Adolfo Guzman-Lopez
is an arts and general assignment reporter on LAist's Explore LA team.
Published May 3, 2024 10:30 AM
Then UC President Janet Napolitano (left) and California Governor Jerry Brown face off over tuition hikes in 2014.
(
Screenshot from KPIX newscast report.
)
Topline:
In May 2023, the policy-making body of the University of California, the UC Regents, voted unanimously to open campus jobs in the system’s 10 campuses for students who are undocumented. An about-face, in January, has set up a clash with state lawmakers — but their options are limited.
UC has a lot of autonomy: The California constitution gives the legislature the power to pass laws to shape policies at California State University and the California Community Colleges — but not the University of California.
How did UC get to be that way? “University supporters gained this victory by noting a similar status given three decades earlier to Michigan’s state university, and by insisting that such autonomy would save the University of California from the partisan politics and rampant corruption that marked California’s turbulent 1870s,” said UC Berkeley researcher John Douglass via email.
What that means for policy changes at UC: Legislative workarounds to UC issues — like creating new employment options for undocumented students — often stop short of a mandate.
In May 2023, the policy-making body of the University of California, the UC Regents, voted unanimously to open campus jobs in the system’s 10 campuses for students who are undocumented.
It was a watershed proposal that relied on new — and untested — legal analysis of federal employment law put forward by UCLA faculty. It would have the potential to help tens of thousands of students earn money to pay for school.
But in January, regents did an about face and suspended implementation after UC’s president warned that such a change could lead to a loss of federal funding and open the university system and its staff up to lawsuits and other legal issues.
Lawmakers have responded with legislation to force the issue, possibly setting up a clash with top UC leaders.
Here’s the problem: The California constitution gives the legislature the power to pass laws to shape policies in much of the state’s higher education system — but not the University of California.
That means legislative workarounds to UC issues — like the employment options for undocumented students — often stop short of a mandate.
How did UC get this autonomy from state lawmakers?
You could say that University of California’s separate — some would say, elite — status was there at its infancy, when state legislators gave UC, then just one campus, the status of public trust...
... with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds ...
The university's leaders insisted that autonomy would save the University of California "from the partisan politics and rampant corruption that marked California’s turbulent 1870s,” said UC Berkeley researcher John Douglass via email.
President University of California President Michael Drake
(
Elena Zhukova
/
Courtesy University of California
)
Bottom line: California legislators can pass laws to change the inner workings of the California State University system, and the California community colleges, but not the University of California.
What that autonomy means for undocumented students
After UC Regents unanimously approved the plan for undocumented students last year, UC President Michael Drake’s office stepped in to oppose it.
“[A]fter receiving advice from both inside and outside legal counsel, we concluded that there were considerable risks for the University and the students we aim to support,” saidMario Guerrero, Drake’s legislative director, in a letter to state legislators.
Sacramento lawmakers step in to push UC to pass shelved plan
The first legislator to step in was Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes. On Feb. 27, she introduced ACA 20 — a constitutional amendment — to compel UC campuses to create these jobs for students who are undocumented.
How To Make A Public Comment At University Of California Regent Meetings
Members of the public can address UC regents either by phone or in-person during open sessions of their meetings. There are guidelines (such as: you get up to three minutes). Sign-ups for public comment open 10 days before a board meeting.
You can also email the regents once an agenda is posted, at regentsoffice@ucop.edu. Emails received at least two days before a board meeting starts are distributed to the regents for review.
“Like many, I was incredibly disappointed by the decision of the University of California Board of Regents to deny undocumented students at UC the same ability to seek employment at UC as their peers,” Cervantes said in an email to LAist.
Cervantes wants UC to open the jobs to students who are undocumented.
“ACA 20 is the only vehicle in the Legislature this session that would force UC to do so,” Cervantes said.
Assemblymember David Alvarez, meanwhile, introduced a proposal in April, AB 2586, which urges UC, CSU, and community colleges to open those jobs.
Who wins in a UC vs. Sacramento bout?
This isn’t the first time Sacramento has stepped in to challenge a controversial UC policy direction.
Lawmakers have recently tried to push the university system to enroll more students from California. The end result is more carrot than stick — promising tens of millions of dollars to adjust in-state enrollment.
