Appeals court rules alcoholism an illness, not a moral defect

Scales of justice and gavel on desk with dark background that allows for copyspace. Scales of justice and gavel on desk with dark background that allows for copyspace. Photo: James Steidl, ST Photo: James Steidl, ST Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Appeals court rules alcoholism an illness, not a moral defect 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

A law barring unauthorized immigrants from challenging their deportation if they are “habitual drunkards” is unconstitutional because alcoholism is an illness, not a moral defect that would automatically disqualify them, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

“Like any other medical condition, alcoholism is undeserving of punishment,” the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling. “We are well past the point where it is rational to link a person’s medical disability with his moral character.”

The law, more than a century old, allows only migrants with “good moral character” to challenge their deportation on the grounds that it would cause severe hardship to family members who were U.S. citizens or legal residents. The law defines good moral character to exclude those who have been convicted of certain serious crimes, have lied to gain a benefit in immigration proceedings, or are “habitual drunkards.”

That definition was challenged by Salomon Ledezma-Cosino, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico in 1997 and now is a construction worker in the San Diego area who has eight children, five of them U.S. citizens. Now in his mid-60s, he was held for deportation in 2008 and sought to stay in the U.S. on the grounds that his removal would cause hardship to his family.

But immigration judges said he lacked good moral character because of a 10-year history of alcohol abuse, which has resulted in hepatitis, cirrhosis and at least one drunken-driving conviction. Ledezma remains in the country while appealing his case.

In defending the deportation order, Justice Department lawyers argued that alcoholism, unlike other mental conditions, is at least partly voluntary and that alcoholics are more likely than others to commit violent crimes. But even if those contentions were accurate, the appeals court said, they would not show that alcoholics are immoral.

The government’s argument would apply equally to “a disproportionate number of today’s veterans,” who are driven to alcohol by trauma from their military service, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the majority opinion.

In dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said there is an element of free will in drinking, since some alcoholics are able to quit.

Regardless of their character, he said, Congress had rational grounds to single out drunkards “because of the harm they might do to others” and the costs of their continued presence.

Ledezma’s lawyer, Nora Milner, said the ruling has far-reaching implications, if it survives further appeals by the government. She said people defined as habitual drunkards are ineligible to become naturalized U.S. citizens and to receive some types of public benefits.

The central question, Milner said, is, “Are we going to punish individuals for conditions or for actions?”

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko