The "Los Angeles 8" case has taken many twists and turns in the over twenty years since it began. Below is a chronology of the major developments in the case, which has now spanned three decades.

January 26, 1987: FBI and INS agents arrest six Palestinians and a Kenyan in Los Angeles, hold them in maximum security, and charge them with being affiliated with a group that advocates "the doctrines of world communism," a deportable offense under the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act. The group they are charged with being tied to is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a constituent member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). One week later, INS arrests a seventh Palestinian on the same charges, making eight "respondents" in all. The arrests bring national attention, and the eight are dubbed the "LA 8."

February 3, 1987: Copies of a secret INS document, "Alien Terrorists and Undesirables: A Contingency Plan," are leaked to the press. The document was created by the Alien Border Control Committee, a secret inter-agency task force organized to develop plans to assertedly "expedite deportation proceedings against Libyan, Iranian, and PLO activists who have violated their visa status." It appears to be a blueprint for the "LA 8" case.

February 17, 1987: The eight respondents are released from custody, after an immigration judge refused to consider secret evidence that the government sought to offer to support their detention without bond. April 3, 1987: The eight respondents, joined by numerous Arab, Irish, and other immigrants' rights and peace organizations, file suit in federal court against the Attorney General and the INS, charging that the McCarran-Walter Act provisions are unconstitutional, and that they have been selectively targeted for deportation based on constitutionally protected political activity. The case is titled American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Meese. The eight seek injunctive relief declaring the McCarran-Walter Act unconstitutional, and the district court sets a hearing for

April 24, 1987 :April 23, 1987: On the eve of the federal district court hearing, the INS changes the deportation charges, in an attempt to avoid an adverse decision in federal court. It drops the McCarran-Walter Act charges against six of the eight, and proceeds against them for alleged technical visa violations, such as taking too few credits in school or working without authorization on a student visa. The INS also changes the charges against the two permanent residents (Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh), now characterizing the PFLP as a group that advocates the destruction of property. INS Regional General Counsel, William Odencrantz, holds a press conference and announces that the changes are tactical only, and that the real reason the INS seeks their deportation is because of their alleged PFLP ties.

April 1987: In congressional hearings, then FBI Director William Webster testifies that the FBI had investigated the eight respondents because of suspected ties to the PFLP, but had found no evidence of criminal or terrorist activity. He testified that the information on the eight was given to the INS to try to deport them for being members in a "world-wide Communist organization." He also admitted that "if these individuals had been United States citizens, there would not have been a basis for their arrest."

January 26, 1989: U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson rules that immigrants have the same First Amendment rights as citizens, and that the McCarran-Walter Act was unconstitutional. The government appeals the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

July 24, 1989: In an attempt to evade the district court's ruling, the INS files new charges against Hamide and Shehadeh, now characterizing the PFLP as a group that advocates the assault and assassination of government officials.

November 17, 1989: Judge Wilson rules that the provisions the INS added in July are unconstitutional for the same reasons that the earlier charges were ?they punish individuals solely for their association with a group that advocates disfavored ideas.

November 1990: Congress repeals the McCarran-Walter Act. In its place, it enacts a new law making it a deportable offense to "engage in terrorist activity." April 1991: The INS files new charges against Hamide and Shehadeh under the terrorism provisions of the 1990 Immigration Act. It does not charge them with actually engaging in or supporting any terrorist acts, however. Rather, it charges them with providing material support to the PFLP, a "terrorist organization," and argues that such support, even for humanitarian and other lawful purposes, is a deportable offense.

July 1991: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses, on procedural grounds, Judge Wilson's decision declaring the McCarran-Walter Act unconstitutional. It rules that because Congress had repealed the McCarran-Walter Act charges at issue, there was no need for a judicial declaration of its constitutional validity.

October 1992: The deportation hearing against Hamide and Shehadeh under the 1990 Act charges begins before Los Angeles Immigration Judge Bruce Einhorn. The INS first seeks to establish that the PFLP is a "terrorist organization," by putting on the stand two professors who have read news articles and books about the PFLP, but testify from no direct experience with the PFLP. This aspect of the proceeding is very lengthy, and extends, with breaks, for six weeks, over two and a half years. At the close of that part of the proceeding, the INS has not introduced a single piece of direct testimony about the PFLP, but has relied entirely on the "expert" opinions of the professors' reading of news articles and books.

January 1994: The district court rules on two important issues left in the federal case. First, it finds that plaintiffs had made a preliminary showing that they had been selectively targeted for deportation based on their First Amendment activities (while similarly situated members and supporters of the Nicaraguan Contras, Afghanistan Mujahedin, and anti-Castro Cuban groups had not been deported). On that basis, it preliminarily enjoins deportation proceedings against six of the eight immigrants, declining to enjoin the proceeding against Hamide and Shehadeh because it believes it lacks jurisdiction over their claims. Second, the court issues a second preliminary injunction against the INS, prohibiting the use of secret evidence to deny legalization (to permanent resident status) to two of the eight aliens, Naim Sharif and Aiad Barakat, who were otherwise eligible for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The court holds that reliance on secret evidence probably violates due process, and orders discovery. The government appeals both injunctions; Hamide and Shehadeh appeal the court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear their selective prosecution claims.

