Federal Judge Schedules Full Prop. 187 Trial

A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday refused a state request that she dismiss or abstain from presiding over four lawsuits seeking to quash Proposition 187 and instead declared that a full-blown trial on the constitutionality of the illegal immigration initiative will be held in her courtroom beginning no later than Sept. 5.

“I’m not intending to drag this along,” said U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, who temporarily blocked most of the popular but divisive ballot measure’s key provisions in December. “There is no reason to delay these proceedings.”

After the 75-minute court session, attorneys fighting the initiative said they would seek sworn pretrial question-and-answer sessions with leading proponents, including Gov. Pete Wilson and state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren.

They also said they may file a summary judgment motion asking Pfaelzer to permanently bar Proposition 187 without need of a trial on the grounds that it interferes with the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration issues.

Wilson issued a blistering statement in which he said he would seek an appellate review of Pfaelzer’s decision not to abstain.

“Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal courts should be misused so as to prevent citizens from deciding that illegal immigrants should be treated differently than those who have entered this country legally,” Wilson said in the statement. “The patience of Californians will soon wear thin if their will is not carried out.”

Pfaelzer gave no specific reason for her ruling, but said she would issue a written opinion later this week.

State attorneys, citing three complex U.S. Supreme Court doctrines, had argued that Pfaelzer was required to abstain from further action in the case until state courts deal with the ballot measure’s legality.

The doctrines, known as the Younger, Burford and Pullman abstentions, require federal courts to bow out of various kinds of cases where clarification of a state law by a state court would make federal rulings unnecessary.

Proposition 187 “was an initiative that was passed by the people of California by a large margin,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Charlton G. Holland told a packed courtroom. “It should be resolved in California’s courts by California judges.”

Opposition attorneys countered that the initiative--designed to bar illegal immigrants from public education, non-emergency health care and social services and require administrators to report them to authorities--raises overwhelming equal protection, federal preemption and due process issues that must be decided in federal court.

“We don’t believe state law will solve the federal constitutional issues,” said Carlos Holguin of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, one of several civil rights organizations that have sued to block the ballot measure.

During the hearing, Pfaelzer stressed repeatedly that under the prevailing high court doctrines, specific technical conditions must be met in order for a federal judge to step aside.

Under Burford, judges must abstain in cases involving complex ongoing state administrative procedures. Pfaelzer told attorneys she did not want to hear arguments on Burford, apparently siding with legal experts who have questioned how a doctrine concerning ongoing state regulations could apply to a ballot measure approved at the polls by voters in November.

The Younger doctrine forbids federal judges from enjoining state court cases that have already begun. But under Pfaelzer’s questioning, Holland acknowledged that an anti-187 lawsuit now in San Francisco Superior Court was not filed until hours after the federal cases were already filed in Pfaelzer’s courthouse.

The initiative’s bans on public school and state higher education for illegal immigrants are enjoined in three San Francisco Superior Court cases, with full-blown trials scheduled for later this year. State attorneys recently filed their own suit in the same courthouse, asking that state courts interpret the measure in a way that will uphold its validity under state and federal law. Opposition attorneys have since had the case moved to federal court in San Francisco.

The Pullman doctrine calls for federal courts to allow state courts to clarify state laws that could make federal constitutional rulings unnecessary. But Pfaelzer said that Karl Manheim, a Loyola University law professor representing the ACLU of Southern California in its challenge to the measure, raised a “good question” when he asked Monday just what state attorneys want the state court system to decide.

“They want the state courts to decide the federal issues,” said Manheim, answering his own question. “There is no way we can escape the federal constitutional issues here.”

After the hearing, anti-187 attorneys said they will prepared for the September trial and that they are putting together lists of witnesses from whom they hope to take sworn depositions.

Peter A. Schey of the Center for Human Rights said he will seek to have Wilson and Lungren explain how Proposition 187 “can legitimately exclude thousands of immigrants” whose status is unresolved from essential services when federal immigration authorities allow them to stay in the United States.

Later in the day, Lungren spokesman Steve Telliano blasted Pfaelzer’s ruling, terming it “another example of the federal court’s lack of respect for a state’s right to pass a law without having the over-powerful national government step in and say we’re not going to allow you to do that.”

Lungren’s office has appealed Pfaelzer’s preliminary injunction to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and recently upped the ante by asking the 9th Circuit to hold an expedited hearing on the matter. The court has yet to respond to the request.

Pfaelzer also agreed to allow seven more organizations to intervene in the case on the side of the anti-187 forces. The groups are the California Council of Churches, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Center of Southern California, the California Teachers Assn., the California Faculty Assn., the Service Employees International Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Pfaelzer added that she will “never entertain another motion to intervene in this case.” Speaking in opposition to the latest interventions was Assistant Atty. Gen. John H. Sugiyama, who said the case is already top-heavy with extra parties, including the city of Los Angeles.

“(At first) it was almost like ‘Godzilla’ where everyone wanted to distance themselves from the initiative,” Sugiyama said. “Now we’re getting like ‘Barney,’ where everyone wants to gather around.”