"The Court could only come to the conclusion that Proposition 209 is constitutional by turning a blind eye to Supreme Court precedents, the factual record in this case, and the reality of racism in our society today," said ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen said at a press conference in San Francisco shortly after the decision was released.

Eva Paterson, Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, said that although she was extremely disappointed by the ruling, she was confident that the plaintiffs -- a coalition of women and minority business, labor and academic organizations who filed the class action challenge the day after the November election -- would prevail in overturning Proposition 209. "The struggle to rid society of racial and gender discrimination has never been an easy one. Civil rights activists have often suffered setbacks in our long struggle for justice."

Paterson was particularly critical of the panel's ruling not to have a full hearing on the facts of the case, arguing that the facts show the devastating impact of this measure. "California must realize that the elimination of affirmative action will resegregate society. For example, this year's entering class of 300 students at U.C. Berkeley law school has 60 Latinos and African Americans. Next year, with the elimination of affirmative action there will be only five Latinos and three African Americans. A young African American man was admitted to Stanford and Harvard law schools, and denied admission to UC Berkeley. It is clear that the elimination of affirmative action keeps qualified people from being educated in our universities. This is not what the voters wanted," Paterson said.

Despite the panel's ruling, Proposition 209 is not in effect. The civil rights lawyers have 14 days to file the appeal for the en banc hearing; the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court in December will remain in place while the full Ninth Circuit considers the case.

"I'm confident that the other Ninth Circuit judges will want to review this decision, given the panel's refusal to follow clear Supreme Court precedent and the tremendous public importance of the issue," said attorney Julian Gross of the Employment Law Center. "The judges efforts to get around the relevant Supreme court precedents were strained and unconvincing. They never addressed our arguments head on -- and they mischaracterized the controlling cases."

"There is nothing neutral about the result of this ruling or Proposition 209," said Chen, responding to the panel's statement that this is a race-neutral law. "If implemented, only women and minorities will be excluded from public education, jobs and business opportunities. Only women and minorities will be barred from equal access to the political process."