Skip to content

Judicial Watch • De Vries v. CA Regents illegal alien tuition appeal B264487

De Vries v. CA Regents illegal alien tuition appeal B264487

De Vries v. CA Regents illegal alien tuition appeal B264487

Page 1: De Vries v. CA Regents illegal alien tuition appeal B264487

Category:

Number of Pages:30

Date Created:March 22, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 05, 2016

Tags:Vries, Regents, Const, Appellant, present, benefits, legislature, Constitution, MARTINEZ, Bill Clinton, Supreme, Congress, California, federal, Supreme Court, university, states, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

No. B264487 THE COURT APPEAL THE STATE CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN
__________
Earl Vries,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs.
Regents the University California,
Defendant and Respondent.
__________
Appeal from the Superior Court California, County Los Angeles
The Hon. Gail Feuer; The Hon. Elizabeth Allen White
Superior Court Case No. BC555614
__________
APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF APPEAL
__________
Chris Fedeli (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Sterling Norris (SBN 040993)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5185
Fax: (202) 646-5199
cfedeli@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Earl Vries
Dated: March 22, 2016
TABLE CONTENTS
TABLE CONTENTS .........................................................................
TABLE AUTHORITIES ...................................................................
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................
ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... The Regents Misread Section 1621 the Federal
Immigration Code ..................................................................................... Section 1621 Excludes the Regents Policies Limiting
State Authorization for Benefits Only the Enactment State Law ................................................................................... The Combination the Regents and Legislature
Insufficient Acts Does Not Add One Sufficient
Act Under 1621 ..................................................................... Congress Has the Right Limit California Actions
With Section 1621 ................................................................. The Regents Misread Martinez .............................................................
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................
RULE 8.204(c) CERTIFICATION ........................................................
TABLE AUTHORITIES
State Cases
Blair Pitchess, Cal. 258 (1971) .............................................................................
Campbell Regents the Univ. California, Cal.4th 311 (2005) ............................
Martinez Regents the Univ. California, Cal.4th 1277 (2010) ......... 20, 21,
Federal Cases
Arizona United States, 132 Ct. 2492 (2012) .............................................................
Ariz. State Legislature Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm.,
135 S.Ct. 2652 (2015) ............................................................................................. 15-17 Canas Rica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) ...........................................................................
Department Homeland Security MacLean, 135 S.Ct. 913 (2015) .......................... 5-6
Gregory Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (2015) .......................................................................
Luther Borden, U.S. (1849) ..................................................................................
Hamilton Regents the University California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934) .....................
California Statutes, Rules, and Constitutional Provisions
Const. art. IX, 9(a) ....................................................................................2, 14,
Ed. Code 68130.5 ...................................................................................................
Federal Statutes, Rules, and Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. art. cl. ................................................................................................
U.S. Const. art. cl. ................................................................................................
U.S. Const. art. IV, cl. .............................................................................................
U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. ................................................................................................... U.S.C. 1621 ......................................................................................................... passim U.S.C. 1621(a) ........................................................................................................ U.S.C. 1621(d) ......................................................................................... 13, U.S.C. 1624 ............................................................................................................... 5-7 U.S.C. 1625 ............................................................................................................... 5-7 U.S.C. 7474(a)(2)(A) ..................................................................................................
Other Authorities
Georgetown Law Library, California Research In-Depth, available
http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/california-in-depth/constitution ...................................
H.R. Rep. No. 104-725, Sess. (1996), available https://www.congress.gov
/104/crpt/hrpt725/CRPT-104hrpt725.pdf .........................................................................
Oxford English Dictionaries, Entry for Enactment, available
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/enactment ...............
iii
INTRODUCTION
This case about decision Congress that conflicts with the current
policy preferences the Regents the University California Regents 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996, which was signed into law President Bill Clinton. With this law, Congress broadly made all
unlawfully present aliens ineligible for any State local public benefit. U.S.C. 1621(a).
