Assembly Bill 713, authored by Assemblymember Jose Luis Solache, a Lakewood Democrat, rested on an untested legal argument: that a 1986 federal law barring employers from hiring workers without legal authorization does not extend to state governments, since the decades-old statute never explicitly names states among the employers it covers.

For the second time, however, Newsom concluded that betting California’s higher education system on that interpretation would invite retaliation from Washington.

“The current federal administration has shown itself eager to sow destruction for the sake of political theater, targeting California’s public colleges and universities and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for the consequences and an appetite for chaos,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

He continued: “But given the seriousness of what this bill could trigger — including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees — federal courts need to weigh in on the legality of this novel legal theory before we can move forward. Seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court would provide that clarity.”

Newsom vetoed nearly identical legislation in 2024.

Solache’s bill sought to give roughly 60,000 undocumented students enrolled in California’s community colleges and public universities the ability to earn wages legally through campus jobs, rather than being forced into off-the-books work. Supporters argued that on-campus employment could be structured around students’ class schedules or tied to their academic interests, such as research positions in laboratories.

Campus jobs represent a critical financial lifeline for these students, who are ineligible for federal Pell Grants — worth up to $7,400 annually — and cannot access federal student loans, which come with stronger borrower protections than private lending options. California does allow eligible state residents to receive tuition waivers regardless of immigration status, meaning many undocumented students can at least attend public institutions without paying tuition.

“While California has a long-standing commitment to expanding access, affordability and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache said during a legislative hearing on the bill in June.

The University of California itself abandoned a 2024 internal review into whether it could legally hire students without legal status, citing fears that the federal government might retaliate by withholding funding or pursuing criminal charges against UC staff.

That decision effectively dissolved a coalition of student activists who had spent years pushing the UC system to voluntarily adopt the legal theory that would allow such hiring.

Following Newsom’s 2024 veto, a UC student and a former UC professor filed suit against the university system. A state appellate court ruled that the UC’s justification — that the federal government could sue the system — amounted to an abuse of discretion under state law prohibiting employment and housing discrimination. The court found that the UC’s refusal to hire students without legal status was legally unsustainable unless the university could prove federal law mandated the policy. The UC appealed, but the state Supreme Court upheld the appellate ruling. That decision, however, stopped short of validating the underlying legal theory that states can lawfully employ workers without legal immigration status.

In his veto message, Newsom made clear that he wants a federal court to settle that question before California moves forward with legislation like Solache’s.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Again Vetoes Bill to Let Undocumented College Students Work on Campus appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 713 on Sunday, rejecting a measure that relied on a largely untested legal argument: that a 1986 federal law prohibiting employers from hiring workers without authorization to work in the country doesn’t actually apply to state governments. Supporters of the bill pointed out that the four-decade-old statute never explicitly names state governments among the employers barred from such hiring.

Despite that argument, Newsom concluded that California’s public colleges and universities would be putting themselves in the crosshairs of federal retaliation if the state moved forward on its own.

“The current federal government has shown it is quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle — attacking California’s public higher education institutions and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for consequences and a desire for chaos,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

He added that the stakes were too high to act without more legal certainty. “Given the gravity of this bill’s consequences — including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees — the federal courts must resolve the legality of the novel legal theory behind this legislation before we proceed,” Newsom wrote, suggesting that seeking a declaratory ruling in federal court would be a better path forward.

This marks the second time Newsom has vetoed nearly identical legislation, having rejected a similar bill in 2024.

The latest proposal came from Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat representing Lakewood, who hoped to open the door for an estimated 60,000 students without legal status enrolled in California’s community colleges and public universities to work legally on campus. Rather than seeking under-the-table cash jobs, these students could instead hold positions suited to their coursework or research interests — including lab jobs tied to their academic programs, according to bill supporters.

Campus employment matters greatly for these students because they don’t qualify for federal Pell grants, which can provide up to $7,400 a year, or for federal student loans that typically offer better borrower protections than private lending options. California does allow eligible in-state students to attend public colleges tuition-free through waivers regardless of immigration status, but living expenses and other costs remain a major hurdle without steady income.

“While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache told lawmakers during a bill hearing in June.

The University of California system had once considered adopting this same legal theory on its own but abandoned the effort in 2024, citing concerns that the federal government could retaliate by cutting off funding or pursuing legal action against UC employees.

