Congressional budget cuts and restrictions notwithstanding, California
legal services programs have continued to engage in controversial litigation
in the past year. This includes a lawsuit now pending in federal court
challenging the right of local governments to test welfare recipients for
drug use.
County Sued For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients
Contra Costa County is currently being sued by Contra Costa Legal Services
Foundation for allegedly discriminating against welfare recipients by requiring
them to take drug tests and enter treatment programs as a condition to
receive benefits. Under the county’s screening process, applicants for
General Assistance take a series of drug and psychological tests to determine
if they are addicts. If the psychological test indicates chemical dependency,
recipients are required to enter a six-month substance abuse program. In
the two and half year period the County administered the test, between
60 and 86 percent of test takers were found to be addicts. In addition,
the county’s welfare rolls dropped by nearly one-third in the same period.
Alleging that the county is just trying to force people off welfare, Contra
Costa Legal Services and other activist groups filed suit in 1995 claiming
the test is illegal. In addition to violating individuals’ constitutional
right to privacy, legal services charges that the psychological test violates
the Americans With Disabilities Act by discriminating against former addicts
and people they claim have been wrongfully determined to be substance abusers.
The case is currently pending in federal district court.
See Mike McKee, “ACLU Challenges Psychological Tests for GA
Recipients,” The Recorder, March 30, 1995, pg. 1
Legal Aid Claims Ticketing Homeless for Jaywalking Violates Rights
In 1996, Legal Aid of Marin accused the city of San Rafael of violating
the civil rights of homeless people by arresting them for jaywalking. Police
began vigorously enforcing jaywalking laws at the request of businessmen
and city councilmen who complained about the hostile behavior of the homeless.
In a petition to the city, merchants said that many of the homeless who
came downtown to get a free meal at a charity would loiter in the area
disrupting traffic, intimidating shoppers and causing drug and property
crime. They also weren’t too thrilled about their habit of urinating and
defecating in public. To stop the loitering outside the charity which led
to many of the problems, police began aggressively ticketing those individuals
who would deliberately go in the street and hold up traffic. Although the
crackdown significantly curtailed jaywalking, Legal Aid of Marin accused
police of violating the homeless’ constitutional rights by selectively
punishing them for infractions. Police complain that legal services and
other “advocates for the homeless feel whatever we do with respect to the
homeless is harassment.”
See Donna Horowitz, “Jaywalking Citations Under Scrutiny,” The
San Francisco Examiner, June 19, 1996, pg. A5
Fights Deportation of Drug Dealing Alien
In 1995, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Foundation tried to
stop the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from deporting
an illegal alien who had been convicted of dealing drugs. At the time of
his conviction, Manuel Perez was a temporary legal resident under an amnesty
program for aliens who had entered the nation illegally. The INS initiated
deportation proceedings of Perez following completion of his prison term
pursuant to federal law which mandates the deportation of any alien convicted
of a felony. However, CRLA Foundation filed a lawsuit against the INS to
stop Perez from being deported. CRLA Foundation argued that the deportation
notices sent to Perez were not allowable as evidence because they violated
his right to confidentiality under the law governing his temporary amnesty.
A U.S. Appeals Court rejected the claim. The court ruled that the confidentiality
provision cited by CRLA Foundation was meant to protect innocent aliens
applying for amnesty. It did not cover deportation notices sent to convicted
felons.
See Perez v. INS, 72 F.3d 256, US App. Ct., 1995
Sues State For Allowing Local Welfare Cuts
Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) is currently suing the
state for allowing financially-hard pressed counties to cut General Assistance
(GA) welfare payments. GA is paid to individuals who are ineligible for
federal welfare. In California, the state’s Commission on State Mandates
decides whether counties may make benefit cuts. The Commission bases its
decision on the financial condition of the county and its need to spend
money in other critical areas. By 1996, the commission had approved welfare
cuts sought by seven counties. However, LSNC is critical of any cuts in
assistance and is challenging the criteria by which the Commission allows
such reductions.
See Jim Mikles, “Butte Gets State Clearance,” Sacramento Bee,
Sept. 28, 1996, B5
Seeks to Expand Number of Legal Aliens Eligible for Welfare
In 1996, the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County lost a lawsuit that would have expanded the number of legal aliens eligible for General Assistance (GA) welfare benefits. The case began in 1995 when Legal Aid sued Alameda County for denying GA to a woman because her asylum application had yet to be approved and was thus not a “lawful resident.” Legal Aid argued that it was unconstitutional to deny benefits to aliens who had not been given permanent residency. A state appeals court rejected the argument, ruling the county was within its rights to withhold welfare to indviduals who could still be ordered out of the country.
See Khasminskaya v. Lum, 47 Cal. App. Ct., 1996