Injunctions Against Gangs

The Times does its readers a disservice by claiming (editorial, July 15) that the U.S. Supreme Court placed a “constitutional stamp of approval” on the use of injunctions to combat gangs in San Jose or anywhere else. The court’s action was mere inaction: It declined to use its discretionary review authority to consider whether the California Supreme Court was correct in People vs. Acuna in upholding San Jose’s anti-gang injunction against a 1st Amendment challenge. When the U.S. Supreme Court denies review, it expresses no view on the merits of a case.

Whether sweeping injunctions violate 1st Amendment rights is a difficult question, as evidenced by the dissenting opinions of three of the seven members of the California Supreme Court in Acuna. Prematurely cutting off discussion on this issue by spurious claims that the U.S. Supreme Court has “approved” these practices undermines the responsibility each of us has to reflect upon and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

DAVID B. CRUZ

Assistant Professor of Law

USC Law School