That decision effectively dismantled a coalition of student activists who had spent years pressing the UC to act unilaterally and hire students regardless of immigration status.

Following Newsom’s 2024 veto, a student and a former UC lecturer filed suit against the university system. A state appellate court later ruled that the UC’s justification — fear of a potential federal lawsuit — amounted to an abuse of discretion under California’s anti-discrimination laws covering employment and housing. The court found that the UC’s blanket refusal to hire students without legal status couldn’t be legally justified unless the university could demonstrate that federal law actually compels that policy. The UC appealed the ruling, but the California Supreme Court declined to intervene, letting the appellate court’s decision stand. Notably, the ruling did not address whether the underlying legal theory — that states can lawfully employ workers without legal immigration status — actually holds up.

In his latest veto message, Newsom made clear he believes that question needs to be settled by federal courts before California moves forward with any law along the lines of what Solache proposed.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Vetoes Bill Allowing Undocumented Students to Hold Campus Jobs, Again appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Under a provision that took effect this month, schools must show that graduates of a given program earn at least as much as the typical worker in their state who holds only a high school diploma — in California, that benchmark is roughly $36,000 a year, or about $18 an hour, just above the state’s minimum wage. Programs that fail to clear that bar risk losing their students’ access to federal loans.

It’s not a particularly high bar to clear, according to Michael Itzkowitz, president of the HEA Group, a research organization that studies higher education policy. “If you go to college, you expect to earn at least minimum wage, and probably more than that,” he said.

In high-cost regions such as the Bay Area, $36,000 a year barely covers rent, let alone other living expenses.

Of nearly 3,000 California higher education programs reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education, about 90% produced graduates who cleared that income threshold, according to Itzkowitz’s analysis. But roughly 300 programs statewide — many in cosmetology, medical assisting, and the arts — fell short, with graduates earning less than $36,000 four years after finishing their studies.

Most of the underperforming programs are run by for-profit institutions, sometimes described as trade schools or vocational colleges, which have faced scrutiny for decades — including from state lawmakers — over poor outcomes and steep tuition costs. But the list also includes programs at public colleges and universities, among them theater and fine arts programs at eight California State University campuses and three University of California campuses.

Schools still have at least two years to prove to federal regulators that their graduates meet the new earnings standard. If underperforming programs don’t improve, their students could lose access to federal loans starting July 1, 2028.

CalMatters reached out to more than 15 universities, community colleges and for-profit trade schools to ask about the future of programs with low-earning graduates, but few responded. Spokespeople for both the UC and CSU systems said their institutions are reviewing the new federal rule but declined to answer most other questions. CSU spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith said campuses are working toward “constructive solutions.”

One of the few schools willing to discuss the issue was CalArts, the private arts institute near Santa Clarita whose alumni include actor Don Cheadle, filmmaker and animator Tim Burton, and comedian Paul Reubens, better known as Pee-wee Herman. Graduates of the school’s fine arts, film and photography programs report some of the lowest earnings of any bachelor’s degree program in the state — just under $30,000 four years after graduation.

School officials offered several explanations in an interview, pointing to data limitations and fundamental differences between arts careers and more traditional career paths. Ranu Mukherjee, dean of the school’s film and video program, said creative careers often take longer to become financially stable, and many graduates deliberately turn down higher-paying corporate jobs to pursue their craft.

Just over 30 fine arts, music, theater, film and photography programs in California fail to meet the new earnings test.

Mukherjee said CalArts has no plans to shut down any of the affected programs, though she emphasized the importance of being transparent with students about potential future consequences. “It’s hard to imagine CalArts without an undergraduate film or arts program,” she said. “It’s in our name.”

About 100 other fine arts, music, theater, film and photography programs in California do meet the new income requirement, according to current Department of Education data. Among them are UC Berkeley’s film program and fine arts programs at San Diego City College and the University of Southern California, where graduates report earning more than $70,000 four years after finishing school.

Regulatory Ping-Pong

Over the years, the federal government has repeatedly tried — and often failed — to hold accountable college programs that leave graduates with poor financial outcomes.

