De Vries v. Regents of the University of California
211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 435
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1621(d)) bars undocumented immigrants from many state/local benefits but allows states to restore eligibility only by a post-1996 "enactment of a State law" that "affirmatively provides" eligibility.
- California enacted AB 540 (2001) (nonresident tuition exemption), AB 131 (2011) (state financial aid eligibility), and SB 1210 (2014) (DREAM Loan Program), each addressing eligibility for certain postsecondary benefits for qualified undocumented students.
- The California Constitution grants the Regents of the University of California (UC) broad internal governance autonomy; Education Code § 68134 provides that provisions of the Education Code are not applicable to UC unless the Regents adopt them by resolution.
- The Regents adopted policies implementing AB 540, AB 131, and SB 1210 for UC students; a taxpayer (De Vries) sued, claiming the statutes do not "affirmatively provide" eligibility for UC students and Regents policies are not "State law" under § 1621(d).
- The trial court sustained the Regents’ demurrer, holding the legislative enactments and/or Regents’ policies satisfy § 1621(d); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (De Vries) | Defendant's Argument (Regents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 540/AB 131/SB 1210 are "enactments of State law" under 8 U.S.C. § 1621(d) | These statutes do not "apply to" UC and thus cannot make UC students eligible | The measures were enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor — they are state laws | Held: All three statutes are enactments of state law (legislative enactments) |
| The meaning of "eligibility" in § 1621(d) | Must mean actual entitlement or grant of benefit, not mere qualification | "Eligibility" means being qualified to receive a benefit; not an entitlement | Held: "Eligibility" means qualified to receive a benefit (not entitlement); ordinary meaning supports this construction |
| Whether the statutes "affirmatively provide" eligibility for UC students | Statutes target CSU and community colleges; California Constitution prevents Legislature from conferring benefits on UC students, so statutes cannot make UC students eligible | Statutes make "all persons" at California accredited institutions eligible; § 68134 only preserves UC's choice to adopt provisions — Legislature removed federal barrier and made UC students eligible | Held: AB 540, AB 131, and SB 1210 affirmatively provide eligibility for UC students under § 1621(d); UC constitutional autonomy does not negate legislative provision of eligibility |
| Whether Regents' internal policies themselves qualify as "State law" under § 1621(d) | Regents' policies are internal and not "state law" capable of satisfying § 1621(d) | Regents' quasi-legislative policies may have status equivalent to statutes and, in any event, the Legislature already provided eligibility | Held: Court did not need to decide the broader question; statutes themselves suffice. (Court held statutes provide eligibility; noted existing authorities treating Regents policies as statute-equivalent but resolved case on statutory enactments.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of California, 50 Cal.4th 1277 (Cal. 2010) (held AB 540 satisfies § 1621(d) as an enactment that "affirmatively provides" eligibility)
- Garcia v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.4th 440 (Cal. 2014) (Legislative enactment making undocumented persons eligible for State Bar admission satisfied § 1621(d); court retains authority to admit)
- Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1934) (Regents' internal orders may be treated as state statutes for some legal purposes)
- Campbell v. Regents of Univ. of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) (Regents’ policies may have status equivalent to statutes when exercising quasi-legislative internal governance)