Thread: Judicial Watch Sues University of California to End In-State Tuition, Grants for Ille

August 29, 2014: This Week's Headlines

• Judicial Watch Unearths Jaw-dropping IRS Scandal Bombshell!
  
• Judicial Watch Sues University of California to End In-State Tuition, Grants for Illegal Aliens
• Judicial Watch, Allied Educational Foundation Challenge Race-Based University Admissions Policies at the University of Texas
• Panel event: 'Holding President Obama Accountable to the Rule of Law'

Judicial Watch Sues University of California to End In-State Tuition, Grants for Illegal Aliens

The connection between the chaotic flood of illegal aliens coming across the border and illegal alien sanctuary policies is clear. Providing perks and benefits for illegal aliens is equivalent to extending an open invitation to the world to come across the border and violate our laws. And the more illegal aliens who take us up on this offer, the more expensive it becomes. And more chaotic. And more dangerous.

The only want to stem the flow of illegals is to remove these unlawful incentives put into place by the radical Left to undermine the law. And that's why we took aggressive court action in California this week to try to put an end to illegal alien tuition benefits at one of California's largest institutions of higher education.

On August 26, 2014, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, seeking an end to an estimated annual $19.6 million in non-resident tuition waivers currently being given to illegal alien students by the University of California (UC) Regents.

The suit also seeks an end to approximately $4 million annually being awarded to illegal aliens in taxpayer-funded grants and scholarships. We filed this lawsuit on behalf of California resident Earl De Vries. Under California law, taxpayers have the right to sue government officials to prevent unlawful expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources.

Here's our argument in a nutshell as expressed in our lawsuit:

"Under federal law, unlawfully present aliens generally are ineligible for State or local public benefit." While federal law allows certain exemptions, according to U.S. Code, it does so "only through the enactment of a State law ... which affirmatively provides for such eligibility." [8 U.S.C. § 1621(d)]. While the State of California passed such a law granting exemptions to California State University schools and California Community Colleges, it did not do so in the case of the University of California, making tuition waivers and grants awarded by the UC Board of Regents unlawful.

Under the California Constitution, the UC Board of Regents is "entirely independent" of the state legislature in policy matters, so there is no lawful way for the California legislature to allow or require the University of California to provide the public benefits for illegal aliens. And so, under the federal law, the UC Board of Regents is prohibited from providing any in-state tuition and public benefits for illegal aliens.

As I say, these policies are not only nonsensical and a violation of the law, they also require California taxpayers to cover a very expensive bill. Our lawsuit alleges these that these illicit public benefits for illegal aliens cost California taxpayers almost $25 million annually. Here's how these numbers break down:

The UC Office of the President estimates that, as of November 2013, 900 students enrolled at UC schools were unlawfully present aliens, approximately 95 percent of whom were undergraduates. Assuming that all of these students qualified for a tuition exemption, the value of this benefit would be approximately $19.6 million (900 students x 95% x $22,878 per student = $19,560,690).

UC has estimated that some 800 undergraduates will qualify for taxpayer-funded Cal Grants worth about $7 million and that approximately 300 of these undergraduates are unlawfully present aliens. UC also has estimated that some 440 unlawfully present aliens exempted from paying nonresident supplemental tuition at UC schools will qualify for approximately $4.3 million in UC grants and scholarships.

Our taxpayer lawsuit seeks a judgment declaring the expenditures unlawful and an injunction, "permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending or causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources" for either tuition waivers or financial aid benefits to illegal aliens.

Unless the courts enforce the law, "The Board of Regents ... will continue to expend substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources exempting unlawfully present aliens from paying nonresident supplemental tuition at UC schools and allowing unlawfully present aliens attending UC schools to apply for and participate in state-administered financial aid programs."

Taxpaying California citizens deserve to have their hard-earned money spent lawfully. What the state is doing is not only illegal, it's unfair to taxpayers.

Our client Earl De Vries, like all taxpayers in California, has a right to expect that the University of California will follow the law and cease using tax dollars to provide illicit subsidies for illegal aliens. Public officials on the UC Board of Regents need to put immigration politics aside and obey both federal law and the California Constitution.

Judicial Watch, Allied Educational Foundation Challenge Race-Based University Admissions Policies at the University of Texas

While liberals continue to stoke the flames of discord in Ferguson, Missouri over the shooting death of a young black man, JW is mounting a court challenge against another of the Left's racially-divisive policies - race based preferences in college admissions.

On August 5, 2014, we joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) to file an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of Abigail Noel Fisher's appeal for an en banc hearing to review the court's July 15 ruling in favor of the University of Texas' (UT) race-based admission policy.

By way of background, Fisher was denied admission to UT in 2008. She filed suit, alleging that the university had discriminated against her and co-plaintiff Rachel Multer Michalewicz because of their race.

In January 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled in favor of UT, prompting Fisher to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a significant victory for Ms. Fisher, on June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit had failed to apply "strict scrutiny" to the university's race-based admissions policy, remanding the case to the Circuit Court.

