The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[34] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[35] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[36]
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[37] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[38]
The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[39][40]
I think 2025 SCOTUS would uphold it. Also, the challenge wasn't to the constitutionality of restricting benefits, but to doing it at a the state level.
Why can't you restrict benefits?
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[34] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[35] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[36]
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[37] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[38]
The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[39][40]
I think 2025 SCOTUS would uphold it. Also, the challenge wasn't to the constitutionality of restricting benefits, but to doing it at a the state level.