The ACLU of Southern California and the national ACLU filed an emergency request to prevent a woman, who is a lawful permanent resident, and her U.S. citizen child from being denied entry into the United States.

The woman and her son were returning home from Egypt, which has erupted in violence and instability. The request was filed in the Central District Court of California to allow her to enter the United States and remove her from the “No Fly List.”

Samaa Kerba and her four-year-old son, Farias Daniel As Salaaf, left Cairo yesterday to escape the violence and return to Los Angeles. However, when they arrived in Amsterdam, Holland, they were stopped by U.S. authorities because Ms. Kerba is on the federal government’s “No Fly List” for reasons unknown. She alerted her brother, Samy Ali of Palm Springs, and he contacted the ACLU/SC for help. Mother and child fear they could be returned to Egypt in less than eight hours.

“The plight of Ms. Kerba and her American-born son highlight how horribly broken the “No Fly List” system has become,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of Immigrants’ Rights and National Security for the ACLU/SC. “Americans fleeing civil unrest should be welcomed here, not barred from returning in violation of the most basic constitutional rights.”

The ACLU/SC and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit last year on behalf of more than a dozen people who were placed on the “No Fly list.” According to the ACLU's legal complaint, thousands of people have been added to this list and barred from commercial air travel without any opportunity to learn about or refute the basis for their inclusion. The result is a vast and growing list of individuals who, on the basis of error or innuendo, have been deemed too dangerous to fly but who are too harmless to arrest.

“Surely, every American’s worst nightmare is to find themselves attempting to flee a country in chaos only to discover their own government has slammed the door in their face without any explanation,” said Hector Villagra, incoming executive director of the ACLU/SC.

LOS ANGELES — A coalition of civil rights groups has agreed to dismiss its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against federal immigration officials, after securing the release of more than 2500 pages of documents relating to the federal government’s unlawful treatment of workers detained during a huge workplace raid in Los Angeles in 2008.

On Monday, January 31, 2011, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the ACLU of Southern California and the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles dismissed their federal lawsuit against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security.  When the civil rights groups filed the lawsuit in October 2008, the agencies had failed to release a single document in response to the FOIA request.  It was only through the federal litigation that the groups were able to negotiate the release of documents originally withheld by the agencies.

The documents released pertain to a federal immigration raid that took place on February 7, 2008 at a Micro Solutions Enterprises manufacturing plant in Van Nuys.  Agents interrogated and detained well over 130 employees, though they only had arrest warrants for eight, raising concerns that workers were subject to interrogation without any legal basis.

The documents released by the government following the filing of the lawsuit shed light on agents’ conduct during the raid.  Specifically, the documents established that, although government officials only had warrants to arrest a few individuals, they actively planned to arrest up to 200 workers in their raid dragnet.  Furthermore, ICE officials admitted that they engaged in the raid as a result of an anonymous tip.  The released documents were an important part of establishing that the workers arrested in the raid should have their immigration proceedings terminated because the arresting agents violated the workers’ rights.

“These documents have allowed the dozens of men and women who were unlawfully swept up by this raid to fight their cases and stay here in the United States with their families and children,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “Without the litigation, the government may never have come clean about its illegal actions during the Micro Solutions Raid, and the families and communities of those affected by the raids might be suffering a much worse fate today.”

“We were pleased to represent NILC in this litigation, and we are delighted by the result.     Not only were we able to uncover some of the ongoing failures of the government in conducting immigration raids and obtain important evidence for use by the Micro Solutions employees in their individual immigration cases, we were able to hold the government accountable to its policy of transparency to the public, which is, of course, the underlying purpose of the FOIA statute,” said Katherine Smith, an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, which served as pro bono counsel for NILC in the lawsuit.

“At a time when some in Congress are calling for a return to worksite enforcement, the documents obtained through this lawsuit show what a tragically misguided effort that would be.  The Micro Solutions raid traumatized dozens of people, both citizens and non-citizens, resulted in a massive expenditure of judicial resources, but as of now has resulted in virtually no deportations,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants’ rights and national security at the ACLU of Southern California.  “It is hard to imagine more conclusive proof that raids damage our communities while doing nothing to make us safer.”

The lawsuit, National Immigration Law Center v. Department of Homeland Security, sued both the Department of Homeland Security, and its sub-agency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which conducted the February 7, 2008 raid in Van Nuys.  NILC was represented by Maurice M. Suh and Katherine Smith, of Gibson Dunn.  The National Immigration Law Center’s in-house counsel also participated as counsel in the case, and their team included Linton Joaquin, Karen Tumlin and Nora Preciado.  Ahilan Arulanantham and Jennie Pasquarella from the ACLU of Southern California represented itself and the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles.

