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.
