LOS ANGELES - In a decision received today, Los Angeles Immigration Judge Bruce J. Einhorn ordered an end to deportation proceedings against Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, members of the Los Angeles Eight (LA8). The two have faced deportation for their alleged political associations with a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization for more than twenty years.

In his decision, Einhorn said that the proceedings must be terminated because of the government's refusal to disclose evidence favorable to the immigrants in compliance with his June 2005 pre-trial order to disclose evidence regarding Hamide and Shehadeh's alleged support for the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine.

Hamide and Shehadeh have been in deportation proceedings for 20 years and their case has reached every level of federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The government has been seeking to deport Hamide and Shehadeh since January 1987 based on their alleged support for the PFLP, a group within the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The decision comes just after the January 26, 2007 20th anniversary of the arrest of the Los Angeles Eight.

Judge Einhorn wrote in an 11-page opinion that begins with a poem that "the attenuation of these proceedings is a festering wound on the body of respondents and an embarrassment to the rule of law." He held that the government violated Hamide and Shehadeh's right to due process by subjecting them to a 20-year deportation proceeding, while at the same time being unprepared to prosecute the case.

Since 1987, the government has argued that Hamide and Shehadeh's activities protected by the First Amendment like distributing newspapers, participating in demonstrations and organizing humanitarian aid fund raisers for Palestinians in the Middle East warrant deportation

San Francisco attorney Marc Van Der Hout of the law firm of Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, who has been representing the LA8 on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild since the case began in 1987 stated:

"Judge Einhorn's decision is important not only for Hamide and Shehadeh but for all immigrants in this country who want to be able to express their political views. The decision makes clear that the government cannot blatantly refuse to comply with an immigration judge's orders and that the government cannot continue to try to deport these permanent residents who did nothing but try to advocate for Palestinians right to a homeland-hardly a revolutionary belief in the 21st century."

David Cole, of Georgetown Law School who has been, along with Van Der Hout, co-lead counsel for the LA8, on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights, since the case began, stated:

"For twenty years the government has been attempting to deport these individuals for political activities that would clearly be protected if they were U.S. citizens. We hope that the government will now move on and focus its efforts on real terrorists and not political activists."

Ahilan T. Arulanantham of the ACLU of Southern California, also co-counsel on the case, stated:

"The message from this decision is clear: The government should spend its resources on genuine threats to our national security instead of targeting law-abiding immigrants who have done nothing wrong."

Leonard Weinglass of Chicago Seven fame, has also been representing the LA8 since 1987.

Late last year, Aiad Barakat, another member of the LA8, was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in Los Angeles after a 20 similar 20- year battle against the government's attempts to deport. Three other members of the LA8 have also obtained their permanent residency.

COMPTON - As temperatures in Southern California plunged earlier this month, a lack of heat and broken windows forced students and teachers at Compton High School to bundle up. Some teachers held classes outside to escape the chill. Many at the school say the problems have been going on for years.

Today a mother of two Compton High School students filed an official complaint about the cold conditions in her son's classroom. Under the terms of the 2004 settlement of Williams vs. California, school officials must address complaints from parents, students, and teachers about facilities conditions that threaten the health or safety of students or staff.

The case was filed in 2000 by the ACLU of Southern California, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Public Advocates, Inc. and other groups on behalf of students who attended substandard California schools.

"I speak for my child and for other parents when I say our children deserve decent schools," said Compton High School parent Lourdes Rocha, whose son, Frank, is in 10th grade. She also has a daughter in 9th grade at the school. "If the average person walked into a Compton classroom, he would be shocked by the building conditions."

The Williams vs. California settlement gives Compton Unified School District officials 30 working days to respond to Rocha's complaint. As one of Compton's 33 low-performing schools, the high school is eligible for emergency repair funding under the settlement.

"How do low-performing schools attract good teachers and convince students to come to school when they can't keep them warm?" asked ACLU/SC Racial Justice Organizer Teresa VirgenTorres. "Students' learning suffers when the building is falling apart around them."

Compton Unified School District has failed to submit any of the 33 school-facilities assessments required under the settlement and due in January 2006, despite receiving $335,410 two years ago for that purpose. County and State officials have repeatedly called the district to task for failing to complete the assessments.

More than 2,000 completed assessments from 375 other districts are posted online, providing comprehensive lists of necessary repairs and other information to help school districts address facilities issues before breakdowns occur and students are left shivering in their classrooms.

Other school districts have used the assessments to guide their spending on school repairs and to apply for funds from the $800-million Emergency Repair Program. Compton accounts for 83% of uncompleted assessments statewide.

"A completed facilities needs assessment would likely have identified any necessary heating system repairs, and unused needs assessment grant funds could then have helped pay for them," explained ACLU/SC attorney Brooks Allen, who oversees the implementation of the Williams settlement.

Website: Statewide needs assessments are available online at http://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnareporting/fnareporting.asp

The Bush administration has dropped its claim of ultimate authority to listen in on Americans' telephone and internet communications without first seeking a warrant, switching its strategy one day before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to testify before Congress. It now says a secret surveillance court will judge the plan's legality.

Last year, the ACLU successfully challenged the National Security Agency's five-year-old warrantless wiretapping program.

The ACLU questioned the administration's motives and its timing, which also came two weeks before a Jan. 31 court date. "The NSA program was operating illegally, and this is an attempt to avoid public oversight by negotiating secret rules with a secret court," said ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston.

The ACLU sued on behalf of journalists, academics and advocacy groups, and last year a federal judge dismissed the Bush administration's claim that it, not the courts and Congress, could write the wiretapping rules. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she wrote. The ACLU will continue to press its lawsuit.

By acknowledging that a special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can decide the program's legality, the Bush administration apparently still hopes to hide the program from Americans and members of Congress.

"Without a court order that prohibits warrantless wiretapping, Americans can't be sure that their private calls and e-mails are safe from unchecked government intrusion," said Ann Beeson, lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA.

The Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a court-issued warrant "describing the place to be searched." This principle also applies to telephone and internet communication.