The ACLU of Southern California has filed a federal lawsuit [Taylor vs City of Los Angeles 98-1979 GHK (RNBx)] against the City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Commission for violating the First Amendment rights of a 23-year-old muralist. The Commission prohibited Richard Taylor from installing a public mural at the Venice Graffiti Pit although his work had been approved by the Cultural Affairs Commission and the Social Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) which coordinated the project.

The lawsuit calls the City's action a violation of free speech under the federal and California constitutions. Further, the suit says action violates the Los Angeles Uniform Building Code which prohibits censorship of "an ideological, political or other non-commercial message on a sign," and an unconstitutional interpretation of the Code. Additionally, the suit claims that the Commission requires artists to waive their rights under the California Civil Code. The ACLU seeks an injunction to stop the City from blocking Taylor's work, a declaration that the City's action violates free speech, that the Uniform Building Code covers public and private property, and that requiring artists to waive their rights in unconstitutional.

Stephen Rohde, ACLU Board Member and cooperating attorney who is representing Taylor said, "The Commission violated Richard Taylor's constitutional rights by basing its decision on the political message of the work. Once a city opens a public forum such as the Venice Graffiti Pit, it cannot deny artists the right to exhibit based on an artist's point of view. This lawsuit embodies the principles that the courts have used to strike down content-based restrictions imposed in 1991 by the Congress on those receiving grants from the National Endowment for the Arts."

In November 1997 Taylor submitted his mural concept which shows a family, apparently immigrant, fleeing from a lurking boar while vultures holding television cameras film the scene. Speaking before the Recreation and Parks Commission, Taylor said his work embodies the tradition of Picasso and Thomas Nast in so far as it utilizes animal imagery to express their ideas. "This is my political idea of what I see going on around me every day and it's my First Amendment right to be able to portray this," Taylor said.

The Venice Graffiti Pit was historically a walled area where people painted navbar without approval or involvement by any public or private. Last year, during a scheduled clean up of the area by the City, the navbar were completely covered when the walls were painted.

The City worked with SPARC to coordinate mural projects following public outcry after the graffiti pit was painted over. Founded in Venice 21 years ago by muralist Judith Baca, SPARC produces public art projects throughout Los Angeles which employ thousands of city youth. Taylor's first image was approved by SPARC last summer, but was painted over because the Recreation and Parks Commission felt it depicted Los Angeles police officers negatively. While Taylor and SPARC objected to the Commission's action, Taylor offered to submit a new image which was rejected by Recreation and Parks Commission.

