Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • De Vries v. Regents California Supreme Court B264487

De Vries v. Regents California Supreme Court B264487

De Vries v. Regents California Supreme Court B264487

Page 1: De Vries v. Regents California Supreme Court B264487

Category:

Number of Pages:65

Date Created:January 17, 2017

Date Uploaded to the Library:January 25, 2017

Tags:eligibility, Stats, Vries, Regents, benefits, students, legislature, MARTINEZ, appeal, garcia, Supreme, Congress, California, Supreme Court, university, states, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

S_____ THE SUPREME COURT THE
STATE CALIFORNIA
__________
Earl Vries,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs.
Regents the University California,
Defendant and Respondent.
__________
After Decision the Court Appeal,
Second Appellate District, Division Seven
Case No. B264487
__________
PETITION FOR REVIEW
__________
Sterling Norris (SBN 040993)
Chris Fedeli (PHV Pending)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108-2601
Tel: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Attorneys for Petitioner
January 17, 2017
TABLE CONTENTS
TABLE AUTHORITIES .........................................................................
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ..................................................
FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND................................................
THE COURT APPEAL DECISION ...................................................
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT FOR REVIEW ..................................
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................
Review Necessary Secure The Uniform Application Law ..................................................................................................
II.
The Court Appeal Decision Creates New Conflict
Within California Regarding The Proper Application
Federal Immigration Law .............................................................8
The Court Appeal Decision Creates Further Conflict
Between California and Other States Interpretation
Federal Immigration Law .........................................................10
This Case Concerns Important Question Law That Will
Significantly Impact California Taxpayers, California Voters,
and National Immigration Policy ..........................................................15
CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
ADDENDUM Court Appeal Opinion
TABLE AUTHORITIES
California Cases Garcia
(2014) Cal.4th 440 .................................................. 10, 11,
Martinez Regents the Univ. California
(2010) Cal.4th 1277 ....................................................
Regents the Univ. California
(1976) Cal.3d 533 .........................................................................
Regents the Univ. California
(1970) Cal.3d 529 ...........................................................................
Non-California State Cases
Florida Bd. Bar Exam
(Fla. 2014) 134 So.3d 432.................................................... 10, 11,
Kaider Hamos
(Ill. App. Div. 2012) 975 N.E.2d 667 ..............................................
Maine Mun. Ass Maine Dep Health and Human Servs.
(Me. Super. Ct., June 2015, Civ. No. AP-14-39)
2015 Me. Super. LEXIS 197...................................................... 13,
Matter Application Vargas
(N.Y. App. Div. 2015) 131 A.D.3d ..............................................
Federal Cases
Arizona United States
(2012) 132 Ct. 2492 ............................................................... 18,
League United Latin American Citizens Wilson
(C.D. Cal. 1997) 997 Supp. 1244 ................................................
California Statutes, Rules, and Constitutional Provisions
Cal. Const. art. IX, ..............................................................................
Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6064(a) ..............................................................
Cal. Educ. Code 69508.5(a) ......................................................................
Cal. Educ. Code 70033(a)(1) .....................................................................
Cal. Stats. 2001, ch. 814 1(b)(1) ................................................................
Federal Statutes, Rules, and Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. art. cl. .......................................................................... U.S.C. 1621 .................................................................................... passim U.S.C. 1621(a) ......................................................... 11, 12, 13, 14, U.S.C. 1621(d) .............................................................................. passim
Other Authorities
305 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-4.35 .....................................................................
H.R. Rep. No. 104-725, Sess. (1996), available https://www.congress.
gov/104/crpt/hrpt725/CRPT-104hrpt725.pdf .................................
iii
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether the Legislature must enact state law that
affirmatively, explicitly, and unambiguously establishes unlawfully present
aliens eligibility for state local public benefits order opt out the
general, federal prohibition against providing such benefits.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
This case concerns the proper application Title Section 1621
the United States Code Section 1621 Earl Vries Vries
California resident and taxpayer, alleges that the Regents the University California Regents are spending his tax dollars illegally providing
in-state tuition and other postsecondary education benefits unlawfully
present aliens attending University California schools.
(Appellant Appendix AA-11 AA-24.) Vries alleges that state law authorizes the benefits. (AA-11 AA-24.) The Regents argue
that three state laws, A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210, make the aliens
eligible for the benefits. (Id. AA-25 AA-63.) The Superior Court agreed
with the Regents and sustained demurrer Vries Amended Complaint.
(Id. AA-565 AA-568.) Judgment was entered the Regent favor.
(Id. AA-570 AA-571.) The Court Appeal affirmed.1
The Court Appeal decision Opinion set forth the
Addendum.
Section 1621, which part the federal immigration code, contains
two relevant provisions. First, makes unlawfully present aliens ineligible
for most state local public benefits. U.S.C. 1621(a).) Second,
creates narrow exception this rule general ineligibility opt out
provision. state may provide that alien who not lawfully present
the United States eligible for any State local public benefit only
through the enactment State law ... which affirmatively provides for such
eligibility. U.S.C. 1621(d).)
Congress enacted Section 1621 part the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996 PRWORA enacting Section 1621, Congress determined that
unlawfully present aliens should only eligible for state local public
benefit state highest and most politically accountable level
government elects opt out the general prohibition benefits.
Specifically, state legislature must decide whether extend eligibility for state local public benefit unlawfully present aliens. so, the
legislature must enact state law positively and unequivocally creating
eligibility for the benefit. Absent clear and specific state law, benefit may
not provided.
There dispute that unlawfully present aliens attending California
State University CSU and California Community College CCC
schools are eligible for in-state tuition, state-administered financial aid, and
state-administered student loans. enacting A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B.
1210, respectively, the Legislature affirmatively provided such eligibility for
CSU and CCC students. (Martinez Regents the Univ. California
(2010) Cal.4th 1277; see also AA-14.) Because self-governing
status, however, the Legislature power over the Regents and the
limited. (Cal. Const., art. IX, see also AA-12 AA-13.) The power the Regents operate, control and administer the University virtually
exclusive. (Regents the Univ. California Superior Court (1976)
Cal.3d 533, 537; Regents the Univ. California Superior Court (1970) Cal.3d 529, 540; see also AA-13.) result, the Legislature lacks
authority enact state law affirmatively providing eligibility for
students.
Nonetheless, the Regents have adopted policies purportedly making
unlawfully present aliens attending schools eligible for the same public
benefits for which unlawfully present aliens attending CSU and CCC schools
are eligible. (AA-16 AA-18.) The Regents currently provide all three
types public benefits unlawfully present aliens attending schools.
(AA-16 AA-18.)
THE COURT APPEAL DECISION
The Court Appeal held that A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210
satisfy Section 1621(d) for students. (Opinion pp. 25-37.) reaching
this conclusion, however, the Court never found A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and
S.B. 1210 affirmatively provide eligibility for the benefits. only found
the provisions provide eligibility. (Opinion Section 1621(d) only
requires that the Legislature provide eligibility for public benefits, which
the Legislature has done through A.B. 540 and Indeed, specifically
referencing the University California and its students, those measures
provide eligibility for the specified benefits those students, regardless
whether the University ultimately confers such benefits them. (italics
added).) holding, the Court disregarded both the plain language
Section 1621(d) and the fact that, given the Regents and the unique
constitutional status, only the Regents can set policy for schools.
A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 have legal force effect the
Regents. For unlawfully present aliens attending schools eligible
for in-state tuition and other postsecondary education benefits, California law
requires that the Regents make them eligible. A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B.
1210 not provide affirmative eligibility for the challenged benefits. For
purposes federal law, however, only the Legislature can make the students
eligible. The Court Appeal resolved this dilemma weakening the
requirements Section 1621. ignored both the federal law requirement
that the state law affirmatively provide for eligibility and the constitutional
limitation the Legislature power over the Regents and the UC. also
read A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 far too generously, finding
legislative intent provide benefits where none exists. fact, far from
intending authorize benefits for students, the statutes expressly
reference further action the Regents.2 (Cal. Stats. 2001, ch. 814, 1(b)(1)
(referencing, relation A.B. 540, requirements adopted the Regents the University California pursuant Section 68134 the Education
Code Cal. Ed. Code 69508.5(a) (referencing, relation A.B. 131,
equivalent requirements adopted the Regents the University
California Cal. Ed. Code 70033(a)(1) (referencing, relation S.B.
1210, equivalent requirements adopted the Regents the University
California see also AA-15.) The decision plainly incorrect. petition for rehearing was filed the Court Appeal. The
decision became final January 2017. This petition for review being
filed and served within days the Court Appeal ruling becoming
final.
SUMMARY ARGUMENT FOR REVIEW
The Court Appeal decision conflicts with least two decisions this Court creating new, lower standard for establishing unlawfully
The Court Appeal declined address whether actions the
Regents constitute the enactment state laws. (Opinion (the Regents
argued 1621(d) satisfied measures such the quasi-legislative acts
the Regents. need not decide whether the Regents broader view
correct ).) The Court also did not address the Regents argument that the
Tenth Amendment the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from
requiring state legislative action condition satisfying Section 1621(d).
Both remain open questions.
present aliens eligibility for public benefits. also conflicts with decisions the courts several other states.