Admission and tuition issues go back years.
“I am going to vote against the 5% tuition increase,” said then-Gov. Jerry Brown to UC’s President and Regents in 2014. The hot issue at the meeting was a politically unpopular proposal to increase UC student tuition to make up for a state funding shortfall.
“The plan needs to move forward,” UC President Janet Napolitano told Brown and others at the meeting.
Two implicit threats were in the air: Napolitano would push for a tuition increase if Sacramento didn’t increase funding, and Brown would hold up funding if UC approved a tuition increase.
California governor-elect Jerry Brown, a Democrat, speaks to supporters as he celebrates his win over Republican challenger and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
(
Justin Sullivan
/
Getty Images
)
The outcome? Six months later Napolitano and Brown resolved their face-off as rising state revenue allowed Brown to increase UC’s budget. Napolitano supported a two-year freeze of student tuition.
The current face-off between UC policymakers and the state legislature is complicated by the divisions within UC leadership.
Drake opposes the campus jobs plan while a number of UC Regents support it, including Regent John Pérez, a politically connected former speaker of the state assembly who has supported immigrant rights policies.
Lawmaker Alvarez, for his part, wishes for a more collaborative solution than what happened with Brown and Napolitano.
“I don't operate in a world of threats,” he told LAist. “We're all in public service to do right by our community … I expect that the UC will, if this bill gets signed by the governor, that they will implement this with fidelity and do what's right.”
How healthy is the conflict?
The UC Regents have the power to hire and fire the president of the university system. But the Regents aren’t the only constituency Drake answers to.
“Any head of a [university] system has three bosses,” said USC emeritus education professor William Tierney. “One of them is Sacramento, and that's the governor and the legislature. A second is the faculty and students of the specific campus, and the third is the state and community."
The legislature obviously has a rightful duty to hold the UC accountable... The tension is good and a healthy part of our democratic system of checks and balances.
— Michele Siqueiros, president, Campaign for College Opportunity
Drake’s decision to oppose a policy approved by his bosses based on possible future financial repercussions wasn’t misguided, Tierney said, because as president of the entire university, Drake is responsible for the system’s finances.
Generations ago, Tierney said, many Californians felt a high regard for the UC system that led them to be deferential to how the system was run.
“The world has changed, not because the systems have changed, but I think the way the public looks at public entities is very different,” he said, and that’s led more people to want to hold UC to account because the state spends billions of dollars each year to help run the UC system.
The two legislative proposals to open up UC campus jobs for students who are undocumented, Tierney said, are attempts by Sacramento to micromanage the UC.
Some answer back that lawmakers are answering to a wider constituency.
“The legislature obviously has a rightful duty to hold the UC accountable,” said Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, an LA-based nonprofit that lobbies policymakers to widen access to California higher education.
Siqueiros is in favor of the Opportunity for All proposal because it would help an underserved population of college students. She’s not surprised, she said, that Drake raised red flags.
“The tension is good,” she said, “and a healthy part of our democratic system of checks and balances.”
Why now? The court — in a 6 to 3 decision — found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Why it matters: The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda. The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.
Trump's pivot: Talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically. Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."
Trump called the justices who opposed his tariffs "fools" and "lapdogs," charging that they were acting because of liberal partisanship, though three of those ruling against him were appointed by Republican presidents and two were Trump appointees.
"I think it is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," he said.
The court — in a 6 to 3 decision —found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda.
The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.
Calling it his "favorite word in the dictionary," Trump has repeatedly credited his use of tariffs with helping him stop wars and pressure world leaders to bend to U.S. interests.
He boasted about the economic benefits. A recent Congressional Budget Office report found that tariffs were expected to help reduce the deficits by about $3 trillion over a decade. But that same report found that U.S. consumers - not foreign companies - were paying the vast majority of that money.
But while talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically.
"Their decision's incorrect. But it doesn't matter, because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision," he said.
Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."
He acknowledged that those processes may be more cumbersome, but had stronger legal standing. He also cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that allows the president to impose tariffs to address trade deficits. But those tariffs are limited to 15%, and only for 150 days, after which Congress would have to approve them.
