The drafters of Proposition 187 were not oblivious to its constitu-
tional problems. in fact, they looked forward to having another
tive Supreme Court.
Several lawsuits have been filed in both the California state courts
and the federal courts questioning the proposition’s constitutionali-
ty. In one of the principal challenges, League of United Latin
American Citizens (LULAC) v. Wilson, several community-based orga-
nizations and Latino political leaders have asked a federal court in
Los Angeles to issue a judgment, without requiring a trial, that
Proposition 187 was enacted to control immigration into California
and thus infringes on Congress’ exclusive power to regulate immi-
gration as set down in the Constitution.
The LULAC plaintiffs plan to raise other legal issues if they fail to
win summary judgment on that count. They intend to argue that
several provisions of Proposition 187 violate procedural due-process
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The primary limitation on
Congress’ power to regulate immigration is the fundamental right
of every individual to a full and fair proceeding before facing depor-
tation. Prop 187, however, provides absolutely no procedural safe-
guards to protect a person from being erroneously deported. If Prop
187 becomes law, suspected undocumented immigrants will be
denied social services and face expulsion without accompanying
administrative hearings to actually determine their status.
The LULAC plaintiffs will also charge that the provisions in
Proposition 187 which deny services to undocumented children,
including public school admission, violate the equal-protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amemendment. They will point out the legal
precedent of the Texas school case (Plyler v. Doe), a 1980 Supreme
Court decision which mandated the education of undocumented
immigrant children in that state. Proponents of Proposition 187
specifically want to see that decision reversed.
Menu
