LOS ANGELES ? The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), together with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and screeners from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), announced today that they are filing a lawsuit today challenging the new citizenship requirement for airport screeners enacted as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act last November. Under the new law, thousands of trained, experienced workers will be terminated no later than November 19, 2002.

"Taking qualified, experienced screeners off the job because of their citizenship status won't make anyone safer," said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU/SC. "By eliminating thousands of skilled, qualified, and experienced screeners solely on the basis of their citizenship status, and replacing those workers with people who have no on-the-job training or experience, we are opening the door to unnecessary security risks at our airports."

At SFO, where non-citizens comprise 80% of the screener workforce, screeners themselves advocated for higher security standards, improved background checks, and more rigorous employment qualifications for screeners, resulting in one of the nation's best records of airport security.

The citizenship requirement would bar legal immigrants from working as airport screeners even though no such requirement exists for members of the U.S. military, airline pilots, baggage handlers, flight attendants, cargo loaders, mechanics, guards, and plane cleaners.

"I was very upset when I heard that non-U.S. citizens would be fired from the job," said Jeimy Gebin, named plaintiff in the suit and a legal U.S. resident who took a job as a screener at LAX after serving in the U.S. Army for three years. "It doesn't make sense that I can serve my country in the Army but not work in an airport as a screener. If I get fired because of this new law, I could enroll in the National Guard and be back in the airport two weeks later, standing behind the screeners holding a rifle. I believe this law won't make anyone safer, but it will hurt a lot of good, hard-working people."

"Americans want security, not scapegoating," said Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President of SEIU, the nation's largest union of immigrant workers. "Experienced, qualified, taxpaying immigrant screeners are part of the solution, not part of the problem. They should be allowed to remain on the job."

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California together with the law firm of Greines Martin, Stein & Richland, the American Library Association and the National Coalition Against Censorship are pleased to announce that the Norwalk-La Mirada High School district has agreed to return William Styron's acclaimed novel Sophie's Choice to the La Mirada High School library. The book was abruptly removed from the school's library after a parent complained about selected isolated portions of the novel.

The ACLU/SC stepped in after students expressed concern that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Shortly after hearing about the decision to pull the book from the school's library, the ACLU/SC together with Greines Martin, Stein & Richland sent a letter to the school district asking for the novel to be returned to the school's library. The American Library Association and the National Coalition Against Censorship, along with other organizations dedicated to free expression, also wrote letters to the district protesting the district's decision to remove the book. In response to that letter, the school district has agreed to return the book to the shelves of the La Mirada High School library.

"We are very pleased the school district has recognized the student's First Amendment rights and returned this classic novel to the school's library so that others will have a chance to read it as well," said Peter Eliasberg, Managing Attorney with the ACLU/SC. "Once the district was informed of the possible First Amendment violations, it was swift in reviewing and remedying the situation and we appreciate the prompt action."

Sophie's Choice by William Styron is a widely acclaimed novel dealing with the grueling experiences of a Holocaust survivor. It has received the National Book Award and was also made into an Oscar-winning film in which actress Meryl Streep delivers what is widely regarded as one of her best performances.

"This really is a victory for free speech, thankfully the district realized that the First Amendment applies to students as well," stated Jens Keopke of Greines Martin, Stein & Richland. "We are pleased that students will continue to have access to such a fine piece of literature."

LOS ANGELES -- A California Superior Court today reversed the conviction of a Santa Barbara man who was cited for violating the city's ordinance prohibiting sleeping, human habitation or camping in a recreational vehicle on city streets (Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 15.16.080). The court ruled that the City of Santa Barbara did not provide an adequate housing alternative to the man.

The defendant, David Ridley, his companion of four years Dena Conroy and their dog reside in a motor home (RV) which they normally park in various industrial parks throughout the city. On the evening of October 18, 2000 a police officer was called to the location of the couple's RV to investigate reports of a loud generator. The officer discovered that the noise was coming from within the RV and cited both Mr. Ridley and his companion with violating SBMC 15.16.080; the generator did not violate the city's noise ordinance. Mr. Ridley claimed that there was no alternative to residing in his RV because the only available option was a homeless shelter which did not allow pets, was unsanitary, would require him to be separated from his companion and most importantly required residents to listen to a religious message.

"The court's ruling rests on a crucial First Amendment principle: the state can't force citizens to give up religious freedom in exchange for personal liberty," said Ted Boutrous Jr. whose firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher argued the amicus brief on behalf of the ACLU of Southern California.

The court agreed with Mr. Ridley's claim that forcing a homeless person to either face criminal prosecution or be required to participate in a religious service violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also held that the Rescue Mission shelter was an inadequate affordable alternative for those who have nowhere to sleep.

"The court's reversal of the conviction was wonderful news," said Peter Eliasberg, Managing Attorney with the ACLU/SC. " It is bad enough that the city of Santa Barbara was trying to criminalize not having enough money to rent an apartment in a very expensive location. It was worse still that the city was forcing Mr. Ridley and Ms. Conroy to give up their religious freedom in order to stay out of jail. The participation of Tanya Acker and Ted Boutrous Jr. from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP is in the highest tradition of law firms doing great pro bono work."