The ACLU California and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) will seek a Temporary Restraining Order from U.S. District Court Judge Lourdes Baird this afternoon at a 2:00 p.m. hearing to stop the state's largest school district from implementing Prop. 227, passed by voters June 3, that would abolish bilingual education programs in public schools throughout California. Plaintiffs filed the federal class action lawsuit [Diana Doe vs LAUSD - 98-6154 LGB (RZx)] yesterday.

More than half of Los Angeles Unified School Districts's 600,000 students currently participate in some form of bilingual education. Plaintiffs say that implementation of the measure will seriously disrupt their academic progress and jeopardize their access to an equal education.

Plaintiffs are making an as-applied challenge claiming that Prop. 227 violates the Equal Educational Opportunities Act that requires schools to serve the specific needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, and that the measure also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination based on national origin in any program receiving federal funds.

In papers submitted to the court, plaintiffs say that Los Angeles Unified School District's proposed Implementation Plan for Proposition 227 "cannot provide an adequate program of instruction for those multi-track schools scheduled to commence their term on August 3, 1998, or any time prior to adequate teacher training and curriculum development."

Plaintiffs charge that the district has not taken adequate steps to train teachers, develop effective curriculum, prepare students for English immersion or in an significant way ensure that any new program or policy will not harm the educational progress of LEP students.

ACLU staff attorney Rocio Cordoba said the measure will harm LEP students. "Prop 227 is a sweeping, unprecedented and educationally unsound policy that would force LAUSD and school districts state-wide to abandon local control and oversight over the best ways to serve the needs of their students. We cannot allow political whim or prejudice to destroy the academic progress of our children, particularly those most vulnerable. We are optimistic that the court will recognize the folly of destroying these programs because of political expediency."

In a strongly worded two-page letter sent this afternoon to United States Attorney Nora Manella, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California demands that authorities at the United States Federal Detention Center in Los Angeles give detainee Peter McWilliams his AIDS medications. The ACLU says that failure to provide these necessary medications violates Title II of the American with Disabilities Act that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled this year applies to persons with HIV and AIDS and the incarcerated.

McWilliams was arrested July 23 after being indicted by a federal grand jury for paying the rent of a property authorities allege was used to cultivate marijuana for sale. McWilliams, a best-selling author of such books as Life 101, is a strong proponent of medical use of marijuana. The text of the letter follows:

"The ACLU Foundation of Southern California ("ACLU") is writing to express its grave concern that prison authorities of the Federal Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles are in apparent violation of numerous federal laws as well as the U.S. constitution, by failing to provide adequate medical services for detainee and acclaimed author Peter McWilliams, who is gravely ill with AIDS and cancer. As the accompanying letter from his physician sets forth, Mr. McWilliams' health, and indeed his life, depend on strict adherence to his medication schedule six times per day. As his physician makes clear, altering or even missing one dose of his medication poses a direct threat to Mr. McWilliams' health. Federal authorities, however, apparently have denied Mr. McWilliams his medication for more than five days, already more than thirty doses.

"Denial of adequate medical services to a person suffering from AIDS or cancer is a clear violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ﾌ_ 12101 et seq. ans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ﾌ_ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). As you are no doubt aware, in a pair of decisions issued this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that the ADA applies to correctional facilities and to persons suffering from AIDS or HIV. Pa. Dep't. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998) (correctional facilities); Bragdon v. Abbott, 66 U.S.L.W. 4601 (1998) (AIDS and HIV).

"Denial of adequate medical treatment to persons with AIDS or cancer likewise violates several provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, 28 CFR 39.170 requires nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs conducted by the Department of Justice. In addition, 28 CFR 549.18(k) requires the delivery of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of AIDS infected inmates.

"Mr. McWilliams is extremely ill and his daily regimen of HIV medication is his only hope. Even missing a single dose provides the virus an opportunity to advance and potentially to mutate into a form of HIV which no drug can treat. Having AIDS also makes Mr. McWilliams unusually susceptible to airborne infections such as tuberculosis. Moreover, the plastic shoes issued to him reportedly have cut into his feet, leaving an open sore, and hence with the dangerous potential for infection.

"An author with 5 appearances on the New York Times Bestseller List, Mr. McWilliams presents no risk of flight and no danger to the community, yet he is incarcerated in condi tions which pose a grave risk to his health and in which he is denied crucial medical treatment. Placing his health and life in such jeopardy would certainly appear to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as an infringement of his substantive due process rights to appropriate medical care while in the custody of the government.

"Given the urgency of the situation, the ACLU expects that federal authorities will take immediate steps to guarantee effective medical treatment for Mr. McWilliams. If the necessary medical regimen, as described by Mr. McWilliams' physician in the accompanying letter, is not implemented at once, we will have no choice but to take legal action to ensure that Mr. McWilliams' rights are protected. Please contact me tomorrow, Friday July 31st to discuss this matter."

In the first case of its kind following the implementation of Proposition 209, civil rights advocates filed a federal class action lawsuit (Lucy's Sales et al. v. Contra Costa County) in U.S. District Court today. The suit charges that Contra Costa County systematically and intentionally excludes minority- and women-owned businesses from doing business with the County in violation of federal law.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the Employment Law Center, the ACLUs of Northern and Southern California and the private law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati filed the suit on behalf of businesses that are denied equal opportunity to bid for contracts with the County. The case is brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States constitution, as well as under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Proposition 209 must not be used as an excuse to close the door to women and minorities." said Dan Tokaji, an ACLU staff attorney. "This lawsuit is an effort to make sure the door is open to them. Unless affirmative steps are taken, women and minorities will continue to be denied an equal opportunity to compete."

Plaintiff Lucy Lacy, an African American woman who owns a supply company, has experienced the County's exclusionary policies firsthand. Despite the fact that she is certified by the County as a minority and woman-owned business and has repeatedly approached the County for business, County officials have never asked her to compete for a contract. "I can't even get my foot in the door," said Lacy. "All I want is a chance to compete, but the County's system is just closed off to anyone who's not in the `good ole boys' network."

Other named plaintiffs include Lidia Tarango, a Hispanic owner of a trucking company; Lisa Harrison, owner of Harrison's Consulting; Glen Fox, owner of a flooring business; and Frederick Jordan, an African American civil engineer. Several organizations representing the interests of minority- and women-owned businesses are also parties to the lawsuit, including the Contra Costa branches of the NAACP, the Northern California Latin Business Association, and the Coalition for Economic Equity.

Contra Costa County is the first local government in northern California to drop its affirmative action program in the wake of Proposition 209. The County's own statistics show that white male-owned businesses receive almost 99% of the $100 million in County contracts for goods and services each year.