Congress also included one exception this ban, which now the
subject this litigation. Specifically, Congress decided prohibit
unelected state bureaucrats from awarding benefits without direct
instructions from the state elected representatives.
accomplish this, Congress wrote that States could provide benefits
unlawfully present aliens only through the enactment State law
which affirmatively provides benefits unlawfully present aliens.
U.S.C. 1621(d).
The California State Legislature satisfied the requirements U.S.C.
1621 (hereinafter, Section 1621 1621 passing laws providing instate tuition, loan, and grant benefits unlawfully present aliens attending
California State University CSU and California Community Colleges CCC However, the legislature lacks the power pass such laws with
respect students attending the University California Under
the California Constitution, the Regents have been granted near total
control policy, and the California State Legislature legally
prohibited from interfering. Cal. Const. art. IX, 9(a).
The California State Legislature was therefore faced with dilemma.
The legislature would acting beyond its powers under the California
Constitution passed statute which gave benefits directly
students satisfaction 1621. alternative, the legislature could
comply with the California Constitution and pass statute which stops
short affirmatively providing benefits but merely encourages the Regents consider extending the benefits themselves, even though that statute
would not satisfy 1621 high bar. The legislature chose the latter path.
The Regents then decided precisely what Congress prohibited
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
Through series adopted policies, the unelected Regents extended instate tuition, loans, and financial aid benefits unlawfully present aliens.
Appellant Earl Vries then filed this suit requesting injunctive relief
stop the Regents illegal actions. their Respondents Brief Resp. Br. the Regents claim that
Congress never really intended require states take affirmative
legislative action extend benefits illegal aliens, and Congress did
intend, then 1621 would intrude California sovereignty. Resp. Br.
12-13. This argument contradicted the words the statute, the
canons statutory construction, the legislative history, and the relevant
principles federalism.
The Regents also claim that their policies help students, and any
case the gist their policies was already found consistent with
Section 1621 the California Supreme Court Martinez Regents the
Univ. California, Cal. 4th 1277 (2010). Resp. Br. Resp. Br. 911. With respect the first point, Congress has already decided that
actions like the Regents this case are prohibited. Congress did not want
entities like the Regents decide extending benefits unlawfully
present aliens Congress specified that state legislatures must this. And
Martinez only held that the California State Assembly could provide
benefits unlawfully present aliens attending CSU and CCC schools, not students.
ARGUMENT The Regents Misread Section 1621 the Federal Immigration
Code
This case turns the meaning U.S.C. 1621(d). The Regents
misinterpret Section 1621 throughout their brief, despite citing
approximately 100 times and referring least once every section
and subsection their argument. Specifically: the Regents are wrong
that 1621 allows Regents policies alone provide benefits unlawfully
present aliens; the Regents are wrong that 1621 allows the Regents
act invitation the California State Assembly provide the benefits;
and the Regents are wrong that 1621 violates principles federalism. Section 1621 Excludes the Regents Policies Limiting State
Authorization for Benefits Only the Enactment State
Law
When Congress wrote only through the enactment state law can
unlawfully present aliens receive benefits, that precisely what meant.
This means the exercise state legislative power. Not only this apparent
from the words, but also when one considers the context 1621, the
subsection the immigration code which appears, the remainder
Title the U.S. Code, and the text and legislative history the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996.
Appellant Opening Brief AOB 7-14. The Regents argue this not
what Congress really meant, but rather meant any exercise state
lawmaking power, legislative, executive, judicial, independent
board. Resp. Br. 37-42. Those arguments are unavailing. Congress
unique word choices and other evidence Congressional intent behind
1621 prove that the statute limited representative democratic state
legislative acts only.
First, the Regents truncate Appellant main argument characterizing question-begging assertion that only legislature can make State
law. Resp. Br. 37. Far from assertion, Appellant demonstrated
length that every principle statutory construction proves that when
Congress wrote only through the enactment state law they meant
exclude acts outside state legislative powers. AOB 7-14.
The words state law Section 1621 mean legislative enactment.
