Washington, DC -- The Supreme Court today ruled that immigrants have no right to object to being targeted for deportation based on their association with a political group. In an astounding decision that reached an issue neither party had even briefed, the Court effectively denied to all immigrants in this country the same First Amendment rights that U.S. citizens enjoy.

The case arose out of the government's longstanding efforts to deport eight noncitizens for their political associations and activities. The noncitizens -- seven Palestinians and a Kenyan -- were arrested more than a decade ago by the INS and charged with being associated with a group that "advocates world communism," then a deportable offense under the McCarran-Walter Act. From the outset, the government has admitted that none of the eight engaged in any criminal or terrorist activities, and has admitted that it singled them out for deportation based on their political ties, distribution of literature, communication with other members, and humanitarian aid fundraising.

The INS instituted the deportation proceedings in 1987, accusing the eight of associating with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a constituent group of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Documents in the court record show that it did so at the behest of the FBI, which urged the INS to deport the eight in order to hamper the political activities of the PFLP in the LA area, even though the FBI concedes it found no evidence of criminal conduct by the group.

In one document, the FBI specifically urges the deportation of one of the eight because he is "intelligent, aggressive, and has great leadership ability," and therefore incapacitating him would hamper the group.

The Supreme Court ruled that a 1996 immigration statute barred the immigrants from seeking federal court review at any time of their selective prosecution claims, and then went on to rule that this raised no constitutional problems because aliens have no First Amendment right to object to being singled out for deportation based on their political associations. In doing so, it reached an issue that it had specifically declined to take up when it accepted review, and did so without any briefing from the parties.

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and attorney with the Center for constitutional Rights, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, "We are not only disappointed; we were blindsided. The Court has denied to all immigrants in this country the right to engage in the same political activities that citizens have an unquestioned First Amendment right to engage in. And it did so after telling us not to address the question. The Court has denied immigrants the right to speak without even allowing them to be heard on that question."

Marc Van Der Hout, of the National Lawyers Guild, and co-counsel in the case, said: "Justice Scalia's opinion is nothing short of outrageous. It relegates immigrants to a second-class status that is reminiscent of the political witchhunts of the McCarthy era, which were initially embraced and then repudiated by history. Our nation of immigrants is now being forced into political silence, chilled from speaking out about injustices in their homeland and this country."

"Today's decision has removed a critical constitutional safeguard against discriminatory enforcement of the immigration laws," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU's Immigrant's Rights Project. "The government now has free rein to target immigrants for deportation based on their lawful political activities."

The immigrants are represented by the Center for constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU National Office, and Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal.

The California Office of AIDS has promised to revise its existing jail policy so that all HIV-positive inmates, regardless of what charges are pending against them, will have access to life saving HIV medications. This development, which will help prevent jail terms from becoming de facto death sentences for those with HIV, is credited to the tireless efforts of ACLU Staff Attorney Mary Sylla and was featured prominently in Special Council Merrick J. Bobb's semi-annual report on Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD).

The jail medication crisis surfaced in early 1998 when the LASD was denied reimbursement for HIV medications by the California office administering the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), a combined state and federal effort to provide HIV medication to persons without health insurance.

Previously, ADAP had reimbursed the LASD approximately $1 million a year for the medication distributed in the jails, but in 1998, the California agency administering ADAP ceased reimbursing based upon an inaccurate factual information about the obligation of other governmental entities to reimburse the Sheriff's Department.

With the support of the LASD, ACLU Staff Attorney Mary Sylla asked the California Office of AIDS to reconsider its position, and on January 20, 1999, the agency revised its policy, noting in a letter that her efforts had "resulted in an extensive review of our policy . . ." The reimbursement will free up $1 million that the County would otherwise be obliged to spend on medication.

"The state office of AIDS has done the right thing ," said Sylla. "People in jail desperately need these HIV medications. Revising this policy proves that they truly care about those most in need.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept Commander Dennis Dahlman added, "We're thrilled. We're going to reapply for those funds and will anxiously await reimbursement from the State."

