U. California Can Hire Undocumented Students as Court Declines to Intervene
“UC has been a leader in supporting its undocumented students”
This is what you call, kicking the can down the road. Let someone else deal with this problem at a later date.
Campus Reform reports:
University of California can hire undocumented students as California court declines to intervene
The California Supreme Court has decided not to review a court decision that found that the University of California (UC) system discriminates against undocumented students by barring them from on-campus employment.
The case, Umaña Muñoz, et al v. Regents University of California, was filed in 2024 by a UCLA alumnus and a former university lecturer.
In August, a panel from the Court of Appeal for the First District determined that “the University’s employment policy facially discriminates based on immigration status.” The UC Board of Regents appealed that ruling in September, but the state’s highest court refused to take up the case.
Rachel Zaentz, spokesperson for the University of California’s Office of the President, spoke with Campus Reform about students who broke the law by coming to America illegally.
Zaentz told Campus Reform that these illegal immigrant students are “remarkable young people who have overcome obstacles and excelled academically.”
Zaentz boasted that “UC has been a leader in supporting its undocumented students.”
In response to the ruling, the University of California said it is still weighing its next steps. “The University of California is assessing its options following the California Supreme Court’s decision to deny review of the appellate court decision,” Zaentz told Campus Reform, noting that the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Muñoz creates legal risks for the University.
Plaintiff Iliana G. Perez, a former UCLA lecturer and previously undocumented immigrant, celebrated the outcome. “The California Supreme Court’s decision not only reaffirms that discriminating against undocumented immigrants from accessing on-campus employment cannot continue to be tolerated,” Perez said in a UCLA press release.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Before anyone flies off the handle, read the decision.
California state law bans discrimination on the basis of immigration status unless required by federal law. So the supremacy clause is not a factor here. If federal law requires the discrimination then state law allows it. But the defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that federal law does require the discrimination.
UC’s predicament here is that not only has it not shown that by clear and convincing evidence, it has not even asserted it.
Plaintiffs assert that federal law does not bar their employment, because the Immigration Reform and Control Act doesn’t apply to state government entities such as UC. Rather than deny this assertion, and present evidence that it’s wrong, the university says it takes no position on the question.
What it argues is that regardless of whether ICRA applies to it, there’s a risk that the federal government will claim it does, and will sue the university for breaking it, so it’s just being prudent and acting as if it applies. As the appeals court says, that would be completely reasonable if there were no state law specifically banning the discrimination. If it were just the general discrimination law, then the risk of litigation would be sufficient reason to discriminate. But here there’s a state law that specifically says that’s not good enough, and to justify the discrimination you must prove that federal law requires it, and the university refuses to even attempt that. So the appeals court says the university has two choices: assert that it’s required to discriminate and prove it, or else employ the plaintiffs and take the risk that the federal government will sue it.
The headline is misleading. The decision is not that the University can hire them, but that it must — or it can assert that federal law forbids it, and provide clear and convincing evidence for that opinion.
It smells like a sue-and-settle to me.
Why isn’t someone else asserting that federal law prohibits it? Because it pretty plainly does.
Who else should or could assert it? The only parties to the case are the plaintiffs and UC.
And no, it doesn’t “pretty plainly” prohibit it. The plaintiffs argue that it doesn’t, and UC doesn’t contest that argument. No court has ever considered or ruled on it, so it’s anyone’s guess whether it’s valid.
The California legislature actually passed a bill asserting that it doesn’t, and requiring all Californian government entities to adopt that position and act on it, but Newsom vetoed it.