The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has settled a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The suit stemmed from the County's grant of $2,500 to the Mission College Catholic Preparatory High School for a school theater production. The ACLU had argued that the grant violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution and Article IX and Article XVI of the California constitution, which prohibit government funding of sectarian schools and institutions.

We are very pleased to have settled this matter without the need for protracted litigation,. said ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg. "This suit sends a clear message that government should not be spending taxpayer money to fund sectarian schools."

As a result of the lawsuit and settlement, the grant to Mission College Catholic Preparatory High School has been withdrawn. In addition, the defendants have agreed to abide carefully by the provisions of the California and federal constitutions guaranteeing the separation of church and state and to reimburse the ACLU for its costs and attorneys' fees in bringing the suit.

The ACLU of Southern California today joined with community leaders in support of Maria Elena Durazo, president of Local 11 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union. On Thursday, Ms. Durazo completed an eleven day hunger-strike to draw attention to the union's four-year fight to win a written guarantee of job security for cafeteria workers and janitors at The University of Southern California. The ACLU, among other organizations and individuals supporting the union, have pledged to take up the hunger strike, each agreeing to go one day with only water.

The union is demanding that the university pledge, in writing, that it will not hire outside contractors to perform the jobs now handled by 360 union employees. The workers' contract expired in 1995, and despite the fact that USC and the union agreed on nearly all terms of a renewal, a new contract has not been signed because the university will not agree to subcontracting services.

"This is a matter of principle, a matter of simple economic justice," said ACLU Executive Director Ramona Ripston. "We stand in solidarity with Maria and all of the members of Local 11 who continue to demand fairness and justice from USC."

Beatriz Lopez Flores, vice-president of Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) said, "It's critically important that the rights of workers are protected by providing some measure of security in agreements between USC and its empployees. We recognize and are very appreciative of Maria's dedication to achieving this goal."

Edward Asner, the prominent actor and activist said in a statement of support, "If the ivory tower cannot render fair employment conditions to those workers on its lower rungs, can we actually call it a center of intelligent learning? Bravo, Maria! May your hardship produce results for your people who in turn are our people."

The United States Supreme Court today ruled states cannot pay lower welfare benefits to new residents than to longtime residents.The 7-2 decision said California's limit on benefits for new residents violates the constitutional right to travel.

Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens of the state wherein they reside,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. ``The states, however, do not have any right to select their citizens.'' Stevens continued, ``The state's legitimate interest in saving money provides no justification for its decision to discriminate among equally eligible citizens.''

ACLU Legal Director Mark D. Rosenbaum, who argued the case before the Court, said, . This morning's decision by the United States Supreme Court invalidating California's durational residency requirement for welfare recipients reaffirms the principle that states may not fence out poor migrants.�_ In our constitutional system, citizens select states; states do not select citizens. The decision will be especially welcomed by mothers and their children fleeing domestic violence who may now settle in California secure that they will not be denied necessary assistance until they can secure employment.

California's policy would have given people who lived in the state for less than a year only the amount of welfare they would have received in their previous home state. Fourteen other states have similar laws.

A federal welfare overhaul enacted by Congress in 1996 specifically allowed states to temporarily provide lower benefits for new residents. But the justices said today Congress cannot authorize states to enact policies that violate the constitution.

The Court's ruling effectively voids provisions of the federal welfare reform legislation passed by Congress which authorized residency requirements like California's, said Rosenbaum. None of those measures survives today's decision.