This conclusion required the U.S. Supreme Court decision
Department Homeland Security MacLean, 135 S.Ct. 913 (2015) MacLean The Regents fail distinguish MacLean from the present
case. the Regents correctly observe, MacLean requires clear
showing that Congress intended exclude state policies regulations
when uses the phrase state law. Resp. Br. 38. However, the Regents
try divorce this test from the case bar obfuscating the fact that
Appellant has already made this showing. Congress used the phrase only
through the enactment state law Section 1621 Title and yet
both Sections 1624 and 1625 the same title use the phrase state
political subdivision state authorized U.S.C. 1624 and
1625. All three sections are contained the same subsection the federal
immigration code addressing immigrant welfare and public benefits.
Appellant explained, this close statutory proximity satisfies MacLean
required clear showing that Congress intended limit 1621 statewide
representative legislative acts. AOB 10-11. The Regents inaccurately
counter-argue that this word difference shows only that Congress intended exclude municipalit[ies] local utility district[s] from providing
benefits under 1621. Resp. Br. 39-40. But comparison Sections
1621, 1624, and 1625 shows that this untrue. the only difference
Congress intent between the three statutes was allow proscribe
municipal county action, the difference the language would far less
dramatic. For instance, Congress had written state political
subdivision state authorized 1625, and state authorized
1621, then the Regents would likely correct that their policies fall under
Section 1621. However, the stark difference Congress actual Section
1621 language choice illustrates broader exclusion than merely local
ordinances.1
Furthermore, the Regents fail consider the entire phrase only
through the enactment state law Section 1621. Appellant
explained, each these words must considered meaningful, and not just
the words state law. AOB 7-8. The word only shows Congress
meant exclude all but one kind law. Neither 1624 nor 1625 uses the
word only, and when Congress uses particular language one section statute but omits another, courts must presume the omission
words was intentional. MacLean, 135 S.Ct. 919. Similarly, Congress
Even taken face value, the Regents argument that political
subdivisions means counties municipalities unexplained. Resp. Br.
39. Congress meant counties municipalities, would have written
counties municipalities. But subdivisions may include both local
subdivisions and subdivisions state branches such committees the
state assembly, regulatory agencies under the administrative branch,
independent agencies boards like the Regents the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
used the word enactment 1621 but not 1624 1625. According
the Oxford English Dictionary, the word enactment means [t]he process passing legislation. This distinct word choice which demonstrates
Congress meant legislative lawmaking, not the adoption state board
policies. And since Congress spelled out both parts this equation and
said that benefits can given only through the enactment state law,
the Regents argument that Congress meant broad and inclusive
various types state laws quickly evaporates. addition, bears special consideration that Section 1621 the only
place the entire titles the United States Code where Congress used
the exact phrase only through the enactment state law. This makes extraordinarily unique language choice. The Regents argument that this
highly-unusual choice just means any state law, regulation, policy asks
the Court ignore the words the federal statute. Resp. Br. 37.
Appellant has explained, Section 1621 prohibits all non-legislative
branches state government from extending benefits unlawfully present
aliens. AOB 13-14. The law was meant exclude executive orders
governors, actions state agencies state boards, any other purported
extension benefits except for that statewide representative body.
Oxford English Dictionaries, Entry for Enactment (visited March 21,
2016), available http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/
american_english/enactment.
The Board Regents policies have been deliberately excluded from
Section 1621 Congress.
Next, the Regents cite the federal Clean Air Act support their
claims, but this law only serves further illustrate Appellant arguments
about the significance statutory language. Resp. Br. 40. Under the
Clean Air Act, state may designate polluted areas when approved the
Governor the State, after consultation with the appropriate committees
the legislature. U.S.C. 7474(a)(2)(A). writing this statute,
Congress intended exclude state agencies state boards from making
federal environmental designations, and instead decided that only state
governors could make such decisions. This demonstrates that Congress
knows how specify actions different branches governments
greater lesser state entities when wishes so. Congress wished authorize governors, state agencies, state boards affirmatively
provide benefits unlawfully present aliens, Congress could have
specified state agencies and boards, just specified Governors and
legislative committees Section 7474. Instead, Congress decided make
unlawfully present alien benefits possible only through the enactment
State law, specific word choice which excludes the policies
independent state boards. U.S.C. 1621(d).