Back in 1989, the U.S. Department of Education barred colleges from distributing certain forms of federal aid if too many of their students had defaulted on student loans. The rule worked at first, forcing the closure of several low-performing schools, but loopholes eventually emerged.

“Institutions have learned how to game the system,” Itzkowitz said, noting that many schools encourage low-income borrowers to request loan deferments or forbearance, which delays repayment and masks default rates. “Nobody fails.”

The Obama administration later proposed a rule tying federal financial aid eligibility to the debt-to-income ratio of specific college programs, meaning schools whose graduates carried high debt and low earnings would face consequences. The Trump administration rescinded those rules before they took effect. A related Biden-era policy met the same fate in 2025, once Trump returned to office.

“We’ve been playing regulatory ping-pong,” Itzkowitz said. “The Department of Education would say, ‘We’re going to do this, we’re not going to do that.’ This law carries more weight because it was written by Congress and signed into law.” That law — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or HR 1 — was signed on July 4 of last year and took effect this month.

Itzkowitz’s analysis draws on preliminary Department of Education data using 2022 and 2023 tax returns from graduates of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. Many schools that failed the new test have pushed back, arguing the numbers are misleading.

It’s too blunt a measurement, wrote Angelica Muro, chair of the visual and public art department at Cal State Monterey Bay, in an email to CalMatters. The new earnings standard “undermines the social benefits of critical thinking and the immense sociocultural value the arts provide,” she added.

According to federal data, fine arts graduates from the school earned around $34,000 four years after graduating, but the Department of Education doesn’t track which industry graduates work in or whether their job relates to their degree. The data also doesn’t account for California’s regional differences, such as the smaller creative economy in the largely rural coastal area surrounding Cal State Monterey Bay, Muro wrote.

Some of the highest-earning fine arts programs are located in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego, where creative-industry jobs and salaries tend to be higher. But even some universities in rural counties and high-poverty regions — including Stanislaus State, Fresno State, Cal State Bakersfield and Chico State — have fine arts programs that meet the new earnings threshold.

Another Loophole?

Of the roughly 300 California programs that failed the new earnings test, more than a quarter are cosmetology or personal care programs, covering fields such as manicuring, hairstyling and skin care. Numerous studies have long documented struggles within cosmetology training, including high debt loads and low post-graduation earnings.

Graduates of the Shasta School of Cosmetology in Redding, for instance, reported earning just over $12,000 four years after finishing the program — far below the state poverty line. CalMatters reached out to 10 cosmetology schools, mostly private, for-profit institutions with the lowest-earning graduates, but none responded.

As the Department of Education finalized its interpretation of the new law, cosmetology schools argued the earnings data was unfair because it doesn’t account for the fact that many barbers and salon owners run their own businesses and may not report tips as taxable income. The department granted these programs an additional year to comply, meaning their graduates won’t lose access to federal loans before July 1, 2029, at the earliest.

The cosmetology industry’s argument rests on “pretty flimsy grounds” and creates another loophole allowing schools to dodge accountability, said Christopher Madaio, senior counsel for federal and state accountability at The Institute for College Access and Success, which advocates for affordable higher education.

Still, he said he supports the new earnings law as a first step. “It wasn’t ambitious enough, and it’s not perfectly written,” he said. “But yes, I’m glad to see it being implemented.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Law Holds California Universities Accountable if Graduates Earn Less Than $36,000 a Year appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Under the rule, which took effect this month, colleges, universities and shorter certificate programs nationwide must demonstrate that their graduates earn at least as much as the typical high school graduate in their state. In California, that threshold sits at roughly $36,000 a year, or about $18 an hour — a figure only slightly above the state minimum wage.

Higher education analyst Michael Itzkowitz, who leads the HEA Group, a research organization focused on college policy, called the benchmark modest. “If you’re going to college, you expect to be earning at least minimum wage, and probably even more than that,” he said. In expensive regions like the Bay Area, he noted, $36,000 barely covers rent, let alone other living costs.

Itzkowitz examined nearly 3,000 California programs using U.S. Department of Education data and found that about 90% of them clear the new bar. But roughly 300 programs fall short, with cosmetology, medical assisting, and various arts and theater programs showing up disproportionately among the low earners.

Most of the underperforming programs are housed at for-profit trade schools, institutions that have drawn scrutiny for years over high costs and disappointing job outcomes. But the list also includes theater and fine arts programs at eight California State University campuses and three University of California campuses, showing that the issue isn’t confined to for-profit institutions.

