-sex couples who wish to marry, are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the ACLU, and Lambda Legal. Equality California, the statewide advocacy group for LGBT people, and Our Family Coalition, a Bay Area advocacy group for same-sex parents and their children, are also plaintiffs in the case.

Equality California is also the organizational sponsor of AB 1967, Assemblyman Mark Leno's Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act, which would amend the California marriage statutes to permit same-sex couples to marry. On April 20, 2004, in an historic 8 to 3 vote, AB 1967 was voted favorably out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, marking the first time such a bill has received a favorable committee vote in any state legislature in the country.

On May 12, 2004, the Assembly Appropriations Committee placed the bill in suspense, pending the committee's review of a UCLA study showing that permitting same-sex couples to marry will save the state millions of dollars annually. "We are inspired by the tremendous courage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts, who refused to accept anything less than full equality and dignity for their families," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "We will not rest until we achieve the same safety, dignity, and protection for our families here."

"California couples deserve the same rights currently enjoyed by the people of Massachusetts," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Loving couples throughout the state should be allowed to fulfill their commitment to each other regardless of sexual orientation."

In addition to defending the City and County of San Francisco against the Attorney General's lawsuit challenging the City's authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, City Attorney Dennis Herrera has also filed a direct challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. That lawsuit has been consolidated with Woo v. Lockyer and is now proceeding in San Francisco Superior Court. On May 25, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Attorney General's lawsuit. City attorney Terry Stewart will argue on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco on that date.

For more information about the case and marriage equality visit www.nclrights.org, www.acnlu-sc.org, and www.eqca.org.