The Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America was ordered late yesterday afternoon to consider Michael and William Randall's applications to become Eagle Scouts, Scouting's highest honor. In 1991, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California successfully brought suit to reinstate the twin boys, then 9 years old, after they were dismissed from Scouting for refusing to take an oath to God. The boys, who do not consider themselves to be atheists, explain that they do not understand what the word God means to them and thus do not feel comfortable taking an oath. After a trial in 1992, the Superior Court of Orange County held that the Orange County Council had discriminated against the boys on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of California's civil rights statute, known as the Unruh Act.

Michael and William have been active members in Scouting for the past 9 years and were selected to be members of the equivalent of Scouting's Ahonor society,@ the Order of the Arrow, to which less than 5% of all Scouts belong. They submitted their completed application last year, but the Orange County Council refused to consider the boys' applications. Late yesterday afternoon, after hearing argument from both sides, Superior Court Judge Frazee ordered that the boys' applications be heard no later than March 15, 1998.

Michael and William are thrilled that the Court recognizes that they deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity as the other boys in their troop,@ said Taylor Flynn, staff attorney of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. AThese boys have worked so hard in fact, Michael and William were the first boys in their troop to achieve the rank of `Brotherhood' in a decade. They are model Scouts, Flynn said.

The California Supreme Court heard the oral argument for this case on January 5, 1998, along with the case of the former Eagle Scout, Timothy Curran, who was expelled from Scouting after the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts learned that he was gay. The ACLU represented Timothy Curran in that case as well, Curran v. Mount Diablo Council, Boy Scouts of America. A decision in both cases is expected from the California Supreme Court by early April.

Michael and William continue to participate in Scouting pursuant to the Superior Court's 1992 order. Their Eagle applications should have been heard nearly 2 months ago, in early January. AEvery day that passes in which the boys' applications are not considered is another day of discrimination,@ Flynn said. AMy understanding is that, in the history of Michael and William's troop, the rank of Eagle has been conferred on every boy who has applied for it. We also know that the Orange County Council has conferred the rank of Eagle on an openly agnostic Scout. But the fear, of course, is that once Michael and William's Eagle board is held, it will simply be a `Kangaroo Court' in which their applications are summarily denied. We certainly hope that Scouting will live up to its own credo and act with honor by considering the boys' applications without prejudice.

This morning the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California challenged a motion for a preliminary injunction in a Superior Court lawsuit that would limit the residents of a HUD-subsidized housing project from inviting tenant organizers to their apartments to help improve conditions.

The ACLU says the lawsuit, L.A. Coalition for Economic Survival, et al. (Case # BC 184443) is an attempt by the building's management to thwart the free speech, privacy, associational and property rights of the residents of L.A. Gardens, located in the Pico-Union area of downtown Los Angeles. The ACLU says the injunction motion lacks merit and that the landlord's actions violate federal and state constitutions and federal laws governing federally-subsidized housing. Defendants are staff members with both the Coalition for Economic Survival and the Los Angeles Center for Economic Survival, both long-time community-based tenants' rights organizations that have worked with L.A. Gardens' tenants since 1995. Staff from both groups were invited to meetings by residents. After the organizers arrived, a building manager called the LAPD and had them arrested, even though residents told police that they had invited the organizers.

Both tenant groups have participated in resident meetings in an orderly manner and with the approval and funding of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which supports tenant organizing activities under federal housing regulations.

In papers filed in this case, the ACLU call the motion for a preliminary injunction ". . .the landlord's latest move in a campaign of harassment and intimidation waged against tenants and their invited tenant organizers alike, a campaign that has included the unlawful citizen's arrests of tenant organizers and threatened further arrests against both tenants and their invited guests."

ACLU attorneys call attempts to restrict tenant organizers draconian. For example, under the terms of the proposed preliminary injunction, residents would be required to give the building management 48 hours notice of any meetings. The injunction would prohibit the organizers from accompanying a tenant to the door of a neighbor to discuss matters of common concern, even if the neighbor requests such a meeting.

The ACLU says that plaintiffs failed to prove that any of the tenant organizers ever trespassed. In fact, the ACLU said, at all times, the defendants were invited by residents who wanted to speak with them. Under HUD guidelines, tenants and their invited guests may engage in "reasonable canvassing" about tenant concerns, building governance, and related matters, activities which are encouraged and funded under a HUD outreach and training grant.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is opposing legislation to be introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein as the Personal Privacy Protection Act which would criminalize constitutionally-protected activities by photographers. If passed, the measure would make it a federal crime to follow a celebrity for the purpose of taking photographs and impose a minimum sentence of five years if bodily injury occurs. In addition, the use of certain photographic equipment such as zoom lenses could be considered trespassing.

The ACLU of Southern California says that current laws make harassment of any one celebrity or otherwise a crime, and that this proposed legislation places a burden on the First Amendment.

Commenting on the proposed measure, ACLU of Southern California Executive Director Ramona Ripston said, "The First Amendment is not a one-way street. Those who benefit from a free press must be willing to give it breathing room. Only that way can the First Amendment survive. Creating more crimes, particularly more federal crimes, is the politician's easy solution to all problems. Imposing lengthy minimum prison terms and preventing the use of ordinary photographic equipment is not the answer. Recent experience has shown that state law will handle any excesses by the media."