Without clarity and uniformity this area, open question
whether unlawfully present aliens can made eligible for public benefits
something less than state law enacted the Legislature positively,
expressly, and unambiguously providing for such eligibility. The question
important California because not only are the benefit programs issue
expensive they cost least $27 million per year but California
undeniably has the largest population unlawfully present aliens the
nation. The question also important because state, county, and local
officials and other public entities may claim the power extend public
benefits unlawfully present aliens based only the vaguest, most tenuous
expressions (or purported expressions) the Legislature intent. also important that California and the nation whole not
operate under patchwork rules for making unlawfully present aliens
eligible for public benefits. 1996, Congress determined that the issue
whether aliens lawfully present and unlawfully present, immigrant and
non-immigrant could receive state local public benefits was one
federal immigration law and policy. Immigration policy reserved the
federal government, because branch the nation foreign relations
and diplomacy powers. finding that entities other than state legislatures
can determine unlawfully present aliens eligibility for public benefits, the
Court Appeal decision weakened the federal government powers over
national immigration policy and foreign diplomacy.
ARGUMENT
Review Necessary Secure The Uniform Application Law.
The Court Appeal decision conflicts with two this Court
decisions applying Section 1621:
Martinez Regents the Univ.
California (2010) Cal. 4th 1277 and Garcia (2014) Cal.4th 440. also conflicts with rulings state courts New York, Florida, Illinois,
and Maine.
Most courts applying Section 1621(d) have held that affirmatively
provide eligibility requires state statute duly enacted the legislature that
establishes unlawfully present aliens eligibility terms that are
unequivocal, non-passive, and leave room for doubt. The Court
Appeal decision plainly conflicts with this precedent. ignores the word
affirmatively the text Section 1621(d) and the effect that word
inclusion the statute. found that A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210
made students eligible for the benefits despite the fact that the statutes
themselves expressly reference further action being required the Regents make the students eligible, and despite the indisputable fact that the
Legislature lacks power set policy for the Regents and the UC. Because
the Court Appeal decision odds with how this Court and other courts
have read Section 1621, review should granted secure uniformity
law.
The Court Appeal Decision Creates New
Conflict Within California Regarding The Proper
Application Federal Immigration Law
Both Martinez and Garcia applied Section 1621 expressly,
holding that the statute requires state laws that affirmatively provide
eligibility for benefits before such benefits can extended unlawfully
present aliens. The Court Appeal interpreted Section 1621 not requiring
state laws that affirmatively provide eligibility, but only state laws that
make unlawfully present aliens eligible for public benefits. (Opinion
25.) ignored the word affirmatively. Martinez, this Court applied the text Section 1621 expressly,
finding that A.B. 540 affirmatively provided eligibility for CSU and CCC
students apply for in-state tuition benefits. The Court wrote:
[S]ection 68130.5 provides: (a) The Legislature hereby finds
and declares all the following This act allows all
persons, including undocumented immigrant students who
meet the requirements set forth Section 68130.5 the
Education Code, exempt from nonresident tuition
California colleges and universities. Thus, least
appears the Legislature affirmatively provided that
qualifying unlawful aliens are eligible for the nonresident
tuition exemption.
(Martinez, supra, Cal.4th 1295 (italics original) (emphasis added).)
This Court also expressly found that, its text, A.B. 540 applies only
the California State University and California Community Colleges, and not the University California. (Martinez, supra, Cal.4th 1287, fn.
1.) The Court reiterated that point quoting A.B. 540 stating that [n]o
provision this part shall applicable the University California unless
the Regents the University California, resolution, make such
provision applicable. (Ibid.) finding otherwise, The Court Appeal
decision direct and unequivocal conflict with Martinez. Garcia, this Court again applied the text Section 1621
expressly, finding that the Legislature enacted statute that explicitly
authorized and therefore affirmatively provided eligibility for
unlawfully present aliens apply for bar licenses:
[B]y explicitly authorizing bar applicant who not lawfully
present the United States obtain law license, the statute
expressly states that applies undocumented immigrants and thus affirmatively provides that undocumented
immigrants may obtain such professional license
satisfy the requirements section 1621(d).
(In Garcia, supra, Cal.4th 458 (emphasis added).) Garcia
stands stark contrast the Court Appeal decision, nowhere A.B.
540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 explicitly authorize unlawfully present aliens
attending schools apply for benefits. anything, they the opposite deferring the Regents.
Unlike the constitutionally-independent
Regents, the Legislature has well-recognized, constitutional authority over
bar admissions. (In Garcia, supra, Cal.4th 452; see also Cal.
Const., art. IX, 9.) anything, the Legislature lack authority over the
Regents and the should have led the obvious conclusion that, absent amendment the California constitution, the Legislature can never
affirmatively provide eligibility for benefits for unlawfully present aliens
attending schools. holding otherwise, the Court Appeal created
clear conflict over the application Section 1621.
The Court Appeal Decision Creates Further
Conflict Between California and Other States
Interpretations Federal Immigration Law addition creating conflict California law, the Court
Appeal decision also creates conflict nationally, between state courts
California and New York, Florida, Illinois, and Maine. 2014, the Supreme Court Florida, citing Garcia, held that
Section 1621 requires state legislative act affirmatively providing that
unlawfully present aliens seeking admission the Florida Bar are eligible
for such licenses before they can admitted the bar. (Florida Bd. Bar
Exam (Fla. 2014) 134 So. 432.) The Florida court explained: the Florida Legislature were take steps similar those
taken California [in enacting Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6064(b)]
and affirmatively provide that such unauthorized immigrants
are eligible for professional licenses, or, more narrowly,
license practice law, Applicant and other similarly situated
qualified individuals would eligible for admission The
Florida Bar
(Id. 440 (emphasis added).)
The following year, New York appellate court agreed with Florida
interpretation Section 1621. The New York court stated that Section 1621
generally prohibits the issuance state professional licenses
undocumented immigrants unless individual state has enacted legislation
affirmatively authorizing the issuance such licenses.
(Matter
Application Vargas (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) 131 A.D.3d 5.) The New
York court further observed that interpreting Section 1621 requiring
positive and unequivocal eligibility determination the state legislature was harmony with the interpretation both California and Florida courts:
[S]ection 1621(d) has been construed courts California
and Florida require the passage act state
legislature, and that signed into law the state
governor, the mechanism which state must express its
intention opt out the restrictions imposed section
1621(a).3
(Id. 23, citing Florida Bd. Bar Exam rs, supra, 134 So.3d 435; Garcia, supra, Cal.4th 456; and Martinez, supra, Cal.4th
pp. 1295-96.) Illinois appellate court made finding very close Garcia,
namely that affirmatively provide for eligibility means the opposite
Ultimately, the New York appellate court found that, applied the
limited question attorney and counselor-at-law admissions the State
New York, Section 1621(d) legislative enactment requirement was
inconsistent with New York law and the Tenth Amendment and, the
limited context attorney admissions, the New York judiciary could
lawfully exercise the state discretion opt out from the restrictions
imposed Section 1621(a). (Matter Application Vargas, supra, 131
A.D.3d 27.) The Court Appeal did not reach this issue.
passively providing where legislature delegates the decision eligibility another entity:
[T]he better understanding the requirement that the state law
affirmatively provides for eligibility undocumented aliens that Congress wanted prevent the passive inadvertent
override section 1621(a).
(Kaider Hamos (Ill. App. Div. 2012) 975 N.E.2d 667, 673.) The Illinois
court was considering Illinois healthcare statute with wording nearly
identical the wording the statute Garcia: [T]he Department
Healthcare and Family Services may provide medical services noncitizens
who have not yet attained years age (305 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/124.35.)
The Illinois court made clear that the dividing line for state
compliance with the affirmatively provides language Section 1621(d)
whether the legislative statute delegates implementation the legislature
eligibility decision, whether the statute delegates the eligibility decision
itself:
[T]he [Illinois] legislature has clearly expressed its intent opt
out the benefits bar section 1621(a), and nothing section
1621(d) prevents state legislatures from delegating the
implementation the opt-out administrative agencies once affirmatively provides for the state statute.
(Kaider, supra, 975 N.E.2d 677.) Maine court also found that Section 1621 requires state statute
affirmatively making unlawfully present aliens eligible for benefits and
declined find that the decision certain Maine municipalities award
benefits was sufficient state law enactment under Section 1621(d):
[T]he Maine Legislature enacted such language
connection with food assistance and connection with TANF
and Medicaid. Both those statutes expressly extended
benefits households non-citizens who would eligible but for [PRWORA]. comparable language has been
enacted with respect General Assistance.
(Maine Mun. Ass Maine Dep Health and Human Servs. (Me. Super.
Ct., June 2015, Civ. No. AP-14-39) 2015 Me. Super. LEXIS 197, **2021) (internal citations omitted).) The court concluded that there was
affirmative action the legislature, despite the fact that the legislature had
budgeted sufficient funds for municipalities provide benefits aliens, and
despite the fact that the legislative history showed desire for municipalities provide the benefits aliens.
(Ibid.)
Furthermore, there was
affirmative state legislative action even though state agency had been
reimbursing the alien funding decisions made the municipalities. (Id.
