 |
California Assembly Member Marco Antonio Firebaugh
http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/center/events/FirebaughInMemoriam.htm (1966-2006) authored
Assembly Bill 540 (AB540). This bill was signed into law after ten years of organizing, advocating,
signing numerous petitions, making phone calls to Sacramento, and marching, It gave access to
immigrant youth who aspired to attend colleges and universities in the state of California by allowing
them to pay in-state tuition fees. California was the second state after Texas to grant in-state tuition to
undocumented students who meet certain requirements. Since then, eight other states have passed
similar bills: Utah, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Kansas, Illinois, New Mexico, and Nebraska. |
TIMELINE (2001- Present)
> Oct. 12, 2001 - Governor Gray Davis signed AB540 into law.
> January 2002: AB 540 is put into effect and many students in California are allowed to pay in-state tuition in public
colleges and universities (CSU’s, UC’s, and Community Colleges)
> 2005 - A group of out of state students represented by Kris Kobach, an attorney for the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR) filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of AB540 in the case Martinez v. UC Regents. They
claimed that AB540 conflicted with Federal Law.
> Oct. 6, 2006 – A California Superior Court ruled in favor of AB540, and statd that contrary to the arguments made by
Mr. Koback and the plaintiffs, AB540 was in fact in accordance with Federal Law.
>
Sept. 12, 2008 - a California Court of Appeal (Yolo County) overturned the decision
(http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C054124.PDF) made by the California Superior Court in 2006. The Court
of Appeal's decision returned the case to the trial (Superior) court for further proceedings. Despite this, the AB540 LAW
REMAINS IN EFFECT. Students in California are still able to apply to public colleges and Universities under AB540.
>
Dec. 23, 2008 - The Supreme Court of California agree to review the case, Martinez v. UC Regents. No announcements
have been made as to the possible dates of hearings and further proceedings in this case. |
