Fear of US law no excuse for disobeying state law, panel says

A California Court of Appeal panel found the state's university system enforces a discriminatory employment policy that unlawfully bars students without legal U.S. entry documents from securing on-campus jobs and other paid positions. The justices said fear of violating opposing U.S. law was no excuse.

In a decision Tuesday, a three-judge panel concluded the University of California "abused its discretion when it relied on improper criteria," such as fear of violating federal laws, to continue using the policy. The justices found that UC facially discriminates based on immigration status which "cannot be justified by the University's proffered reason."

The UC Regents argued its policy was based on whether a student possesses federal work authorization, not immigration status. They also contended there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to keep the policy in place based on risk assessment to avoid potential federal penalties under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

The appellate panel rejected these arguments and found a refusal to hire the students because they lacked work authorization was discrimination based on immigration status.

Although the regents are not required to take specific action to change the policy, the panel directed them to use their discretion "to decide whether to continue use of its work authorization policy" through an upcoming writ of mandate.

"Today's decision is a landmark win for students and faculty who stood up against the Regents' unlawful actions. The court's ruling sends a clear message that no institution is above the law and reinforces vital protections for our academic community. We are so proud to have fought on behalf of students who deserve the chance to fulfill their academic dreams," Max M. Carter-Oberstone of Altschuler Berzon LLP said in a statement Wednesday.

Carter-Oberstone represents the petitioners - a UCLA alumnus and lecturer - who initiated the challenge against the UC employment policies last October. He's joined by others from the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law and Organized Power in Numbers. Muñoz et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, A171410 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., filed Aug. 5, 2025).

The appellate ruling was written by Presiding Justice Jeremy M. Goldman of the 1st District Court of Appeal. Justices Jon B. Streeter and Tracie L. Brown concurred.

Stett Holbrook, a UC communications director, said in a statement: "The University of California is reviewing the court's ruling on hiring undocumented students. To the extent it's compliant with the law, the University continues to believe undocumented students deserve the same opportunities as our other students."

The UC respondent is represented by several attorneys at Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and the university system's chief legal officer, Charles F. Robinson.

The petitioners argued that despite being fully enrolled in the UC system - which qualifies them for state financial aid and meeting academic and institutional requirements - students were being denied campus job opportunities due to their immigration status.

Specifically, the petitioners argued this policy violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations - which outlaws employer practices to discriminate against an employee or applicant based on immigration status.

Under the IRCA, it's illegal for U.S. employers to hire workers without legal status. The law, under 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324(a), explicitly refers to federal entities but not state institutions.

"We note that no court has considered how the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard applies in this unusual context," the appellate panel's ruling stated.

"Whether discrimination is required by IRCA is not a matter of evidentiary proof. It is a question of statutory interpretation. But however the standard is construed, the University has made no attempt to satisfy it because it has expressly declined to take a position on whether IRCA applies to state government entities. Nor has it submitted any briefing responsive to the merits of petitioners' argument that IRCA does not apply."

Additionally, the panel said the regents failed to cite any authority that suggested a continued use of a policy that is unlawful under state law can be justified solely "on a determination that discontinuing the policy might result in significant harm to the students and employees of the University based on perceived risks of potential federal law violations."