Taylor attended San Francisco State University and the Art Center College of Design. He has done murals for the AIDS Memorial Quilt and the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts may exclude members who are either gay or who refuse to affirm the existence of God in the Boy Scout oath. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California represented both a former Eagle Scout who was rejected as an adult member after his local scout council learned he was gay and twin brothers who refused to say the word "God" when they spoke the Boy Scout oath. The case of the gay scout is Curran v. Mt. Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America and that involving the twin boys is Randall v. Boy Scouts of America Orange County Council.
In these rulings the Court said the Unruh Civil Rights Act does not apply to the Boy Scouts because the Court does not recognize the organization as a business. Because this ruling pertains to state law, it may not be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Taylor Flynn, the ACLU of Southern California staff attorney who argued on behalf of the twins in Randall v. Boy Scouts of America Orange County Council, said, "This is not a victory that the Boy Scouts can be proud of. It tarnishes what that organization is supposed to embody: equal treatment for all boys."
Jon W. Davidson, Supervising Attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who argued on behalf of Timothy Curran for the ACLU, clarified that this ruling is limited to California's public accommodations statute. "Lambda and the ACLU are litigating this issue across the country. Most recently, in an ACLU case in Illinois, the City of Chicago agreed to withdraw sponsorship of the Boy Scouts based on the ACLU's claim that this violated separation of church and state. The Chicago Human Relations Commission likewise recently ruled that the Boy Scouts anti-gay policy violates its city anti-discrimination ordinance. Earlier this month in a case brought by Lambda, the New Jersey Court of Appeal ruled that Scouting's expulsion of James Dale because he is gay violated New Jersey's public accommodations law. The days of the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies are numbered."
While the ruling applies only to California law Davidson said, "it is a shame that this ruling shields blatantly discriminatory conduct on the part of an important American institution from even one state's law. Discrimination by the Boy Scouts is wrong, whether it be today's banishing of gay people and religious nonbelievers or the organization's past racial segregation of troops and exclusion of Japanese-American children after World War II. `A Scout is prejudiced' should not be a thirteenth point of Scout law."
Lynette Sperber, representing Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said at the news conference, "As a native Californian, I can tell you that this decision not only tarnishes the Boy Scouts, it tarnishes this state. It says that we as Californians believe in discrimination and I know that not's true. I ask all Californians to join with us in sending a clear message to the Boy Scouts that until they take discrimination out of Scouting, we'll withdraw our dollars and our support."
In the Randall case in California, the brothers have received exemplary evaluations by troop leaders throughout their years as scouts and were awarded their Eagle Badges on March 15 after a unanimous vote by the Orange County Council Eagle board of review. "While the Boy Scouts may say that Michael and William aren't Eagle Scouts because the Orange County Council vote had not yet been confirmed by the National Council, to our knowledge, the National Council never failed to approve an Eagle award once granted by a board of review," said Flynn. "And, as Scouts' attorney, George Davidson, said in superior court last month, `Once an Eagle Scout, always an Eagle Scout.'"
Flynn said that organizations which donate money to Scouting should refuse to support discrimination. She said some organizations have already chosen to withdraw their support, giving the example of Levi Strauss and the United Way of San Francisco, which stopped funding Scouting because gay Scouts are excluded. In the Randall case, the Orange County Council had signed an agreement with the United Way, from whom the Council received approximately $750,000 per year, stating that it would not require a Scout to participate in any religious activity.
"It's now up to organizations such as the United Way, as well as the police and fire departments and other governmental entities which support Scouting, to make sure that their money is not funding discrimination," said Flynn. Flynn pointed out that this is particularly true for government sponsors of Scouting. "Taxpayer dollars should not support discrimination. Moreover, the Boy Scouts take the position that they are a religious organization. If true, then government sponsorship of Scout troops violates both the constitution's equal protection clause and its requirement of the separation between church and state."
Speaking at the news conference, James Randall, attorney and father of the Randall twins said, "On behalf of my wife Valerie and Michael and William, this is truly a sad day for freedom, for justice and for equality. The Court's decision may kick Michael and William out of Scouting but it cannot kick Scouting out of Michael and William.
"While this may be a legal victory for the Boy Scouts of America, it is not a moral or just victory and we challenge Jere Ratcliffe, the Chief Executive Officer of Scouting and Kent Gibbs the Chief Executive of the Orange County Council and the others who never chose to meet my sons to come out of their hiding places and meet two young men whose honesty, courage and integrity exemplify what Scouting is supposed to be about. While Michael and William will hand up their Scouting uniforms, they will never hang up the courage and honesty that led them to this important fight. In the year's to come, this unfortunate decision will undoubtedly be viewed as a dark day in Scouting. We look forward to the day when all California's young men are welcomed into an organization that says it believes in equality."

Expanding her summary judgment ruling of November 20, 1995, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final judgment, on March 13 in the challenge to the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, confirming the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration and declaring the measure unconstitutional. With this ruling, a trial at the district court level is unnecessary.
The measure passed by voters Nov. 8, 1994, is still pending appeal by the State of California to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. In her ruling, Judge Pfaelzer ruled that Sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Proposition 187 "are declared to be in violation of the Supremacy Clause, preempted by federal law, and of no force or effect." The final judgment declares that the benefits denial, classification, verification, notification and reporting provisions of the measure are unenforceable. Pursuant to the judgment, then, those provisions of 187 relating to the denial of elementary, secondary and higher education, health and social services were all found unconstitutional.
Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California, which filed suit against the measure in November 1994, hailed the ruling."The decision makes clear that immigration policy remains the province of the federal government, not a matter for individual states to attempt to formulate their own rules and procedures. School teachers and doctors are not substitutes for INS agents."
In her order, Judge Pfaelzer said, "Defendants shall within 60 days of the date this Judgment is filed, distribute copies of this Judgment to all state and local agencies, personnel, and health care workers affected by Proposition 187. Any accompanying notice shall instruct that the enjoined sections of Proposition 187 are not to be implemented." Judge Pfaelzer ordered this notice to the Attorney General, all district attorneys, police chiefs and sheriffs; the Department of Health Services and all its employees, all Medi-Cal licensed providers, all publicly -funded health care facilities, the Department of Social Services and all county welfare departments, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the superintendents of each district, the President of the University of California and the administration of each campus, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the administration and governing boards of every community college, and to all county and city agencies throughout California.
Proposition 187 includes ten sections. Section 1 requires "a system of required notification" between state and local agencies "to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services;" Section 2 covers the manufacture, distribution or sale of false citizenship documents (something illegal under federal law); Section 3 covers the use of false citizenship documents (already illegal under federal law); Section 4 requires all law enforcement officials to verify the citizenship status of any individual who is arrested "if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws;" Section 5 excludes illegal aliens from all public social services; Section 6 excludes illegal aliens from publically funded health care; Section 7 excludes the children of illegal aliens from public schools; Section 8 excludes illegal aliens from public post-secondary education; Section 9 requires all local and state agencies to report anyone suspected of being in the United States illegally; Section 10 concerns severability in the event sections are found invalid.