On Friday, February 26, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to adopt the Department of Recreation & Parks' "Raise The Bar" program for girls' equity in the City's sports and recreation programs.

The ACLU applauds the City Council vote, the efforts of the Department, the Board of Commissioners, and the City Council Arts, Health & Humanities Committee for demonstrating leadership in seeking to improve gender equity in the City's sports and recreation programs. The "Raise The Bar" program is the first step in ensuring that in the not-too-distant future all girls in the City of Los Angeles can fully participate in and enjoy the breadth of programs and activities provided by the City.

"This case has presented a challenge, as well as an opportunity, for the leadership in the City of Los Angeles, to show the rest of the nation that our city is committed to treating all of its young people - regardless of gender - equally, " said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California. "Our is the first case in the nation that test whether municipalities must be compelled to treat girls' sports no differently from boy's sports. We are pleased that as a result of our lawsuit, the City of Los Angeles has demonstrated its commitment to equality for girls' athletics by adopting this important program."

The "Raise The Bar" program was proposed by the City following a lawsuit (Baca v. City of Los Angeles) filed by the ACLU-SC with co-counsel from the California Women's Law Center and the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler alleging that girls in Los Angeles did not have equal access to the many athletic and recreational programs, services and facilities sponsored by the City through its Department of Recreation and Parks. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit contended that the City had never adequately addressed the unequal and discriminatory treatment of girls who wanted to participate in City sponsored sports and recreation programs or have equal access to City owned facilities.

Washington, DC -- The Supreme Court today ruled that immigrants have no right to object to being targeted for deportation based on their association with a political group. In an astounding decision that reached an issue neither party had even briefed, the Court effectively denied to all immigrants in this country the same First Amendment rights that U.S. citizens enjoy.

The case arose out of the government's longstanding efforts to deport eight noncitizens for their political associations and activities. The noncitizens -- seven Palestinians and a Kenyan -- were arrested more than a decade ago by the INS and charged with being associated with a group that "advocates world communism," then a deportable offense under the McCarran-Walter Act. From the outset, the government has admitted that none of the eight engaged in any criminal or terrorist activities, and has admitted that it singled them out for deportation based on their political ties, distribution of literature, communication with other members, and humanitarian aid fundraising.

The INS instituted the deportation proceedings in 1987, accusing the eight of associating with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a constituent group of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Documents in the court record show that it did so at the behest of the FBI, which urged the INS to deport the eight in order to hamper the political activities of the PFLP in the LA area, even though the FBI concedes it found no evidence of criminal conduct by the group.

In one document, the FBI specifically urges the deportation of one of the eight because he is "intelligent, aggressive, and has great leadership ability," and therefore incapacitating him would hamper the group.

The Supreme Court ruled that a 1996 immigration statute barred the immigrants from seeking federal court review at any time of their selective prosecution claims, and then went on to rule that this raised no constitutional problems because aliens have no First Amendment right to object to being singled out for deportation based on their political associations. In doing so, it reached an issue that it had specifically declined to take up when it accepted review, and did so without any briefing from the parties.

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and attorney with the Center for constitutional Rights, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, "We are not only disappointed; we were blindsided. The Court has denied to all immigrants in this country the right to engage in the same political activities that citizens have an unquestioned First Amendment right to engage in. And it did so after telling us not to address the question. The Court has denied immigrants the right to speak without even allowing them to be heard on that question."

Marc Van Der Hout, of the National Lawyers Guild, and co-counsel in the case, said: "Justice Scalia's opinion is nothing short of outrageous. It relegates immigrants to a second-class status that is reminiscent of the political witchhunts of the McCarthy era, which were initially embraced and then repudiated by history. Our nation of immigrants is now being forced into political silence, chilled from speaking out about injustices in their homeland and this country."

"Today's decision has removed a critical constitutional safeguard against discriminatory enforcement of the immigration laws," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU's Immigrant's Rights Project. "The government now has free rein to target immigrants for deportation based on their lawful political activities."

The immigrants are represented by the Center for constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU National Office, and Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal.

The California Office of AIDS has promised to revise its existing jail policy so that all HIV-positive inmates, regardless of what charges are pending against them, will have access to life saving HIV medications. This development, which will help prevent jail terms from becoming de facto death sentences for those with HIV, is credited to the tireless efforts of ACLU Staff Attorney Mary Sylla and was featured prominently in Special Council Merrick J. Bobb's semi-annual report on Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD).

The jail medication crisis surfaced in early 1998 when the LASD was denied reimbursement for HIV medications by the California office administering the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), a combined state and federal effort to provide HIV medication to persons without health insurance.

Previously, ADAP had reimbursed the LASD approximately $1 million a year for the medication distributed in the jails, but in 1998, the California agency administering ADAP ceased reimbursing based upon an inaccurate factual information about the obligation of other governmental entities to reimburse the Sheriff's Department.

With the support of the LASD, ACLU Staff Attorney Mary Sylla asked the California Office of AIDS to reconsider its position, and on January 20, 1999, the agency revised its policy, noting in a letter that her efforts had "resulted in an extensive review of our policy . . ." The reimbursement will free up $1 million that the County would otherwise be obliged to spend on medication.

"The state office of AIDS has done the right thing ," said Sylla. "People in jail desperately need these HIV medications. Revising this policy proves that they truly care about those most in need.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept Commander Dennis Dahlman added, "We're thrilled. We're going to reapply for those funds and will anxiously await reimbursement from the State."

The ACLU, along with the HIV & AIDS Legal Services Alliance, first sought the change in policy in a June 24, 1998 letter. More than six months later the Office of AIDS responded, paving the way for the Sheriffs Department to seek reimbursement again. The Sheriff's Department will begin receiving these reimbursements as soon as the mechanism for qualifying inmates for ADAP can be set up, likely within the next several months.