Court Upholds Ban on State Welfare Curbs

A federal appeals panel Wednesday upheld a ban on a California law that would reduce welfare payments for new residents who move here from other states, despite Gov. Pete Wilson’s warnings that California would become a welfare magnet.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a lower court ruling that blocked California’s attempt to cut public aid for new residents during their first 12 months in the state.

In a separate ruling made public this week, a state appeals panel upheld another one of Wilson’s long-term welfare objectives and cleared the way for California to end state-subsidized pregnancy care for 70,000 illegal immigrant women.

Wilson has argued that the 1996 federal welfare overhaul specifically authorized states to ban most aid for illegal immigrants and to place special restrictions on benefits for new residents arriving from other states.

But the three-judge federal panel found that a lower court “did not abuse its discretion” in granting a preliminary injunction barring benefits for new state residents.

In his June 4 ruling, U.S. District Judge David F. Levi in Sacramento repudiated Wilson’s contention that welfare payments act as a magnet for poor migrants. In addition, the judge called the California law a violation of the constitutional doctrine that states cannot discriminate against citizens based on their states of origin or their length of residency in their adopted states.

Civil libertarians hailed Wednesday’s ruling, saying that it will discourage other states from attempting to erect similar barriers.

“This upholds the principle that California cannot detach itself from the rest of the nation,” said Mark Rosenbaum, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “It means the governor is going to have to take down the fence he wants to keep out poor women.”

Martha Davis, legal director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, called the decision a “landmark” that was crucial for women fleeing domestic abuse who move across state lines to avoid stalking and violence.

Wilson, who contended that reduced benefits to newcomers would save the state’s taxpayers about $13.5 million a year, assailed the court’s decision. He voiced hope that the Supreme Court would hear the case.

“California has among the highest welfare benefits in the nation,” said Wilson, who repeated that the disputed law “avoids making California a welfare magnet.”

Rosenbaum said the ruling will provide strong legal ammunition for those challenging a similar law in Washington state, since the 9th circuit includes the Pacific Northwest.

A spokeswoman for Washington Gov. Gary Locke said, “We haven’t seen the decision yet and cannot comment until our legal counsel has a chance to look at it.”

A number of states have moved to restrict welfare payments to new residents, Rosenbaum said, but several--including Minnesota and Pennsylvania--have been stymied by court rulings.

However, Wednesday’s ruling was the first federal appeals court decision since passage of the federal welfare overhaul in 1996 gave new life to state efforts to pay differing levels of benefits for new residents.

The California welfare law would have reduced benefits for residents who have lived here for less than one year to the amount that they would have received in their home states. According to ACLU estimates, the policy would have meant that a poor family of four moving here from Mississippi would be entitled to $144 a month rather than California’s regular allotment of $673.

In its separate ruling, the three-judge state panel ruled that Wilson may cut off state-funded prenatal care to illegal immigrants while the action’s legality is being challenged.

The state will cut off benefits as soon as possible, but has not yet set a date, said Lisa Kalustian, a spokeswoman for the governor. The state had planned to begin cutting benefits Jan. 1, until a Superior Court judge in Oakland ruled that the state plan conflicted with federal guidelines.

John Affeldt, a lawyer for women who challenged the cutoff, said Wednesday that he may ask the state Supreme Court to overturn the order and force the state to continue the benefits.

Times staff writer Virginia Ellis contributed to this story from Sacramento.