Separately, the Regents make alternative argument. They claim that
since Regents policies are state law for many routine purposes, they
should considered one the only enactments state law
designated Congress 1621, based not the words Section 1621
but the unique legal status the Regents. Resp. Br. 34-37. First,
the Regents themselves acknowledge, this question academic one
Appellant explanation the meaning Section 1621 correct. Resp.
Br. 45, fn. Here, the Regents appear acknowledge that Appellant right about Congress word choices Section 1621, the lower court
decision cannot stand because would put the California Constitution into
conflict with federal law. Id.; see also Cal. Const. art. IX, 9(a).
However, even the Regents were correct that Section 1621 could
read include Regents policies, the Regents cannot point single
judicial decision which supports the notion that Regents policies are state
law state statutes for all even most purposes, state federal.
such conclusion possible. The Regents policies may indeed state
laws for certain limited purposes. For instance, under California law,
Regents policies are considered state statutes for purposes applying
the doctrine exhaustion administrative remedies. Campbell Regents the Univ. California, Cal.4th 311, 321 (2005) The Regents
may create policy for handling whistleblower claims under their power
Such policy treated statute order determine whether the
exhaustion doctrine applies. (italics added). addition, Regents policies
have least once (in 1934) been deemed the equivalent state statute
for purposes federal jurisdictional statute, but that holding was clearly
limited the federal statute question. Hamilton Regents the
University California, 293 U.S. 245, 258 (1934) The meaning
statute any state not limited acts state legislatures follows
that the [Regents order making military instruction compulsory statute the State within the meaning 237 (a).
But the only question issue this lawsuit whether Regents policies
are enactments state law for purposes U.S.C. 1621. The narrow
cases cited the Regents involve procedural questions exhaustion and
jurisdiction, and can hardly lead this court conclusion that Regents
policies are state laws for purposes national immigration policy.
Indeed, the Regents give credible reason why their existence
independent state board caused Congress anything other than
explicitly reject the possibility that appointed state bureaucrats could extend
public benefits unlawfully present aliens under Section 1621. The Combination the Regents and Legislature Insufficient
Acts Does Not Add One Sufficient Act Under 1621
The three California statutes the Regents cite 540, 131, and 1210 don affirmatively provide benefits students, but merely
invite the Regents consider doing so, Appellant has explained. AOB 16-18. initial matter, the Regents appear have mostly
abandoned the argument they made the lower court that the California
State Legislature has affirmatively authorized benefits students with
the three statutes. Appellant Appendix AA- 56. Instead, the
Regents argue that, perhaps, Section 1621 can interpreted only require
the state legislature express its approval for Regents decision provide
the benefits. make this argument, the Regents incorrectly focus the
words provide for 1621 argue that the intransitive verb requires the
legislature less. Resp. Br. 45-46. This argument fails. The dispute this case over the meaning the word affirmatively Section
1621, not over the phrase provides for. The use the transitive
intransitive verb here does not affect the affirmative requirement
Section 1621. other words: whether the California statutes might
providing for benefits students not providing them
moment the statutes neither one those two things affirmatively. light the language 540, 131, and 1210, any argument
that these California statutes even partially satisfy Section 1621 would have first read the word affirmatively out the federal statute. AOB
AOB 15-19.
The mere agreement state legislature and state board (like the
Regents) does not satisfy Section 1621; rather, only the unambiguous
exercise legislative power does. The Regents are wrong that such
concurrence two insufficient acts under Section 1621 adds one
sufficient act which satisfies the spirit 1621 not the letter. Resp. Br.