*18 DHHS was fully aware that General Assistance was being provided asylum seekers. ).)
The Maine court further found that mere state legislative
acquiescence eligibility decisions other state entities was insufficient
under Section 1621, because Congress directed that eligibility decisions
made state statute only:
However, under U.S.C. 1621(d), State can overcome the
prohibition eligibility set forth 1621(a) only through
the enactment State law after the date the enactment
this Act [August 22, 1996] which affirmatively provides for
such eligibility. The court constrained conclude that,
notwithstanding prior legislative and DHHS acquiescence and
notwithstanding the legislative history cited above, section
1621(d) requires statutory language conveying positive
expression legislative intent extend benefits aliens
who would otherwise ineligible under 1621(a).
(Maine Mun. Ass supra, 2015 Me. Super. LEXIS 197 **19-20.) The
Maine Court concluded that even the state legislature intends for other
branches state government make eligibility decisions, this fails satisfy
Section 1621(d). (Id. *21.)
Because the conflict that now exists among the states regarding the
proper interpretation Section 1621, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately
may choose review the Court Appeal decision decision this
Court.4 This Court therefore should take the opportunity secure uniform
application the law California reviewing the Court Appeal
decision first. federal court California while not addressing the affirmatively
provides language held that Section 1621 required state legislative action,
not actions state agency, board, executive order. (League United
Latin American Citizens Wilson (C.D. Cal. 1997) 997 Supp. 1244, 1253
(Section 1621(d) provides description state legislative options the
area immigrant eligibility for state local benefits ).) The Court
Appeal determined that need not decide the question whether Section
1621 requires state legislative action permits any state regulation, policy, executive order, and did not address it. (Opinion 20.) Nonetheless,
the issue one that affects federals courts California.
II.
This Case Raises Important Question Law That Will
Significantly Impact California Taxpayers, California
Voters, and National Immigration Policy
The question law presented this case important for least
three reasons. First, the cost the challenged benefits substantial
least $27 million taxpayer dollars per year.
Second, the decision
effectively eliminates the bright line rule that existed the enactment
state law affirmatively providing for eligibility and replaces with
ambiguous standard that undermines the political accountability intended
Congress when enacted Section 1621. also opens the door state,
county, local officials and other public entities usurping state legislative
authority offer benefits based vague generalized language
statute. Third, the decision undermines cohesive national immigration
policy, potentially turning law that allows state legislatures make
decisions into law that allows 500 5,000 state and local institutions weakening the federal government ability conduct unified
diplomacy for the entire nation.
First, this Court should grant review determine whether the
challenged benefits are legal. The cost the benefits approximately $27
million annually 2015 substantial. (AA-17 AA-18.) That fact
alone demonstrates the importance the issue and justifies review.
Second, the decision replaces bright line rule one that required
state law enacted the Legislature affirmatively and explicitly opting out the general prohibition benefits with ambiguous one. enacting
Section 1621, Congress chose authorize only the highest and most visible,
politically accountable level state government opt out the general
prohibition and, the extent state elected opt out, required that
affirmatively and clear terms. Section 1621 stand and counted
law designed ensure political accountability should states wish act
contrary federal policy. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-725, Sess., 383
(1996) Only the affirmative enactment law State legislature and
signed the Governor after the date enactment this Act will meet
the requirements [Section 1621]. ).5 The Court Appeal decision
undermines this congressional purpose finding legislative authorization
based far less than state law affirmatively providing eligibility. Under
the Court Appeal decision, even contradictory language suffices.
Indeed, upheld the Regent benefits program the face clear language
showing that A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 did not apply the Regents
and longstanding case law holding that the Legislature has policy-making
authority over the Regents and the UC. The decision turns Section 1621
its head.
Significantly, finding that A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210
satisfy Section 1621 for students, the Court Appeal decision
H.R. Rep. No. 104-725, available https://www.congress.gov
/104/crpt/hrpt725/CRPT-104hrpt725.pdf.
broadened when and how unlawfully present aliens may become eligible for
public benefits. State, county, and local officials and other public entities
may claim legislative authorization offer benefits based vague
generalized language statute that only hints suggests such benefits.
Not only such result plainly not what Congress intended enacting
Section 1621, but also raises the specter substantial increases public
spending result state, county, local officials and other public entities
pursuing their own agendas instead unequivocal decision the
Legislature.
Third and finally, the Court Appeal decision interferes with
Congress carefully crafted plan keep the states single leash with
respect public benefits for unlawfully present aliens. Since the power
award public benefits foreign nationals essentially the power make
decisions affecting foreign affairs and international diplomacy, Congress
very specific decision allow states share that federal power certain,
express terms must respected. Recall that, Section 1621(a), Congress
preempted all state power make decisions about benefits. Section
1621(d), Congress gave back limited power the states, but only under
very limited and explicit condition Congress only gave this power the state legislatures, that only entities could share the immigration
policy powers the federal government.
The Court Appeal decision undermines this carefully crafted plan allowing benefits extended unlawfully present aliens based
something less than state law affirmatively providing eligibility for
benefits.
The decision rationale could used extend benefits
unlawfully present aliens where the Legislature delegates eligibility
decisions state, county, local officials other public entities. also
could used these same officials and entities make usurp eligibility
determinations for themselves, potentially turning law that allows state
legislatures make decisions into law that allows 500 5,000 state and
local institutions so. the Florida Supreme Court explained: [t]he federal statute issue
here, U.S.C. 1621, was adopted pursuant Congress constitutional
power establish uniform Rule Naturalization due, part, its
inherent power sovereign control and conduct relations with foreign
nations. (Florida Bd. Bar Exam rs, supra, 134 So. 434, citing
Arizona U.S. (2012) 132 Ct. 2492, 2498 (internal punctuation omitted).)
This need for uniformity immigration policy demonstrates the
compromise Congress reached when decided give state legislatures the
power determine unlawfully present aliens eligibility for state local
benefits. While different policies state legislatures may have been
tolerable level divergence eligibility determinations, different
determinations hundreds not thousands state, county, and local
officials and other public entities not. patchwork immigration policy
that devolves into thousands different jurisdictions essentially conducting
their own foreign policy with respect foreign nationals within their
boundaries undermines the federal government broad Constitutional
powers establish national immigration policy, which part and parcel the federal government power conduct unified diplomacy with foreign
nations behalf the United States. the U.S. Supreme Court recently
observed:
The Government the United States has broad, undoubted
power over the subject immigration and the status aliens.
This authority rests, part, the National Government
constitutional power establish uniform Rule
Naturalization, U.S. Const. art. cl. and its inherent
power sovereign control and conduct relations with
foreign nations.
(Arizona, supra, 132 Ct. 2498.)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing compelling reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests
that this Court grant review the Court Appeal December 2016
ruling.
Dated: January 17, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Sterling Norris*
Sterling Norris, SBN 040993
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108
Tel: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Email: enorris@judicialwatch.org
Chris Fedeli
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 22204
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Email: cfedeli@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Petitioner Signed electronically pursuant Cal. Rules Court 8.77(b) and
8.204(b)(9).
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
Pursuant Rule 8.504(d)(1) the California Rules Court,
hereby certify that this brief, including footnotes, proportionally
spaced, has typeface points more, and contains 4,611words,
which less than the 8,400 words permitted. Counsel relies the word
count the computer program used prepare the brief.
Dated: January 17, 2017
By:
/s/ Sterling Norris*
Sterling Norris
Attorney for Petitioner Signed electronically pursuant Cal. Rules Court 8.77(b) and 8.204(b)(9).
Addendum
Filed 12/9/16
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION THE COURT APPEAL THE STATE CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
COURT APPEAL SECOND DIST.
DIVISION SEVEN
Dec 09, 2016
EARL VRIES,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
B264487
JOSEPH LANE, Clerk
Derrick Sanders Deputy Clerk
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC555614)
REGENTS THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from judgment the Superior Court
Los Angeles County, Elizabeth Allen White, Judge. Affirmed.
Judicial Watch, Inc., Sterling Norris and Chris Fedeli
(admitted pro hac vice) for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Office the General Counsel University California,
Charles Robinson, Karen Petrulakis and Margaret Wu;
Munger, Tolles Olson, Bradley Phillips (Los Angeles) and
Benjamin Horwich (San Francisco) for Defendant and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Federal law makes undocumented immigrants ineligible for
state and local public benefits, but allows state affirmatively
provide[] for such eligibility through the enactment State
law. U.S.C. 1621(d).) The California Constitution generally
gives the Regents the University California plenary
authority establish rules and policies govern the internal
affairs the University California. The issue this appeal
whether three California legislative enactments affirmatively
provide eligibility under federal law for postsecondary
education benefits qualified undocumented immigrants who
attend the University California, even though the statutes
require only the California State University and California
community colleges provide such benefits. conclude that,
even though the California Constitution may preclude the
Legislature from actually conferring postsecondary education
benefits undocumented immigrants attending the University California, the Legislature has made these students eligible
for such benefits within the meaning the federal statute.
