(LOS ANGELES)-The ACLU of Southern California announced that it has filed a lawsuit on behalf of American citizen Samy Ali, to challenge the federal government’s revocation of his wife’s visa in retaliation for his exercising the right to counsel during FBI questioning.  The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Ali fully cooperated with the FBI as it questioned him about his brother-in-law, who had gone missing overseas.  Ali, concerned for his brother-in-law as well as for the well-being of his sister, niece and nephew, maintained close contact with the FBI for several months.  However, despite his cooperation, the FBI agents later turned hostile, threatening Ali with the baseless accusation that he had engaged in illegal activity by accumulating credit card debt.  Shaken and disturbed by the FBI’s threats, Ali sought the advice of an attorney, who informed the FBI that she would represent Ali at any further FBI questioning.  In response, the FBI stated that they were no longer interested in speaking with Ali if he was represented. 

Several weeks later, Ali flew to Egypt to pick up his wife and young child, and return to the United States to begin a new life together.  Ali’s wife had been granted a visa and green card by United Citizenship and Immigration Services earlier that year.  However, shortly after Ali arrived, the U.S. Embassy informed him that his wife’s visa had been revoked and failed to provide any valid basis for the revocation.  Ali was forced to return home alone.  The FBI later made clear that Ali could fix his wife’s visa problems if he would cooperate further without his attorney. 

 “The government flagrantly misused its immigration authority to retaliate against Mr. Ali, who had been fully cooperating with the FBI,” said Michael Kaufman, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.  “Unfortunately, Mr. Ali’s case is part of a larger pattern of abusive FBI tactics that have driven a wedge between Muslim communities and law enforcement, making us all less safe.” 

Ali’s case presents the latest example of a pattern of abuse whereby the FBI misuses the immigration laws to coerce members of the Muslim community to provide information, a phenomenon documented in a recently issued report by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice entitled “Under the Radar.”  The FBI’s tactics have caused distrust between the Muslim community and the FBI throughout the country. 

“I have always considered myself a proud American, but I am now afraid and distrustful of the FBI,” said Ali.  “I tried my best to help the FBI and they repaid me with threats and separation from my wife and daughter.” 

“The government’s retaliatory revocation of his wife’s visa constitutes a clear violation of Mr. Ali’s constitutional rights,” said Geoffrey Forgione, pro bono counsel from the law firm Jones Day.  “The government should make right this egregious wrong by apologizing to Mr. Ali and his family and immediately re-issuing the visa so that the family can be reunited.” 

The law suit asks a federal court to order the government to re-issue Marwa’s visa according to law.  No monetary relief is sought.

Los Angeles – The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered the state of California to reduce its prison population in order to alleviate extreme overcrowding that endangers the health and safety of the state’s prisoners and prison staff.  The court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity. The system is nearly at 200 percent of capacity.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California applauds today’s U.S. Supreme Court order. 

The ACLU of California is encouraging legislators to take a long-term approach to solving the problem of prison overcrowding by instituting sentencing reforms to reduce the penalties for low level non-violent offenses from felony sentences to misdemeanors. Contrary to some accounts, the court order does not require the release of prisoners – it requires reducing prison populations.  The ACLU believes this is best achieved through front end parole and sentencing reforms.

“Today’s decision underscores what we’ve been saying for some time – that California’s penal system is bursting at the seams and subjects inmates to inhumane living conditions,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.  “With no money in the budget in sight for the construction of new prisons, it’s clear that California must pursue alternatives to incarceration where reasonably possible.  Overcrowding creates a dangerous situation for both inmates and guards, who, as we’ve seen in our monitoring of L.A. County jails, are under such pressure they often resort to unnecessary force when dealing with prisoners.  California’s political leaders have been unwilling to solve this ongoing crisis – that’s why we have a judicial system, to step in when the political process fails and people’s rights are violated as a result.”

More than 9,000 people are currently in state prison for possessing a small amount of drugs for personal use.  California spends $47,000 each year to lock each of these people up. 

According to a new poll solid majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents from every corner of the state believe that too many people are imprisoned and that penalties for minor offenses are too harsh. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of likely voters support reducing the penalty for simple possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use.

In addition to changing the penalty for simple possession of drugs, the ACLU of California also supports making low-level, non-violent property offenses misdemeanors, instead of felonies. If charged as misdemeanors, the maximum sentence that can be imposed is one year in county jail.  A deputy D.A. in Woodland, CA, recently pressed for a felony conviction of a mentally ill man caught stealing a candy bar. 

Background
The decision affirms a lower court ruling in two long-running cases in which the medical and mental health care provided in California’s prisons was found to be so deficient that it endangers the lives of prisoners and violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

A special three-judge federal court determined in 2009 that severe overcrowding was a primary cause of the constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health care provided to prisoners and would only be improved by a reduction in the prison population.