January 1995: The district court grants Sharif and Barakat summary judgment on their claims that the use of secret evidence violates due process. The Court reviews an ex parte, in camera submission from the government, in which it sets forth why it needs to use secret evidence against the two, and finds it shows nothing of import. Specifically, it finds that the government's submission did not show that Barakat or Sharif had "personally participated in any 'terrorist' activity." The government appeals.

November 1995: In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the injunctions. It rejects the government's argument that immigrants are not entitled to the same First Amendment protections as U.S. citizens. And it holds that using secret evidence cannot be squared with fundamental principles of due process. In addition, it rules that the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Hamide and Shehadeh's selective prosecution claims.

April 1996: The district court extends the preliminary injunction against deportation proceedings to Hamide and Shehadeh. After the November 1995 Ninth Circuit decision, the INS submitted 10,000 pages of evidence to the court -- much of it FBI surveillance of the eight -- and argued that this evidence showed that it was justified in targeting the respondents for deportation. Judge Wilson reviewed all of the evidence, and ruled that all of the activities revealed in the documents -- selling newspapers, participating in demonstrations, and organizing humanitarian aid fund-raisers -- was protected by the First Amendment. The government appeals again. On this appeal, it argues that no one -- citizen or non-citizen -- has a First Amendment right to support the lawful activities of a foreign "terrorist organization."

September 1996: Congress again amends the Immigration Act, through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), putting in a provision that bars federal courts from hearing selective prosecution claims in immigration cases and making that provision retroactive to all pending deportation cases raising a selective prosecution claim?of which there is only one?the LA8.

October 1996: The INS moves to dismiss the respondents' federal case against it, arguing that the "court-stripping" provision in the Act deprives the federal district court of jurisdiction to hear the eight immigrants' selective prosecution challenge to its actions.

February 1997: Judge Wilson denies the INS's motion to dismiss, ruling that the eight are constitutionally entitled to immediate federal district court review of their First Amendment selective prosecution claims.

April 1997: The INS grants legalization to Aiad Barakat and Naim Sharif, two of the eight, making them eligible to become permanent resident aliens. They had applied for legalization in 1987. The INS's decision was pursuant to the 1995 Ninth Circuit ruling discussed above, holding that the INS could not rely on secret evidence to deny Barakat's and Sharif's applications for legalization.

August 1997: The Court of Appeals unanimously affirms the district court's decisions to extend the injunction against deportation to Hamide and Shehadeh. It also holds that the new immigration law's (IIRIRA's) judicial review provisions do not strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over constitutional selective enforcement challenges to INS actions, and that the First Amendment protects the right to provide material support to the PFLP, unless the government shows specific intent to further the PFLP's unlawful activities.

December 1997: The Ninth Circuit denies the government's petition for rehearing en banc, with three judges (Kozinski, O'Scannlon, and Kleinfeld) dissenting. June 1998: The Supreme Court agrees to hear the government's appeal of the Ninth Circuit's 1997 decision. The government requested review of both the jurisdictional issues and the merits of the selective prosecution injunction, but the Court grants review only of the jurisdictional issues.

February 1999: The Supreme Court, in a devastating decision for immigrants, reverses the Ninth Circuit's decision Despite having denied review on the merits, and thereby barring the parties from briefing it, the Court goes ahead and decides the merits of the selective enforcement claims, ruling for the first time that aliens have no right to object to being targeted for deportation based on their political affiliations. It also rules that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such claims. The injunction against the deportation hearing, therefore, is overturned. The case was remanded back to the immigration judge for Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh who remain in deportation proceedings.

June 2001: Immigration Judge Bruce Einhorn grants the Respondents' motion to dismiss the case, holding that the terrorism grounds of deportation that were enacted by the Immigration Act of 1990 cannot be applied retroactively to Hamide and Shehadeh. Einhorn rules that the government can only proceed under the McCarran-Walter Act charges, that Judge Wilson had found unconstitutional. The government appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

October 2001: While the government's appeal is pending, Congress passes the "USA PATRIOT ACT" which expands the terrorism grounds of deportation and means that Einhorn's ruling throwing out the charges under the 1990 Immigration Act, must be reconsidered June 2002: The Board of Immigration Appeals remands the case back to Judge Einhorn, once again. September 2003: The government amends the charges against Hamide and Shehadeh for at least the fifth time. It charges them under the new terrorism grounds under the USA PATRIOT ACT claiming they provided material support to and solicited funds for a terrorist organization.

July 2005: The deportation case against Hamide and Shehadeh is scheduled to begin again July 13, 2005 through July 22, 2005 before Judge Einhorn in Immigration Court in Los Angeles, under the USA PATRIOT ACT. On July 7, 2005, Judge Einhorn issues an order canceling the hearing because the government failed to comply with his orders to produce detailed witness summaries, documents, and any potential exculpatory evidence.

July 20, 2005: The government again amends the charges against Hamide and Shehadeh, now for at least the sixth time.  It charges them under the REAL ID Act, claiming that they are members of a terrorist organization. 

August 2005: Hamide and Shehadeh file a brief in further support of their motion to terminate proceedings, arguing that the new REAL ID Act charges should be dismissed.

December 2006: Aiad Barakat (one of the original LA 8) receives his certificate of naturalization after a twenty year fight against his deportation.

January 29, 2007:  Judge Einhorn terminates deportation proceedings due to the government’s failure to produce exculpatory evidence and other documents ordered by the judge.