Therefore, affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1996 Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996, which, among
many other things, made undocumented immigrants ineligible
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act refers undocumented immigrants
for certain state and local public benefits, including benefits
related postsecondary education. U.S.C. 1621 (section
1621).) The same law, however, gives states authority make
undocumented immigrants eligible for any State local public
benefit for which such [undocumented immigrant] would
otherwise ineligible under [section 1621] only through the
enactment State law after August 22, 1996, which
affirmatively provides for such eligibility. (Id., 1621(d)
(section 1621(d)).)
The California Legislature subsequently enacted three laws
addressing postsecondary education benefits for certain qualified
undocumented immigrants. These laws include (1) Assembly Bill
No. 540 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) (A.B. 540), which makes qualified
undocumented immigrants eligible for exemption from
alien[s] who are not qualified for public benefits under various
federal laws. (See U.S.C. 1621(a).) use the term
undocumented immigrant refer non-United States
citizen who the United States but who lacks the immigration
status required federal law lawfully present this
country and who has not been admitted temporary basis
nonimmigrant (In Garcia (2014) Cal.4th 440, 446, fn. 1),
which encompasses the category persons referred
unqualified aliens title United States Code section 1621.
Assembly Bill No. 540 (A.B. 540), one the California statutes
issue this case, used both undocumented immigrant and
nonimmigrant alien refer the same class people. (See
Stats. 2001, ch. 814, subd. (a)(4), subd. (a).) The current
version Education Code section 68130.5, which A.B. 540 added,
refers the same class people nonimmigrant foreign
national[s] within the meaning paragraph (15) subsection (a) Section 1101 Title the United States Code.
(Educ. Code, 68130.5, subd. (a).)
nonresident tuition (Stats. 2001, ch. 814, 1-2); (2) Assembly
Bill No. 131 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) (A.B. 131), which makes
qualified undocumented immigrants eligible for student financial
aid programs (Stats. 2011, ch. 604, 3); and (3) Senate Bill
No. 1210 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 1210), which makes
qualified undocumented immigrants eligible for student loan
benefits (Stats. 2014, ch. 754, 3).
The California Constitution limits the Legislature power regulate the University California (UC) and the Regents
the University California (the Regents), which administers
the University California. (Cal. Const., art. IX, subd. (a).)
Those limits traditionally extend matters involving internal
university affairs, with few exceptions. (San Francisco
Labor Council Regents University California (1980) Cal.3d 785, 789 (Labor Council); People Lofchie (2014)
229 Cal.App.4th 240, 250.) Because its constitutional
autonomy, the Regents (rather than the Legislature) adopted
three policies provide the benefits identified A.B. 540,
A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 qualified undocumented immigrant
students attending the University California. (Regents U.C.,
Policy 3106.1.C; Policy 3202.2; Policy 3202.3.) refer the Regents the singular because the
California Constitution created corporation known The
Regents the University California, singular noun.
(Cal. Const., art. IX, subd. (a).) Some decisions, statutes,
and legislative materials quote this opinion refer the
Regents plural noun.
Neither party contends that any these exceptions apply
here.
Earl Vries, California taxpayer, filed this action
against the Regents, alleging that none its policies qualifies
under section 1621(d) State law making undocumented
immigrants eligible for postsecondary education benefits. Vries further alleged that the Legislature has not enacted any
statute that affirmatively provid[es] eligibility for the benefits
the University California now gives undocumented
immigrants, required section 1621(d). Indeed, Vries
alleged that the Legislature could never confer such eligibility
because the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from
regulating the University California. Vries sought enjoin
the Regents from expending causing the expenditure
taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources exempt
unlawfully present aliens from paying nonresident supplemental
tuition and allow unlawfully present aliens apply for and
participate state-administered financial aid programs.
The Regents demurred. argued that the California
Supreme Court decision Martinez Regents the University California (2010) Cal.4th 1277 (Martinez), which held the
exemption A.B. 540 from nonresident tuition complies with the
affirmatively provides requirement section 1621(d), forecloses Vries current challenge, and that the analysis Martinez
applies equally the financial aid program A.B. 131 and the
student loan program S.B. 1210. Alternatively, the Regents
argued that the laws enacting A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210
nevertheless satisfy the requirements section 1621(d) with
respect students and, even they did not, the policies
the Regents satisfy section 1621(d) because they have the force
and effect state law. opposition the demurrer, Vries
argued that the Supreme Court Martinez did not address the
University California unique, constitutionally independent
status, nor did the Supreme Court determine whether the
Regents resolution purportedly making 540 applicable
[the University] satisfies Section 1621 because the parties
that case stipulated that A.B. 540 applied the University
California.
The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave
amend, concluding that the Regents policies satisfy section
1621(d). The court cited California and United States Supreme
Court authorities stating that policies established the
Regents matters internal regulation may enjoy status
equivalent that state statutes. (Emphasis deleted.)
(See, e.g., Hamilton Regents the University California
(1934) 293 U.S. 245, 258; Kim Regents University
California (2000) Cal.App.4th 160, 164-165; Regents
University California City Santa Monica (1978) Cal.App.3d 130, 135.) Thus, the trial court ruled that the
Regents policies adopting the exemption codified AB540, the
eligibility for state-administered financial aid programs codified AB131 and eligibility for the student loan program codified
SB1210 would qualify State law which affirmatively
provides for such eligibility State local benefit for purposes U.S.C. 1621(d).
After Vries failed file amended complaint, the trial
court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment
for the Regents. Vries timely appealed.
DISCUSSION Vries makes two principal arguments. First, argues
that the Legislature has not passed any statutes affirmatively
providing eligibility for benefits students who are
undocumented immigrants. Second, contends the trial court
erred concluding that the Regents policies constitute state
laws that comply with section 1621(d). review from order sustaining demurrer,
examine the complaint novo determine whether alleges
facts sufficient state cause action under any legal theory,
such facts being assumed true for this purpose. (Committee for
Green Foothills Santa Clara County Bd. Supervisors (2010) Cal.4th 32, 42; accord, McCall PacifiCare Cal., Inc. (2001) Cal.4th 412, 415.) also review novo questions
statutory construction. (Lee Hanley (2015) Cal.4th 1225,
1232; Davis Fresno Unified School District (2015) 237
Cal.App.4th 261, 275.) affirm any ground offered
support the demurrer was well taken but find error the
plaintiff has stated cause action under any possible legal
theory. [Citations.] are not bound the trial court stated
reasons, any, supporting its ruling; review the ruling, not its
rationale. (Walgreen Co. City and County San Francisco
(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424, 433; accord, Acuna San Diego Gas Electric Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1411.)
Statutory and Constitutional Framework
Title United States Code Section 1621
Congress enacted section 1621 part the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
(Pub.L. No. 104-193 (Aug. 22, 1996) 110 Stat. 2105.) The Act
has over 900 sections, including section 1621, which appears
chapter entitled Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for
Aliens.
Section 1621(a) provides: Notwithstanding any other
provision law and except provided subsections (b) and (d) this section, alien who not (1) qualified alien (as
defined section 1641 this title),[ (2) nonimmigrant
under the Immigration and Nationality Act U.S.C. 1101 seq.], (3) alien who paroled into the United States
under section 212(d)(5) such Act U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)] for less
Title United States Code section 1641 defines the term
qualified alien (1) alien who lawfully admitted for
permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act U.S.C. 1101 seq.], (2) alien who granted asylum
under section 208 such Act U.S.C. 1158], (3) refugee
who admitted the United States under section 207 such
Act U.S.C. 1157], (4) alien who paroled into the
United States under section 212(d)(5) such Act U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)] for period least year, (5) alien whose
deportation being withheld under section 243(h) such Act U.S.C. 1253] section 241(b)(3) such Act U.S.C.
1251(b)(3)] (6) alien who granted conditional entry
pursuant section 203(a)(7) such Act U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)] effect prior April 1980; (7) alien who
Cuban [or] Haitian entrant (as defined section 501(e) the
Refugee Education Assistance Act 1980). (Fn. omitted.)
than one year, not eligible for any State local public
benefit (as defined subsection (c) this section). This case
concerns undocumented immigrants who not fall within any
the exempt categories aliens listed section 1621(a).
Section 1621(c) defines State local public benefit
include, among other things, any postsecondary
education benefit for which payments assistance are
provided individual, household, family eligibility unit agency State local government appropriated
funds State local government. The parties not
dispute that the resident tuition exemption A.B. 540, the
financial aid programs A.B. 131, and the student loan
programs S.B. 1210 are State local public benefits within
the meaning section 1621(c).
Section 1621(d) states: State may provide that alien
who not lawfully present the United States eligible for any
State local public benefit for which such alien would otherwise ineligible under subsection (a) this section only through the
enactment State law after August 22, 1996, which
affirmatively provides for such eligibility. (Italics added.)
noted, Vries contends that neither A.B. 540, nor A.B. 131, nor
S.B. 1210 affirmatively provides for such eligibility for students, and that policies the Regents adopted implement
A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 are not enactments State
law within the meaning section 1621(d).
The University Status Under the California
Constitution
The University California public trust established
pursuant article IX, section the California Constitution
follows: (a) The University California shall constitute public
trust, administered the existing corporation known
The Regents the University California, with full powers
organization and government, 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. Article IX, section 9(f), further
provides, part: The university shall entirely independent all political sectarian influence and kept free therefrom
the appointment its regents and the administration its
affairs.
