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.

The ACLU launched the " Driving While Black or Brown (DWB)" campaign to address race-based traffic stops by the police. In an effort to reach the Asian community, outreach materials have been translated into several Asian languages, including Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog and Japanese. The Asian outreach project differs from the English and Spanish campaign in that there is no hotline available in the Asian languages. Translators who speak Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog and Japanese will call people directly after a request form and/or a survey has been completed. Request forms and surveys are in their native languages. We hope to expand the number of languages to include Laotian and Cambodian in the near future.

Translated materials are being sent to Asian and Pacific Islander organizations throughout the state. Our goal is to include the Asian community in the discussions concerning hate crimes, police harrassment and other civil rights issues. ACLU/SC Field Director, Kimi Lee stated . Too often Asians and Asian Americans are not seen as people of color who face prejudice and discrimination. We do not want language barriers to continue this type of separation or isolation.

In addition to supporting California Senate Bill SB78, which would mandate that data on race in police traffic stops be collected and reported by the Department of Justice, the ACLU has set up a toll-free number (1-877- DWB STOP and 1-877-PARA LOS) where people leave their name and address and are then sent a survey about the incident. Recently, the ACLU expanded the campaign beyond the hotline and now has radio ads and billboards in English and Spanish.

The ACLU encourages Asian Americans to call the 1-877-DWB-STOP hotline. For translated materials and speakers, please contact the ACLU of Southern California.

Medical care shouldn't be hazardous to your health. Yet that's exactly what it is for the majority of lesbians and gay men. Studies have consistently shown that as with people of color and other minority groups gay men and lesbians are frequently discriminated against in healthcare.

This means that the experience of Michelle Dupont is not an isolated incident. That is why the ACLU of Southern California filed a civil rights suit Wednesday, May 12, on Ms. Dupont's behalf in Superior Court against her former healthcare providers: Health Net Life Insurance Company, Bristol Park Medical Group, and Dr. Ronald Axtell.

In June of 1998, having just received her health benefits from her new employer, Michelle Dupont was seen for an initial appointment with Dr. Ronald Axtell, who was to be her primary care physician. During the course of the appointment, Dr. Axtell asked Ms. Dupont what type of birth control she used, and she replied that she did not use birth control because she is a lesbian. Immediately after the exam, Dr. Axtell told Ms. Dupont that, in the future, she needed to see a different doctor because he did not approve of "what" she was. Ms. Dupont asked if this was because she was a lesbian, and Dr. Axtell replied, "Yes." He then made a notation in her medical records that he had told the patient that he could not continue to treat her because she is a lesbian.

In California, all businesses open to the public must treat their clients equally, without regard to differences such as race, gender, or sexual orientation, said ACLU Staff Attorney Taylor Flynn. The ACLU has filed suit on Ms. Dupont's behalf because no one should be denied adequate medical care based on prejudice.

Plaintiff Michelle Dupont said, "This is no different from the way African Americans in my family were treated 30 years ago. I deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other human being."