A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.
The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.
"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.
Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.
The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."
The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.
However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.
The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.