The California Supreme Court has recognized that
[a]rticle IX, section grants the regents broad powers
organize and govern the university and limits the Legislature
power regulate either the university the regents. [Citation.]
This constitutional grant power the Regents includes both
quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers, according [the
Regents] virtual autonomy self-governance. [Citation.] The
Regents have the general rule-making policy-making power
regard the University and are fully empowered with
respect the organization and government the University.
(People Lofchie, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th pp. 248-249,
fn. omitted, quoting Regents University California
Superior Court (1970) Cal.3d 529, 540, and Regents
University California City Santa Monica (1978)
Cal.App.3d 130, 135.) result, [t]he Regents may exercise quasilegislative powers, subject legislative regulation. Indeed,
[p]olicies established the Regents matters internal
regulation may enjoy status equivalent that state
statutes. (Campbell Regents University California (2005) Cal.4th 311, 320, quoting Regents University California
City Santa Monica, supra, Cal.App.3d 135; see, e.g.,
Hamilton Regents the University California (1934) 293
U.S. 245, 258 Regents order making military instruction
compulsory statute the state within the meaning
statute establishing federal jurisdiction] Campbell Regents
University California, 321 Regents policy for handling
whistleblower claims under its power govern and organize the
University treated statute order determine whether
the exhaustion doctrine applies]; see also Lachtman Regents
University California (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Kim
Regents University California, supra, Cal.App.4th 165.) some circumstances, state legislation concerning matters
outside those specifically enumerated the Constitution may
apply the University California. The Supreme Court has
deemed some such laws matters statewide concern and has
considered whether the law question would infringe upon
sovereign governmental powers. (Regents University
California Superior Court (1976) Cal.3d 533, 536; see Labor
Council, supra, Cal.3d 789 legislation regulating public
agency activity not generally applicable the public may
made applicable the university when the legislation regulates
matters statewide concern not involving internal university
affairs Regents University California Superior Court, 536.) Neither side argues that A.B. 540, A.B. 131, S.B.
1210 addresses matters statewide concern.
State Enactments Making Undocumented
Immigrants Eligible for Postsecondary
Education Benefits
A.B. 540 and nonresident tuition
Education Code section 68040 provides, Each student
shall classified resident nonresident the University California, the California State University, the California
Maritime Academy California community college.
Section 68050 provides, student classified nonresident
shall required, except otherwise provided this part,
pay, addition other fees required the institution,
nonresident tuition. Thus, nonresidents must generally pay
nonresident tuition public universities and colleges
California. (Martinez, supra, Cal.4th 1286.) 2001 the Legislature enacted A.B. 540. Section A.B.
540 states relevant part: The people the State California enact follows: (a) The Legislature hereby finds and
declares all the following: (1) There are high school pupils
who have attended elementary and secondary schools this
state for most their lives and who are likely remain, but are
precluded from obtaining affordable college education because
they are required pay nonresident tuition rates. (Stats. 2001,
ch. 814, subd. (a)(1).) Section subdivision (a)(4), states:
Statutory references are the Education Code unless
otherwise indicated.
This act allows all persons, including undocumented
immigrant students who meet the requirements set forth
Section 68130.5 the Education Code, exempt from
nonresident tuition California colleges and universities.
(Stats. 2001, ch. 814, subd. (a)(4).)
Section A.B. 540 added section 68130.5 Part 41,
article the Education Code. Section 68130.5, amended,
provides:
(a) student, other than nonimmigrant foreign
national within the meaning paragraph (15) subsection (a) section 1101 Title the United States Code, who meets all the following requirements shall exempt from paying
nonresident tuition the California State University and the
California Community Colleges:
(1) Satisfaction either the following:
(A) High school attendance California for
three more years.
(B) Attainment credits earned California
from California high school equivalent three more years
full-time high school coursework and total three more
years attendance California elementary schools, California
secondary schools, combination those schools.
(2) Graduation from California high school
attainment the equivalent thereof.
(3) Registration entering student at, current
enrollment at, accredited institution higher education
California not earlier than the fall semester quarter the
2001-02 academic year.
(4) the case person without lawful
immigration status, the filing affidavit with the institution higher education stating that the student has filed
application legalize his her immigration status, will file application soon she eligible so.
(b) student exempt from nonresident tuition under this
section may reported community college district fulltime equivalent student for apportionment purposes.
(c) The Board Governors the California Community
Colleges and the Trustees the California State University shall
prescribe rules and regulations for the implementation this
section.
(d) Student information obtained the implementation
this section confidential.
Section 68134 part Part 41, Chapter article the
Education Code. Section 68134, which predates the enactment
A.B. 540, provides: provision this part shall applicable the University California unless the Regents the
University California, resolution, make such provision
applicable.
A.B. 131 and financial aid programs 2011 the Legislature enacted A.B. 131. (Stats. 2011,
ch. 604.) The bill separately addressed financial aid programs
administered the University California (commonly referred Grants and those administered the State
California (commonly referred Cal Grants Section A.B. 131 added section 66021.6 regarding eligibility for Grants. provides relevant part: Notwithstanding any
other law, and except provided for subdivision (b), the
Trustees the California State University and the Board
Governors the California Community Colleges shall, and the
Regents the University California are requested to, establish
procedures and forms that enable persons who are exempt from
paying nonresident tuition under Section 68130.5, who meet
equivalent requirements adopted the regents, apply for, and
participate in, all student aid programs administered these
[schools] the full extent permitted federal law. The
Legislature finds and declares that this section state law
within the meaning Section 1621(d) Title the United
States Code.
Section A.B. 131 added section 69508.5 regarding
eligibility for Cal Grants. provides relevant part:
Notwithstanding any other law, and except provided for
subdivision (c), student who meets the requirements
subdivision (a) Section 68130.5, who meets equivalent
requirements adopted the Regents the University
California, eligible apply for, and participate in, any student
financial aid program administered the State California
the full extent permitted federal law. The Legislature finds
and declares that this section state law within the meaning [section 1621(d)] Title the United States Code.
S.B. 1210 and student loan programs
Most recently, 2014, the Legislature enacted S.B. 1210
(referred the California DREAM Loan Act) make
undocumented immigrants eligible for certain student loan
programs. (Stats. 2014, ch. 754.) Section S.B. 1210 states:
Since 2002, students have been exempt from paying nonresident
tuition and fees the California Community Colleges, the
California State University, and the University California
pursuant Section 68130.5. Commencing 2011, these
students were eligible for state financial aid financial aid
offered these public institutions. Nevertheless, many these
students remain ineligible for federal student aid for reasons
beyond their control. Lack access federal student loans
presents substantial barrier for these students obtain
baccalaureate degree from the California State University the
University California. (Stats. 2014, ch. 754, subd. (b).)
The California DREAM Loan Act addresses this barrier
providing access additional state aid students may take full
advantage the educational opportunities offered the
California State University and the University California. subd. (c).)
Section S.B. 1210 added several provisions the
Education Code, including sections 70032 and 70033.
Section 70032, subdivision (i), defines Participating institution include any campus the University California that
elects participate the DREAM Program pursuant the
requirements specified for qualifying institution. Section
70033, subdivisions (a) and (a)(1), provide, Commencing with the
2015-16 academic year, student attending participating
institution may receive loan under the DREAM Program the
student satisfies all the following requirements, including that
the student exempt from paying nonresident tuition under
Section 68130.5, meets equivalent requirements adopted
the Regents the University California.
The Regents Policies Making Undocumented
Immigrants Eligible for Postsecondary
Education Benefits
The Regents adopts standing orders and policies for the
University California. (Regents U.C., Policy 1000.)
Following the Legislature enactments A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and
S.B. 1210, the Regents adopted corresponding policies for students. Regents Policy 3106.1.C addresses nonresident
tuition and provides: The University California shall exempt
students from tuition and/or fees waive tuition and/or fees,
set forth below. provided [Education Code]
Section 68130.5 (AB 540). (Regents U.C., Policy 3106.1.C.)
Regents Policy Nos. 3202.2 and 3202.3 address financial
aid and student loan programs for students who qualify under
A.B. 540 for nonresident tuition. Policy 3202.2 provides part:
The University California shall extend financial aid any
student exempt from paying nonresident tuition under California
Education Code Section 68130.5 and Regents Policy 3106.
(Regents U.C., Policy 3202.2.) Policy Nos. 3202.2 and 3202.3
identify the statutory programs through which eligible students
may receive financial aid and student loans, including the
programs established under section 66021.6 and the California
DREAM Loan Program. (Regents U.C., Policy Nos. 3202.2,
3202.3.)
Enactments and Eligibility Under Section 1621(d) noted, section 1621(d) allows state make
undocumented immigrants eligible for postsecondary education
benefits through the enactment State law which
affirmatively provides for such eligibility. Vries argues that
A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 not provide eligibility for students because those measures apply only students
California State University and California community colleges.
~(AOB 15)~ doing, Vries suggests that the requirement section 1621(d) that state laws provide eligibility for state
local public benefits means that such laws must actually confer
benefits qualified undocumented immigrants. Vries
further argues that, because the University California
constitutional status precludes the Legislature from making students eligible for benefits under section 1621(d),
legislative enactment can ever comply with section 1621(d) with
respect students.
