The Brief

Hours after the Trump administration sued California last week, threatening to end key benefits for students without legal status, Michelle was scrolling social media when she saw a video that made her panic.

The Trump administration is challenging California’s policy of providing in-state tuition, scholarships and subsidized loans to immigrants without legal status — including Michelle, an immigrant who is a community college student in San Mateo County. CalMatters has agreed to withhold her full name because she fears drawing attention to her legal status.

On TikTok, rumors swirled. Michelle saw a video of a young man, around her age, asking if the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, is gone. In reality, FAFSA is still around, and while the new lawsuit could affect some students' financial aid, some top legal experts say the Trump administration is unlikely to win. Regardless, the court process may take weeks or much longer to resolve the government’s claims against California.

In the lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice alleges that California’s policy of granting in-state tuition and financial aid for some students without legal status is unconstitutional. Federal lawyers also argue that California’s policies violate a 1996 federal law, which bars states from providing benefits to residents without legal status that aren’t also available to U.S. citizens who live anywhere in the U.S. The Justice Department is arguing that California either needs to drop the policy or let all U.S. citizens, including those who are out-of-state, pay the same rate.

In California, over 100,000 college students lack legal status, according to one estimate by an alliance of university leaders who advocate for immigrants. Federal assistance, such as Pell grants and federal student loans, are off-limits to anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen or does not have permanent legal status. California has its own money for college financial aid, which it distributes according to state law.

As long as individuals meet certain requirements, such as attending three years of high school in California, they’re eligible for in-state tuition, saving as much as $39,000 of dollars each year compared to their out-of-state peers. Once they meet those requirements, students without legal status can also qualify for the state’s cornerstone financial aid program, known as Cal Grant, though only a small fraction of these students actually apply for and receive it.

To Kevin Johnson, a law professor at UC Davis, Trump’s actions may be more about political wins than legal ones. “The Trump administration is engaged in a full-court press on undocumented immigrants and so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, and California and Governor Newsom in particular,” Johnson said. That the U.S. Department of Justice named the suit “United States of America v. Newsom” is another indication that this is political, he added.

Others noted that states have already invested in students without legal status and denying them an affordable path toward a college education is a waste of resources. Economists have pointed out that immigrants without status also are integral to the U.S. workforce and aren’t easily replaceable.

‘We didn’t expect them to go this low’

Even weak lawsuits or outright misinformation can make students nervous during November, when college and financial aid application season is in full swing.

On TikTok, videos of students panicking about the financial aid system surfaced last winter, after the Biden administration delayed and botched the rollout of the new FAFSA. Among its many glitches, the new form prevented students whose parents lacked a Social Security number from submitting their information.

After Trump was elected last November, fears about the total demise of federal financial aid swirled again on TikTok. Over the course of this year, as his administration targets universities and continues to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, those fears have persisted.

In California, Trump seeks to impose a $1 billion penalty on UCLA for alleged civil rights abuses, though a federal judge recently handed the White House a temporary loss on that front. His administration is also suing California colleges and universities for alleged antisemitism violations and has sought to freeze or curtail billions of dollars in federal research funding.

Much of those freezes have been blocked or reversed by federal judges, but hundreds of millions of dollars still remain cut off to campuses. Much, if not all, of those friction points between California and Trump could be resolved through settlements and negotiations, which are political in nature, said UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura in an interview.

Before Trump was elected, state leaders, including Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, pushed for California to offer additional benefits to students without legal status, such as the opportunity to work campus jobs.

Now, with access to financial aid programs at risk for these students, Alvarez said the focus is shifting. “We didn’t expect it would go this low as to go after students that the president had previously said should be welcomed here.” In 2024, Trump told a podcast host that students should “automatically” receive “a Green Card,” otherwise known as permanent residency, when they get their college diploma.

Legal scholars doubt Trump’s lawsuit will win

The lawsuit against California is the Trump administration’s sixth against states with policies allowing in-state tuition for students without legal status. The White House went after Texas first, in June. Underscoring how much of a bipartisan issue in-state tuition is, Texan lawmakers were the first in the U.S. to enshrine the policy in 2001. In all, more than 20 states passed some in-state tuition policy benefiting some residents without legal status.