The ACLU, along with the HIV & AIDS Legal Services Alliance, first sought the change in policy in a June 24, 1998 letter. More than six months later the Office of AIDS responded, paving the way for the Sheriffs Department to seek reimbursement again. The Sheriff's Department will begin receiving these reimbursements as soon as the mechanism for qualifying inmates for ADAP can be set up, likely within the next several months.

The ACLU of Southern California urged the federal government today to allow New York Times best-selling author Peter McWilliams to use physician-recommended marijuana as part of his treatment for AIDS, which has worsened dramatically since the government prohibited his use of the drug. "This is precisely the reason that the people of California - like those in 5 other western states - enacted a law legalizing the medical use of marijuana," said ACLU attorney Taylor Flynn. "After Mr. McWilliams and his doctor had successfully kept the HIV virus in check for two and a half years with the use of medical marijuana, the federal government in August 1998 prohibited Mr. McWilliams from using this essential medication as a condition of his release on bail. Within a few months, the amount of the HIV virus in his blood had increased twenty-fold and his life is in danger."

Mr. McWilliams, author of such best-selling books as Life 101 and How to Heal Depression, became a strong proponent of medical marijuana upon using it successfully, under a doctor's supervision, when no other drugs would work to calm the extreme nausea caused by his drug regimen. His drug regimen consists of the only treatment known to be effective in combating the HIV virus, a combination therapy commonly referred to as a "combination cocktail." Approximately 20% of the AIDS patients who begin combination therapy, however, are forced to give up this regimen due to the severe nausea it causes. Failure to keep the medication down not only means that the patient is deprived of the benefit of the drugs, but it also creates the risk that the HIV virus may mutate into a form which is resistant to all known medication.

On July 23, 1998 --2 years after the passage of California's medical marijuana proposition known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 --the federal government indicted Mr. McWilliams on charges of alleged manufacture and distribution of marijuana.

A hearing to consider Mr. McWilliams' request to continue to use medical marijuana is scheduled to take place in federal court in Los Angeles on February 22, 1999, before the Honorable Judge George King. AThe federal government is forcing Mr. McWilliams to choose between saving his life or forfeiting his freedom and the homes of his brother and disabled mother,@ said Mr. McWilliams' attorney, Thomas Ballanco, referring to the conditions of Mr. McWilliams' parole. Under these conditions, if Mr. McWilliams uses medical marijuana, he will be returned to prison and the government will confiscate the homes of his brother and mother, which were used as collateral for Mr. McWilliams' bail bond.

Not only do the conditions of his release place Mr. McWilliams in a double bind, explained ACLU attorney Taylor Flynn, "the federal government is denying to Mr. McWilliams precisely what they are providing - free of charge - to 8 other seriously ill Americans: the use of medical marijuana." Under the Food and Drug Administration's Investigative New Drug Program - which has been in place for fifteen years - the federal government runs a marijuana farm at the University of Mississippi, where it grows marijuana for research purposes and supplies each of the program's 8 patients with 300 marijuana cigarettes per month. One of these patients, Elvy Musikka, has suffered from glaucoma for more than 20 years. "I lost most of my vision in one eye because I was afraid of trying marijuana, since it was an illegal drug," said Ms. Musikka. "As with Peter McWilliams, however, no other drug worked for me. Since using medical marijuana and becoming a patient in the government program, my vision has improved immeasurably. For me, it has meant the difference between sight and blindness."

As Mr. McWilliams' attorney explained, Mr. McWilliams is simply requesting the option of using marijuana under the supervision of a doctor - or the federal government: "All we are asking is that the court modify the order which prevents Mr. McWilliams' limited personal use of medical marijuana under his doctor's supervision, or that the court enroll Mr. McWilliams into the existing federal medical marijuana program," said Thomas Ballanco.