De Vries v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

• Decision Date: 09 December 2016
• Docket Number: B264487
• Citation: 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 435,6 Cal.App.5th 574
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Earl DE VRIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

6 Cal.App.5th 574

211 Cal.Rptr.3d 435

Earl DE VRIES, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

B264487

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

Filed December 9, 2016

Judicial Watch, Inc., Sterling E. Norris, Los Angeles, and Chris Fedeli (admitted pro hac vice) for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Office of the General Counsel University of California, Charles F. Robinson, Redwood City, Karen J. Petrulakis and Margaret L. Wu, Oakland; Munger, Tolles & Olson, Bradley S. Phillips (Los Angeles) and Benjamin J. Horwich (San Francisco) for Defendant and Respondent.

SEGAL, J.

INTRODUCTION

Federal law makes undocumented immigrants ineligible for state and local public benefits, but allows a state to "affirmatively provide[ ] for such eligibility" through "the enactment of a State law." (8 U.S.C. § 1621(d).) The California Constitution generally gives the Regents of the University of California plenary authority to establish rules and policies to govern the internal affairs of the University of California. The issue in this appeal is whether three California legislative "enactments" affirmatively provide "eligibility" under federal law for postsecondary education benefits to qualified undocumented immigrants who attend the University of California, even though the statutes require only the California State University and California community colleges to provide such benefits. We conclude that, even though the California Constitution may preclude the Legislature from actually conferring postsecondary education benefits on undocumented immigrants attending the University of California, the Legislature has made these students "eligible" for such benefits within the meaning of the federal statute. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1996 Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which, among many other things, made undocumented immigrants¹ ineligible for certain state and local public benefits, including benefits related to postsecondary education. (8 U.S.C. § 1621 (section 1621 ).) The same law, however, gives states authority to make undocumented immigrants "eligible for any State or local public benefit for which such [undocumented immigrant] would otherwise be ineligible under [section 1621 ] only through the enactment of a 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 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's power to regulate the University of California (UC) and the Regents of the University of California (the Regents),² which administers the University of California. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. (a).) Those limits traditionally extend to matters "involving internal university affairs," with a few exceptions. (San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California (1980) 26 Cal.3d 785, 789, 163 Cal.Rptr. 460, 608 P.2d 277 (Labor Council ); People v. Lofchie (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 240, 250, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 579.)³ Because of its constitutional autonomy, the Regents (rather than the Legislature) adopted three policies to provide the benefits identified in A.B. 540, A.B. 131, and S.B. 1210 to qualified undocumented immigrant students attending the University of California. (Regents of U.C., Policy 3106.1.C; Policy 3202.2; Policy 3202.3.)

Earl De Vries, a California taxpayer, filed this action against the Regents, alleging that none of its policies qualifies under section 1621(d) as a "State law" making undocumented immigrants eligible for postsecondary education benefits. De Vries further alleged that the Legislature has not enacted any statute that "affirmatively provid[es]" eligibility for the benefits the University of California now gives to undocumented immigrants, as required by section 1621(d). Indeed, De Vries alleged that the Legislature could never confer such eligibility because the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from regulating the University of California. De Vries sought to enjoin the Regents "from expending or causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources to exempt unlawfully present aliens from paying nonresident supplemental tuition and to allow unlawfully present aliens to apply for and participate in state-administered financial aid programs."

The Regents demurred. It argued that the California Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1277, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 359, 241 P.3d 855 (Martinez ), which held the exemption in A.B. 540 from nonresident tuition complies with the "affirmatively provides" requirement of section 1621(d), forecloses De Vries's current challenge, and that the analysis in Martinez applies equally to the financial aid program in A.B. 131 and the student loan program in 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 of section 1621(d) with respect to UC students and, even if they did not, the policies of the Regents satisfy section 1621(d) because they have the force and effect of "state law." In opposition to the demurrer, De Vries argued that the Supreme Court in Martinez did not address the University of California's "unique, constitutionally independent status," nor did the Supreme Court determine "whether the Regents's resolution purportedly making AB 540 applicable to [the University] satisfies Section 1621" because the parties in that case stipulated that A.B. 540 applied to the University of California.

The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, concluding that the Regents's policies satisfy section 1621(d). The court cited California and United States Supreme Court authorities stating that " ‘policies established by the Regents as matters of internal regulation may enjoy a status equivalent to that of state statutes.’ " (Emphasis deleted.) (See, e.g., Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California (1934) 293 U.S. 245, 258, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 343 ; Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 164–165, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 ; Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 130, 135, 143 Cal.Rptr. 276.) Thus, the trial court ruled that the Regents's policies "adopting the exemption codified in AB540, the eligibility for state-administered financial aid programs codified in AB131 and eligibility for the student loan program codified in SB1210 would qualify as a ‘State law ... which affirmatively provides for such eligibility’ of State or local benefit for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1621(d)."

After De Vries failed to file an amended complaint, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment for the Regents. De Vries timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

De Vries makes two principal arguments. First, he argues that the Legislature has not passed any statutes affirmatively providing eligibility for benefits to UC students who are undocumented immigrants. Second, he contends the trial court erred by concluding that the Regents's policies constitute "state laws" that comply with section 1621(d).

"On review from an order sustaining a demurrer, ‘we examine the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory, such facts being assumed true for this purpose.’ " (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 181, 224 P.3d 920 ; accord, McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 21 P.3d 1189.) We also review de novo questions of statutory construction. (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1232, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 536, 354 P.3d 334 ; Davis v. Fresno Unified School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, 275, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 798.) " ‘We affirm if any ground offered in support of the demurrer was well taken but find error if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citations.] We are not bound by the trial court's stated reasons, if any, supporting its ruling; we review the ruling, not its rationale.’ " (Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424, 433, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 ; accord, Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1411, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 749.)

A. Statutory and Constitutional Framework

1. Title 28 United States Code Section 1621

Congress enacted section 1621 as part of 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 in a chapter entitled "Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens."

Section 1621(a) provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (d) of this section, an alien who is not—[¶] (1) a qualified alien (as defined in section 1641 of this title),^{[4 ]}[¶] (2) a nonimmigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. ], or [¶] (3) an alien who is paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of such Act...