"While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made the President's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don't think they meant that. I'm sure they didn't," Trump said.
And he said he would sign an executive order today to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities, including adding a "10% global tariff."
That rule would also eventually need approval from Congress, after 150 days, which could be difficult with an election approaching.
Republicans are facing pressure from constituents about high costs and the business community that is afraid to invest with all the economic uncertainty.
A recent NPR/Marist poll finds that a majority of Americans — 56% — feel tariffs or fees on imported products from other countries hurts the U.S. economy.
The former Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell praised the Supreme Court's decision.
"Congress' role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid," the Kentucky Republican said. "If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1" of the Constitution."
But Trump, who has expressed frustration with gridlock in Congress, expressed confidence that he would continue to be able to employ tariffs unilaterally.
"Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic," Trump said. They are so happy and they're dancing in the streets. But they won't be dancing for long. That I can assure you."
Copyright 2026 NPR
Makenna Sievertson
breaks down policies and programs with a focus on the housing and homelessness challenges confronting some of SoCal's most vulnerable residents.
Published February 20, 2026 12:29 PM
RVs parked beside the Ballona Wetlands, a nature and wildlife area, in Council District 11, which is represented by Councilmember Traci Park.
(
Frederic J. Brown
/
AFP via Getty Images
)
Topline:
A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.
Why it matters: The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.
The arguments: Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good. But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs.
Why now: In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”
A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.
The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.
Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good.
But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs, according to court documents.
In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”
The backstory
The ruling stems from a legal challenge by a coalition of housed and unhoused residents in West L.A. around the city’s implementation of Assembly Bill 630, which became law Jan. 1.
The L.A. City Council voted in December to approve a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the law.
Councilmember Traci Park, who introduced the council motion in October, told LAist previously that nuisance RVs create health and safety issues that put entire neighborhoods at risk. Park said residents want solutions, not frivolous lawsuits.
Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist after the ruling Thursday that the lawsuits aren’t frivolous when the petitioners keep winning.
“It is incredibly unclear why the city did not simply accept the plain language of AB 630 and instead forced our client to go to court, wasting court resources, city resources at a time when the city doesn't have resources to spare,” Myers said.
City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the city’s implementation of AB 630.
What’s next
L.A.Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who introduced the California assembly bill. González said in a statement to LAist last month that his office is “working with our partners to clarify the law to ensure the City can fully implement AB 630."
González has introduced another bill, AB 647, that would expand the language of the law to include “any public agency” within L.A. County.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
David Wagner
covers economic pressures in Southern California, from housing costs to tariffs.
Published February 20, 2026 11:23 AM
An electric top handler moves cargo off of semi-trucks at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on Feb. 11, 2025.
(
Joel Angel Juarez
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
Los Angeles port leaders say they’re preparing for an increase in imports now that the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs.
The reaction: On Friday’s episode of LAist’s AirTalk, Port of L.A. executive director Gene Seroka said he’s expecting “an uptick in cargo” following the court ruling. “Right now, American executives are telling me that they're on the phone and communicating with their counterparts representing manufacturers in Asia to see how much product they can get, how quickly it can be ready, and then when it can be shipped over to avoid these tariffs,” Seroka said.
The context: U.S. importers have already paid about $133 billion under tariffs imposed by the Trump administration through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court ruled this act does not give Trump the authority to impose such broad tariffs. Since Trump put the tariffs in place last April, Seroka said the Port of L.A. has seen “a roller coaster of a year.”
“When that policy was softened and tariffs came down, we had a record July, our best month in the history of the Port of Los Angeles,” Seroka said. “That set the tone for the balance of the year. It was ups and downs based on more than 110 announcements emanating from Washington on trade policy and tariffs.”
What will this mean for consumers? It’s unclear if importers will ever be refunded the tariffs they’ve already paid. Kevin Klowden, chief global strategist for the Milken Institute, said there isn’t an obvious mechanism in place to get that money back to companies. As for consumers, the Tax Foundation estimates the average U.S. household has faced about $1,300 in increased costs due to the tariffs. Klowden says it’s unlikely consumers will ever get a direct refund. “If the tariffs come in at a lower threshold under the other agreements, under the other legislation that the government is using, then we might see some prices reduce,” he said.