Schools have at least two more years to show regulators that their graduates are hitting the income threshold. If current patterns hold, students in the weakest-performing programs could lose eligibility for federal loans starting July 1, 2028.

CalMatters contacted more than 15 colleges, universities and trade schools for this story, but most did not respond. Representatives for both the UC and CSU systems said they are reviewing the new requirements but offered little additional comment. CSU spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith said campuses are looking for “constructive solutions.”

One school that did engage was the California Institute of the Arts, the private Santa Clarita-area school whose famous alumni include actor Don Cheadle, filmmaker Tim Burton and comedian Paul Reubens. Graduates of its fine arts, film and photography programs earn just under $30,000 four years after finishing — among the lowest figures for any large bachelor’s degree program in the state.

Ranu Mukherjee, dean of the school’s film and video program, said the earnings data doesn’t capture the realities of creative careers, which often take longer to gain traction and where graduates frequently choose artistic fulfillment over higher corporate salaries. She said CalArts has no plans to shut down any affected programs but wants to keep students informed about what the future could hold. “It’s hard to imagine CalArts without an undergraduate film or arts program,” she said. “It’s in our name.”

Statewide, just over 30 arts-related programs — spanning fine arts, music, theater, film and photography — fail the new earnings test, while roughly 100 others pass, including programs at UC Berkeley, San Diego City College and the University of Southern California, where graduates report earning more than $70,000 four years out.

This isn’t the federal government’s first attempt to hold underperforming college programs accountable, and previous efforts have had mixed results. A 1989 rule targeting schools with high student loan default rates initially forced closures but eventually allowed institutions to sidestep consequences by pushing struggling borrowers into forbearance or deferment. “Institutions have learned how to game the system,” Itzkowitz said. “No one fails.”

Later attempts by the Obama and Biden administrations to link federal aid to debt-to-income ratios were rolled back under the Trump administration before ever taking full effect. “We’ve been playing regulatory ping pong,” Itzkowitz said, noting that the current rule carries more weight because it was written into law by Congress rather than issued as an administrative regulation. The measure is part of the sweeping tax and spending package known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4 of last year.

The earnings data driving the new rule comes from 2022 and 2023 tax returns for students who graduated in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years — figures that some schools argue paint an incomplete picture. Angelica Muro, who chairs the visual arts and music department at Cal State Monterey Bay, called the standard “an overly broad benchmark” that fails to capture “the immense sociocultural value held within the arts.” Her program’s fine arts graduates earn about $34,000 four years after finishing school, according to federal figures, but Muro noted the data doesn’t track whether graduates work in fields related to their major, nor does it reflect regional economic differences, such as the more limited creative job market surrounding her largely rural, coastal campus.

Not all rural or lower-income regions saw their arts programs fail, however. Fine arts programs at Stanislaus State, Fresno State, Cal State Bakersfield and Chico State all met the earnings threshold, even as some Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego programs — which tend to benefit from larger creative job markets — posted some of the strongest results.

Cosmetology programs make up more than a quarter of all California programs that failed to meet the new standard, continuing a long-documented pattern of high debt and low post-graduation earnings in the field. Graduates of the Shasta School of Cosmetology in Redding, for example, reported earning just over $12,000 annually four years after finishing their training — well below the state poverty line. None of the 10 lowest-performing cosmetology schools contacted by CalMatters responded to requests for comment.

Cosmetology industry representatives have pushed back on the earnings data, arguing it fails to account for self-employed stylists and salon owners who may not report tips or other income fully on their taxes. In response, the Department of Education granted these programs an extra year to comply, pushing their potential loss of loan eligibility back to July 1, 2029, at the earliest.

Christopher Madaio, a senior advisor with the Institute for College Access and Success, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable higher education, said the cosmetology industry’s argument rests on “the flimsiest of rationale” and amounts to yet another way for underperforming programs to dodge accountability. Still, he said he views the broader law as a meaningful step forward. “It didn’t go far enough, and it’s not written perfectly,” Madaio said. “But yes, I’m happy to see that it’s being implemented.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Law Ties College Accountability to Graduates Earning at Least $36,000 a Year appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.