Expanding her summary judgment ruling of November 20, 1995, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final judgment, on March 13 in the challenge to the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, confirming the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration and declaring the measure unconstitutional. With this ruling, a trial at the district court level is unnecessary.
The measure passed by voters Nov. 8, 1994, is still pending appeal by the State of California to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. In her ruling, Judge Pfaelzer ruled that Sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Proposition 187 "are declared to be in violation of the Supremacy Clause, preempted by federal law, and of no force or effect." The final judgment declares that the benefits denial, classification, verification, notification and reporting provisions of the measure are unenforceable. Pursuant to the judgment, then, those provisions of 187 relating to the denial of elementary, secondary and higher education, health and social services were all found unconstitutional.
Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California, which filed suit against the measure in November 1994, hailed the ruling."The decision makes clear that immigration policy remains the province of the federal government, not a matter for individual states to attempt to formulate their own rules and procedures. School teachers and doctors are not substitutes for INS agents."
In her order, Judge Pfaelzer said, "Defendants shall within 60 days of the date this Judgment is filed, distribute copies of this Judgment to all state and local agencies, personnel, and health care workers affected by Proposition 187. Any accompanying notice shall instruct that the enjoined sections of Proposition 187 are not to be implemented." Judge Pfaelzer ordered this notice to the Attorney General, all district attorneys, police chiefs and sheriffs; the Department of Health Services and all its employees, all Medi-Cal licensed providers, all publicly -funded health care facilities, the Department of Social Services and all county welfare departments, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the superintendents of each district, the President of the University of California and the administration of each campus, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the administration and governing boards of every community college, and to all county and city agencies throughout California.
Proposition 187 includes ten sections. Section 1 requires "a system of required notification" between state and local agencies "to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services;" Section 2 covers the manufacture, distribution or sale of false citizenship documents (something illegal under federal law); Section 3 covers the use of false citizenship documents (already illegal under federal law); Section 4 requires all law enforcement officials to verify the citizenship status of any individual who is arrested "if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws;" Section 5 excludes illegal aliens from all public social services; Section 6 excludes illegal aliens from publically funded health care; Section 7 excludes the children of illegal aliens from public schools; Section 8 excludes illegal aliens from public post-secondary education; Section 9 requires all local and state agencies to report anyone suspected of being in the United States illegally; Section 10 concerns severability in the event sections are found invalid.

Today a coalition of civil rights groups in California released a report entitled REACHING FOR THE DREAM: Profiles In Affirmative Action. The report outlines 31 codes and related programs threatened by proposed legislation. The report also profiles eight Californians whose lives were changed by these vital programs. The report will be sent to Assembly and Senate members by the American Civil Liberties Union's California legislative office.

Currently, AB 1700, sponsored by Assembly member Bernie Richter (R-Chico), and similar legislation by Quentin Kopp (Independent-San Francisco) would curtail or dismantle 31 state codes the Governor identified as violating Prop. 209. The codes generate outreach and recruitment programs in public education, employment and contracting that serve disadvantaged individuals. They do not exclude anyone based on race or gender.

None of the targeted codes and their programs mandate any form of preferences or quotas. As indicated in the report, "The targeted programs do not run afoul of Proposition 209 because they do not constitute forbidden `preferential treatment.' They are primarily outreach and recruitment programs. No business is guaranteed any particular contract. No individual receives a concrete benefit that is affirmatively denied anyone else. The programs simply open up the system to a wide range of qualified applicants and businesses." The codes/programs in question are outlined at the bottom of this release.

The report profiles eight individuals who benefitted from the programs in question. They include a former San Joaquin Valley farm worker who is now a top surgeon and a USC gynecology professor recently appointed to the Medical Board of California, a former welfare recipient and single mother from San Diego who entered California's EOP&S program and now teaches college and counsels students facing similar hardships, the daughter of a Mexican immigrant restaurant worker who enrolled at UC Berkeley with a full scholarship after attending the California Student Opportunity and Access Program, San Francisco's Chief of Police, and a Chino Hills Republican woman contractor who heads an environmental cleanup company.

In his introduction to the report, David B. Oppenheimer, Associate Professor of Law, Golden Gate University-San Francisco, says, "The programs described in this booklet help to remedy discrimination by reaching out to the excluded, giving them an opportunity to compete. These programs don't violate Proposition 209they give no preferences to anyone. But by bringing new faces to the table they give life-altering opportunities to thousands of Californians, permitting them to reach for dreams otherwise beyond their grasp."

The report includes brief sketches of the programs, ranging from the California Academic Partnership Program that has provided more than 130,000 K-12 students with mentoring, to the programs that provide opportunities for women and minority-owned businesses at the state and local level. The report's legal and policy discussion was compiled by some of the leading civil rights attorneys in the state from the coalition of organizations that produced the booklet.

The report was published with assistance from the van Loben Sels Foundation. The profiles were written by Peter Y. Sussman, prefaces are by Robert L. Harris, Vice President, PG&E and John T. Know, retired Speaker Pro Tem of the California Assembly (1960-1980).

Sunday night, March 15, the Eagle Board of the Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America, made up of three parents and three Boy Scout executives from the Council, voted unanimously to award Michael and William Randall their Eagle badges. While the decision is subject to final approval by the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, whose decision is expected in four to six weeks, the ACLU knows of no instance in Scouting's history where the National Council has refused to confirm the award once the Eagle Board has approved it.

"This victory is long past due," said Taylor Flynn, an ACLU of Southern California attorney who represents the Randall twins. "It is unfortunate that the Boy Scouts have felt the need to dig in and thwart the inspiring work of two young men who are such a credit to their Boy Scout Council, their community and this nation."

The Orange County Council had initially refused to convene an Eagle Board to hear the boys' applications, and only did so upon order by the Superior Court of Orange County. On February 23, Superior Court Judge Richard O. Frazee ordered the Council to proceed with the application process. Michael and William have been active members in Scouting for the past nine years and were selected to be members of the equivalent of Scouting's honor society, the Order of the Arrow, to which less than five percent of all Scouts belong. They submitted their applications to be Eagle Scouts in November 1997, but the Orange County Council had refused to consider their applications.

The ACLU of Southern California argued before the California Supreme Court on January 5 in Randall vs. Boy Scouts of America, Orange County Council, challenging the Boy Scout policy excluding those who will not affirm a belief in God. Michael and William had been expelled as nine-year-old cub scouts when they refused to say the word "God" in taking the Boy Scout oath.

The suit charges religious discrimination based on the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On April 25, 1991, the Orange County Superior Court granted an injunction barring the Orange County Council from refusing to allow the Randall twins to participate in Scouting or from requiring them to use the word "God" in the oath.

After a lengthy trial, on May 7, 1992, the Superior Court ruled that the Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts is a business and is subject to the anti-discrimination protections of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal on February 28, 1994. The Council appealed that ruling to the California Supreme Court. A decision from the California Supreme Court is expected later this year.