46-49. The Regents argue that Appellant does not explain why Congress
would have chosen forbid unlawfully present alien students from
receiving public benefits when CSU and CCC students can receive them.
Resp. Br. 46. This incorrect. Appellant has explained why, but the
Regents are unwilling acknowledge the plain meaning federal law
that does not suit their current preferences. Section 1621 standup and counted law which requires that decision grant benefits
unlawfully present aliens made the most politically accountable level
the popularly elected legislative branch state. AOB 12.
California, the constitution puts the beyond the control the
legislature. Congress had intended for entities like the Regents
make decisions about extending benefits unlawfully present aliens,
could have (and would have) done so. did not, and the fact that
unlawfully present aliens attending cannot made eligible receive
benefits the logical consequence plain reading the federal law and
California constitution. what federal law requires. the extent the Regents question why Congress would have intended
for CSU and CCC students receive benefits while students cannot,
the answer that Congress had need consider the question. When
Congress passes law broad, nationwide applicability, does not
necessarily pause ask about each and every possible application. The
Regents question presupposes that Congress intends each and every unique
result every application its policy choices, rather than simply
intending establish single policy for the entire nation. Policy choices
necessarily require line-drawing, and here Congress intended create (and
did create) single, bright line rule applied uniformly across the
nation ensure that unlawfully present aliens eligibility for benefits
determined through the states legislative processes. There further
why it. writing Section 1621, Congress created default standard that
unlawfully present aliens should receive public benefits the first place.
U.S.C. 1621(a). The Regents essentially argue that the narrow exception
carved out 1621(d) should applied loosely that swallows the rule
set forth 1621(a). state legislatures could merely signal their
indifference state local bureaucrats awarding benefits unlawfully
present aliens, then elected officials would able evade political
accountability for providing the benefits. Appellant has shown, this was
never Congress intent. AOB 12; AA-418 419. Congress explained
the Conference Report concerning 1621 that [o]nly the affirmative
enactment law State legislature and signed the Governor
will meet the requirements this section. H.R. Rep. No. 104-725,
Sess., 383 (1996). The Board Regents are not elected body,
and they cannot voted out office the people California for their
decisions. AOB 12-13; AA-37. Accordingly, would violate the letter
and spirit Section 1621 allow the California State Legislature pass
off unelected bureaucrats even portion its accountability for
unlawfully present alien benefits.3 Congress Has the Right Limit California Actions With
Section 1621
Next, the Regents make misplaced federalism claim, arguing that
Section 1621 unjustly interferes with the State California right
award benefits unlawfully present aliens however they see fit. Resp. Br. 42-45. This argument gets the law federalism and federal
immigration policy backwards. California which has right defy
The Regents also make fallback argument that, even the Court enjoins
most the benefits students for violating Section 1621, the stateadministered grants should remain place because the Regents are not
directly providing them. Rather, the California Student Aid Commission
(the Commission providing those benefits students. Resp. Br. 33-34, fns. and This argument flawed. First, the California State
Legislature has lawful powers reduce eliminate student tuition,
whether via grant, loan, in-state tuition rate. Cal. Const. art. IX, 9(a).
The involvement the California Student Aid Commission conduit
for tuition breaks has impact this prohibition. the Regents are now
claiming that the California State Legislature has instructed the
Commission statute usurp powers constitutionally reserved the
Regents, that statute would violate the California Constitution. More
importantly for purposes Appellant requested injunction, the Regents
actions related state-administered grants still violate Section 1621 long the Regents are expending any taxpayer resources the form
state employee time assist loan distribution. See Blair Pitchess,
Cal. 258, 268 (1971) [T]he mere expending [of] the time [state
employees] performing illegal and unauthorized acts constitute[s]
unlawful use funds which could enjoined under section 526a.
