Lawyers Weigh Options in Prop. 187 Battle : Courts: Measure’s supporters may seek early appeal of judge’s ruling, but opponents could try to block that.

In the wake of a complex federal court ruling declaring major portions of Proposition 187 legally invalid, attorneys spearheading the court battle over the immigration initiative pored through the judicial opinion Tuesday, weighing their options on how to proceed.

“We really don’t know what our next step will be,” said Matt Ross, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office. “You’re talking 72 pages. The volume of this thing is incredible. To get through it and explain it to your clients is a tremendous task.”

With no further court dates scheduled, the attorney general’s office is expected to request a hearing before U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer to determine whether, under the terms of her decision, state officials legally could bar illegal immigrants from any purely state-funded health care or social welfare services.

State attorneys also have the option of seeking Pfaelzer’s permission to launch an immediate appeal of the bulk of her ruling, which declared invalid most of the initiative’s health care, social welfare and public school provisions.

But anti-187 lawyers, seeking to stretch out the legal timetable, probably will request that Pfaelzer forbid any appeals before she sorts out remaining details of the initiative in her own courtroom, a process that could take months.

On Monday, Pfaelzer ruled that the state is preempted by federal law from barring illegal immigrants from health and welfare services that are federally funded and to which they are otherwise entitled under federal law. Pfaelzer also ruled a ban on public elementary and secondary school education for illegal immigrants invalid because it ran counter to a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Moreover, she declared as invalid the initiative’s provisions for investigating, notifying and reporting alleged illegal immigrants, saying that only the federal government can regulate immigration.

With the state forbidden by earlier court rulings to implement key elements of the initiative--approved last year by a 59% to 41% vote--it remained business as usual Tuesday at community health care facilities, where many of Southern California’s undocumented immigrants seek routine medical services.

But business as usual is vastly different than before Proposition 187, health center staffers stressed.

At the Community Health Foundation in East Los Angeles, fear over the possible implementation of the measure’s now-invalidated scheme for investigating suspected illegal immigrants has resulted in a 40% decline in women seeking early prenatal care, officials said.

“They’re waiting longer,” said Rodolfo Diaz, executive director of the clinic, where half of 1,400 annual births are to undocumented parents. “They’re not trusting the information that comes out.”

Under Pfaelzer’s ruling, illegal immigrants possibly could be banned from solely state-funded health services, consisting primarily of prenatal and long-term elderly care. Complicating the picture is that Pfaelzer also ruled that certain community health centers and hospitals funded under the federal Hill-Burton Act “must make their services available to all persons without regard to immigration status.”

Such facilities, including County-USC Medical Center and Martin Luther King/Drew Medical Center, are where most undocumented immigrants seek treatment, said David Langness, vice president of the Health Care Assn. of Southern California.

“Most Downtown, Eastside and South-Central hospitals are covered,” noted Langness.

The federal judge also cited child welfare services and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program as specific services that must remain intact because they rely on federal funds that are not predicated on lawful immigration status.

“We’re ecstatic about the ruling,” said Langness, at the same time acknowledging that many of the services covered by the court ruling could be instantaneously wiped out by pending legislative action in Washington.

“The chances are better than 50-50 that Congress will do something and that will be the next fight,” Langness said.

Indeed, supporters of Proposition 187, while nursing their wounds over the legal battering in Pfaelzer’s court, emphasized Tuesday that they also were focusing on federal legislation--spurred in large part by the California initiative--to limit the rights of illegal immigrants.

“Despite the adverse court ruling on Proposition 187 yesterday,” Gov. Pete Wilson said Tuesday in a prepared statement, “California taxpayers should know that Congress has heard our outrage, and they are acting.

“We are very encouraged by federal law changes advancing through the Congress, and are hopeful that when they pass, much of Proposition 187 will become law despite the court’s ruling,” he added.

