Case: De Vries v. Regents of the University of California

On August 26, 2014, Judicial Watch filed this lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California (Board of Regents) on behalf of an individual plaintiff in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. Under California law, the plaintiff argued, taxpayers have the right to sue government officials to prevent unlawful expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from providing tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants, claiming violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1621(a), which asserts that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for state or local benefits unless the state, through the enactment of a law, affirmatively provides for such eligibility. The case was assigned to Judge Elizabeth White.

In 2001, the California State Legislature passed a law making qualified undocumented immigrants eligible for exemption from nonresident tuition. Then in 2011, the State signed a law giving undocumented immigrant college students access to state-funded financial aid and student loan benefits. But the plaintiff contended that because the California Constitution makes the Board of Regents completely independent from the State Legislature, the 2011 law does not and cannot affirmatively provide that undocumented immigrants attending UC schools are eligible for state-administered financial aid benefits such as waivers, grants, and scholarships. And the formal policies that the Board of Regents adopted to provide these benefits did not qualify as “State law” under the federal statute. The plaintiff further argued that the Board of Regents had been providing these benefits despite lacking authority to do so, resulting in unlawful expenditures of $19.6 million in non-resident tuition waivers, $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants and scholarships, and $3.2 million in state loans.

The defendants argued that the California Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California (2010), which held the exemption from non-resident tuition in the California law complies with the “affirmatively provides” requirement of the federal statute, also applies to the financial-aid and student loan benefits and precludes the plaintiff’s claim. Alternatively, the defendants asserted, the state laws and the policies of the Board of Regents nevertheless satisfy the requirements of the federal statute.

On April 16, 2015, Judge Gail Feuer was assigned to the case.

On May 11, 2015, Judge Feuer ordered the case dismissed, with leave to amend, holding that the Board of Regents’ policies qualified as state law and thus satisfied the federal statute. After the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment for the regents.

On June 1, 2015, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the dismissal order with the California Second District Court of Appeal, where he argued that “the Legislature has not passed any statutes affirmatively providing eligibility for benefits to UC students who are undocumented immigrants” and that “the trial court erred by concluding that the Regents’s policies constitute 'state laws' that comply” with the federal statute.

The Second District Court of Appeal issued its decision affirming the dismissal on December 9, 2016. Judge Segal speaking for the court (Judges Perluss and Keeny concurred), held that although the California Legislature may not confer state-administered financial aid benefits to undocumented immigrants attending UC schools, the federal statute requires only that state laws make undocumented immigrants “eligible” for public benefits, which the Legislature has done. While Judge White held that Martinez did not control, that the Legislature satisfied the eligibility requirement is sufficient to affirm the dismissal. 6 Cal.App.5th 574.

On January 31, 2017, the plaintiff filed a Petition of Review in the California Supreme Court; it was denied on February 22, 2017.

On June 1, 2017, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking certiorari review in the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 2, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.

The case is now closed.