The Regents contends that Martinez controls this case
because the Supreme Court opinion Martinez directly
addressed and upheld the nonresident tuition exemption that
[De Vries] challenges here. The Regents further contends that,
because the legislative enactments making undocumented
immigrants eligible for the financial aid and student loan
programs Vries challenges are materially indistinguishable
from the nonresident tuition exemption, Martinez dictates that
those parallel authorizations also satisfy section 1621(d). the
alternative, the Regents argues that its policies are state law
within the meaning section 1621(d) and that, minimum,
the acts the Legislature combination with Regents policies
satisfy federal law.
Martinez Not Controlling
Preliminarily, agree with Vries that Martinez not
controlling. Martinez the Supreme Court considered
challenge A.B. 540 under section 1621 and another provision
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act that prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving
postsecondary education benefits the basis their residence.
(Martinez, supra, Cal.4th pp. 1284, 1294; see U.S.C.
1623).) With respect section 1621, the plaintiffs alleged the
defendants, including the Regents, the Board Trustees the
California State University, the California Community Colleges,
and officials representing those entities, unlawfully exempted
undocumented immigrant students from nonresident tuition
because A.B. 540 did not affirmatively provide eligibility for
that benefit. (Martinez, 1294.) The parties stipulated that
the Regents have, resolution, made [A.B. 540] applicable
undocumented immigrants. (Martinez, 1287, fn. 1.)
The Supreme Court held that A.B. 540 satisfies the
requirement section 1621(d) that state law affirmatively
provide eligibility for undocumented immigrants receive State local public benefits. (Martinez, supra, Cal.4th 1295.)
The court, however, did not define interpret the term
eligibility. Moreover, unlike Vries, the plaintiffs Martinez
did not argue that the Legislature could not make students
eligible for public benefits because the University
The Supreme Court Martinez also held that state
statute does not comply with section 1621(d) unless expressly
state[s] that applies undocumented aliens, rather than
conferring benefit generally without specifying that its
beneficiaries may include undocumented aliens. (Martinez,
supra, Cal.4th 1296; see Garcia, supra, Cal.4th 458.) Vries does not argue that either A.B. 131 S.B. 1210
fails comply with this standard; indeed, appears concede
that each statute does comply.
California constitutional status. The Supreme Court
Martinez did not address that specific question connection with
A.B. 540, and did not decide that any other issue
connection with A.B. 131 S.B. 1210. Martinez, therefore, does
not control the outcome this case.
A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 Are
Enactments State Law
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act does not define the phrase enactment
State law section 1621(d). Vries argues that these words
require enactment the state legislature, while the Regents
argues that the phrase broader and includes measures such
the quasi-legislative acts the Regents. need not decide
whether the Regents broader view correct because, even
under Vries narrower standard, A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and
S.B. 1210 are enactments State law.
The Legislature enacted A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and
S.B. 1210, and the Governor signed all three measures into law.
(Stats. 2001, ch. 814 [approved the Governor Oct. 12, 2001];
Stats. 2011, ch. 604 [approved the Governor Oct. 2011];
Stats. 2014, ch. 754 [approved the Governor Sept. 27, 2014].)
Even under Vries theory, they qualify enactments under
section 1621(d), and Vries does not contend otherwise.
Indeed, each the three measures contains the prefatory
language, The people the State California enact
follows, confirming that enactment State law. (See
Branch Smith (2003) 538 U.S. 254, 264 [a]n enactment the
product legislation, not adjudication, citing the definition
enact Webster New Internat. Dict. (2d ed. 1949) 841
[t]o make into act law; esp., perform the legislative act
with reference bill) which gives the validity law see
also Grinzi San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th
72, [an uncodified section act fully part the law
and must read together with provisions codes ].)
The Meaning Eligibility Under
Section 1621(d)
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act also does not define interpret the word
eligibility section 1621(d). When term goes undefined
statute, give the term its ordinary meaning. (Taniguchi
Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (2012)
U.S.
[132 S.Ct. 1997,
2002] (Taniguchi); see Crawford Metropolitan Government
Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn. (2009) 555 U.S. 271, 276 [t]he term oppose, being left undefined the statute, carries
its ordinary meaning Hardt Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
(2010) 560 U.S. 242, 251 [we assume that the ordinary meaning statute language accurately expresses the legislative
purpose see also People Barros (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th
1581, 1593 [using [t]he plain meaning the word proceeding
where the phrase was not defined the statute Arnall
Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 360, 369 look first the term plain meaning for guidance when the statute
does not define the term]; Eureka Reporter (2008)
165 Cal.App.4th 891, 897 [turning the plain and
commonsense meaning term not defined the statute].) divining term ordinary meaning, courts regularly
turn general and legal dictionaries. (See, e.g., Freeman
Quicken Loans, Inc. (2012)
U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2034, 2041-
2042; Taniguchi, supra,
U.S. 132 S.Ct. 2002;
Lopez Gonzales (2006) 549 U.S. 47, 53-54; MCI
Telecommunications Corp. American Tel. Tel. Co. (1994)
512 U.S. 218, 225 (MCI Telecommunications); see also Outfitter
Properties, LLC Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2012)
207 Cal.App.4th 237, 244 [w]e use the ordinary dictionary
meaning terms when terms are not defined the statute
County Sacramento State Water Resources Control Bd.
(2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1579, 1592 [a] dictionary proper
source determine the usual and ordinary meaning word
phrase statute Stamm Theatres, Inc. Hartford Casualty
Ins. Co. (2001) Cal.App.4th 531, 539 courts turn
general dictionaries when they seek ascertain the ordinary
meaning words used statute ].) Merriam-Webster
Collegiate Dictionary defines eligible (the adjective form the
noun eligibility qualified participate chosen.
(Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dict. (11th ed. 2014) 404; see
American Heritage Dict. (2d ed. 1985) 446 eligible means
[q]ualified, for office position Oxford English Dict.
(2d ed. 1989) 140 eligibility means [f]itness chosen
preferred ].) Black Law Dictionary similarly defines eligible [f]it and proper selected receive benefit; legally
qualified for office, privilege, status. (Black Law Dict.
(10th ed. 2014) 634, col. see also Ballentine Law Dictionary
(3d ed. 1969) 396 eligibility means [f]itness for selection ].)
Thus, the ordinary meaning eligibility connotes qualification
for benefit, not entitlement that benefit.
Webster New International Dictionary and its abridged
version published Webster New Collegiate Dictionary include
Another provision the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act enacted the same time
section 1621 confirms this interpretation the word eligibility used section 1621(d). (See Taniguchi, supra,
U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. pp. 2004-2005] [considered together, other
provisions the same act provide strong contextual clue[s]
term ordinary meaning]; Dyna-Med, Inc. Fair Employment
entitled among several meanings eligible, including
qualified chosen and permitted under football rules
catch forward pass. (Webster Third New International
Dictionary (2002) 736; Webster Ninth New Collegiate Dict.
(1984) 404; see MCI Telecommunications, supra, 512 U.S. 226, fn. Webster New Collegiate Dictionaries are
essentially abridgments that company Webster New
International Dictionaries ].) That definition broad enough encompass one sense word does not establish that the
word ordinarily understood that sense. (Taniguchi, supra,
[132 S.Ct. 2003]; see Mallard United States
U.S.
Dist. Court for Southern Dist. Iowa (1989) 490 U.S. 296, 301
[relying the most common meaning and the ordinary and
natural signification the word request, even though may
sometimes double for demand command ].) other
common legal dictionary consulted defines eligible
U.S.
[132 S.Ct.
entitled. (See Taniguchi, supra, 2004] [b]ased our survey the relevant dictionaries,
conclude that the ordinary common meaning interpreter
does not include those who translate writings [as suggested
Webster Third] ].) Thus, reject the definition eligible
Webster Third New International and New Collegiate
Dictionaries including entitled. (See ibid.; MCI
Telecommunications, 227 [rejecting the suggested meaning word one dictionary and its progeny where that definition
contradicts one the meanings contained virtually all other
dictionaries, italics omitted].)
Housing Com. (1987) Cal.3d 1379, 1387 [t]he words the
statute must construed context, keeping mind the
statutory purpose, and statutes statutory sections relating
the same subject must harmonized, both internally and with
each other, the extent possible Sutter Health Superior
Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1555 [looking the context
and ordinary meaning term not defined the statute ].)
Section 1621 contained United States Code title
chapter 14, which consists four subchapters. One subchapter
includes provision entitled Statutory construction, which
states: Nothing this chapter may construed
entitlement determination individual eligibility
fulfillment the requisite requirements for any Federal, State, local governmental program, assistance, benefits. For
purposes this chapter, eligibility relates only the general
issue eligibility ineligibility the basis alienage. U.S.C. 1643(a)(1), italics added.)