Mikolaj Marciniak sits in the doorway of his RV, parked in L.A. County's RV safe parking lot. The transitional housing program has helped connect a dozen people to permanent housing.
(
Isaiah Murtaugh
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
The 24-hour, 14-spot RV safe parking lot is a unique component of the county’s massive homeless service ecosystem, tailored specifically to RV dwellers who aren’t ready to relinquish their vehicles.
More details: The RV safe parking lot program has guided a dozen RV dwellers to permanent housing in its nearly first year of operation, a result that’s convinced L.A. County officials to keep the program rolling at least another year.
Some background: More than 72,000 people are homeless on a given night in L.A. County and RVs are the most common type of shelter for people living outdoors, according to the county’s 2025 count, with nearly 6,300 counted across the county last year.
Read on... for more about the parking lot in South L.A.
This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 20, 2026.
In an old asphalt parking lot off of Crenshaw Boulevard, L.A. County homelessness officials have been testing out their first RV-based transitional housing program.
For some of the residents of the 11 RVs parked in the South L.A. lot today, it’s the closest thing to stable housing they’ve had in years.
The 24-hour, 14-spot RV safe parking lot is a unique, albeit tiny, component of the county’s massive homeless service ecosystem, tailored specifically to RV dwellers who aren’t ready to relinquish their vehicles.
“We got everything. We got water. We got restrooms. People are so nice,” said Mikolaj Marciniak, who has been living with his partner in an aging RV for over a year. “Sometimes all you need is a little bit of help.”
The RV safe parking lot program has guided a dozen RV dwellers to permanent housing in its nearly first year of operation, a result that’s convinced L.A. County officials to keep the program rolling at least another year.
More than 72,000 people are homeless on a given night in L.A. County and RVs are the most common type of shelter for people living outdoors, according to the county’s 2025 count, with nearly 6,300 counted across the county last year.
Mikolaj Marciniak stands in his RV, parked in LA County’s RV safe parking lot. The transitional housing program has helped connect a dozen people to permanent housing.
(
Isaiah Murtaugh
/
The LA Local
)
Residents of the RV safe parking lot get access to a mobile bathroom unit, a stocked outdoor kitchenette and a few pieces of exercise equipment. Marciniak told The LA Local before he moved to the lot, RV life was difficult, with neighbors wanting him and his partner to move along. Twice, he said, their tires were slashed.
But in the fenced lot, he said, life is calmer.
“You are protected,” said Marciniak, who moved to the U.S. from his native Ukraine in 2020. “You feel [that] you belong.”
The couple has been living in the RV lot less than a year and is already looking for a permanent apartment through a housing voucher program.
Since the program began, nine of the RV safe lot’s residents have moved into permanent housing, with three more on their way, according to Mel Tillekeratne, executive director of Shower of Hope. The nonprofit provides case management for residents and helps connect them with medical and housing services.
“It’s not just about removing a RV off the street,” Tillekeratne said. “It’s making sure the person in there, whether it’s a senior, a young couple, that they go somewhere safe, and they’re happy and they don’t have to worry about homelessness again.”
RVs line up in an RV safe parking lot in South LA.
(
Isaiah Murtaugh
/
The LA Local
)
The lot, outside a vacant former county probation office, is not a permanent installation. The county is finalizing plans to extend the program by another year with funding from the county’s Measure A homeless service and affordable housing sales tax, according to Isela Gracian, senior deputy on homelessness and housing for L.A. County Supervisor Holly Mitchell
“There is more need. The challenge is that people believe it’s too high of a cost for the number of people it serves,” Gracian said. “Sometimes we need to have a program that’s a bit more expensive if it meets the needs of the people it serves.”
Mitchell, said Gracian, does not want to be part of the “whack-a-mole” game of shuffling RVs from block to block as residents and businesses call with concerns.
“The true solution is having homes” Gracian said. “The additional outcome is improvement to the physical environment for communities.”
The budget for this year’s Measure A revenue was sorted out early this month. County supervisors will hold a hearing on the rest of the budget for the county’s new homeless services and housing department on Feb. 27.