Accordingly, all Regents activities furtherance the November 2014
revisions policy 3202 are illegal, are Regents actions supporting
policy 3106.1.C. AA-354, AA-363.
the federal government prohibition giving taxpayer-supported benefits unlawfully present aliens. See Arizona United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492,
2498 (2012) The Government the United States has broad, undoubted
power over the subject immigration and the status aliens. See also Canas Rica, 424 U.S. 351, 358 (1976) The Federal Government has
broad constitutional powers determining what aliens shall admitted
the United States [and] the regulation their conduct before
naturalization Under the Constitution the states are granted such
powers; they can neither add nor take from the conditions lawfully
imposed Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence
aliens the United States the several states. (internal quotes omitted).
Immigration law federal issue, not state issue.
Wrong about federalism and immigration law, the Regents cite several
cases which merely stand for the general principle that states retain some
rights against the federal union. Resp. Br. 42-45. Not only these
cases fail support the argument that the Regents may ignore Section 1621 federalism grounds, some them support Appellant arguments even
more strongly. For instance, the Regents mistakenly cite Ariz. State
Legislature Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm., 135 S.Ct. 2652
(2015) for the proposition that states may organize their government and
allocate power however they wish without consequence. Resp. Br. 4344. The Regents have misread this case several ways.
First, Ariz. State Legislature concerned state authority alter its
own election laws for federal office, not state laws regarding immigration.
135 S.Ct. 2652, 2658-59. the Supreme Court observed, the
Constitution reserves the power set rules for electing members
Congress the first instance the states. Id. 2659, citing the Elections
Clause, U.S. Const. art. cl. the contrary, the Constitution gives
broad powers over immigration law the federal government, without
similar reservation power for the states. U.S. Const. art. cl.
Accordingly, Ariz. State Legislature inapplicable the Regents desire rewrite federal law governing immigration.
Furthermore, bears consideration that Ariz. State Legislature held that
Arizona voters are the ultimate source legislative power the state,
and therefore the voters could lawfully decide how Arizona voting
districts may drawn. 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2671. Specifically, the Supreme
Court upheld the people Arizona power pass legislation the ballot
box exercising their right popular initiative and referendum. Id.
establishing legislative bodies, the people can reserve themselves the
power deal directly with matters which might otherwise assigned
the legislature. (internal citation omitted) (italics added). The Regents
actions, the contrary, have usurped the powers Congress explicitly
reserved the people California and the state legislative function
under Section 1621. this regard, Ariz. State Legislature ultimately stands
for the proposition that the people are the source legislative power, not
non-representative bodies like the Regents. Consider that the Supreme
Court observed that the power legislate the enactment the laws
State derived from the people the State. Ariz. State Legislature, 135
S.Ct. 2652, 2668 (italics added, internal punctuation and citation
omitted). That the Supreme Court used the same language Section 1621
describing the enactment state law coincidence enactment exercise legislative power. Supra fn. The Regents
describe themselves possessed quasi-legislative powers elsewhere their brief. Resp. Br. 35. But that cannot confused with state
true legislative powers, which described Ariz. State Legislature
power that necessarily flows from the people. 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2677.
The overwhelming majority the Regents, however, are un-elected and
appointed the Governor. AOB 12-13; AA-37. Under Ariz. State
Legislature (and any common sense understanding), the Board Regents
power recognizable authority the executive branch independent
regulatory commission state, not legislative authority.4
Ariz. State Legislature might support the argument that initiative
passed the California voters affirmatively extend benefits
students could satisfy Section 1621, since ballot initiative exercise
legislative power. with the Regents fanciful argument that veto
override might not satisfy 1621 either, Appellant not asking this Court
elevate form over function. Resp. Br. 42.
Similarly, while the Regents rely federalist language from Luther
Borden, U.S. (1849), they ignore the facts that case. Resp. Br.
42-43. Luther concerned violent rebellion overthrow the government Rhode Island, which ultimately presented the question whether Rhode
Island had ceased republican government under Article the
Constitution. U.S. Const. art. IV, cl. Here, the Supreme Court
developed its political questions doctrine, holding that whether the
government Rhode Island was republican one not was matter
decided the President and Congress, not the Supreme Court. Luther,
U.S. 94, 96, 98. This has nothing with the present case,
Appellant has not brought republican form government challenge. addition, Section 1621 does not alter the usual constitutional
balance power between the states and the federal government. Resp.