The juxtaposition entitlement and eligibility makes
clear that these words are not synonymous they are used
title United States Code section 1643(a)(1). Indeed, that
provision indicates that eligibility broader than entitlement
and describes person who may qualify receive benefit but
has legal right it. (See Immigration and Naturalization
Service Cardoza-Fonseca (1987) 480 U.S. 421, 444 those who
can only show well-founded fear persecution are not entitled anything, but are eligible for the discretionary relief
asylum Jarecha Immigration and Naturalization Service
(5th Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 220, 223 [as U.S.C. 1255 now
construed, applicant who meets the objective prerequisites
merely eligible for adjustment status, way entitled such relief ].) Because identical words used different
parts the same act are intended have the same meaning, construe eligibility section 1621(d) mean qualified
receive benefit that term used title United States
Code section 1643(a)(1). (See Taniguchi, supra,
U.S. ___
[132 S.Ct. pp. 2004-2005] interpreter used U.S.C.
1920 has the same meaning used U.S.C. 1827]; accord,
Gustafson Alloyd Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 561, 570; Department
Revenue Ore. ACF Industries, Inc. (1994) 510 U.S. 332, 342;
see also Gustafson Alloyd Co., 568 [a] term should
construed, possible, give consistent meaning throughout
[an] Act ].) Vries suggests that section 1621(d) requires state laws actually confer benefits qualified undocumented
immigrants. ~(AOB 15, 18; ARB 1)~ That not what section
1621(d) says. Section 1621(d) requires only that state laws make
undocumented immigrants eligible for public benefits.
A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 Provide Eligibility
for Students Receive Postsecondary Education
Benefits construing statute, our fundamental task
ascertain the intent the lawmakers effectuate the
purpose the statute. begin examining the statutory
language because generally the most reliable indicator
legislative intent. give the language its usual and ordinary
meaning, and [i]f there ambiguity, then presume the
lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning the
language governs. If, however, the statutory language
ambiguous, may resort extrinsic sources, including the
ostensible objects achieved and the legislative history.
(Lee Hanley, supra, Cal.4th pp. 1232-1233; accord,
Committee for Green Foothills Santa Clara County Bd.
Supervisors, supra, Cal.4th 45; Mays City Los
Angeles (2008) Cal.4th 313, 321.) Extrinsic sources include
the statutory scheme, the apparent purposes underlying the
statute and the presence (or absence) instructive legislative
history. (County San Diego Alcoholic Beverage Control
Appeals Bd. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 396, 401; see Mt. Hawley
Insurance Company Lopez (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1400
(Mt. Hawley).) Ultimately choose the construction that
comports most closely with the apparent intent the lawmakers,
with view promoting rather than defeating the general
purpose the statute. (Lee Hanley, 1233; accord,
Mays City Los Angeles, 321.)
A.B. 540
The language A.B. 540 unambiguous statute language ambiguous when subject
more than one reasonable interpretation. (See Bruns Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) Cal.4th 717, 724; Jones Lodge Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) Cal.4th 1158,
1162-1163; Coalition Concerned Communities, Inc. City
Los Angeles (2004) Cal.4th 733, 737.) Here, the language
A.B. 540 broadly applies make all persons attending any
accredited institution higher education California eligible
for exemption from nonresident tuition, including
undocumented immigrant students who meet the requirements
set forth Section 68130.5. (See Martinez, Cal.4th 1295.) All persons means all persons, including students. Nothing A.B. 540, including the requirements
set forth section 68130.5, can reasonably interpreted
limit restrict students from eligibility for the exemption
from nonresident tuition. The language unambiguous. Vries contends that A.B. 540 does not make students eligible for the exemption from nonresident tuition
because does not apply the University California.
support his argument, Vries cites section 68134, which
states: provision this part shall applicable the
University California unless the Regents the University
California, resolution, make such provision applicable. Vries notes that the Supreme Court Martinez cited
section 68134 observing that, [b]y its terms, [A.B. 540] applies
only the California State University and California
Community Colleges, and not the University California.
(Martinez, supra, Cal.4th 1287, fn. 1.)
Section 68134, however, does not negate students
eligibility for the exemption from nonresident tuition under
A.B. 540, nor does render the language A.B. 540 ambiguous. the Regents argued its demurrer, A.B. 540 makes all
qualified students eligible for the exemption from nonresident
tuition. Pursuant section 68134, students are not entitled that benefit unless the University California elects
provide it. Indeed, section 68134 and the Supreme Court
reference that statute Martinez address whether A.B. 540
applies the University California, not whether applies students makes them eligible for certain benefits.
Whether A.B. 540 applies the University California not
relevant whether A.B. 540 makes students eligible for the
exemption from nonresident tuition. noted, section 1621(d)
requires only that state law provide eligibility for undocumented
immigrants receive public benefits. does not require that
state law confer such benefits eligible persons mandate that
any other entity so. Vries also argues that, because section 68130.5,
subdivision (a), which provides that qualified undocumented
immigrants shall exempt from paying nonresident tuition
the California State University and the California Community
Colleges, makes mention the University California,
A.B. 540 must exclude students from eligibility for the
exemption from nonresident tuition. The absence language
section 68130.5 referring the University California, however,
does not eliminate students from eligibility for that benefit.
Section 68130.5, subdivision (a), merely requires California State
University and California community colleges exempt their
qualifying students from paying nonresident tuition. (See
68130.5, subd. (c) [t]he Board Governors the California
Community Colleges and the Trustees the California State
University shall prescribe rules and regulations for the
implementation this section, italics added].) may be, Vries argues, that A.B. 540 (and A.B. 131 and S.B. 1210)
cannot require the Regents provide eligibility for
students. But section 1621(d) does not place that burden the
Legislature. only requires that the Legislature provide
eligibility for public benefits, which the Legislature has done
through A.B. 540. Garcia, supra, Cal.4th 440 presented analogous,
though not identical, scenario. That case involved state statute
making undocumented immigrants eligible for membership
the State Bar. Although the California Constitution gives the
Supreme Court ultimate authority for establishing policies
relating admission the Bar, the Legislature enacted
Business and Professions Code section 6064, subdivision (b),
which provides that the Supreme Court may admit [an]
applicant [who not lawfully present the United States]
attorney law all the courts this state and may direct
order entered upon its records that effect. (Garcia, 451, fn. italics added.) Garcia held that Business and
Professions Code section 6064 satisfied the requirements
section 1621(d) because the former section explicitly authoriz[es] bar applicant who not lawfully present the United States obtain law license. (Garcia, 458.)
Business and Professions Code section 6064, however,
merely made undocumented immigrants eligible for admission
the Bar. The Supreme Court retained authority confer deny
membership matter state law for reasons specific
the applicant. (Garcia, supra, Cal.4th 459.) Thus,
Business and Professions Code section 6064 remov[ed] any
federal statutory barrier admitting undocumented
Garcia explained: Although both the Legislature and this
court possess the authority establish rules regulating
admission the State Bar, under the California Constitution
this court bears the ultimate responsibility and authority for
determining the issue admission. (Garcia, Cal.4th 451; see id. 452, fn. 11.) Thus, the Legislature arguably
exercises more authority over policies affecting admission the
State Bar than does over policies affecting tuition rates the
University.
immigrants the State Bar, and the Supreme Court ultimately
conferred that benefit qualified applicants. (Ibid.)
Similarly, A.B. 540 removed the federal barrier making
undocumented immigrants eligible for the exemption from
nonresident tuition, and the Regents conferred that benefit
qualified students. Nothing section 1621(d), California
Constitution, A.B. 540 requires more. short, legislative
deference the University constitutional status does not affect
the Legislature express intent make students eligible for
the exemption from nonresident tuition. Vries suggestion
that A.B. 540 does not provide eligibility for students within
the meaning that term under section 1621(d) not reasonable
and does not cast doubt the clarity A.B. 540. (See Coalition Concerned Communities, Inc. City Los Angeles, supra, Cal.4th 737 [language unambiguous unless subject more than one reasonable interpretation ].)
The legislative history A.B. 540 confirms that students are eligible for the exemption from
nonresident tuition
Although not necessary look legislative history
and other extrinsic sources because A.B. 540 unambiguous, the
legislative history and subsequent legislative enactments confirm
our interpretation. (See Goodman Lozano (2010) Cal.4th
1327, 1335 [although the meaning language statute
plain, helpful look [the statute legislative history
Hughes Pair (2009) Cal.4th 1035, 1046 [may] look
legislative history confirm our plain-meaning construction
statutory language Kulshrestha First Union Commercial
Corp. (2004) Cal.4th 601, 613, fn. courts may always test
their construction disputed statutory language against
extrinsic aids bearing the drafters intent United Health
Centers San Joaquin Valley, Inc. Superior Court (2014)
229 Cal.App.4th 63, [r]eviewing courts may turn the
legislative history behind even unambiguous statutes when
confirms bolsters their interpretation ].) look the
Legislative Counsel digest and other summaries and reports
indicating the Legislature intent. (Mt. Hawley, supra, 215
Cal.App.4th 1401; see Committee for Green Foothills
Santa Clara County Bd. Supervisors, supra, Cal.4th 56, fn. [w]e have routinely found enrolled bill reports,
prepared responsible agency contemporaneous with passage
and before signing, instructive matters legislative intent
Valley Vista Services, Inc. City Monterey Park (2004)
118 Cal.App.4th 881, 889 [w]hen construing statute,
may consider its legislative history, including committee and bill
reports, and other legislative records ].)