Updated after the jump: UTLA plans to appeal the ruling.
Update: L.A. Mayor, Board of Education Prez and Superintendent-to-be join the victory lap.
This one's for the kids.
An L.A. Superior Court judge ruled just a few hours ago, in Reed v. State of California, et al., that seniority can no longer be a factor in teacher layoffs throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District.
The strict seniority formula -- when coupled with a teacher's right to refuse to work at certain schools -- provided for a chaotically rapid-fire "last hired, first fired" turnover rate at already disadvantaged schools in South and East L.A.
After months of kicking, screaming and crying liar liar, the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) union, led by staunchly anti-reform A.J. Duffy, are big-time losers today. On the other end, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Counsel and Morrison &Foerster law firms take the trophy.
Kids in 45 low-performing L.A. schools, however...
... are the real victors. They may finally have the chance, and the legal right, to learn from a stable set of quality educators.
Under today's ruling, these 45 "targeted schools" -- determined by performance, staffing difficulty and projected effects of teacher turnover -- will be protected from "budget-based teacher layoffs" and provided with "support and resources aimed at stabilizing and improving these schools, including retention incentives for teachers and principals."
Back when the ACLU and the L.A. Board of Education made the settlement in October, two different law professors told the Los Angeles Times that, if a judge were to approve it, a seniority-nixing lawsuit like this would affect policy throughout the nation.

"This is a shifting of the tectonic plates," said David Gregory, a professor of labor law at St. John's College in New York City. "If this were to move forward, every major district in the country is going to look to this as the model.... It would be the most innovative system in the country -- if it comes to pass."

And come to pass it has.
From the ACLU's triumphant press release today:

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the state and LAUSD for carrying out budget cuts that disproportionately affected the three schools, decimating their teacher staffs. While many schools around the state lost zero teachers to the budget crisis, more than half of the teaching staffs at Gompers, Liechty and Markham middle schools lost their jobs as permanent teachers. At Liechty, 72 percent of the teachers received layoff notices; at Markham, the layoffs included almost the entire English department along with every 8th grade history teacher.

In court, City University of New York professor Michelle Fine testified against UTLA:
"This is very sad case; it is about distributing pain," she said. "We have policies that have distributed pain and burden in a way that low-income schools have for generations paid a price."
LA Weekly piece "LAUSD's Dance of the Lemons," from February 2010, delved into frustrating union roadblocks that allowed only 4 of 33,000 Los Angeles teachers to be fired over the last decade, despite the apparent inability of many to do the job effectively.
An extensive Los Angeles Times investigation of LAUSD faculty made this educational injustice very apparent, in that -- though some teachers were clearly more effective in advancing their students academically -- there was no way to lay off the ones who were lagging.
Instead, the superficial "first hired, last fired" formula always prevailed.
As of this afternoon -- no more.
Update: Mayor Villaraigosa says the lawsuit was originally filed at his request. Today, he spams out an official reaction to the ruling:

"This decision is a victory for all Los Angeles students. I applaud Judge [William F.] Highberger for recognizing how devastating these layoffs are and understanding just how difficult it is to find teachers who are up to challenge of teaching in communities long-plagued by drugs, abuse, violence and gangs. All California students have the right to a quality education, no matter their ZIP code or parents' income level. This decision will help keep dedicated and effective teachers where they belong: in the classroom."

And we can't forget L.A. Board of Education President Monica Garcia, who tiptoes the line between union-ites and reformers:

"I am grateful today on behalf of every child, employee, and board member of the Los Angeles Unified School District. We have a very hard job ahead of us. Come March 15, we will have to send thousands of letters to teachers to tell them they might not have a job next year. The fact that we can now factor things other than seniority will help us serve our students better."

Last but not least, incoming LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy keeps it short 'n' sweet, if equally tiptoed:

"This settlement agreement calls for additional compromise, for which our arms are fully outstretched towards our labor partners."

Update: UTLA Vice President Julie Washington tells the Associated Press that the union plans to appeal Judge Highberger's ruling -- to be expected, but still, somewhat of a light sprinkle on the disadvantaged schoolchildren's parade today, if you ask us.

[UTLA] will appeal the ruling because it is unfair to pass on layoffs to teachers who have earned their jobs and skills, said [Washington]."What it is really saying is that experience in teaching has no value," she said. "We feel that this remedy, if allowed to go through, will actually exacerbate the problem."

Wait -- back up. Teachers who have earned their skills? Not to get too Ayn Rand up in here, but if anyone, at any time, finds a way to explain to us how one's skills can possibly be acquired through an earning process, feel free to let us know.
Now back to the AP report:

The union was supported by state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, who filed a brief opposing the settlement on Friday noting it "could have far reaching, unintended consequences throughout the state."

As for Washington's UTLA boss -- where's huffy Duffy when you need a quote?
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/01/aclu_wins_lawsuit_utla_senior...