Br. (citation omitted). California wishes establish the Regents constitutional entity independent control the state elected
representative body, California free so, and federal law prevents
this decision not even Section 1621. What California may not do,
however, refuse accept any resulting inconveniences repercussions
from its choice this unusual state governance structure which insulates
the Regents from legislative popular control. The Regents are essentially
arguing that constitutional federalism gives states the right structure their
governments however they wish without consequences from prevailing
federal law. state has this right our federal system. this regard,
1621 just ordinary exercise Congressional authority over national
immigration policy which overrides conflicting state law. See U.S. Const.,
art. VI, cl. California free designate the Regents
constitutionally independent branch state government, and the U.S.
Congress, with its broad powers over national immigration and
responsibility police the country borders, free require states
meet certain requirements before extending financial benefits non-U.S.
citizens. California citizens prefer ensure that unlawfully present
aliens receive the benefit reduced tuition more strongly than they
prefer keep the Regents politically insulated from democratic decisionmaking, they can modify the governance structure. Indeed, such
modification would only need add half sentence, inserting and
extend state benefits unlawfully present aliens under U.S.C. 1621
the legislature limited existing authority over the UC.5 this simple
change were made California law, the Regents would not need ask this
Court rewrite federal statute for the Regents convenience. And
passing constitutional amendment not undue burden the State
Cal. Const. art. IX, 9(a) (the Regents are subject only such
legislative control may necessary insure the security its funds
and compliance with the terms the endowments the university and
such competitive bidding procedures may made applicable the
university statute for the letting construction contracts, sales real
property, and purchasing materials, goods, and services.
California. Californians have revised their constitution total fourhundred and eighty times since the late 1800s average over times
every single year.6
Finally, even the Regents were correct and Section 1621 somehow
altered the constitutional balance power between the United States and
California, Appellant would still prevail his claim. Resp. Br. 43. This because unmistakably clear the text Section 1621 that
Congress intended prohibit the Regents actions. Gregory Ashcroft,
501 U.S. 452, 461 (2015) (internal citations omitted). Any alleged
ambiguity resolved Appellant favor the relevant cannons
statutory construction and the legislative history. AOB 6-14. The Regents Misread Martinez
Not content misread Section 1621, the Regents continue falsely
claim that Martinez Regents the Univ. California, Cal. 4th 1277
(2010) addressed the questions presented this case. Resp. Br. 29-33.
This poor argument. Indeed, the Regents advanced this argument about
Martinez the trial court, but the lower court ultimately chose rule
other grounds and did not even cite Martinez its written opinion. AA566 568. Martinez, the California Supreme Court considered the
See Georgetown Law Library, California Research In-Depth (visited
March 2016) California current constitution was ratified May
1879 and has been amended over 480 times. available
http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/california-in-depth/constitution.
legality 540 (but not 131 1210, nor any the Regents
subsequent actions). The Martinez court held that 540 lawfully
extended benefits CSU and CCC students pursuant U.S.C.
1621(d). Cal. 4th 1277, 1296. That the full extent what
Martinez held with respect 1621, and the present lawsuit does not
challenge that holding.
The California Supreme Court plainly stated that 540 applied only CSU and CCC students, not students. AOB 15; Martinez,
Cal.4th 1287 its terms [AB 540] applies only the California State
University and California Community Colleges, and not the University California). The California Supreme Court also pointedly observed that
the Regents had adopted policy which mirrored 540 without
answering the question whether the execution that policy would
illegal. Martinez, Cal.4th 1287, fn. The California Supreme Court
did not answer that question because party had asked it. AA-18.
Indeed, 2010 the question would have been premature because the
Regents had not commenced their illegal actions subject this lawsuit.
AA-16 17.