Trump’s legal attacks on the policy this year prompted leaders in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas to side with the White House to terminate the benefit in those respective states. Some legal groups that want to continue in-state tuition for students lacking legal status are challenging those states’ moves.

Trump has also sued Minnesota and Illinois, states with Democrats as governors and attorneys general who are challenging Trump’s lawsuits.

The U.S. Department of Justice says that the federal law in question bars students without legal status from receiving in-state tuition and financial aid benefits based on their living in the state. This, the federal lawyers argue, violates federal law since public campuses in California require U.S. citizens from other states to pay higher tuition rates.

However, California’s law, Assembly Bill 540, doesn’t extend in-state tuition based on where students live, scholars and a previous court ruling say. Instead, students generally need to prove that they attended three years of high school or community college in California; they also need to earn in California a high school diploma or obtain enough community college credits to be eligible for transfer into a public university.

The Department of Justice says those three-year high school or community college requirements are tantamount to an in-state residency criteria and therefore violate the 1996 federal law.

But the California Supreme Court in 2010 already struck down that interpretation. The high court observed that some students living in areas bordering California are permitted to study at California high schools. High school students from out of state enrolled in private boarding schools also satisfy the requirement; they don’t count as residents of California either. And students who were residents of California during high school but moved to a different state could still enroll in California colleges or universities paying in-state tuition.

All of these scenarios require a student to complete the same AB 540 application as students who lack legal status. The only difference is that students without status must also complete an affidavit that they’ll pursue legal residency as soon as they can.

In fact, the University of California enrolled more students under AB 540 who were legal U.S. residents than those who weren’t, the state high court said then.

“If Congress had intended to prohibit states entirely from making unlawful aliens eligible for in-state tuition, it could easily have done so,” the state Supreme Court wrote in 2010. But Congress didn’t do that, the court noted.

Lawmakers in California who passed AB 540 in 2001 knew what the federal law restricted, said Motomura, and they crafted a state law that wouldn’t contravene what Congress intended. “It was drafted to avoid the residency test, and it was drafted to avoid the exclusion of U.S. citizens,” he said.

What’s likely next

California has already signaled that it will fight the lawsuit. “The Trump Administration has once again missed the mark with its latest attack on California, and we look forward to proving it in court,” wrote Nina Sheridan, a spokesperson for the California Department of Justice.

Both the UC and the community college system said their tuition and financial aid policies have always been legally compliant. The Cal State University system did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration may also seek a preliminary injunction to halt California’s in-state tuition law for nonresidents, which would again expose Californians to a seesaw of temporary court orders, sometimes contradictory in nature, while the full legal merits of the case play out slowly in court.

Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, thinks the U.S. Supreme Court will likely side with California despite its conservative orientation if the case goes that far.

A major legal question underscoring the case against California is when and how federal rules preempt or supersede state laws. The Trump White House is arguing California’s in-state policies are preempted by federal law. But the legal concept of preemption is a pillar in jurisprudence. Liberal and conservative interests benefit similarly from a consistent application of preemption as a legal concept, Saenz said. For example, businesses rely on preemption rules in situations where a state law is more progressive or consumer-friendly than a federal rule and want courts to defend them from following the more demanding state rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court is “going to be very wary of making bad law in the realm of preemption, because it could then come back to bite the right wing in protecting businesses,” Saenz said.

For Michelle and other students without legal status navigating their own financial aid applications — and the misinformation online — a series of temporary court orders could create more panic. Financial aid is top of mind, said Michelle, but she doesn’t have time to track the legal back-and-forth of her eligibility.

In addition to being a full-time student, Michelle works four days a week at a restaurant, saving up money not only to support herself but also her family. She’s the oldest of four kids and said she sends $500 to her parents each month.

College is “an opportunity for me to be someone in life, to make my parents proud,” she said. Asked about the lawsuit at the cafeteria of her college, Michelle made a choking gesture with her hand, as though the threat of losing financial aid next year could kill her. “Trump is taking that opportunity away because he doesn’t like immigrants.”

The deadline to submit financial aid applications for community college is Sept. 2, but Michelle is already working on her application, just in case.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.