Judge in Deportation Case Refuses Call to Step Aside : Court: Attorneys for Palestinian activists challenge jurist with ties to Jewish-American group’s Anti-Defamation League.

In the latest twist to the U.S. government’s six-year effort to deport a group of Palestinian activists, an immigration judge refused Tuesday to remove himself from the case despite his affiliation with a major Jewish-American organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

“Judges don’t live in cloisters--nor should they,” Judge Bruce J. Einhorn said in declining to step aside from the celebrated case of the so-called L.A. Eight--seven Palestinians and a Kenyan who authorities say are linked to a terrorist group.

The protracted case has attracted widespread attention from civil libertarians, pitting the 1st Amendment right of free speech against the government’s desire to sanction immigrants espousing causes that authorities find unpalatable. Officials depict the case as a legitimate effort to protect national security in the face of terrorism, but critics label the proceedings a witch hunt with strong racist overtones that could chill dissent among immigrants seeking change in their homelands.

Einhorn, a law professor at Pepperdine University who has sat on the federal immigration bench since 1990, chairs the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights committee in Los Angeles.

Defense lawyers allege that the league has investigated these and other Palestinian activists residing in the United States and funneled information to U.S. authorities--a claim rejected by David Lehrer, the league’s executive director in Los Angeles.

“We have absolutely nothing to do with the prosecution of this case, nothing to do with the formulation of this case,” said Lehrer, whose group admits to monitoring left- and right-wing extremist groups and providing information on suspected criminal activity to the FBI. “There’s no nefarious plot here.”

However, defense lawyers cite the potential for bias because of the judge’s league activities, however impartial his decisions may turn out. “He’s very active in an organization that has a vested interest in having our clients deported,” noted Marc Van Der Hout, a San Francisco attorney and co-defense counsel.

Defense lawyers, citing earlier rulings, already have contended that Judge Einhorn displayed a prejudgment against the two Palestinians whose cases are now under review. Should the judge order deportation, attorneys say that Einhorn’s affiliations with the league will form part of the basis for an appeal.

Michael Lindemann, a Justice Department attorney handling the deportation case, said: “I think he did the right thing.”

The case before Einhorn involves the proposed deportation of Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, both long-time legal U.S. residents who live in the Los Angeles area. The two are charged with raising money and providing support for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Both say they have been active only in humanitarian causes, and deny involvement in terrorism.

Prosecutors have never filed criminal charges against any of the eight, who were originally arrested in January, 1987, as part of a much-publicized anti-terrorism push.

U.S. authorities are seeking to deport the other six targeted activists--including five Palestinians and Hamide’s Kenyan wife--on technical violations of immigration law.

As the deportation cases move forward, a parallel federal court case alleges that authorities violated the immigrants’ right to due process, free speech and equal protection under the law. U.S. attorneys have defended the arrests and subsequent deportation efforts as justified to fight terrorism.