Stanford Human Rights Clinic participates in Supreme Court deportation case

In a year in which new legislation reignited the debate over immigration, students at the Stanford Human Rights Clinic participated in a Supreme Court victory that allows immigrants to challenge deportation based on a single felony drug conviction.

Like other such clinics around the country,

In December, the clinic was integral in the case of a South Dakota man who was deported to Mexico after pleading guilty to aiding in the possession of cocaine. Jose Antonio Lopez, the owner of a Sioux Falls grocery store, was imprisoned for 15 months and then deported to Mexico early last year. Under state law, Lopez, a permanent resident who had lived in the U.S. for 16 years, had committed a felony. However, Lopez was a first-time offender, making his crime a misdemeanor under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.

"The real challenge with this case was explaining that people are so much more than a single drug offense," said the clinic's director, Jayashri Srikantiah. "People like Mr. Lopez have lived in this country for a long time and we shouldn't focus solely on their one criminal conviction when deciding whether they should be allowed to remain in the country."

Srikantiah, who was born in India, was formerly the associate legal director of the ACLU in Northern California. She was handpicked to run the clinic after her work in similar cases defending clients affected by the 1996 immigration laws, which she described as "drastic and draconian."

"I was really excited about the prospect of inspiring students to try and help a forgotten group of people," said Srikantiah.

The students filed an amicus curiae brief, detailing the fundamental differences between possession or trafficking in a drug and aiding in the possession of cocaine. They argued that it was unfair to classify Lopez's crime as a felony and deport him, and that this could set a dangerous precedent for the immigrant community.

"There was a distinction that we felt the court should grapple with because it's unclear and doesn't make any sense," Srikantiah said.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed Lopez's deportation in an 8-1 decision, setting a precedent for legal immigrants to seek relief from deportation if their record is marred by a single drug conviction. (Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct 625). Nearly one-tenth of the 77,000 immigrants deported in 2005 had one or more drug arrests on their record.

As a result of the ruling, Lopez will come back to the United States where an immigration judge will decide whether he may remain in the country. His wife and two children remain in the U.S.

While students didn't actually argue before the Court, they were entirely responsible for putting the amicus brief together: from general outline, to the recruiting of amici to provide advice and support, to conducting extensive overall legal research.

"We're looking for students who have a commitment to working on these issues and reflect on how to be a lawyer and what role their skills can play," Srikanthiah said.

Stanford, the founder of clinical-based legal education, has been arguing Supreme Court cases since 2004, and has been the model for similar clinics opened at Yale and the University of Virginia last year.

The clinic, which consists of about a dozen students per semester, won its first high-court decision in 2005 - an age discrimination suit against the city of Jackson, Miss. on behalf of 30 police officers who claimed their younger colleagues were being granted substantially larger raises. (Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005)).

"To be a part of something like this on this level, and be victorious, the students were absolutely ecstatic," Srikantiah said.

Currently, Srikantiah's clinic is involved in eleven immigration- related cases, including one before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding indefinite detention of immigrants.

Yale follows Stanford's lead

Stanford's human rights clinic is not alone in taking a stand against allegedly unfair treatment of immigrants.

Last year, the human rights clinic at Yale sued the Department of Homeland Security twice in two months for refusing to release information in two immigrants' rights cases.

The most recent case involved 11 immigrants - seven of whom are represented by Yale students - who were arrested by an undercover police officer posing as a building contractor providing work. The government accused the defendants of living in the country illegally.

Michael Wishnie, the co-director of two Yale law clinics, said he was contacted by family members of the accused. Wishnie said his clinic filed a Freedom of Information Act complaint on behalf of Danbury Community Organizations after the agency refused to disclose records pertaining to the investigation and other activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the town.

The clinic has not yet decided if it plans to sue the city of Danbury, Conn. for its role in the investigation and arrests. Because the case is pending, Wishnie was not able to elaborate on the clinic's criticisms of the role of ICE and the city in the arrests.

"It's too early to lay out all of our objections," Wishnie said. "But we anticipate litigating the lawfulness of the arrest. I hope and expect the deportation case will be thrown out."

Currently, Wishnie supervises 37 students in two law clinics, the Yale Human Rights clinic and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy clinic. After graduating from Yale Law School, Wishnie represented construction workers, taxi drivers and service industry workers in employment rights cases.

Wishnie's clinic first confronted Homeland Security in November for failing to release records pertaining to Operation Front Line. The program, listed in the 2006 budget for ICE, is targeting "potential vulnerabilities in immigration and trade systems relative to the national security of the United States."

"It caught our attention because Homeland Security tends to announce these kinds of operations," Wishnie said. "There's a lot of information regarding the programs on the agency's website and I had not heard of this one. I asked around to a few immigration and civil rights' lawyers, but none had heard of it either. It's not common they do something wholly top-secret."

Wishnie expects his students to perform all the tasks of a lawyer throughout the litigation process. When asked if students in the clinic would argue before a judge, Wishnie said, "Absolutely," quickly adding "under my supervision."