Several enrolled bill reports for A.B. 540 refer repeatedly
tuition and eligibility rates for students assessing the
impact A.B. 540 the state and its student population. For
example, the Enrolled Bill Report the Office the Secretary
Education notes that the estimated percentage the student
population who may qualify for nonresident tuition exemption
under provisions [the] bill less than the total
student population the three public higher education
institutions, the UC, the CSU [California State University], and
the CCC [California community colleges]. (Off. the Sect. for
Educ., Rep. Assem. Bill. No. 540 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.)
Oct. 2001, 5.) The Enrolled Bill Report goes state, The and the CSU estimate minor, absorbable costs based the
low number students who would qualify for nonresident
tuition exemption under the provisions this bill. (Id.
see also Dept. Finance, Rep. Assem. Bill No. 540 (2001-2002
Reg. Sess.) Oct. 10, 2001, pp. 2-3; Dept. Finance, Rep.
Assem. Bill No. 540 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) July 2001, pp. 1-3;
Assem. Republican Bill Analysis, Higher Educ. Com., Rep.
Assem. Bill No. 540 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 13, 2001, 2.) A.B. 540 did not provide eligibility for students benefit
from the nonresident tuition exemption, there would need
for the Legislature consider the impact A.B. 540 the
University California and its students. Vries argues that sentence the Legislative
Counsel Digest A.B. 540 supports his contention that
A.B. 540 provides eligibility only students California State
University and California community colleges. points
language stating, These provisions are applicable the
University California only the Regents the University
California act make them applicable. (Legis. Counsel Dig.,
Assem. Bill No. 540 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) 2001 Stats. ch. 814, 93.) discussed with respect the almost identical language section 68134, however, the fact that A.B. 540 does not apply the University California does not affect students
eligibility for the nonresident tuition exemption.
Moreover, the sentence Vries cites from the Legislative
Counsel Digest refers not A.B. 540, but language section
68062, described the Legislative Counsel Digest existing
law, which provided that alien may establish residence
California unless precluded federal law. 68062, subd. (h).) Regents University California Superior Court (1990)
225 Cal.App.3d 972 (Regents Superior Court) the court held
that federal law prohibited California colleges and universities
(including the University California) from classifying
undocumented immigrants residents under section 68062.
(Id. 980.) The court that case acknowledged that section
68134 made section 68062 applicable the University
California only the extent its Regents adopt (Regents
Superior Court, supra, 976, fn.1), meaning that the Regents
could, but was not required to, classify qualified aliens
residents under section 68062. A.B. 540 now allows California
colleges and universities make undocumented immigrants
eligible for the exemption from nonresident tuition based
factors other than their residence, thus complying with federal
law. (Martinez, supra, Cal.4th 1290; see U.S.C. 1623
[prohibiting alien who not lawfully present the United
States from eligibility for postsecondary education benefits
the basis residence ].) was the case with section 68062,
section 68134 allows the Regents adopt the nonresident tuition
exemption provided A.B. 540 chooses so. assume the Legislature knew section 68134 and its
effect other provisions the Education Code when the
Legislature enacted section A.B. 540, which added section
68130.5. (See People Scott (2014) Cal.4th 1415, 1424 the
Legislature deemed aware statutes and judicial
decisions already existence, and have enacted amended
statute light thereof ].) also assume the Legislature
intended section 68134 have the same effect section 68130.5
that had section 68062. (See People Scott, 1424 [c]ourts may assume that the Legislature intended
maintain consistent body rules and adopt the meaning
statutory terms already construed ].) That effect
acknowledge the University California special status under
the California Constitution and allow the University decide
whether confer its students the benefits for which they are
eligible under state law.
Finally, S.B. 1210, which the Legislature enacted 2014,
acknowledges that A.B. 540 applies students even does
not apply the University. S.B. 1210 states, Since 2002,
students have been exempt from paying nonresident tuition and
fees the California Community Colleges, the California State
University, and the University California pursuant
Section 68130.5. (Stats. 2014, ch. 754, subd. (b).) While
not binding, declaration later Legislature what
earlier Legislature intended entitled consideration.
(Carter California Dept. Veterans Affairs (2006) Cal.4th
Other Education Code statutes follow similar pattern.
For example, section 68075.5, subdivision (a), exempts certain
members the Armed Forces stationed California from paying
nonresident tuition the California State University and
California community colleges. Even though that provision does
not reference the University California, another subdivision
section 68075.5, subdivision (c), asks the University California adopt policies regarding tuition rates for eligible veterans that
conform the requirements section 68075.5, subdivision (a).
Thus, through section 68075.5, subdivision (c), the Legislature
intended make veterans attending school eligible for the
benefit in-state tuition.
The same provision also acknowledges that A.B. 131 makes students eligible for state financial aid financial aid
offered [that] public institution. (Stats. 2014, ch. 754, subd. (b).)
914, 922; see People rel. Lockyer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(2005) Cal.4th 707, 724 [w]hile subsequent legislation
interpreting [a] statute [cannot] change the meaning [of the
earlier enactment,] [does supply] indication the legislative
intent which may considered together with other factors
arriving the true intent existing the time the legislation was
enacted ].) Here, S.B. 1210 confirms that A.B. 540 makes students eligible for the nonresident tuition exemption.
A.B. 131 and S.B. 1210
A.B. 131 and S.B. 1210, like A.B. 540, make undocumented
immigrants attending the University California eligible for
financial aid and student loan programs and rely the Regents confer these benefits qualified students. The language
A.B. 131 and S.B. 1210, like the language A.B. 540, does not
exclude from eligibility any qualified students the basis the
institution they attend. Indeed, specifically referencing the
University California and its students, those measures provide
eligibility for the specified benefits those students, regardless whether the University ultimately confers such benefits
them.
For example, section A.B. 131, which added section
69508.5, addresses eligibility for Cal Grants and states that student who meets the requirements subdivision (a)
Section 68130.5, who meets equivalent requirements adopted the Regents the University California, eligible apply
for, and participate in, any student financial aid program
administered the State California the full extent
permitted federal law. The plain language this provision
makes clear that students are eligible participate the
Cal Grant program. Section A.B. 131, which added section
66021.6, applies Grants and states that the Regents the
University California are requested establish procedures
and forms that enable persons who are exempt from paying
nonresident tuition under Section 68130.5, who meet
equivalent requirements adopted the [R]egents, apply for,
and participate in, all student aid programs administered
these [schools] the full extent permitted federal law. Thus,
section A.B. 131 makes undocumented students eligible participate the Grant program. Vries argues that the reference A.B. 131
requirements adopted the Regents the University
California means that its terms not apply students.
Putting aside the fact that the Regents not involved the
Cal Grants program, Vries argument lacks merit. Section
1621(d) does not require enactment state law specify the
terms under which eligible beneficiaries may receive certain
benefits. Section 1621(d) merely requires the enactment state
law make undocumented immigrants eligible for those
benefits, and A.B. 131 satisfies that requirement, regardless whether, Vries argues, students eligibility for
Grants requires them meet certain conditions adopted the
Regents. terms even plainer than A.B. 540 and A.B. 131, S.B.
1210 provides eligibility qualified students benefit from
certain student loan programs. Section S.B. 1210, which
added section 70033, subdivision (a)(1), states: Commencing
The Regents notes that plays role conferring
Cal Grants any students, including students.
with the 2015-16 academic year, student attending
participating institution may receive loan under the DREAM
Program the student satisfies all the following requirements: (1) The student exempt from paying nonresident tuition
under Section 68130.5, meets equivalent requirements adopted the Regents the University California. (Italics added.) participating institution defined any campus
the University California that elects participate the
DREAM Program pursuant the requirements specified for
qualifying institution 70032, subd. (i).) Thus, students are eligible participate the DREAM Program
established S.B. 1210.
DISPOSITION
The judgment affirmed. The Regents recover its
costs appeal.
SEGAL, concur:
PERLUSS,
KEENY,
*Judge the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned the
Chief Justice pursuant article VI, section the California
Constitution.
PROOF SERVICE citizen the United States and employed Judicial Watch,
Inc. the City Washington, District Columbia. over the age and not party the within action. business address 425
Third Street SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024. January 17, 2017, served copy the foregoing document
described as:
PETITION FOR REVIEW the parties this action placing true and correct copy thereof
sealed envelope addressed follows:
See Attached Service List delivered said documents authorized courier driver
authorized receive documents, envelope package designated
the express service carrier with delivery fees paid provided for,
addressed the person whom served the next business
day. declare under penalty perjury the laws the State
California that the foregoing true and correct. Executed January 17,
2017 Washington, DC.
/s/ Chris Fedeli*
Chris Fedeli Pursuant Cal. Rules Court 8.77(a), copy the original signed,
printed form this document will kept file.
SERVICE LIST
Benjamin Horwich
MUNGER, TOLLES OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, 94105 copy brief)
Clerk the Court
COURT APPEAL THE STATE CALIFORNIA
Second Appellate District, Division
Ronald Reagan State Building
300 Spring Street
2nd Floor, North Tower
Los Angeles, 90013 copy brief)
Clerk the Court, Dept. (Feuer, J.)
SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA
COUNTY LOS ANGELES
111 Hill Street
Los Angeles, 90012 copy brief)