Among the federal legislative efforts Wilson cited was a provision that could face a vote in early December allowing state officials to report illegal immigrants to the proper federal immigration authorities.

“First the federal government fails to secure the border, and once illegal immigrants are in California, the court has said we may not report them to the INS even where they are unlawfully seeking benefits to which they are not entitled,” the governor said. “This will change soon as a result of work we have been doing in the halls of Congress.”

Moreover, Wilson hailed a congressional effort to provide $3.5 billion in five years to states to pay for providing emergency health care to illegal immigrants.

Even before Monday’s court ruling was announced, all Republican members of California’s congressional delegation petitioned the House leadership to speed up consideration of a new illegal immigration control bill.

In a letter to House Majority Leader Richard Armey, the 25 California Republicans urged that the legislation be brought to the House floor before the end of the year, instead of early next year as proposed by the leadership.

“The Speaker’s California Task Force has made immigration reform its No. 1 priority for the first session of the 104th Congress. Meeting that commitment means a floor vote . . . this year,” the letter stated.

Now, with the court striking down key provisions of Proposition 187, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) predicted the ruling “will likely spur Congress to act much quicker.”

The bill, spearheaded by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), requires employers to verify the legal status of all new workers through a government databank and blocks new immigrants from getting public aid, holding their sponsors legally responsible for their support. The proposed legislation also would place such new restrictions on legal immigration as canceling immigration visas for the parents and siblings of new citizens.

One of the few major elements of the initiative that Judge Pfaelzer did not declare invalid was a ban on public colleges and university education for illegal immigrants. But officials at the University of California and the California State University emphasized Tuesday that the federal ruling would have no immediate effect since the provision is still forbidden to take effect by a state court injunction.

The state ruling, issued in February by a San Francisco Superior Court judge, prevents the state from enforcing the post-secondary education ban pending a trial in state court.

Times staff writers Gebe Martinez in Washington and Amy Pyle, Jeffrey L. Rabin and Amy Wallace and correspondent Geoffrey Mohan in Los Angeles contributed to this story. Feldman reported from Los Angeles.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Prop. 187 Ruling

Here’s a checklist of key sections of U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer’s ruling Monday on Proposition 187:

Section 2: Stands.

* Manufacture, distribution or sale of false citizenship or resident documents: Any person who manufactures, distributes or sells false documents shall be punished by imprisonment or a fine.

Section 3: Stands.

* Use of false citizenship or resident documents: Any person who uses false documents shall be punished by imprisonment for five years or by a fine of $25,000.

Section 4: Struck down completely; preempted by federal law.

* Law enforcement cooperation with the INS: Law enforcement agencies were required to verify the legal status of every arrestee and notify the attorney general for deportation of illegal immigrants.

Section 5: Most provisions struck down; preempted by federal law.

* Exclusion of illegal immigrants from public social services: Once illegal status was determined, authorities were to deny such services.

Section 6: Most provisions struck down; preempted by federal law.

* Exclusion of illegal immigrants from publicly funded health care: Once illegal status was determined, authorities were to deny such care.

Section 7: Struck down completely; preempted by federal law and a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

* Exclusion of illegal immigrants from public elementary and secondary schools: School districts were to be required to report illegal status of parent, guardian or pupil to state agencies and INS, and ban children in California illegally from attending public school.

Section 8: Partially struck down.

* Exclusion of illegal immigrants from public post-secondary educational institutions: The state does not have to provide post-secondary education to persons who are not authorized under federal law to be in the United States. However, a subsection that required admissions officials to report any illegal immigrant to authorities is preempted by federal law.

Section 9: Struck down completely; preempted by federal law.

* Attorney general cooperation with the INS: The state attorney general was to be required to maintain records of, and to send to the INS, all reports received from state agencies on illegal immigrants.

Section 10: Stands.

* Amendment and severability: A ruling that strikes down some portions of Proposition 187 does not invalidate the entire law.

SOURCE: Associated Press, Los Angeles Times