A group of out-of-state students and parents opposed to a California law granting undocumented individuals access to in-state tuition has announced it will appeal its case to the United States Supreme Court.
In November, the California Supreme Court unanimously voted to uphold AB 540. The bill, which was signed into law in 2001, qualifies undocumented students to pay in-state tuition for University of California or California State University schools.
“The bill allows students who have attended high school in California for three years or more to apply for in-state tuition—not free tuition. That’s a common misconception about the law,” said Lt. Gov. and Santa Maria native Abel Maldonado, who co-authored the bill with Marco Firebaugh during their time together in the Assembly.
To qualify under the law, the undocumented student must also have a clean record with law enforcement, graduate high school with passing scores, and be accepted into a university. The student must also sign a legally binding agreement stating that he or she will apply for legal residency as soon as possible.
“First of all, let me say that I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform,” Maldonado told the Sun. “But the federal government won’t do its job.”
AB 540, he said, is part of the legislative piecemeal that helps California address its immigration problem.
“It didn’t make sense to me that kids in our state—kids who play football with my kids, kids who play baseball with my kids, kids who go to school with my kids and have been in the school system for as long as 14 years—and, in some cases, go on to become valedictorians—get accepted to universities, but because of their [documentation status] can’t afford to go to school,” Maldonado said.
He believes the state’s taxpayers have already invested approximately $100,000 in each of these students to pay for their elementary and secondary educations.
“And all of a sudden we’re telling them that we don’t want them to be better taxpayers,” he continued, “because by going to school, they’re going to get better jobs. They’re going to become doctors and lawyers and pay better taxes.”
Of course, not everyone sees things the way Maldonado does.
According to the California Supreme Court opinion on the case, the plaintiffs believe the law violates previously enacted congressional laws prohibiting states from making illegal aliens eligible for postsecondary educations benefits under certain circumstances.
Kris W. Kobach, the attorney for the plaintiffs, confirmed to the Sun that he will be filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his clients by mid-February. Kobach said the California Supreme Court made a number of significant errors when making its ruling, primarily that the decision “is contrary to the intent of Congress.”
“The California Supreme Court recognized in its opinion that there is significant tension between its ruling what Congress was trying to do by enacting that law,” he said, adding that he thinks the case has a “higher than average” probability of being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In upholding the law, the California Supreme Court found that the congressional clause brought to light by the plaintiffs didn’t apply to the case of tuition for postsecondary education.
Ethan P. Schulam, legal counsel for the Regents of the University of California, told the Sun “the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court taking review of the case is relatively low.”
According to Schulam, there are nine other states with laws similar to AB 540, many of which the same group of plaintiffs has opposed.
“None have gotten to the appellate level,” he said. “This was a unanimous decision from the [California Supreme Court]. … I think it’s an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.”
According to a statement from the UC Regents, the law has benefited both undocumented students and United States citizens because it applies to any student who has attended high school in California for three years or more. The board said since the program’s introduction in 2002, documented students have accounted for more than two-thirds of those benefiting from the exemption.
This article appears in Dec 2-9, 2010.