But on July 15, 2014, the Circuit Court again ruled in favor of UT indicating that the race-based government policy might survive court review under this "strict scrutiny" standard if the policy serves a "compelling government interest." Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief in support of Fisher in advance of the Supreme Court victory.

The Fifth Circuit has not followed the Supreme Court's instruction. In our amicus brief supporting Fisher's petition for an en banc hearing, Judicial Watch and AEF contend that the UT admission policy violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Fifth Circuit Court decision is allowed to stand, the Judicial Watch/AEF brief argues, it could "prolong the misconception that a person's 'race' is useful distinction for judging who a person is and what they are entitled to."

Arguing that the UT admissions policy violates the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard, Judicial Watch and AEF contend, "Because race is, in essence, a social construct, it, [the UT race-based admissions policy] is inherently ambiguous. This ambiguity is compounded by the ambiguity of allowing applicants to self-select their race in order to gain a 'plus' factor towards admission."

Here are the key arguments from our brief, which you can read in full here:

• Students must self-identify their race, but it remains unclear what makes one applicant a "Hispanic or Latino," an "American Indian or Alaska Native," an "Asian," "Black or African American," a "Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander," or simply "White." UT does not specify whether an applicant must be a "full-blooded" member of his or her self-identified race or ethnic group, or whether 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, or 1/32 is sufficient to be granted or denied the "plus" factor.

• Also undefined by UT's policy is whether the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" refer to persons of full or partial Spanish ancestry only, or also to persons of other European ancestry such as the Germans and Italians and persons of Jewish background who immigrated to predominantly Spanish speaking countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean before immigrating to the United States. It also is unclear whether Question 7's reference to South America "or other Spanish culture or origin" includes Portuguese-speaking Brazil.

• With respect to the "American Indian or Alaska Native" racial category, the Native Americans Rights Fund acknowledges that '[t]here exists no universally accepted rule for establishing a person's identity as an Indian. UT's policy is completely silent as to who is entitled to a 'plus factor for being an 'American Indian or Alaska Native.'

• UT makes no effort whatsoever to define the term 'Asian,' which just as commonly refers to the four billion human beings who inhabit the largest and most populous continent on Earth as it does to a single "race" of people ... It is unclear whether UT's use of the term includes applicants who are or whose ancestors were of full or partial Near or Middle Eastern origin, including persons of full or partial Arab, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Kurdish, Persian, or Turkish descent, or whether such applicants are to be considered 'White.'

• UT makes no effort to define what it means by its use of the term 'Black or African American' in its admissions policy... If two applicants are of both European and African ancestry, but one applicant self-identifies as 'Black' and the other applicant self-identifies as both 'Black' and 'White,' do both applicants receive the same 'plus' factor?

Can you see how arbitrary the process of awarding race-based preferences can be? How on earth anyone can think race-based preferences are fair or lawful is beyond me.

Race-based preferences in admissions are at odds with the Constitution, subject to abuse, and promote crackpot racial theories that have no basis in science. By repeatedly refusing to uphold the basic right to equal protection under the law, the Fifth Circuit Court is attempting to turn pseudo-science into settled law, despite the Supreme Court's ruling to the contrary. The University of Texas should focus on educating its students rather than running a divisive and unlawful racial spoils program.

Clearly radical liberals are not concerned at all about racial harmony, or justice, or reason. As we've seen from the insane opposition to basic election integrity laws, the DOJ's refusal to apply civil rights laws in a race-neutral manner, and the histrionic reactions by racial opportunists in Ferguson, MO, division suits the Left (and the Obama administration) just fine.

(Judicial Watch's partner in the amicus filing, the Allied Educational Foundation, is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. You can find out more about them here.)

Panel event: 'Holding President Obama Accountable to the Rule of Law'

In closing, I just want to plug a key upcoming Judicial Watch panel discussion entitled, "Holding the Obama Administration Accountable to the Rule of Law." I'll be moderating a dynamic discussion that will include House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute and author of Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment.

Our panel will discuss various approaches, including a planned lawsuit by the House of Representatives, to challenge President Obama's series of unilateral "executive actions" that critics contend violate federal law, fail to enforce federal law and exceed his constitutionally-enumerated powers. Yes, there's lots to discuss.

Details are below. I certainly hope you can join us (and I will try to remember to remind you again next week)! We will be streaming the event live here.

Date: Tuesday, September 9
Time: 2-3:00 pm ET
Location: Judicial Watch Main Conference Room
Suite 800
425 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20024

Until next week...



Tom Fitton
President

For those who many not be familiar with Judicial Watch, they have been real fighters for all things good i.e. conservative. But especially, they have been very aggressive in using the law to fight illegal immigration.

After your contributions to ALIPAC, with all of the extra money you have laying around taking up needed room in you clothes closet at home (this is a joke), you may want to consider sending them at least a few $$$.

No fault of Judicial Watch which has a lot of things requiring their attention, but this is long, long, long, long, long over due. The ACLU has been busy doing all it can to destroy any effective controls over illegal immigration and the border.

BRAVO JUDICIAL WATCH!