The Regents cannot accept that they failed obtain ruling
Appellant question 2010. They question why the California Supreme
Court would have inadvertently forgotten address the legality the
Regents actions when ruled benefits for CSU and CCC students
Martinez. Resp. Br. 31. This miscasts the legal questions the Martinez
Court considered. The fact Martinez did not address the Regents actions
was hardly inadvertent. Simply put, the legality the Regents actions
was not before the California Supreme Court previously because neither
plaintiffs nor defendants Martinez argued the question either direction.
AA-18. The California Supreme Court had reason answer question
that none the parties the case had asked.
Next, the Regents mistakenly argue that Martinez actually held that the
Regents are permitted extend benefits themselves under 540. Resp.
Br. 30-31. This wrong. Martinez, the California Supreme Court never
considered whether the Regents actions provide benefits would
illegal. Rather, the Martinez Court only considered whether Section
68130.5 540 was lawful. Since Martinez found that 540 only
affirmatively provided benefits CSU and CCC students, the statute was
upheld. Martinez, Cal. 4th 1277, 1287 (AB 540 benefits applies only the California State University and California Community Colleges
And lastly, the Regents make the wildly inaccurate claim that since
Martinez found CSU and CCC students could receive benefits under
540, finding that students may receive them too just matter
apply[ing] Martinez holding indistinguishable facts. Resp. Br. 32.
The facts between the two cases differ greatly. First, Appellant already
demonstrated, the California State Legislature directly extended benefits
CSU and CCC students the text 540 (and 131 and 1210),
but did not extend benefits students those statues. AOB 15-18.
The words those statutes are critical facts determining who has been
made eligible for benefits, well the statutes legality under Section
1621. Furthermore, the reason why 540, 131, and 120 treat
students differently from CSU and CCC students that the Regents
have independent constitutional control over while CSU and CCC are
subject control the legislature. According, there can application Martinez holding the present case. The California State Legislature
extending unlawfully present alien benefits CSU and CCC students
fundamentally different from the Regent extending benefits directly
students. The legislature actions were accordance with federal law; the
Regents actions violate federal law.
CONCLUSION
Federal immigration laws only work officials follow them, and the
courts uphold them intended. For this reason, and for all the reasons
provided herein, Appellant Earl Vries respectfully requests this Court
reverse the decision the trial court. Appellant further requests this Court
remand with instructions issue injunction against the Regents
prohibiting them from spending any taxpayer resources provide benefits unlawfully present aliens attending schools, consistent with
Appellant prayer for relief. AA-21 22.
Dated: March 22, 2016
Respectfully submitted, Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 22204
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
cfedeli@judicialwatch.org
Sterling Norris, SBN 040993
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108
Tel: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
jw-west@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff Signed pursuant Cal. Rules Court 8.77(b) and 8.204(b)(9).
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
Pursuant rule 8.204(c) the California Rules Court, hereby
certify that this brief contains 5,806 words, including footnotes. making
this certification, have relied the word count the computer program
used prepare the brief.
Dated: March 22, 2016
s/Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli
PROOF SERVICE employed the City Washington, District Columbia. over the age and not party the within action. business
address 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024.
March 22, 2016, served the foregoing documents:
APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF APPEAL the respondent this action and the lower court placing true and
correct copies thereof sealed envelopes addressed follows:
Benjamin Horwich
Munger, Tolles Olson LLP
560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, 94105
Tel: (415) 512-4000
The Hon. Gail Feuer, c/o Clerk Court
Superior Court California, Los Angeles County
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, 90012
Tel: (213) 830-0878 enclosed said documents envelope for U.S. postal service
delivery, postage paid, and placed said package for collection and delivery
consistent with our firm practice for shipping U.S. postal packages,
which readily familiar. declare under penalty perjury the laws the State
California that employed along with member the bar this Court whose direction the service was made, that the foregoing true and
correct, and that this declaration was executed March 22, 2016
Washington, DC. Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli Pursuant Cal. Rules Court 8.77(a), copy the original signed,
printed form this document will kept file.