At that point, the battle surrounding the disputed measure will move to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Gov. Pete Wilson and other Proposition 187 supporters are expected to seek a rebuke of Pfaelzer's ruling. Most expect the matter to end up in the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as next fall.
"This is the tombstone for Proposition 187," said Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, co-counsel in the case against the initiative.
Although they condemned the judge's ruling, proponents of Proposition 187 were relieved that the matter finally seemed to be leaving the courtroom of Pfaelzer, whom Proposition 187 supporters have excoriated as a biased jurist who sat on the case for more than three years in a delaying tactic. Wilson even took the unusual step of filing papers with the U.S. Court of Appeals this week demanding that the judge take action--a move that anti-187 activists called a publicity stunt.
"We're free at last!" exclaimed Ron Prince, the Orange County accountant who rose to national prominence as a co-author of Proposition 187 and an advocate of tighter controls on illegal immigration.
But he, Wilson, state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and other supporters of the ballot initiative were highly critical of Pfaelzer's decision to invoke last year's federal welfare overhaul as a major rationale for throwing out Proposition 187. California authorities had argued the exact opposite: that Proposition 187 was consistent with the federal legislation.
The passage of the welfare law last year prompted some in the governor's office to predict that it opened the way for the implementation of much of Proposition 187.
"I find that Judge Pfaelzer's interpretation of Congress' intent when drafting the federal welfare law defies all logic," said Lungren, a former ranking House Republican on immigration matters.
Added Wilson: "Her analysis of Proposition 187 is as flawed and error-prone as the 1962 New York Mets. We look forward to this measure going to a higher court that has a better understanding of the law." But those fighting the ballot measure said the judge's ruling was on target and would probably resist arguments on appeal.
"The judge has vindicated the principle that we can't have 50 immigration policies, we can only have one," said Thomas Saenz, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
